More evidence Air America is failing and falling fast.

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Earlier this week, we read that Air America was being booted from WLIB in NYC. And , let's face it, WLIB(LIB for Liberal) one would think would be a spring board for nationally syndicated liberal programing and mindless ranting. But, even WLIB realized that Air (anti) America is about as popular as 'strep throat' and even less profitable. They'll be leaving the station and will continue broadcasting in the city from the back seat of a '78 Dodge Polara.

And today we find that yet another chief executive, COO Carl Ginsburg is resigning!! Gee ! What a surprise.

Destined for failure is Air America!



source! (http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/format/talk/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950524)

[Cup 'o Coffee]

More news about AA,.........................

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Air America Continues Ratings Slide
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on July 28, 2006 - 12:52.

After being plugged relentlessly by the New York Times and other "objective" media outlets, the ratings for Air America continue to drop. Brian Maloney has the details:

Like an ice cream cone left in the hot July sun, Air America Radio's ratings are melting in some key (read: liberal) regions of the country.

Based on fresh ratings data released Thursday evening, the "progressive" radio network has lost strength in three cities where it had previously found the most listener support: Portland, Seattle and Denver.

Representing the spring 2006 Arbitron reporting period, these results provide one of the two most important report cards for the entire year.

source (http://newsbusters.org/node/6626)

[GIR unit]

I'll miss Air America.:cry:














Like I have all along.

[alcohol]

Yes, but us liberals have NPR which is almost always better than Air America and light years more substantial than any right wing talk radio show.

Other thing is most of us liberals like to read instead of hearing infotainment. Having an anti-Rush or an anti-Hannity isn't really liberal style.

And the popularity of infotainment only means that some show is successful in a huge entertainment market. Nothing more than that. It doesn't mean Bush is going to balance the budget or find WMD in Iraq. Just because Limbaugh and Hannity have significantly large audiences doesn't mean they're not bold faced liars.

[GIR unit]

What Air America fails to understand, is that intelligent people listen to NPR.:)

[splatbass]

Liberals don't need to constantly have their opinions reinforced by listening to radio hosts that just tell them what they want to hear. They like to get unbiased news and make up their own minds. IF AA is failing that is why.

Right-wingers can't stand to hear anything that disagrees with them, and are so needy that they have to have their opinions reinforced constantly. That is why Right-wing radio and Fox does so well.

[sporter]

Bush has probably created more liberals than Air America could ever hope to. . .:)

[Terry Allan Hall]

One is inclined to wonder why the neo-con mental midgets* get so upset with opinions that don't match the ones that Steve/Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh-tomy carefully manufacture for them...

*Yes, I'm aware that that's a redundant term!

[DTox]

Originally posted by Terry Allan Hall
One is inclined to wonder why the neo-con mental midgets* get so upset with opinions that don't match the ones that Steve/Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh-tomy carefully manufacture for them...

*Yes, I'm aware that that's a redundant term!


They're right wing authoritarian personalities. John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without Conscience explains the sociological research and the impact that this segment of the population has had on American politics starting with Nixon. It's a very good read.

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by alcohol
Yes, but us liberals have NPR which is almost always better than Air America and light years more substantial than any right wing talk radio show.

Other thing is most of us liberals like to read instead of hearing infotainment. Having an anti-Rush or an anti-Hannity isn't really liberal style.

And the popularity of infotainment only means that some show is successful in a huge entertainment market. Nothing more than that. It doesn't mean Bush is going to balance the budget or find WMD in Iraq. Just because Limbaugh and Hannity have significantly large audiences doesn't mean they're not bold faced liars.

And, NPR is really pretty good programming as far as liberal radio is concerned. I listen to the news on NPR occasionally.

Yet, it was Al Franken's big mouth and even bigger ego along with the loonies who came up with the concept of AA who were going to take the country by storm and silence and steel all of Limbaugh's audience, and have millions and millions of people listening to it every day, thus crushing conservative radio. And they had no reservations in telling all that that was their goal.

And , they failed.

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


And, NPR is really pretty good programming as far as liberal radio is concerned. I listen to the news on NPR occasionally.

Yet, it was Al Franken's big mouth and even bigger ego along with the loonies who came up with the concept of AA who were going to take the country by storm and silence and steel all of Limbaugh's audience, and have millions and millions of people listening to it every day, thus crushing conservative radio. And they had no reservations in telling all that that was their goal.

And , they failed. What we're trying to tell you is that we couldn't care less.:)

[DTox]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


And, NPR is really pretty good programming as far as liberal radio is concerned. I listen to the news on NPR occasionally.

The thing I like best about NPR news each morning is the fact that they don't have the constant annoying, loud, commercial breaks. That's why I have my clock radio tuned to the local NPR station. But the morning news is just about all I ever listen to on that station.


Yet, it was Al Franken's big mouth and even bigger ego along with the loonies who came up with the concept of AA who were going to take the country by storm and silence and steel all of Limbaugh's audience, and have millions and millions of people listening to it every day, thus crushing conservative radio. And they had no reservations in telling all that that was their goal.

And , they failed.

Then you shouldn't feel so threatened. Your ultra-defensive post makes it clear that you fear AA all out of proportion to the "threat" that it represents.

Perhaps you should seek professional help. :idea:

[Fido]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee
Earlier this week, we read that Air America was being booted from WLIB in NYC. And , let's face it, WLIB(LIB for Liberal) one would think would be a spring board for nationally syndicated liberal programing and mindless ranting. But, even WLIB realized that Air (anti) America is about as popular as 'strep throat' and even less profitable. They'll be leaving the station and will continue broadcasting in the city from the back seat of a '78 Dodge Polara.

And today we find that yet another chief executive, COO Carl Ginsburg is resigning!! Gee ! What a surprise.

Destined for failure is Air America!



source! (http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/format/talk/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950524)

If you can't stand Air America, you should check out my homies at Free Speech Tv (http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/genx.php?name=home).

Have fun! :thu:

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by Fido


If you can't stand Air America, you should check out my homies at Free Speech Tv (http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/genx.php?name=home).

Have fun! :thu:

WOW! One glance at that and anyone can see it's truely a hate-based site!

Pro Terrorist
Anti-Israel
Anti-American

I bet they cover all the 'libera bases'!:freak:

BTW. Its not that I hate AA, its that they shot their mouths off per say, about crushing liberal talk and went so far as to name the names of the people they were going to crush!

[Fido]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


WOW! One glance at that and anyone can see it's truely a hate-based site!

Pro Terrorist
Anti-Israel
Anti-American

I bet they cover all the 'libera bases'!:freak:

Have you ever watched Free Speech Tv? It's everything conservatives hate.

One of the programs the channel recently aired (http://www.hijackingcatastrophe.org/) :thu:

[SLO Rogue]

Who cares? It seems the cons are more concerned about Air America than the libs.

[DTox]

Originally posted by SLO Rogue
Who cares? It seems the cons are more concerned about Air America than the libs.


Of course they are. Only it isn't cons, it's right wing authoritarians who feel threatened. True conservatives don't cower at the prospect of an opposing viewpoint.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670037745.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[splatbass]

Originally posted by DTox



Of course they are. Only it isn't cons, it's right wing authoritarians who feel threatened. True conservatives don't cower at the prospect of an opposing viewpoint.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670037745.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I'm reading that book now. A good read.

[DTox]

Originally posted by splatbass


I'm reading that book now. A good read.


It's the best book I've read this summer. Maybe the best I've read in the past year. :thu:

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol
Yes, but us liberals have NPR which is almost always better than Air America and light years more substantial than any right wing talk radio show.

First, if npr is so great why do they have to force people to pay for it? Second, not only is npr less substantive but the audience of Rush Limbaugh is more informed according to a new survey by the PEW Research Center. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1068

Originally posted by alcohol
[B]And the popularity of infotainment only means that some show is successful in a huge entertainment market. Nothing more than that.

Actually, the popularity of Rush Limbaugh means that a lot of people agree with what he is saying. I listen to him because he reports accurately on current events, keeping me informed, and then gives commentary and analysis from a free market/limited government point of view. He also pokes fun at the kooks and moonbats which is hilarious.

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Allroy


First, if npr is so great why do they have to force people to pay for it? Second, not only is npr less substantive but the audience of Rush Limbaugh is more informed according to a new survey by the PEW Research Center. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1068



Actually, the popularity of Rush Limbaugh means that a lot of people agree with what he is saying. I listen to him because he reports accurately on current events, keeping me informed, and then gives commentary and analysis from a free market/limited government point of view. He also pokes fun at the kooks and moonbats which is hilarious. Rush is the Goebbels of the right.
He's a professional liar and character assassin.
Only moonbats think otherwise.:)

[DTox]

Originally posted by Allroy


First, if npr is so great why do they have to force people to pay for it? Second, not only is npr less substantive but the audience of Rush Limbaugh is more informed according to a new survey by the PEW Research Center. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1068



Actually, the popularity of Rush Limbaugh means that a lot of people agree with what he is saying. I listen to him because he reports accurately on current events, keeping me informed, and then gives commentary and analysis from a free market/limited government point of view. He also pokes fun at the kooks and moonbats which is hilarious.


Whose troll moniker are you? :wave:

[Allroy]

Originally posted by GIR unit
Rush is the Goebbels of the right.
He's a professional liar and character assassin.
Only moonbats think otherwise.:)

Substantive response. But seriously, calling someone Hitler(who was a socialist) or Goebbels(who was a socialist) is not how adults(educated ones) have debates. I understand the reason you do it is because you have no argument but you want to lash out with emotion-it is like a petulant child.

EDIT: At least you could be creative and come up with your own epithet for the Right. A moonbat is a kook on the left. Calling someone on the Right a moonbat does not change the definition of a moonbat. Similarly, if I called you a good guitarist it would not make you one.

[DTox]

Whose troll moniker are you? :wave:

[Tom Hicks]

The far right always makes the same assertion when talking about nazism, that it is lefty in orientation. However nazism is a far right political group with a bad reputation, so I see why they would try to avoid having any of that bad PR rub off on them. I guess the current crop of right wingers don't like the close association with Hitler and Goebbels. So they try to cast nazism as socialism, which is a left wing notion of decentralized cooperatives, as opposed to nazism's actual nature as fascism, a corporate/state hierarchical system of top-down domination. Miscasting nazisim is really one of the right's favorite straw men.

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by DTox
Whose troll moniker are you? :wave:

another banned "be-back".

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by splatbass
Liberals don't need to constantly have their opinions reinforced by listening to radio hosts that just tell them what they want to hear. They like to get unbiased news and make up their own minds. IF AA is failing that is why.

Right-wingers can't stand to hear anything that disagrees with them, and are so needy that they have to have their opinions reinforced constantly. That is why Right-wing radio and Fox does so well.

Way to spin failure.

that's why none of the liberals here have seen Farenheit 9/11.

:idea:

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks
The far right always makes the same assertion when talking about nazism, that it is lefty in orientation. However nazism is a far right political group...

It is not an assertion but a fact. Nazi is a contraction of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which is German for National Socialist Workers Party.

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


Way to spin failure.

that's why none of the liberals here have seen Farenheit 9/11.

:idea: Farenheit 9/11 was pretty good.
The WMD's, Freeberty bunch like to question it's veracity. A howl.:D

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee
....Destined for failure is Air America!



Regardless of how you personally feel about AAR, why would you delight in the faliure of more viewpoints being aired? So you want just RW hate talk radio?

And BTW: The RW'ers have been singing this tune since AAR's inception. Any news of restructuring or station issues and the RW'ers spew that they are "about to go off the air". :bor: :bor:

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is not an assertion but a fact. Nazi is a contraction of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which is German for National Socialist Workers Party.



Dumya & Co. calls theirselfs "conservatves", too. Callin' yerself somethin' ain't the same thang as bein' that somethin'. Yer a big boy. I ought not hafta to be drawin' ya a dang picture, "noob" :D

http://files.myopera.com/Idonotlikebroccoli/albums/3758/thumbs/noob.jpg_thumb.jpg

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is not an assertion but a fact. Nazi is a contraction of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which is German for National Socialist Workers Party.

Hitler rounded-up minorities, gypsies, liberals, homosexuals, etc.. of that time, and also those who didn't vote "correctly" according to their IBM generated records.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/03.29I.IBM.Nazi.htm

It doesn't matter what you call yourself. Actions talks and all else is smoke and mirrors. Hitler was just to the right of Genghis Khan.

[SLO Rogue]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is not an assertion but a fact. Nazi is a contraction of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which is German for National Socialist Workers Party.

Patriotism
Militarism
Nationalism

The call signs for Nazi Germany.

Are these left or right in modern US politics?

[Wes_Powell]

I don't really like Air America but I love the fact that it scares the bejeezus out of Republicans to have another opinion on the airwaves.

:)

-wp

[SLO Rogue]

Originally posted by Allroy
I listen to him because he reports accurately on current events, keeping me informed Twisting every issue into left vs right and demonizing liberals is not being 'informed'.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by SLO Rogue
Twisting every issue into left vs right and demonizing liberals is not being 'informed'.

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is not an assertion but a fact. Nazi is a contraction of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which is German for National Socialist Workers Party.

Is it really socialist in the same sense that the people's democratic party of North korea is really democratic?


Na·zi __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(näts, nt-)
n. pl. Na·zis
A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.


and fascist?

fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views


your witness, Mr Matlock.


Originally posted by Tom Hicks
The far right always makes the same assertion when talking about nazism, that it is lefty in orientation. However nazism is a far right political group...

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks


Is it really socialist in the same sense that the people's democratic party of North korea is really democratic?


Na·zi __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(näts, nt-)
n. pl. Na·zis
A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.


and fascist?

fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views


your witness, Mr Matlock
You're talking to a troll.:D

[Allroy]

Originally posted by SLO Rogue


Patriotism
Militarism
Nationalism

The call signs for Nazi Germany.

These are not "call signs" of Nazi Germany. They are nouns. They are only good or bad in context of the country. The only way they can seem the same is if you don't draw a moral distinction between which country and culture is good or bad. Patriotism and nationalism for Cuba, communist China, or Nazi Germany are bad. But those same nouns in reference to the United States are good. You have to believe we are good to believe this and I think this is where leftists have a problem. They hate the foundations of this country-free markets, private property, gun rights, religious freedom, and free association. Freedom does not give birth to egalitarian notions of "fairness" and so it is normal for a statist/socialist to hate this country. If I were a socialist/modern liberal, I would hate this country too. The same is true with militarism. One of the definitions of militarism is a policy of aggressive military preparedness. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It can only be judged morally in the context of the country.

[tin whistle]

Originally posted by Allroy

It is not an assertion but a fact. Nazi is a contraction of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which is German for National Socialist Workers Party.

Master propagandists, the nazis wrote the book that the rightwing elite in this country has adopted as its own and used to great success (unfortunately). Hiding the behind the facade of seemingly well meaning sounding associations and organizations, the right does its dirty work.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by tin whistle


Master propagandists, the nazis wrote the book that the rightwing elite in this country has adopted as its own...

What is the name of the book. I haven't read it.

[DTox]

Originally posted by Allroy


These are not "call signs" of Nazi Germany. They are nouns. They are only good or bad in context of the country. The only way they can seem the same is if you don't draw a moral distinction between which country and culture is good or bad. Patriotism and nationalism for Cuba, communist China, or Nazi Germany are bad. But those same nouns in reference to the United States are good. You have to believe we are good to believe this and I think this is where leftists have a problem. They hate the foundations of this country-free markets, private property, gun rights, religious freedom, and free association. Freedom does not give birth to egalitarian notions of "fairness" and so it is normal for a statist/socialist to hate this country. If I were a socialist/modern liberal, I would hate this country too. The same is true with militarism. One of the definitions of militarism is a policy of aggressive military preparedness. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It can only be judged morally in the context of the country.

Whose troll moniker are you? :wave:

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by DTox


Whose troll moniker are you? :wave:


Isn't IOP the most recent bannee after Hoddy?

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks


Is it really socialist in the same sense that the people's democratic party of North korea is really democratic?


Na·zi __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(näts, nt-)
n. pl. Na·zis
A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.


and fascist?

fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views


your witness, Mr Matlock.




Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I don't know where you found your "definition", however, I found mine at Merriam Webster Online. Nothing in this describes any ideas of the Right. Capitalists/classical liberals exalt the individual over the nation. Individualism is what made this country great.

[Paladin2019]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


Destined for failure is Air America!




How many years have you been saying that for now?

[pappy4edu]

I listen to NPR. They are the only fair and balanced radio source.

[foppy]

The failure of AA (relative to right-wing radio) definitely speaks to a difference in psychology between right and left in America. It certainly doesn't mean there aren't enough left-leaning people in the country to support a whole radio network. There are, but for some reason the people left-of-center aren't, by and large, interested.

I can only speak for myself. I don't listen to AA. Never have.

The reason is that I take no pleasure in listening to people proclaim what I already believe in a way that's supposed to be "funny" or "entertaining."

I don't want to listen to "analysts" trying to make me outraged about people who hold views different from my own. I just don't.

I'm just not a big fan of being outraged at things I already know or suspect of those who disagree with me. There is evidently a large contingent of right-wingers who are.

I'd rather learn something, about an event, a new book, etc., that I don't know anything about. You can say all you want about the bias of NPR, but its purpose is simply different from, say, Sean Hannity's. The right-wing radio people are all about getting people riled up. I don't see the entertainment value of getting riled up.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by foppy
I'd rather learn something, about an event, a new book, etc., that I don't know anything about. You can say all you want about the bias of NPR, but its purpose is simply different from, say, Sean Hannity's. The right-wing radio people are all about getting people riled up. I don't see the entertainment value of getting riled up.

Again, take a look at the PEW Research Center study that found that listeners of the Rush Limbaugh Show had more knowledge of current events and were as educated compared with npr listeners. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1068
Your premise that Rush Limbaugh listeners are yahoos that want to get riled up is wrong. This might be true with Bill O'Reilly, but not Rush, William Buckley or other intellectual conservatives.
There is nothing wrong with having a leftist radio network like npr. Just stop expecting everyone else to pay for it(taxes), and pay for it yourself.

[Gromit]

Er Sean!

Your first source says that an executive has resigned - and we all know that happens all the time in all businesses.

Your second source is a rightwing anti-liberal hate site, and what it says should be viewed accordingly unless it backs up its statements (which of course it doesn't).

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by Allroy


I don't know where you found your "definition"


http://dictionary.reference.com/

fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views


And you neglated to answer my question to you...

Is it really socialist in the same sense that the people's democratic party of North korea is really democratic?

need other cites to convince you that nazism is right wing?

The German Workers' Party , the forerunner of the Nazi Party, espoused a right-wing ideology

http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm

"In the summer of 1928, Hitler aged 39, was the Nazi party leader, ... to move the government in a decidedly authoritarian and right-wing direction. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state.

http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html

Historical revision like you are trying isn't particularly new. Herr Goebbels was a master at it.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Allroy


Again, take a look at the PEW Research Center study that found that listeners of the Rush Limbaugh Show had more knowledge of current events and were as educated compared with npr listeners. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1068
Your premise that Rush Limbaugh listeners are yahoos that want to get riled up is wrong. This might be true with Bill O'Reilly, but not Rush, William Buckley or other intellectual conservatives.
There is nothing wrong with having a leftist radio network like npr. Just stop expecting everyone else to pay for it(taxes), and pay for it yourself.


Yup. Take a look, troll. Can ya read a chart? :wave:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/282-56.gif

[tin whistle]

Originally posted by Allroy


What is the name of the book. I haven't read it.

"wrote the book" is a figure of speech. Doesn't necessarily mean literally " a book" but a body of works and style.

But, if you must know, google "nazi propaganda". Here's one to start you your quest.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Material

Here's one link from that page thats relevant for today:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/propplan.htm

excerpt:

"Everything for Victory,
Only Victory Is Important!"

Propaganda Plan for the Coming Months

The longer the war lasts, the greater the demands on the German people. It is therefore necessary to prepare the German people through the corresponding propaganda and educational activity. The following guidelines and directives provide the goals and directions for propaganda work in the coming weeks.

The Purpose

The coming months will bring spiritual and material burdens for the German people as a whole and for each individual. The goal therefore of our propaganda activity is to strengthen the spiritual and moral powers of resistance of the people so that they can bear the burdens without great difficulty. Only when every member of the public has realized that this war will determine the future of the German people, and therefore also his own fate, will the people be at the highest level of battle-readiness and resistance.

Victory will be won not only on the battlefield, but also in the hearts of the men and women of the whole German people.

The inevitable difficulties may not be ignored, for our enemy is working to use them to spread poor attitudes, unrest, and even splits in the people.

The enemy's last hope is to split the German people from its leadership and to disunify them. They believe that they can once again do what they did in 1918. Their "last hope" that they can use the same means to win that they used in 1918 is the main reason why they do not see that they cannot win this war. That means that their efforts to use the old methods to reach their goals will intensify, not diminish.

Their increased efforts at spiritual warfare and moral splintering must meet our stronger and more determined defenses, and that on the part of the entire nation.

We must therefore radically root out everything that might inflame the people and encourage difficulties of any kind. Everyone must be convinced of one thing only: The victory of German weapons! There cannot be a single citizen who is not from deepest conviction ready to set aside all his personal desires to serve the cause of victory.

As the Führer said to our enemies:

"You may be sure of this: Today you are facing a different Germany than the Germany of the past. You are now facing the Germany of Frederick the Great."

The homeland must prove the truth of his statement. No one can stand to the side. Everyone must know and think each day:

Everything for victory, only victory is important!"


The Reichspropagandaleiter [Goebbels] has said:

"Everything that serves victory is important for the war effort. Everything that hinders victory, or even slows it down, is a crime against the security of the nation."

This sets the main direction of our efforts. More than ever before, the home front must show heroic traits. Everyone's slogan must be:

Fight until the enemy is defeated!

[tin whistle]

Big Lie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The phrase Big Lie refers to a propaganda technique which entered mass consciousness with Adolf Hitler's 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf. In that book Hitler wrote that people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field due to a propaganda technique used by Jews who were influential in the German press. This technique, he believed, consisted of telling a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". The first documented use of the phrase "big lie" is in the corresponding passage: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility".?

Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the phrase big lie. In this theory, the English are attributed with using a propaganda technique wherein they had the mendacity to "lie big" and "stick to it".<sum>

There is an uncited rumor to the effect that Goebbels also offered up his version of the big lie technique without attributing it to either Jewish or Allied propaganda. That uncited quote is the most wide-spread attribution of the big lie, and it is usually given in a context where the implication is that the propaganda technique was invented by Goebbels, who was the propaganda minister for the Third Reich.?

The phrase was also used (on page 51) in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile [1]

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51 [2]

Oh Boy! This last paragraph sounds like our very own "little corporal"...can you guess who?
Yes! George W. Bu$h, thats who! Our own dyed in the wool homegrown dictator.

So Allroy, which banned rightwing loser idiot are you?
Iop, is that you????

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks



And you neglated to answer my question to you...

Is it really socialist in the same sense that the people's democratic party of North korea is really democratic?

Historical revision like you are trying isn't particularly new. Herr Goebbels was a master at it.

1. Yes it is socialist. The fact that socialist/communist dictatorships include words like “democratic” or "peoples' republic" does not change the fact that they are socialist.

2. A huge problem with what you are doing is your misrepresentation of the left-right dichotomy. You are using European perspectives. That would be like talking about football from the European perspective here in the US. Football in the US is a game played with a football and tackling and touchdowns. In Europe football is soccer. In Europe, capitalists are called liberals. In the US, socialists are called liberals.

Goebbels was a socialist. In the US a socialist is on the left. I understand you don't like this, but that is too bad.

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Allroy


1. Yes it is socialist. The fact that socialist/communist dictatorships include words like “democratic” or "peoples' republic" does not change the fact that they are socialist.

2. A huge problem with what you are doing is your misrepresentation of the left-right dichotomy. You are using European perspectives. That would be like talking about football from the European perspective here in the US. Football in the US is a game played with a football and tackling and touchdowns. In Europe football is soccer. In Europe, capitalists are called liberals. In the US, socialists are called liberals.

Goebbels was a socialist. In the US a socialist is on the left. I understand you don't like this, but that is too bad. Typical right wing troll.
The Nazis were not Socialists.
Hitler used the word to mean chauvinistic nationalism.:)

[Allroy]

Originally posted by GIR unit
Typical right wing troll.
The Nazis were not Socialists.
Hitler used the word to mean chauvinistic nationalism.:)

He called it socialist becauses he was a socialist.:thu:

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Allroy


He called it socialist becauses he was a socialist.:thu: By the definition I just gave, not your troll one.:)

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Allroy


He called it socialist becauses he was a socialist.:thu:

Another RW talk radio victim.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by GIR unit
By the definition I just gave, not your troll one.:)

No, he was an actual socialist. He believed in an oppressive central government, no individual freedoms, choosing people based on race(affirmative action), gun control, and he banned religions. He was your run of the mill socialist.:thu:

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/skoro52/stupid.gif


Originally posted by Allroy


No, he was an actual socialist. He believed in an oppressive central government, no individual freedoms, choosing people based on race(affirmative action), gun control, and he banned religions. He was your run of the mill socialist.:thu:


"noob" :)

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Grumpy Ol' Geezer
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/skoro52/stupid.gif





"noob" :)

Substantive argument.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Allroy


Substantive argument.


Argument? Y'all ain't got no argument. :D

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/skoro52/bullshit-bag.jpg

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


No, he was an actual socialist. He believed in an oppressive central government, no individual freedoms, choosing people based on race(affirmative action), gun control, and he banned religions. He was your run of the mill socialist.:thu:

Hi Hoddy.

It seems that you need to be here for some reason. I can only hope that somewhere within your psyche you're yearnin' for a learnin'. Who am I to deny you?

Socialism, like capitalism and communism is about economics, and the way that economic resources are re-distributed.

Hitler was a pawn of big business, just as Bush is. Maybe neither of them fully realized that, but it is still a fact.

A socialist philosphy would require everyone to contribute according to their ability, and give to everyone according to their perceived worth to the state (this is one of the real problems with socialism for reasons that you're not ready to understand).

Hitler's philosophy was very different from socialism, in that it relied on taking literally everything from certain sections of the community (Poles, Jews, Trade unionists, SOCIALISTS etc.) in order to finance the illusion of a prospering economy, and the war.

So, clearly Hitler wasn't a socialist. I won't labour that point, as really every educated person in the world already knows it to be true. I will, however, discuss a couple of your specific claims.

You equated socialism with oppressive central government. By that definition, you're living in Bush's socialist America, and the de-centralized Russian soviet system isn't socialist. Even you can see how laughable that is, surely.

You also equated gun control with socialism. That is odd, as the socialist government of Saddam Hussein allowed its citizens the right to bear arms, and the rightwing Americans took away that right when they invaded.

Hopefully you'll manage to read this before the mods get round to banning you again.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Dear EGM,


Hitler was a socialist same as N Krea's a people's democratic republic. :idea:

Hoddy jus' tryin' to run up a quick post count 'cuz lotsa folks on here insistin' on feedin' trolls. :rolleyes:

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke Socialism, like capitalism and communism is about economics, and the way that economic resources are re-distributed.

This is false. Socialism and communism are systems but capitalism is the absence of a system. Also, capitalism is not about the "redistribution" of resources or money. In a free market/capitalist economy individuals freely exchange money, labor or property for
money, labor or property. In socialist or communist systems, people are raped of their property and money by the state so that it may be given to someone else.

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke A socialist philosphy would require everyone to contribute according to their ability, and give to everyone according to their perceived worth to the state

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability-the communist creed and the reason why all forms of Marxism fail. It is a childish fantasy and goes against the nature of man. It takes away the incentives of work and creativity.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


This is false. Socialism and communism are systems but capitalism is the absence of a system.

The absense of a system is by edfinition anarchy.

You're going to have to learn to listen and not just argue with your superiors if you're ever to leave the morass of ignorance that you secretly detest.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


To each according to his need, from each according to his ability-the communist creed

Indeed Hoddy, that is communism. Now read what I wrote, and note the part where it differs from the definition that you googled.

Some times you need a little background knowledge as well as an Internet connection if you want to give the impression of knowing your arse from your elbow.

[DTox]

Allroy is Hoddy? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. At least my troll moniker question has been answered.

[Allroy]

Hitler's philosophy was very different from socialism, in that it relied on taking literally everything from certain sections of the community (Poles, Jews, Trade unionists, SOCIALISTS etc.) in order to finance the illusion of a prospering economy, and the war.

That is the history of every communist/socialist nation. The only way to achieve an egalitarian result(everyone is equally miserable) is to take from the productive members of society. Soviet Russia was basically a third world nation with a good military.

You equated socialism with oppressive central government. By that definition, you're living in Bush's socialist America, and the de-centralized Russian soviet system isn't socialist. Even you can see how laughable that is, surely.

Now you're in an alternative reality. America does not have an oppressive central government. I think that the governments size and some of it agencies(public broadcasting, NEA, Department of Education) should be reduced, however the only things oppressive in this nation are the taxes on productive people and the speech codes on college campuses(a leftist idea).

[Allroy]

What is hoddy? Is that some kind of insult?

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


Indeed Hoddy, that is communism. Now read what I wrote, and note the part where it differs from the definition that you googled.

Some times you need a little background knowledge as well as an Internet connection if you want to give the impression of knowing your arse from your elbow.

Your condescending attitude tells me a lot about you. I actually minored in political science in college.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


Your condescending attitude tells me a lot about you. I actually minored in political science in college.

Yes, of course you did, Hoddy.

If you had even read a single book on the basics of political theory you wouldn't be making such fundamental errors.

BTW Hoddy, a new moniker doesn't mean that you can invent a new past for yourself.

[Tom Hicks]

I'm thinking he's Hoddy also. The fondness for Lush Rumbaugh. The habit of deflecting with questions. Fits the familiar mold of our recently re-re-re-re-rebanned Hoddy.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


Yes, of course you did, Hoddy.

If you had even read a single book on the basics of political theory you wouldn't be making such fundamental errors.

BTW Hoddy, a new moniker doesn't mean that you can invent a new past for yourself.

I don't know what a "hoddy"is, however I can suggest a few books for you. The first one I read was actually Marx's Das Capital. What else would you expect on a college campus? The Black Book of Communism is a detailed description of communism in practice. The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek discusses the inevitable result of leftist nations. Most of my political science professors were socialist/statists of some type.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


I don't know what a "hoddy"is, however I can suggest a few books for you. The first one I read was actually Marx's Das Capital.

A tip for you Hoddy, when you're trying to bluff someone into believing you know something about politics, make sure you don't blow it by mis-spelling 'Das Kapital'.

Also, make sure that you've actually read the books that you mention. If you'd done that you wouldn't have described 'Road to Serfdom' in the way you did. Its thesis is that collectivism (leftist or rightist) inevitably leads to tyranny.


:D :D :D

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


The absense of a system is by edfinition anarchy.

Again, you're wrong. The absence of a "system" is not anarchy. The absence of a government, laws and order is anarchy.

[Micarta]

:D

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


Again, you're wrong. The absence of a "system" is not anarchy. The absence of a government, laws and order is anarchy.

Govenment, laws and order are the system. You're not making a convincing argument at all, and you've still not explained why you believe that capitalism is the absence of a system.

Lets look at some definitions.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:+capitalism&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

"the term capitalism was first used to describe an the system of private investment and industry..."

"Capitalism is widely considered to be the dominant economic system in the world"

"An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned"

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


make sure you don't blow it by mis-spelling 'Das Kapital'.
:D :D :D

Actually, the misspelling(“misspelling” does not have a hyphen, are you sure you know how to read?) is not in the "C" but the absence of the "r". We always referred to it as Das Crapital. Thanks for trying and making me laugh.

It seems hoddy is not a “what” but a “who” and you think I am he. Why don’t you type Allroy or ALL in your google?

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


I don't know what a "hoddy"is, however I can suggest a few books for you. The first one I read was actually Marx's Das Capital. What else would you expect on a college campus? The Black Book of Communism is a detailed description of communism in practice. The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek discusses the inevitable result of leftist nations. Most of my political science professors were socialist/statists of some type.

The meanings of what communism and socialism are not reducible to left and right politics.

What is considered left or right depends upon the dominant politics of any respective country. As such, a communist in Russia would be considered conservative and right wing.

The Road to Serfdom does not describe the inevitable result of leftist nations. I don't think you'll find a single reference to left or right politics in that book. Also, Hayek regarded himself as a liberal, not in the limited sense of rigid adherence to free markets but in the sense of believing that government had a role in mitigating the business cycle and other regulations. He spells that qualification out very specifically in the introduction. The Road to Serfdom was not only a condemnation of Communism but of European Socialism, which was about government ownership of major industries. It wasn't about leftist politics.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


Actually, the misspelling(“misspelling” does not have a hyphen, are you sure you know how to read?) is not in the "C" but the absence of the "r". We always referred to it as Das Crapital. Thanks for trying and making me laugh.

It seems hoddy is not a “what” but a “who” and you think I am he. Why don’t you type Allroy or ALL in your google?

Hoddy, uou've blown it. You tried to bkluff everyone here, and you didn't have either the brains or the low cunning to pull it off.

Mis-spelling is a perfectly acceptable way to spell mis-spelling. Das Capital (with or without the chindish added r) isn't.

You have been comprehensively drubbed here Hods me old china. Lets examine the ways.

1) You mis-spelled Das Kapital (Possibly the most important political work ever written).

2) You namechecked 'Road to Serfdom' and gave a description which proved that you'd never read it.

3) You claimed that capitalism was the absence of a system:D :D :D

4) You didn't even realize that govenment and law is the system.

Yes, you're Hoddy alright.

You're also the definition of a particularly unfunny type of Internut, which in future I will refer to as a 'Hoddy' - a waste of ones and zeroes with a malignat attitude and no guiding intelligence.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol


The meanings of what communism and socialism are not reducible to left and right politics.

What is considered left or right depends upon the dominant politics of any respective country. As such, a communist in Russia would be considered conservative and right wing.

The Road to Serfdom does not describe the inevitable result of leftist nations. I don't think you'll find a single reference to left or right politics in that book. Also, Hayek regarded himself as a liberal, not in the limited sense of rigid adherence to free markets but in the sense of believing that government had a role in mitigating the business cycle and other regulations. He spells that qualification out very specifically in the introduction. The Road to Serfdom was not only a condemnation of Communism but of European Socialism, which was about government ownership of major industries. It wasn't about leftist politics.

You're absolutely right in most of your post. At the beginning of my copy of The Road to Serdom Friedrich Hayek writes "Why I Am Not A Conservative". He was a classical liberal. He did not use the term leftist, he used the term "statist". The book is all about the inevitable result of statist nations. In my opinion, leftist and statist are synonyms.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Allroy


In my opinion, leftist and statist are synonyms.

Well now, Hoddy...


That's jus' like, yer opinion, man. ;)

http://www.oliverbenjamin.net/LebowskiT-Shirt_files/dude-tshirt3small.jpg

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


1) You mis-spelled Das Kapital (Possibly the most important political work ever written).


Most important? Only if you mean because of the amount of death and suffering it has caused. Really though, The Magna Carta, the Federalist Papers, Frederick Bastiat's "The Law", Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, The Declaration of Independence, and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Your words betray your ignorance.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


You're absolutely right in most of your post. At the beginning of my copy of The Road to Serdom Friedrich Hayek writes "Why I Am Not A Conservative". He was a classical liberal. He did not use the term leftist, he used the term "statist". The book is all about the inevitable result of statist nations. In my opinion, leftist and statist are synonyms.

Your opinion is wrong, as is your attempt to google up some credibility. 'Why I am not a conservative' was actually written some 17 years after 'Road to Serfdom', and Hayek certainly wasn't a 'classic liberal'. In terms of modern US politics he was closest to being a libertarian.

'Statism' is any system where central government takes the major part in economic policy and control. Your own government is statist, as were the rightwing governments in nazi Germany, Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy.

Hoddy, really you should consider bowing out of this one. It can't be fun for you.

[GIR unit]

You knuckleheads keep feeding thistroll why?:D

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


Most important? Only if you mean because of the amount of death and suffering it has caused. Really though, The Magna Carta, the Federalist Papers, Frederick Bastiat's "The Law", Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, The Declaration of Independence, and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Your words betray your ignorance.

Still googling like mad, eh.

Well, I haven't read all of the works that you mention there (and I doubt you've read any of them. 'Wealth of Nations' is certainly an important political work, and unlike Magna Carta it is still directly relevant today. Your opinion of its merits relative to Kas Kapital are not really important here, as you've shown that you haven't actually read DK at least.

Please feel free to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. I might go to bed soon. I expect I'll have some time tomorrow to review your squirming, but I hope you won't be offended if I leave off showing your ignorance for a while. I need my beauty sleep.












I mean I really need my beauty sleep.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by GIR unit
You knuckleheads keep feeding thistroll why?:D

I like to watch Hoddy dance. I'm cruel:(

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


I like to watch Hoddy dance. I'm cruel:( Y'all sure this is hoddy?

[Gromit]

Originally posted by GIR unit
Y'all sure this is hoddy?

As sure as I can be.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


'Why I am not a conservative' was actually written some 17 years after 'Road to Serfdom', and Hayek certainly wasn't a 'classic liberal'. In terms of modern US politics he was closest to being a libertarian.

It was written after the original printing of the book. Did you think I had an original 1944 copy? My copy is from the 1994 printing and includes an intro by Milton Friedman. Also, Hayek did refer to himself as a liberal(classical or European meaning).

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke
'Statism' is any system where central government takes the major part in economic policy and control. Your own government is statist, as were the rightwing governments in nazi Germany, Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy.

Wrong again. We have a weak central government. Our state and local governments have much more authority over us. I would like to see a further reduction in the size and authority of our federal government.

[alcohol]

Allroy,

I'm just going to say that your rationalizations to equate American leftist politics with socialism and communism are self serving, wrong, dishonest and pathetic. That's my opinion.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EvilGuitarMonke


Still googling like mad, eh.

Well, I haven't read all of the works that you mention there (and I doubt you've read any of them.really need my beauty sleep.

It is odd. You keep accusing me of googling all the information. Maybe you are so obsessed with that thought because it is what you are doing. Another thing is your condescending and insulting attitude. I have not insulted you once yet you insist on attempting to impugn me. I have learned from experience that people who behave this way are usually compensating for some sort of deficiency and little self respect.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol
Allroy,

I'm just going to say that your rationalizations to equate American leftist politics with socialism and communism are self serving, wrong, dishonest and pathetic. That's my opinion.

American leftists are socialists.

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is odd. You keep accusing me of googling all the information. Maybe you are so obsessed with that thought because it is what you are doing. Another thing is your condescending and insulting attitude. I have not insulted you once yet you insist on attempting to impugn me. I have learned from experience that people who behave this way are usually compensating for some sort of deficiency and little self respect.

You come out with a facile rationalization that leftists are socialists and communists. I think you insulted (maybe not purposefully) us by thinking that a such shallow argument had substance.

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


American leftists are socialists.

You're dishonest, self serving and wrong again. Now you are insulting.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol


You're dishonest, self serving and wrong again. Now you are insulting.

Insulting. How? Self serving? How?

[SpeedBallBlues]

The right has been trying to scare away investors and advertisors away from AA, almost since it got started, by falsely reporting that it's about to fail which would cause commercial spots to be lost. Why would honest people play dirty pool to to get rid of an opposing voice instead of letting it rise or fall on it's own merrits? And why do some of you support these dishonest people?

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is odd. You keep accusing me of googling all the information. Maybe you are so obsessed with that thought because it is what you are doing. Another thing is your condescending and insulting attitude. I have not insulted you once yet you insist on attempting to impugn me. I have learned from experience that people who behave this way are usually compensating for some sort of deficiency and little self respect.

It's hilarious to see someone who espouses Ailes-speak struggle to appear well read.

:D :thu:

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


Insulting. How? Self serving? How?

Instead of taking the time to tear you apart. Let me give you an analogy you should be able to understand.

left: socialism :: right : fascism

Don't deny the right aren't fascists. Everyone knows that's the truth.

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues
The right has been trying to scare away investors and advertisors away from AA, almost since it got started, by falsely reporting that it's about to fail which would cause commercial spots to be lost. Why would honest people play dirty pool to to get rid of an opposing voice instead of letting it rise or fall on it's own merrits? And why do some of you support these dishonest people?

So if AA fails it's the conservatives fault?

:D

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by GIR unit
Y'all sure this is hoddy?

I don't think it is. Not Hoddy's style at all. Unless he's doing a very good job of camoflaging himself.

[savoldi]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


So if AA fails it's the conservatives fault?

:D

If AA fails it's because there's not as much profit in preaching common sense. If a house doesn't burn, that's not news. Right wing talk show hosts are ALWAYS selling burning houses. Outrageous sells.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol


Instead of taking the time to tear you apart. Let me give you an analogy you should be able to understand.

left: socialism :: right : fascism

Don't deny the right aren't fascists. Everyone knows that's the truth.

Tear me apart? Wow, brave words. Anyway, conservatives/classical liberals believe in limited government, private property rights, and the supremacy of the individual over the state. Leftists/socialists believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual, the confiscation of wealth, the sanitizing of religion from the culture, speech codes, thought crimes (hate crimes) and race quotas. Fascists believed in the state imposing control on the economy, politics, religion, and culture and oppressively regulating business. They almost sound like modern Democrats(fascists were probably more moderate).

[pappy4edu]

Fascists believed in the state imposing control on the economy, politics, religion, and culture and oppressively regulating business.

That would describe Nazism.

[astring]

AA lost it's band in the phx market but came back a few weeks later. Franken is the funniest dude on radio (with the possible exception of Phil Hendrie).

[SpeedBallBlues]

So if AA fails it's the conservatives fault? You make yourself and your ideas look weak when you stoop to putting words in other peoples mouths.

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


Tear me apart? Wow, brave words. Anyway, conservatives/classical liberals believe in limited government, private property rights, and the supremacy of the individual over the state. Leftists/socialists believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual, the confiscation of wealth, the sanitizing of religion from the culture, speech codes, thought crimes (hate crimes) and race quotas. Fascists believed in the state imposing control on the economy, politics, religion, and culture and oppressively regulating business. They almost sound like modern Democrats(fascists were probably more moderate).

You've been brainwashed. You got so much to garbage unlearn and so much truth to learn. I'm not going to do it for you. You figure it out on your own. :bor:

Also, I'm not into sanitizing religion. I'm into erasing it by helping people understand that it's a superstition that no longer relevant. That's not liberal, that's radical.

[John Sayers]

Allroy - Hitler was a NATIONAL socialist.

Hitler at this time saw the party as a revolutionary organisation, whose aim was the violent overthrow of the Weimar Republic, which he saw as controlled by the socialists, Jews and the “November criminals” who had betrayed the German soldiers in 1918. The SA (also known as Brownshirts and storm troopers) were founded as a party militia in 1921 and began violent attacks on other parties.

Unlike some other party members, Hitler was not interested in the “socialist” aspect of the national socialist doctrine. Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class which some early Nazis espoused. For Hitler the twin goals of the party were always German nationalist expansionism and anti-Semitism.
.

doesn't sound like a socialist to me.

With regard to the thread topic - I've listened to Rush and air america and they are both crap IMHO.

source - wiki

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy


It was written after the original printing of the book. Did you think I had an original 1944 copy?

Its fairly obvious that you don't have ANY copy, and that google let you down in your attempt to impress me with your, ahem, 'knowledge'.

Keep kicking, Hoddy.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Allroy
I have not insulted you once yet you insist on attempting to impugn me.

You've insulted us all by lying to us so transparentlyt and expecting to be believed. Luckily, you didn't ever really stand a chance of getting away with it.

I will continue to impugn your lies while you continue to tell them. That is just the kind of guy I am, Hoddy.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


So if AA fails it's the conservatives fault?

:D

Brian, you really don't make a good case by putting words into the mouths of others.

If AA fails it could be for any reason or combination of reasons, but it is absolutely certain that some on the right (not true conservatives IMO - I refuse to believe that true conservatives would want to overturn America's great tradition of free speech) have put a great deal of effort into trying to ensure that AA fails.

[Surrealistic Brillo]

Originally posted by splatbass
Liberals don't need to constantly have their opinions reinforced by listening to radio hosts that just tell them what they want to hear. They like to get unbiased news and make up their own minds. IF AA is failing that is why.

Right-wingers can't stand to hear anything that disagrees with them, and are so needy that they have to have their opinions reinforced constantly. That is why Right-wing radio and Fox does so well.

That pretty much nails it. :thu:

[EdMan57]

It's a friggin' joke how some on the right think that all Democrats are socialist.Hell,most just want a decent paying job with a few benefits,a clean enviornment,decent education opportunities and the access to affordable healthcare...yeah,f...n' commies!

:rolleyes: :freak: :confused:

Ed

[franknputer]

Two Big Thumbs-Up For Public Radio, TV
New Ombudsmen Praise Programming

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; C01

Is public broadcasting a nest of left-wing biases? Ken Tomlinson of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public television and radio, was so concerned about the alleged leftward drift of programs on National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service that the CPB chairman persuaded his agency to hire not one but two ombudsmen to review and critique NPR and PBS news segments.

So what kind of slanted reporting have Ken Bode and William Schulz uncovered since they began work three months ago?

As it turns out, not much. Actually, as it turns out, none at all.

Instead, Bode and Schulz have been positively glowing in their assessments of the journalism heard on NPR and seen on news shows distributed by PBS. So glowing, in fact, that Schulz and Bode's reports, which are posted on CPB's Web site could easily be excerpted in the shorthand style of a movie ad quoting favorable reviews. To wit:

"First-rate. . . . Insightful interviews. . . . In all, two excellent reports." -- Schulz on NPR's reporting from Mosul, Iraq, in late April.

"Excellent. . . . Informative. . . . These two reports gave a nuanced and balanced view of the situation. . . . Kudos to the producers, reporters and editors." -- Bode, on the same stories.

"An excellent curtain raiser!" -- Bode on an NPR report about an upcoming court-martial of a Marine accused of murdering two Iraqis.

"High praise to Mississippi Public Television for an important job well done, and for ably fulfilling its mission of public service to the state." -- Bode on coverage of the trial of Edgar Ray Killen, the former Ku Klux Klan member accused and convicted in the death of three civil rights workers.

"TV at its best." -- Schulz on the three-part PBS series "The Appalachians."

Neither ombudsman mentions a lack of "balance" -- a frequent Tomlinson criticism -- in the programs reviewed. Indeed, neither comments one way or the other about the political leanings of the few programs that were reviewed.

Tomlinson was so exercised by the supposed liberal leanings of the PBS show "Now With Bill Moyers" that he pushed PBS to create two conservative-oriented programs, "The Journal Editorial Report" (featuring Wall Street Journal editorial writers) and "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered" as counterweights. He also advocated creating the two ombudsmen's positions, largely over the objections of NPR, which has its own ombudsman, and PBS, which said last month it would add its own. That makes four ombudsmen overseeing public broadcasting.

Schulz is a former colleague of Tomlinson's; they worked together for years as editors at Reader's Digest. Bode is a former CNN and NBC News reporter who hosted the PBS program "Washington Week in Review" for five years. The two men are paid $50,000 a year each for working 25 hours a month.

Bode said yesterday that the two ombudsmen were never intended to be liberal and conservative halves. "When I took the job," he said, "I took it as a job of journalism, not one of politics. I've never had a conversation with Ken Tomlinson" about his political leanings.

Some have questioned whether Bode fits a "liberal" role, in any case. He endorsed Indiana Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels last year, and he is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank that often advocates conservative policies.

When he took the part-time job earlier this year, Bode said he didn't believe there were major balance issues at PBS or NPR. "There's no 'O'Reilly Factor' on PBS, and no 'Crossfire,' " he said. But since Tomlinson's comments on the matter fueled controversy about fairness, Bode is taking another look at the issue. He said he intends to weigh in during the next few weeks.

Said Schulz: "It's far too early for me, at least, to come to a conclusion about overall balance, or in individual programs. That will become more apparent as we listen more and watch more." Moyers, who had publicly feuded with Tomlinson, left "Now" for unrelated reasons at the end of last year, but is returning tonight as host of "Wide Angle," a series featuring international documentaries.

Asked about the ombudsmen's work yesterday, Tomlinson said it reflected the fact that "the vast majority of [public broadcast] programming is pretty good." He said the ombudsman positions were created so that members of Congress or "John Q. Public" would have "a serious place to turn" in the event of controversy.

Tomlinson himself came in for some criticism yesterday during a Senate subcommittee hearing about public broadcasting. A bipartisan panel that is considering CPB's funding request for next fiscal year took Tomlinson to task for his hiring of an Indiana consultant, Frederick W. Mann, who was paid about $14,000 last year to study the political leanings of guests on various NPR and PBS public affairs show. Democrats and people who produced the programs have attacked the study as flawed. Some have suggested it was part of a political witch hunt. But Tomlinson defended it as means to document the need for diverse viewpoints.

Tomlinson also was criticized by Democratic lawmakers for spending about $10,000 to hire two GOP consultants last year to gauge congressional opinions about legislation to change the way the agency's board was comprised. "Why not just pick up the phone and call us?" asked Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). "You could have saved $10,000."

Tomlinson replied that the hiring was a fairly routine practice at CPB and was done with the knowledge of the agency's then-chief executive, Robert Coonrod, who acknowledged this yesterday.

Both Tomlinson and the CPB's new president, former Republican National Committee co-chairwoman Patricia Harrison, advocated that the Senate restore funding cuts made by the House in its budget bill. They got a vote of support from Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who said at the hearing that he would work for full funding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101573_pf.html

I find it both humorous & sad that some people still insist that NPR is a left-wing organization, even when members of their own party unequivocally state otherwise.:rolleyes:

(P.S. - Attacking the Washington Post is not a rebuttal. :) )

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is odd. You keep accusing me of googling all the information. Maybe you are so obsessed with that thought because it is what you are doing. Another thing is your condescending and insulting attitude. I have not insulted you once yet you insist on attempting to impugn me. I have learned from experience that people who behave this way are usually compensating for some sort of deficiency and little self respect.

Well Allroy, (nice to meet you btw), you've got that loser pegged for sure. He's an unemployed loser who does nothing to contribute anything to the forum except insults and accusations. According to them, I am about 5-6 different people who have been previously banned, LOL. There are many of them here as the thread will demonstrate. Some do nothing but post pictures as that is all they are capable of doing.

[Micarta]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


There are many of them here as the thread will demonstrate. Some do nothing but post pictures as that is all they are capable of doing.

One could teach monkeys to do that.:D

[Allroy]

Originally posted by franknputer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101573_pf.html

I find it both humorous & sad that some people still insist that NPR is a left-wing organization, even when members of their own party unequivocally state otherwise.:rolleyes:

(P.S. - Attacking the Washington Post is not a rebuttal. :) )

Members of my party say things all the time that I disagree with. Ted Stevens is the idiot senator who secured funding for the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. He is the king of pork. Beyond that, I am a conservative and npr is a leftist news source in my opinion. The only problem I have with npr is that the government forces me to pay for it. How would leftists like it if the government forced them to pay for Rush(of course Rush doesn't need subsidies because he has an audience)?

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


Well Allroy, (nice to meet you btw), you've got that loser pegged for sure. He's an unemployed loser who does nothing to contribute anything to the forum except insults and accusations. According to them, I am about 5-6 different people who have been previously banned, LOL. There are many of them here as the thread will demonstrate. Some do nothing but post pictures as that is all they are capable of doing.


Well now, cup o' caca...

I reckon yer exaggeratin' a mite. Ya only been banned about 2-3 times. :wave:

Here's a photo fer ya! :D

http://gotlan.net/images/banned.png

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


Well Allroy, (nice to meet you btw), you've got that loser pegged for sure. He's an unemployed loser who does nothing to contribute anything to the forum except insults and accusations. According to them, I am about 5-6 different people who have been previously banned, LOL. There are many of them here as the thread will demonstrate. Some do nothing but post pictures as that is all they are capable of doing.

Nice to meet you too. I don't know he is a loser. He might be a very nice and talented guy. And none of that matters any way. God loves him and I wish him the best.

EDIT: It is funny. This guy kept addressing me as "hoddy" and I wasn't sure if it was an insult or he was mistaking me for someone else. I came across this forum when someone told me to check out the gear reviews hear. I'm looking at the ISP Descimator.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
...I am a conservative and npr is a leftist news source in my opinion.

Most folks don't realize when they're pawns of the Ailes media.

PS: Rush is provided free to any station that cares to run his show. Obviously, you're not aware of that.

:)

[Allroy]

Originally posted by songrytr


Most folks don't realize when they're pawns of the Ailes media.

PS: Rush is provided free to any station that cares to run his show. Obviously, you're not aware of that.

:)

Wow, where to start?

1. I watch CNN and PMSNBC as much as I watch Fox. I read the Nation and the New York Times as well as the American Spectator and National Review.

2. The Rush Limbaugh Show is owned by Premier Radio Networks and affiliate radio stations pay a fee for carrying the show. The affiliate stations pay this fee because the advertisers are willing to pay the radio stations a lot of money to advertise on a show with such a large audience.

Even if your premise was true, that The Rush Limbaugh Show was provided free, what is your point? The government subsidizes npr at taxpayers’ expense. The Rush Limbaugh Show supports itself(and makes huge profits) because it is popular and has a large audience. I don't think any media, or business for that matter, should be subsidized by the government. Let npr sink or swim on it's own merrits.

[alcohol]

NPR receives 2% of it's funding directly from the government. At the same time commercial radio is also subsidized but in a different manner.

"Interestingly, the right wing never challenges the huge subsidies that taxpayers already provide private radio and TV. The truth is that commercial stations pay absolutely nothing for their federally protected frequency assignments. And Congress has decreed that corporate advertising on radio and TV is a fully deductible business expense, which means that every advertising dollar costs a company only 30 cents."http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2082

Right wing complaints against NPR is just sour grapes and the want to "have one's cake and eat it too."

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

NPR's 'bout as left wing as country music's profound. ;)

http://www.slipcue.com/music/country/countrypix/aaa_images_misc/singing_cowboys.gif

[SpeedBallBlues]

Liberals don't need to constantly have their opinions reinforced by listening to radio hosts that just tell them what they want to hear. Right, We already know what we think. :D

[alcohol]

A great deal of public radio isn't NPR but local radio programming that the local people want like Bluegrass or classical music. Programming that isn't news oriented at all.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol
NPR receives 2% of it's funding directly from the government. At the same time commercial radio is also subsidized but in a different manner.

"Interestingly, the right wing never challenges the huge subsidies that taxpayers already provide private radio and TV. The truth is that commercial stations pay absolutely nothing for their federally protected frequency assignments. And Congress has decreed that corporate advertising on radio and TV is a fully deductible business expense, which means that every advertising dollar costs a company only 30 cents."http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2082

Right wing complaints against NPR is just sour grapes and the want to "have one's cake and eat it too."

1. Radio stations pay huge licensing fees for their frequency assignments.

2. A subsidy is not a tax deduction. A subsidy is money taken from one person and given to another for his benefit. A tax deduction is simply a person not having his money taken by the government in the first place. Let’s do this. Let's not give npr any government subsidies and let’s allow npr to make all the tax deductions that all other radio stations are allowed to make. Does this sound fair?

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by savoldi


If AA fails it's because there's not as much profit in preaching common sense. If a house doesn't burn, that's not news. Right wing talk show hosts are ALWAYS selling burning houses. Outrageous sells.

I listen to Air America. If you think they're not preaching outrageousness you haven't been listening. I TRY to listen but it's almost all anti-bush ranting. At least rush has parodys, soundbites from politicians and other things that makes his program entertaining. I find it hard to beleive that even "the choir" would find litening to Air America enjoyable.

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues
You make yourself and your ideas look weak when you stoop to putting words in other peoples mouths.

You make yourself look weak when you make things up.

the right has not been "scaring away investers and advertisers". AA is doing that all by themselves.

[GIR unit]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


I listen to Air America. If you think they're not preaching outrageousness you haven't been listening. I TRY to listen but it's almost all anti-bush ranting. At least rush has parodys, soundbites from politicians and other things that makes his program entertaining. I find it hard to beleive that even "the choir" would find litening to Air America enjoyable. Hate speech and lies=entertaining.:thu:

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


I listen to Air America. If you think they're not preaching outrageousness you haven't been listening. I TRY to listen but it's almost all anti-bush ranting. At least rush has parodys, soundbites from politicians and other things that makes his program entertaining. I find it hard to beleive that even "the choir" would find litening to Air America enjoyable.

Based on this critique, I'd say you don't listen at all.
Franken, for instance, is very moderate. People find him boring even. The best part of the show is his guests.

[SpeedBallBlues]

At least rush has parodys, soundbites from politicians and other things that makes his program entertaining. I find it hard to beleive that even "the choir" would find litening to Air America enjoyable. Half of Franken's daily show is made up of various expert guests brought on to discuss various topical subjects of importance in an intelligent manner, something you never hear on rush. Ring of Fire with Bobby Kennedy on the weekend is also excellent and miles from limbow's blustering rants. Randy Rhodes has a big mouth but is often a wealth of information but presents it in a ranting rush style. I listen to rush for the same reason I watch Fox, to watch the fiction unfold, to see how they spin event's both big and small and to know why the righty's here and elswhere say and think the things they do.

The party out of power is always the watchdog of the people and no party has ever been more out than the Dems are now. The repubs for all their faults were the watchdogs in the early 90's and these right wing shows had some value but the Republicans have become the burglars now in the biggest way ever! AA is acting as a watchdog and a damn good one at that. If you look at them in that light I think you'll see their usefullness.

[SHRED]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues
Half of Franken's daily show is made up of various expert guests brought on to discuss various topical subjects of importance in an intelligent manner, something you never hear on rush. Ring of Fire with Bobby Kennedy on the weekend is also excellent and miles from limbow's blustering rants. Randy Rhodes has a big mouth but is often a wealth of information but presents it in a ranting rush style. I listen to rush for the same reason I watch Fox, to watch the fiction unfold, to see how they spin event's both big and small and to know why the righty's here and elswhere say and think the things they do.

The party out of power is always the watchdog of the people and no party has ever been more out than the Dems are now. The repubs for all their faults were the watchdogs in the early 90's and these right wing shows had some value but the Republicans have become the burglars now in the biggest way ever! AA is acting as a watchdog and a damn good one at that. If you look at them in that light I think you'll see their usefullness.

+10
:thu:

[SpeedBallBlues]

Here, you don't have to listen to them all day long, you can just listen to the highlights...http://www.airamerica.com/audio_highlights

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by SHRED


Based on this critique, I'd say you don't listen at all.
Franken, for instance, is very moderate. People find him boring even. The best part of the show is his guests.

Haven't heard much of Franken lately. Though he doesn't rant he's often quite boring. Also seems to rehash stories that are months if not years old. I hear Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz (Michael Medved is on at the same time and there's quite a contrast flipping back and forth) and Randi Rhodes.

I've heard "Morning Sedition" and Janeane Garafolo as well but if they're still on here it's before 6:00am or after midnight.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


I listen to Air America. If you think they're not preaching outrageousness you haven't been listening. I TRY to listen but it's almost all anti-bush ranting. At least rush has parodys, soundbites from politicians and other things that makes his program entertaining. I find it hard to beleive that even "the choir" would find litening to Air America enjoyable.

Well now, Duck 'em...

I jus tuned into AA this mornin'. Got a feller named Tom Hartman on. He talkin' with a fella from a big pharmaceutical company 'bout the cost o' healthcare. Both sides makin' some good points. Both sides gittin' plenty o' air time. Hartman ain't interrputin' this guy an' tryin' to piss him off er make him look small.

I reckon Rush is yer boy, though. :freak:

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


You make yourself look weak when you make things up.

the right has not been "scaring away investers and advertisers". AA is doing that all by themselves. Actually, here in Phoenix, they financed a Christian group to buy the station AA was on putting them off the air here for a month even though they'd moved up to 3rd in a market of 22 stations. They're back now and moving up the ratings again.

Hysterical and desperate wingnuts have been predicting the demise of Air America for 2 years now. It makes one wonder why they're so threatened by a lone voice of truth on commercial radio out there.

Oh yeah, that truth thing.

Scary ain't it.

:)

-wp

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Actually, here in Phoenix, they financed a Christian group to buy the station AA was on putting them off the air here for a month even though they'd moved up to 3rd in a market of 22 stations. They're back now and moving up the ratings again.

Hysterical and desperate wingnuts have been predicting the demise of Air America for 2 years now. It makes one wonder why they're so threatened by a lone voice of truth on commercial radio out there.

Oh yeah, that truth thing.

Scary ain't it.

:)

-wp

They are whimps and cowards in the face of the truth.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by SHRED


They are whimps and cowards in the face of the truth. I guess. AA is doing well again here despite the right's best efforts to keep them off the air. I guess when Ed Schultz kicked Limbaughtomy's fat ass in Limbaughtomy's home state of New York, it was a big wake up call for the wingnuts.

-wp

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
I guess. AA is doing well again here despite the right's best efforts to keep them off the air. I guess when Ed Schultz kicked Limbaughtomy's fat ass in Limbaughtomy's home state of New York, it was a big wake up call for the wingnuts.

-wp

My exaggerations aside...yes, when given a chance AAR does quite well.

BTW: Ed isn't on the AA network. He is on the Jones Radio Network.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by SHRED


My exaggerations aside...yes, when given a chance AAR does quite well.

BTW: Ed isn't on the AA network. He is on the Jones Radio Network. He was being broadcast on AA here before the attempted coup. I guess the point is that a liberal can kick ths shit out of a Limbaughtomy or a Hannity given even half a level playing field. I think that's what scares them most. And that's why they're so hysterical to "discredit" AA.

-wp

[SHRED]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
He was being broadcast on AA here before the attempted coup. I guess the point is that a liberal can kick ths shit out of a Limbaughtomy or a Hannity given even half a level playing field. I think that's what scares them most. And that's why they're so hysterical to "discredit" AA.

-wp

agreed.
:thu:

[Tom Hicks]

For several years now, there have been shrill insistances from the political right that Air America has no audience and is financially on the brink of collapse. Meanwhile, ever more stations carrying them and ever more listeners tuning in doesn't appear to even slightly inconvenience the right wing rhetoric. Would it be too much to ask the right to specify a date when they can assure us Air America will no longer be broadcasting; so that we might put their suspect credibility to the ultimate test? Somehow, I think they will shy away from this test of their beliefs though. Based on the national Arbitron radio ratings book on AA which I looked up and earlier cited, I personally think the righty rhetoric is amusingly off the mark.


Air America is failing and falling fast.


Sure it is....

:D

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks


Air America is failing and falling fast.


Sure it is....

:D


What it doin' is scarin' the peewaddle outta mindless conservatards. I reckon any hint o' differin' opinion sorta implies there's a chance they might could be wrong. They thinkin' it's better not to know if they wrong. Leastways, they united in their mistake thataway. ;)

[progguitar]

Listen up.

Germany and Italy were no more socialist than the USSR was communist.

Both ideologies were given lip service in order for rule to centralized in one man.

In other words, totalitarianism.

Very reminiscent of of Napoleon, who, even as emperor still gave lip service to the republic.


While I'm generally conservative in nature, mainly fiscal, I feel I must point out a interesting conflict of interest for many of the so-called liberals on this board.

You seem very well informed of the content of conservative radio shows. That shows me that you, indeed, spend your time listening to the shows in order to keep yourself informed. So, how do you feel about, in effect, supporting the show and it's advertisers when it obviously runs counter to your beliefs? Do you engage in financial retribution against the advertisers for advertising their products on the shows that you despise but listen to none the less?

Or do you let others listen to the show and form your opinions for you?

Also, do these show get airplay overseas?

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by progguitar
So, how do you feel about, in effect, supporting the show and it's advertisers when it obviously runs counter to your beliefs?I don't listen to commercials. I can change pre-programmed stations or switch to CD from my steering wheel. So I don't really know who those advertisers are. I only actively boycott one company and that's Pizza Hut. When President Clinton signed the first minimum wage increase in a decade and brought it to a whopping $4.10/hr., Pizza Hut closed their call centers purely out of spite. This is the same company who spent millions trying to defeat a health care proposal they never even saw claiming it'd drive them out of business to have to raise the price of pizza to pay for it. They were exposed as partisan frauds when it was discovered that they'd not only not closed a single restaurant in Europe where they are required to provide health care, they'd actually thrived there. I have not allowed a company I work for to do business with Pizza Hut in almost 15 years.

Do you engage in financial retribution against the advertisers for advertising their products on the shows that you despise but listen to none the less?

See above.

Or do you let others listen to the show and form your opinions for you?

No, I listen quite actively. Thankfully I have more choices today than 5 years ago.

Also, do these show get airplay overseas?

I know the military pipes Limbaughtomy in to help brainwash the troops but I don't know about any other airplay other than the internet.

-wp

[progguitar]

fair enough. good response.

anyone else?

[progguitar]

My main boycott target is Disney.

They truly are the evil empire, engaging in horrible business practices home and abroad.

But it's amazing how many people, lib and con, will still buy their products because little johnny wants to watch their movies.

I hate soccer moms.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by progguitar
fair enough. good response.

anyone else?


I don't pay much attention to commercials. I'm old enough these days to purty much know what I like an' where to git it. They wanta spend money on advertisin' on AA er EIB, it don't matter none to me. Advertisin' don't sell me on a product, the product does. ;)

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
I guess. AA is doing well again here despite the right's best efforts to keep them off the air. I guess when Ed Schultz kicked Limbaughtomy's fat ass in Limbaughtomy's home state of New York, it was a big wake up call for the wingnuts.

-wp

Rush is not from New York. He is from Missouri. Also, The Rush Limbaugh Show is #one in the New York market for the 12pm-3pm time slot.


LOS ANGELES, Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Rush Limbaugh received a great birthday gift today from his New York City listeners -- Arbitron, the official monitoring service of broadcast radio, reports that listening Adults 18-49 years old grew more than 50 percent over the last year. As the ratings roll out nationally from city to city, New York's WABC-AM numbers are out first, demonstrating the following overall gains for The Rush Limbaugh Show: Adults 18-34 are up 25 percent, Persons 12+ are up 35 percent, and Adults 25-54 are up 47 percent. (source: Arbitron MSA, Fall '03 to Fall '04)

In New York, The Rush Limbaugh Show is the number one rated talk radio program from noon to 3pm. Nationally, Rush Limbaugh is heard on approximately 600 radio stations, attracting nearly 20 million weekly listeners, which makes him the most-listened-to talk radio personality.
http://www.advfn.com/news_youth-audiences-help-rush-limbaugh-s-ratings-grow-_9950144.html

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
I know the military pipes Limbaughtomy in to help brainwash the troops but I don't know about any other airplay other than the internet.

-wp

Armed Forces Radio did not carry The Rush Limbaugh Show until so many soldiers demanded it and they had to. Also, The Rush Limbaugh Show is only broadcast one hour a day(the first hour of his show) on the Armed Forces Radio Network. npr is broadcast more than 20 hours a day. Despite this, Rush's daily audience for his one hour a day is almost as large as the audience for 20 hours of npr.

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by Grumpy Ol' Geezer



What it doin' is scarin' the peewaddle outta mindless conservatards. I reckon any hint o' differin' opinion sorta implies there's a chance they might could be wrong. They thinkin' it's better not to know if they wrong. Leastways, they united in their mistake thataway. ;)

I'm not sure I buy the preaching to the choir theory in total, although is surely part of the equation. Turnout from disaffected Rs is expected to be lower for the midterms, and a little pot stirring of the tried and true themes of the base seems to be happening, ala recent congressional rhetoric on gay marriage and flag burning points out. But I think a larger issue is the wounded pride of the right, who have made a series of dogmatic pronouncements about Iraq which clearly turned out not to be. The alternative is fessing up, and we have seen an aversion to that up and down the the leadership to the rank and file. Perhaps a tad of self-delusion thrown in as well.

[Cup 'o Coffee]

America Downgraded in New York City

The all-liberal Air America radio network is losing its place on the New York City radio dial and moving to a much weaker station.

Beginning on September 1, Al Franken and his colleagues will switch from WLIB (1190 AM) to WWRL (1600 AM), which is "radio’s version of the boondocks – the top of the dial where AM signals are weakest,” John Mainelli reports in the New York Post.

Air America, suffering from disappointing ratings, did not renew its lease with WLIB’s owners, former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton and his son Pierre.

"Post sources say relations between the Suttons and the frequently changing roster of Air America execs were rocky from the get-go and only got worse because of the network’s shaky finances and a scandal involving loans from a Bronx charity,” according to Mainelli.



With Air America leaving, WLIB’s future is uncertain, although Randy Michaels, the builder of 1,200-station Clear Channel, has indicated he might be interested in leasing the station as a base for a new talk-radio network.

Air America’s new home, WWRL, is so weak that after sunset and before sunrise, when greater FCC restrictions apply, the station loses portions of the five boroughs and almost all of northern New Jersey.Source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/3/102635.shtml)

[Allroy]

AND ANOTHER ONE'S GONE

For Programmer Ginsburg, A Stormy Departure




Exclusive To The Radio Equalizer

By Brian Maloney



After a stormy contract and compensation dispute, a key Air America programming manager has abruptly departed the company, leaving several of the liberal radio network's hosts in a precarious position.

According to a reliable internal source, Chief Operating Officer Carl Ginsburg cleared out his desk and returned company property yesterday, after his just- expired contract wasn't renewed.

After heated exchanges between dueling lawyers and managers, Ginsburg was able to secure only a brief extension from the firm, said to last until the end of the year.

Ginsburg and his attorney found that to be inadequate and he immediately resigned. In addition, the COO was looking for a previously- promised bonus to be guaranteed, which the company was unable to provide.

And unlike previous managerial departures, Ginsburg will not "remain" in any phony "consulting" role. He's outta there.

Due to Air America's increasingly dire financial straits, it has recently been unwilling to make substantial committments to anyone, other than Randi Rhodes and a handful of mid-level managers.
Source (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/)

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by Allroy
AND ANOTHER ONE'S GONE


Source (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/)

LOL! It's not that I'm against their right to voice their beliefs(however delusional and hateful they are), but their very mission upon launching the network was to destroy conservative talk. They made that clear , Franken and those other two tramps, and the rest of them. They said it in their broadcasts as well as prior to the launch of the network.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Allroy


Armed Forces Radio did not carry The Rush Limbaugh Show until so many soldiers demanded it and they had to. Also, The Rush Limbaugh Show is only broadcast one hour a day(the first hour of his show) on the Armed Forces Radio Network. npr is broadcast more than 20 hours a day. Despite this, Rush's daily audience for his one hour a day is almost as large as the audience for 20 hours of npr. Intentional ignorance is worse than unintentional ignorance.

-wp

[splatbass]

It is clear from this thread that the only people who give a shit about AA are the right-wing nuts. Liberals don't give a shit, for the reasons I said earlier. They don't need to be spoonfed information that fits their worldview, and they don't need constant reassurance that their views are right. It is the right wing that needs those things, which is why right wing radio does so well.

I don't give a shit if AA fails, and I doubt if very many others do either. If it was important to liberals they would be listening to it.

You guys have had your right wing circle jerk, now it is time to come back to reality. No one cares. No one but you cares about AA. No one really gives a shit what you think about AA, or anything else.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Intentional ignorance is worse than unintentional ignorance.

-wp

The left calling American soldiers ignorant is nothing new. In addition, your a priori statement is false.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Allroy


The left calling American soldiers ignorant is nothing new. Facts are facts although something like 9 of the 10 Iraq vets running for office in November are running as Democrats against the Iraq debacle. So, we may be seeing a transition from ignorance to enlightenment much to the chagrin of the armed forces.

-wp

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by Allroy


Rush is not from New York. He is from Missouri. Also, The Rush Limbaugh Show is #one in the New York market for the 12pm-3pm time slot.


LOS ANGELES, Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Rush Limbaugh received a great birthday gift today from his New York City listeners -- Arbitron, the official monitoring service of broadcast radio, reports that listening Adults 18-49 years old grew more than 50 percent over the last year. As the ratings roll out nationally from city to city, New York's WABC-AM numbers are out first, demonstrating the following overall gains for The Rush Limbaugh Show: Adults 18-34 are up 25 percent, Persons 12+ are up 35 percent, and Adults 25-54 are up 47 percent. (source: Arbitron MSA, Fall '03 to Fall '04)

In New York, The Rush Limbaugh Show is the number one rated talk radio program from noon to 3pm. Nationally, Rush Limbaugh is heard on approximately 600 radio stations, attracting nearly 20 million weekly listeners, which makes him the most-listened-to talk radio personality.
http://www.advfn.com/news_youth-audiences-help-rush-limbaugh-s-ratings-grow-_9950144.html

Care to respond wes?

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


Care to respond wes? First link of my search.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Liberal_talk_radio_trends_ahead_of_Limbaugh_among_ 2554_i_0711.html

Like I said, when there's half a level playing field, the truth does just fine against Limbaughtomy, Hannity, etc.

Now, since I was kind enough, would you like to respond to the question asked earlier as to why you're so afraid of the truth being on commercial radio?

-wp

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Facts are facts although something like 9 of the 10 Iraq vets running for office in November are running as Democrats against the Iraq debacle. So, we may be seeing a transition from ignorance to enlightenment much to the chagrin of the armed forces.

-wp

I would like to see a source on this claim.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Allroy


I would like to see a source on this claim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-22-war-vets_x.htm

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1172182,00.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/iraq_vets_running_for_congress.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html

-wp

[Wes_Powell]

From the first link:

Duckworth is the only seriously wounded combat veteran running this year for Congress, whose ranks of members with military experience are at their lowest since World War II, according to Congressional Quarterly. (Photo gallery: Tammy Duckworth: Sights and sounds)

But at least nine other veterans who served in the post-Sept. 11 military have announced House bids. All but one — Republican Van Taylor in Texas — are Democrats who have criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the war. They join dozens of older veterans from both parties touting military credentials as U.S. troops head into a fourth year in Iraq.

Veterans have long returned from battle to continue their public service in politics, but the current field of candidates with military experience may be the largest since World War II.

Guess you can't lie to service people and get away with it forever.

:)

-wp

[FSBO]

I knew Air America would crash and burn.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.06/photos/07-classday2-450.jpg

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by FSBO
I knew Air America would crash and burn.
Let us know when it happens. In the meantime, maybe you can answer the question my friend DC is ducking.

Why are you so afraid of the truth finally showing up on commercial radio?

:)

-wp

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Let us know when it happens. In the meantime, maybe you can answer the question my friend DC is ducking.

Why are you so afraid of the truth finally showing up on commercial radio?

:)

-wp


'Cuz a dissentin' point o' view implies the conservatards might could be wrong. An' they don't wanta know things like that. If they wrong, they jus' want go on stayin' wrong with no knowledge o' their wrongness.

Stay the goddam course, Wesley! :mad:

http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/images/guests/onecitizen-stay-the-course.jpg

Ya some sorta dang terrist er somethin'? :mad:

[SpeedBallBlues]

I knew Air America would crash and burn. how long have you been saying THAT? AA has been "dying" for as long as it's been on the air exposing the lies and corruption of the bush clan that you guys eat up with a spoon. But I do see why your leaders want them gone so bad, you cant have them informing the public while you're trying to keep them in the dark. especially in an election year with the repubs looking like they're finally going to get beat.

[astring]

It is entertaining thus it will continue on. Franken is a truly funny dude

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Why are you so afraid of the truth finally showing up on commercial radio?

:)

-wp

You are working with a couple of false assumptions here. First, you are assuming that the truth equals error America radio. I will assume that what you mean is "are conservatives afraid of leftist programming on commercial radio?". The answer is no and this brings us to the second false assumption. You assume that because we enjoy watching air (anti)America radio fail that we are afraid of it and this is false. I enjoy watching a group of people I believe are wrong and treacherous getting rejected by the radio consuming public. I hope this is helpful.

[FSBO]

I knew Air America would be in competition with those colon cleansing infomercials
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.06/photos/07-classday2-450.jpg

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
First link of my search.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Liberal_talk_radio_trends_ahead_of_Limbaugh_among_ 2554_i_0711.html

Like I said, when there's half a level playing field, the truth does just fine against Limbaughtomy, Hannity, etc.

Now, since I was kind enough, would you like to respond to the question asked earlier as to why you're so afraid of the truth being on commercial radio?

-wp

1. That's Miami not New york.

2. They weren't on at the same time.

3. they weren't the official numbers but instead "Advance trend numbers for spring radio ratings in the Miami market, leaked to RAW STORY"

4. That story's over a year old.

5. It comes from a biased site.

6. Here's the arbitron ratings for the two stations. WIOD ranks 17th whilst WINZ ranks 24th.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17928

Nothing like cherrypicking your success stories.


:wave:

[EdMan57]

Right wing radio had about a 15 year head start against about a two year run by AA.When Rush first came on the radio,I thought him somewhat amusing,but after a couple of years,a bit of a bully and windbag.

One big difference is that most shows on AA don't screen their calls.Hell,sometimes more righties call than libs...and why the need for the right to shut up the libs?

Ed

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Duck Commander

<edited to discard attempted deflection from the question posed>Shit, nothing left.

:(

:cry:





:idea:

Maybe I should re-phrase the question.

:wave:

Why are you so afraid of the truth finally arriving on commercial radio?

:)

-wp

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Duck Commander

Here's the arbitron ratings for the two stations. WIOD ranks 17th whilst WINZ ranks 24th.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17928

Nothing like cherrypicking your success stories.
Oh, the irony.

:D

-wp

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by EdMan57
why the need for the right to shut up the libs?
Seems to be the $10 billion dollar question.

:)

-wp

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EdMan57
Right wing radio had about a 15 year head start against about a two year run by AA.When Rush first came on the radio,I thought him somewhat amusing,but after a couple of years,a bit of a bully and windbag.

One big difference is that most shows on AA don't screen their calls.Hell,sometimes more righties call than libs...and why the need for the right to shut up the libs?

Ed

Your words betray your ignorance. The Rush Limbaugh Show has a policy of putting leftists callers at the front of the line. Another thing, Rush's show made money so he didn't need George Soros to subsidize it. Finally, npr had a huge head start on Rush and he managed to achieve a larger audience in a small amount of time.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Seems to be the $10 billion dollar question.

:)

-wp


I keep tellin' you fools... :rolleyes:

'Cuz a dissentin' point o' view implies the conservatards might could be wrong. An' they don't wanta know things like that. If they wrong, they jus' want go on stayin' wrong with no knowledge o' their wrongness. :idea:

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Allroy


Your words betray your ignorance. The Rush Limbaugh Show has a policy of putting leftists callers at the front of the line. After they've been screened to be morons. Limbaughtomy has refused every public debate challenge, every objective interview, every interview with a counter guest, and didn't even allow guests on his short lived television show.

Sounds like quite the confident little bloated, drug riddled, limp wienered, blowhard to me.

:)

-wp

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Grumpy Ol' Geezer



I keep tellin' you fools... :rolleyes:

'Cuz a dissentin' point o' view implies the conservatards might could be wrong. An' they don't wanta know things like that. If they wrong, they jus' want go on stayin' wrong with no knowledge o' their wrongness. :idea: Except they know they're wrong or they wouldn't need the constant affirmation.

:)

-wp

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
After they've been screened to be morons. Limbaughtomy has refused every public debate challenge, every objective interview, every interview with a counter guest, and didn't even allow guests on his short lived television show.

-wp

The actual reason is to make sure the caller will be entertaining. Rush has repeatedly said that the purpose of a caller is to make the host look good.

Sounds like quite the confident little bloated, drug riddled, limp wienered, blowhard to me.

Wow. You are so full of hate for Rush. You should check out Daniel Goleman's book Destructive Emotions.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Allroy


The actual reason is to make sure the caller will be entertaining. Rush has repeatedly said that the purpose of a caller is to make the host look good.
If that's what you have to do to make the host look good, you're running a scam.

You're not easily taken in by scams are you?

:)

-wp

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
If that's what you have to do to make the host look good, you're running a scam.

You're not easily taken in by scams are you?

:)

-wp

How is it a scam? He proudly announces to 20 million listeners that the purpose of a caller is to make the host look good.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Allroy


How is it a scam? Of course you fall for scams. You can't even identify one.

:(

-wp

[splatbass]

Originally posted by Allroy


You should check out Daniel Goleman's book Destructive Emotions.

You should check out Jim Derych's book, "Confessions of a Former Dittohead". He was just like you, a closed minded, brainwashed Rush fan, but he saw the light. So there is still hope even for you.

I like his definition of "Dittohead", it fits people like you so well.

Dittohead

A self identifying term used by fans of Rush Limbaugh. Characteristics include: a belief in the infallibility of Rush, the Republican Party and Fox News; a hatred of all things liberal; and the uncanny ability to deny any information or facts that contradict their worldview.

Sounds like you. But you, too, can be saved. Just open your mind and your eyes to ideas other than those of Rush, and you will see the truth.

[savoldi]

Originally posted by Allroy


The actual reason is to make sure the caller will be entertaining. Rush has repeatedly said that the purpose of a caller is to make the host look good.



Which is exactly why you don't see him on TV. He looks BAD.

[JazzFan]

Anytime Rush Limbaugh gets a liberal caller, he let's them ask their question and then, as he launches into his monologue of an answer he quietly disconnects the caller so that said caller has no opportunity to dispute Rush's "answer." The Limbaugh monologue goes on for five to ten minutes and then he cuts to commercial. Limbaugh is absolutely petrified of political debate because he's a fact-challenged windbag and his schtik only works when he is allowed to pontificate uninterrupted. I once saw a video clip of Limbaugh in front of a live audience that turned on him and try as he might, he could not bring that audience back under control.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by splatbass


You should check out Jim Derych's book, "Confessions of a Former Dittohead". He was just like you, a closed minded, brainwashed Rush fan, but he saw the light. So there is still hope even for you.


I read his blog on the Huffington Post-I subscribe to it through Yahoo. I am neither closed minded nor brainwashed. If I were closed minded, I wouldn't routinely read points of view contrary to my own. I’m not sure what you mean by “brainwashed”. I guess anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed-that is a rather childish view. It seems your attempt at an argument ends up just being vitriol directed at me.

I like his definition of "Dittohead", it fits people like you so well.

Dittohead

A self identifying term used by fans of Rush Limbaugh. Characteristics include: a belief in the infallibility of Rush, the Republican Party and Fox News; a hatred of all things liberal; and the uncanny ability to deny any information or facts that contradict their worldview.

Sounds like you. But you, too, can be saved. Just open your mind and your eyes to ideas other than those of Rush, and you will see the truth.

Actually, the real definition of a ditto head is much better. A ditto head is not necessarily someone who agrees with Rush. Rather, it is someone who enjoys his show.

[SpeedBallBlues]

The actual reason is to make sure the caller will be entertaining. Rush has repeatedly said that the purpose of a caller is to make the host look good. Oh is that the bullshit reason the liar gave for censoring calls? That's rich.

AA illuminates, rush obfuscates. It's that simple and VERY obvious.

[progguitar]

Originally posted by splatbass


You should check out Jim Derych's book, "Confessions of a Former Dittohead". He was just like you, a closed minded, brainwashed Rush fan, but he saw the light. So there is still hope even for you.

I like his definition of "Dittohead", it fits people like you so well.

Dittohead

A self identifying term used by fans of Rush Limbaugh. Characteristics include: a belief in the infallibility of Rush, the Republican Party and Fox News; a hatred of all things liberal; and the uncanny ability to deny any information or facts that contradict their worldview.

Sounds like you. But you, too, can be saved. Just open your mind and your eyes to ideas other than those of Rush, and you will see the truth.



Gotta have a label to put on people. Hell of a lot easier to label someone and stick them in a convenient pigeon hole than to take them one at a time.

Really, posters on this board of all persuasions are becoming so robotic in their responses that it's become akin to a ride in the shortbus.

Actually I take that back. It's showing just how ignorant the voting populace in general is in the US. Each side is more than willing to accept sources that validate their point of view and discount those that are contradictory.

The conservative have screamed for years about the left in the media, but I seem to remember the abortive attempt by the left to have talk radio classified as hate speech.

Folks, we've lost our way. We seem to have forgotten that politics is the art of compromise.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
I don't think any media, or business for that matter, should be subsidized by the government. Let npr sink or swim on it's own merrits.

You're so blinded by your media choices you haven't noticed the corporate welfare provided to Clear Channel et al.

PS: You're flat wrong about Rush's distribution system...but as little as you know about broadcasting I'm not surprised.



:)

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy


Armed Forces Radio did not carry The Rush Limbaugh Show until so many soldiers demanded it and they had to. Also, The Rush Limbaugh Show is only broadcast one hour a day(the first hour of his show) on the Armed Forces Radio Network. npr is broadcast more than 20 hours a day. Despite this, Rush's daily audience for his one hour a day is almost as large as the audience for 20 hours of npr.

Source?

I didn't think so.

:)

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
20 million listeners

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

And Allroy's a willing and open vessel.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Except they know they're wrong or they wouldn't need the constant affirmation.

:)

-wp


I don't reckon they know nothin' 'cept what Limbag an' O'Reilly tells 'em. :rolleyes:

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/

That a press release Allboy.

:rolleyes:

[christcd]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee

Some do nothing but post pictures as that is all they are capable of doing.

Originally posted by FSBO
I knew Air America would be in competition with those colon cleansing infomercials
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.06/photos/07-classday2-450.jpg

[Duck Commander]

Funny there's been barely an attempt to defend Air America and instead this has turned into a slam Rush thread.

That's the same tactic John Kerry tried and look where it got him.

:wave:

[daddysguitar]

I'd like to see more evidence that Sean Kusasan aka TheMaskedMan, aka "Cup of coffee" won't be doing anymore
copying and pasting here.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by songrytr


You're so blinded by your media choices you haven't noticed the corporate welfare provided to Clear Channel et al.


There is no corporate welfare provided to Clear Channel. There is corporate welfare provided to the sugar industry, agribusiness, the airline industry, and Amtrak. I think all corporate welfare should be eliminated.

Originally posted by songrytr

PS: You're flat wrong about Rush's distribution system...but as little as you know about broadcasting I'm not surprised.

Actually, I am exactly right about the syndication of The Rush Limbaugh Show.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by songrytr


That a press release...

It is citing the Arbitron ratings. Do you think Arbitron is lying?

[Allroy]

Originally posted by Grumpy Ol' Geezer



I don't reckon they know nothin' 'cept what Limbag an' O'Reilly tells 'em. :rolleyes:

I think O'Reilly is a moron. Are there any other stereotypes you want me to disprove?

[HCarlH]

Originally posted by sporter
Bush has probably created more liberals than Air America could ever hope to. . .:)

Heh, heh..... :D

Dubya is the best thing that's ever happened to the Democratic party.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy


It is citing the Arbitron ratings. Do you think Arbitron is lying?

What don't you understand about marketing.

Go read it again and tell us what it says about real numbers.

PS: You don't know squat about syndication or Clear Channel, apparently.

:D Another pawn of the Ailes media trying to pass himself off as "knowledgable" and "well-rounded." What a fucking hoot.

:freak:

[Counterpoint]

202 posts and counting!

:D


:thu:

[Kramerguy]

Originally posted by splatbass
It is clear from this thread that the only people who give a shit about AA are the right-wing nuts. Liberals don't give a shit, for the reasons I said earlier. They don't need to be spoonfed information that fits their worldview, and they don't need constant reassurance that their views are right. It is the right wing that needs those things, which is why right wing radio does so well.

I don't give a shit if AA fails, and I doubt if very many others do either. If it was important to liberals they would be listening to it.

You guys have had your right wing circle jerk, now it is time to come back to reality. No one cares. No one but you cares about AA. No one really gives a shit what you think about AA, or anything else.

+1
You said it man :thu:

Funny to see how many people feel generally threatened by AA and have to 'dance in the streets' when one bad thing happens to them.

[splatbass]

Originally posted by progguitar




Gotta have a label to put on people. Hell of a lot easier to label someone and stick them in a convenient pigeon hole than to take them one at a time.



"Dittohead" is a label that Rush fans gave themselves. That was in my post. Try to keep up.

[Grumpy Ol' Geezer]

Originally posted by Allroy


I think O'Reilly is a moron. Are there any other stereotypes you want me to disprove?


Sure thang, hoddy! :wave:

There's this real ugly stereotype makin' the rounds. An' it's causin' all these bold-talkin' war cheerleaders to appear a mite hypocritical. Goes somethin' like this: dang near all the high level fellas callin' the shots on this "war on terror" is a bunch o' chickenhawks. Not only that, but dang near all their mouthpieces on AM radio an' Fox news is, too.

It's a long dang list. Too long fer me to post it. But it could include about everbody in Dumya an' Dick's inner circle, 'long with Limbag, O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, Michael Reagan, Glen Beck, and most anybody else ya'd care to mention who's real big on armchair general talk, but real short on infantryman walk.

I'm hopin' ya got some sorta info the public ain't had access to that'll dispell this here notion. :)


http://www.jeffzed.org/weblog/archives/chickenhawks.jpg

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/chickenhawk_headquarters/

[JazzFan]

Reports of the demise of Air America have been greatly exaggerated. I listen to Al Franken and enjoy his show. Some of the other hosts I'm not too crazy about. I also listen to Ed Schultz, who technically is not part of Air America, but in Chicago his show airs on the AA affiliate. I think that the rightwingers would like to believe that Air America is going away, but so far they're still here.

[EdMan57]

Originally posted by Allroy


Your words betray your ignorance. The Rush Limbaugh Show has a policy of putting leftists callers at the front of the line. Another thing, Rush's show made money so he didn't need George Soros to subsidize it. Finally, npr had a huge head start on Rush and he managed to achieve a larger audience in a small amount of time.

The few callers that I have heard are weak,often sound confused and without a good argument to stand on.The program is obviously set up to put weak and ineffective callers on to help prop up Rush.Unless one is a polished and a well informed speaker,someone like Rush will eat them alive in a debate...but you already know that.

Maybe the same is true of the lefties,but Big Ed Shultz says that he doesn't screen any calls.I've actually heard many righty callers on his show make some solid points and many are quite knowledgable.Face it,the right wing spin machine does not care to hear any argument from the left...and I'm not quite sure of what they are afraid.

NPR and Rush are apples to oranges.One is news,information and some entertainment.Rush is supposedly entertainment with a righty spin.Air America to Rush is a much more honest and fair comparison.Again I ask,why the fear of a two-sided debate?

Remember that a democracy works best with more than one political party.

Ed

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by Allroy


Your words betray your ignorance. The Rush Limbaugh Show has a policy of putting leftists callers at the front of the line. Another thing, Rush's show made money so he didn't need George Soros to subsidize it. Finally, npr had a huge head start on Rush and he managed to achieve a larger audience in a small amount of time.

This is absolutely correct. And Duck Commander's dismantling of Wes Powells cherry picked partisan garbage is proof as well that AA is on the way down the tube. Arbitron is the industry standard for radio ratings.

Libs seem to insist on ducking the issue. The issue is that AA, Franken, Garafalo, and all the other nutbags affiliated with AA launched that company with the goal of wiping out Limbaugh and conservative daytime talk. AA has succeeded at neither day or nighttime programming and has only remained afloat due to private (Soros) support.

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by Duck Commander
Funny there's been barely an attempt to defend Air America and instead this has turned into a slam Rush thread.

That's the same tactic John Kerry tried and look where it got him.

:wave:




Massive vote fraud that swung a national election?

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


This is absolutely correct. And Duck Commander's dismantling of Wes Powells cherry picked partisan garbage is proof as well that AA is on the way down the tube. Arbitron is the industry standard for radio ratings.

Libs seem to insist on ducking the issue. The issue is that AA, Franken, Garafalo, and all the other nutbags affiliated with AA launched that company with the goal of wiping out Limbaugh and conservative daytime talk. AA has succeeded at neither day or nighttime programming and has only remained afloat due to private (Soros) support.

Their other goal was to win elections for Dems. We've seen how successful that's been. If the Dems don't win this year or in 2008 Air America's history. If not sooner. That's my prediction.

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks





Massive vote fraud that swung a national election?

Still singing that old song?

Hey Al gore really won Florida in 2000.

:eek:

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee
The issue is that AA, Franken, Garafalo, and all the other nutbags affiliated with AA launched that company with the goal of wiping out Limbaugh and conservative daytime talk.

Sorry, but you and DC are - again - completely off the mark in your assessment of the AA intent.

But then, you've repeated the exact reasons you're told to believe - verbatim.

There you both sit...grown men believing lies because they're packaged for your disappointed and dissatisfied little demographic.

:D

[Tom Hicks]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


Still singing that old song?

Hey Al gore really won Florida in 2000.

:eek:

And Kerry won in 2004. And the lefty guy in Mexico was also defrauded. Just look at the massive mexican crowds seeming to be fermenting a popular revolution there to resist the fraud. THe days of pulling off that shit on a big scale are rapidly coming to an end. For the midterms, which are really a whole series of local elections, the chances of fraud in any one carefully selected vital spot like Florida or Ohio affecting the overall outcome is much less likely. Won't you join me in calling for election reform to assure vote fraud in this country is eliminated? Paper trails so that disputed results can be checked seems reasonable, right?

[Allroy]

Originally posted by EdMan57

The program is obviously set up to put weak and ineffective callers on to help prop up Rush.Unless one is a polished and a well informed speaker,someone like Rush will eat them alive in a debate...but you already know that.
Ed

This is only supposition and so it is meaningless. You can't prove it one way or the other. Rush has stated what his policy is. If you choose not to believe him that is fine, it is your prerogative. From my experience, listening to the show, I choose to believe him. The few times I have heard leftist callers who weren't hateful, insulting, or childish, Rush has had long talks with them. In fact, there is a self-admitted socialist from NY that calls in on occasion. The man, who doesn't act like people on this message board, has a debate with Rush and doesn't spend his call making cracks about Rush's previous weight problem.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
From my experience, listening to the show, I choose to believe him.

What a fool believes....

:)

[alcohol]

Rush has guests that agree with him but doesn't have guests that disagree with him. Why is that? I venture because Rush can't stand up to a well informed professional debater.

I've listened to Rush have arguments and make factual claims that were wrong and threads of logic that were tenuous. I expected to hear him allow the caller to respond. Those responses never occur when the caller is equal or better than Rush at arguing. Rush never lets the caller have the last word, ever. In practice, Rush will shut off the caller and characterize the caller in a demeaning manner and not allow the caller to defend himself.

This isn't merely my opinion. A lot of people have observed these things about his show. Here's one caller describing in detail his experience with Rush:

Chicken Hawk Rush BUSTED!...

Rush Limbaugh is just the sort of demagogue who will say any slight, no matter how baseless, hypocritical or absurd. This is what makes him famous and has dittoheads drooling venom from their mouths. John Kerry served honorable in Viet Nam. Rush dodged the draft because of a boil on his ass. Still, Rush has been floating trial balloons seeking to insult John Kerry's service in Viet Nam. This is the epitome of disgraceful behavior. A measure of justice was exacted by a caller names, "Greg".



A plucky Salon reader -- let's just call him "Greg from Orlando" since that's how his friends over at the EIB network know him -- sent a fascinating memo Wednesday about the methods he has used to bring a bit of balance to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. This is his version of their most recent encounter:

"Scored a direct hit on the Hot Air Hindenburg today, making the kind of call to Rush Limbaugh halfway through his show that [made] him a stuttering fool and [had] all of the callers who followed trying to repair the damage. His show started with the usual relentless demonizing of liberals, this time John Kerry from Massachusetts, a Vietnam War hero whom Rush was mocking as 'Lurch,' using the Addams' Family theme song. But when he tried to twist Kerry's words [from] Sunday on Meet the Press -- about how 'Sometimes in war a leader looks behind him and the troops aren't there,' as somehow showing [Kerry] as incompetent or a failure -- I'd had enough.

"I jogged to the nearest phone and dialed a dozen times till I got through, then told his call screener that I'd like to make the case that Kerry isn't going to be painted as a garden-variety liberal as easily as they think, given his war-hero status and foreign policy credentials. Guess I sold the screener, because I was put through onto the air within seconds...

"I told Rush the same thing on the air and then asked him if he'd seen the New Yorker piece on Kerry. [A penetrating, thoughtful profile by Joe Klein that I ought to have mentioned last week.]

"Slowly and deliberately I told the story about how in response to the Vietnam War, John Kerry had gone down to the recruiting office to sign up to fight along with his two best friends, John J. Pershing III and Fred Smith, the founder of Federal Express. When Rush tried to bring up the smear about him not having his troops behind him, I explained that Kerry had been referring to how he won his Silver Star rescuing crew members of his fast-boat who had fallen overboard, and been wounded even while fending off a Vietcong machine gun nest.

"I then asked Rush how Bush might respond if, in the debates, Kerry asked him where he had been when he didn't show up for his plum [National Guard] assignment for a year. Or for that matter, how [Rush] could disparage a war hero when he himself had dodged the Vietnam Draft by claiming to have a boil on his butt.

"He tried to lie [his way] out of this but I explained that his 4-F form listing a 'pilonidal cyst' was printed in books for all to see [i.e., "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, in Chapter 2: Beating the Draft]. At that point, I was cut off the air and as Rush stuttered and stumbled around like I have never heard him before, his screener came back online and told me, 'You're out of here, buddy -- we've got you pegged and you'll never call again.

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/rushbusted1.htm

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by Tom Hicks


And Kerry won in 2004. ...................

OMG! :D :D :D LOL!

Seattle won the Super Bowl too, right?:D :freak:

There has not been one shred of evidence top support those liberal moonbat conspiracy theories.

Read my sig, then continue your 2-term tantrum.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Duck Commander
<edited for content not attempting to distract from the question posed>Still nothing.

:(

Maybe if I re-phrase the question again.

:)

Why are you so afraid of the truth finally arriving on commercial radio?

:)

-wp

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol
Rush has guests that agree with him but doesn't have guests that disagree with him. Why is that? I venture because Rush can't stand up to a well informed professional debater.

I've listened to Rush have arguments and make factual claims that were wrong and threads of logic that were tenuous. I expected to hear him allow the caller to respond. Those responses never occur when the caller is equal or better than Rush at arguing. Rush never lets the caller have the last word, ever. In practice, Rush will shut off the caller and characterize the caller in a demeaning manner and not allow the caller to defend himself.

This isn't merely my opinion. A lot of people have observed these things about his show. Here's one caller describing in detail his experience with Rush:



http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/rushbusted1.htm

I Listen to Rush's show every day and I don't remember this call. I notice that the person making this claim does not provide a mp3 of the call. He also does not provide a date. Try and provide a real source. In fact, Rush has made this easy for you. His whole show is archived on his website. Why don’t you find this supposed call and provide a transcript?

EDIT: I looked around on the website you provided as a "source". I think it is a parody site that is attempting to make fun of Rush.

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


Read my sig...I did. Oh, the irony.

:)

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/9/d/bush_propaganda_catapult.jpg

:)

-wp

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


OMG! :D :D :D LOL!

Seattle won the Super Bowl too, right?:D :freak:

There has not been one shred of evidence top support those liberal moonbat conspiracy theories.

Read my sig, then continue your 2-term tantrum.

Not a shred of evidence? Are you blind? Are you deaf? There's lots of evidence. Not mere shreds but mountains. You must be an ostrich, not a Cup o Coffee. Oh yeah, you're the same guy who argues that liberals want to secede when there's not a shred of evidence to back that up. An argument that is especially stupid, because the odds are in Dems favor to take back the White House and win more seats in Congress.

Was the 2003 Election Stolen? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by alcohol


Not a shred of evidence? Are you blind? Are you deaf? There's lots of evidence. Not mere shreds but mountains. You must be an ostrich, not a Cup o Coffee. Oh yeah, you're the same guy who argues that liberals want to secede when there's not a shred of evidence to back that up. An argument that is especially stupid, because the odds are in Dems favor to take back the White House and win more seats in Congress.

Was the 2003 Election Stolen? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html

You sited Rolling Stoner Magazine and some other Liberal whackjob Anti-Bush page.:freak: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why hasn't the President of anyone else for that matter been hung out to dry yet?:D

[Wes_Powell]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee

Why hasn't the President of anyone else for that matter been hung out to dry yet?:D Complicit congress and redneck electorate.

:)

-wp

[DTox]

If Air America is, in fact, faltering, right wing authoritarians would have something to gloat over. The reality is that AA keeps going and expanding even as the RWAs insist that it must be on its last legs. I think they're just frightened of having another voice; one that differs from the Limblob/O'Reilly/Hannity party line.

They're frightened, plain and simple. :D

[clamdip7714]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell
Complicit congress and redneck electorate.

:)

-wp

Who and what is the president of anyone else? :confused: :freak: :D

[progguitar]

Originally posted by splatbass


"Dittohead" is a label that Rush fans gave themselves. That was in my post. Try to keep up.


ease up junior.

why so defensive?

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Cup 'o Coffee


You sited Rolling Stoner Magazine and some other Liberal whackjob Anti-Bush page.:freak: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why hasn't the President of anyone else for that matter been hung out to dry yet?:D

there's a lot to dispute. After you add up all the factors maybe Bush did win. I'm pointing out that your claim that there isn't a "shred of evidence" is blatantly wrong. There is evidence that Republicans played dirty tricks for the last election and that maybe it could have cost the election for Kerry.

Also, when impeachment is essentially a political process, not an impartial process, it would be reasonable to expect the party in power not to impeach their party leader for political reasons. Bringing up the question about why Bush hasn't been hung out to dry does not in any way refute the allegations of election fraud in 2004.

Rolling Stone might be a liberal magazine, but its bias doesn't refute the veracity of it's claims any more than Rush Limbaugh, being a biased lying asshole, means that every word that comes forth from his voice is a lie. You refute claims based on evidence and logic, not on the bias of the source.

Despite having a liberal bias many liberal critics were right in pointing out that the President's arguments, that there were WMD in Iraq, were erroneous. Bias is not the basis of truth. Arguing facts on the basis of bias is stupid.

[splatbass]

Originally posted by progguitar



ease up junior.

why so defensive?

Junior? I'm probably older than you.

[progguitar]

Originally posted by splatbass


Junior? I'm probably older than you.

Maybe. Maybe not.

[SpeedBallBlues]

Despite having a liberal bias many liberal critics were right in pointing out that the President's arguments, that there were WMD in Iraq, were erroneous. Bias is not the basis of truth. Arguing facts on the basis of bias is stupid. The "Liberal" sources have been right FAR more often that the bush administration on nearly every issue that's come along. These are grass roots investigators, professionals and academics that said 911 was coming soon (bush did nothing), that there were NO WMD's and that the 2000 election was rigged and then we let it happen again with a probability of over a billion to one that Ohio was fixed.

So who should we be listening to for our next bet, the grossly incompetent bush admin, or the outsiders, the citizens like you and me, who have been screaming FIRE since day one?

[Counterpoint]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues
The "Liberal" sources have been right FAR more often that the bush administration on nearly every issue that's come along. These are grass roots investigators, professionals and academics that said 911 was coming soon (bush did nothing), that there were NO WMD's and that the 2000 election was rigged and then we let it happen again with a probability of over a billion to one that Ohio was fixed.

So who should we be listening to for our next bet, the grossly incompetent bush admin, or the outsiders, the citizens like you and me, who have been screaming FIRE since day one?

Liberals deal in empirical facts. If you want facts and truth, trust a liberal. If you want wishful thinking and pie-in-the-sky propaganda, trust a Neocon.

[Wes_Powell]

My friend DC has disappeared.

:cry:

-wp

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
There is no corporate welfare provided to Clear Channel.

Why Allroy is full of shit... (http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255675)

:wave: Do you think he'll pull his tongue out of Rush's ass long enough to read it?

[Allroy]

Originally posted by songrytr


Why Allroy is full of shit... (http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255675)

:wave: Do you think he'll pull his tongue out of Rush's ass long enough to read it?

I read the article and it said nothing of corporate welfare. The article is about further deregulating the radio ownership rules.

Why do you need to be so fowl? Can you argue a subject without swearing and trying(like a petulant child) to insult people?

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy


I read the article and it said nothing of corporate welfare. The article is about further deregulating the radio ownership rules.

There's a difference?

Apparently not for someone who suckles at the teat of the Ailes media.

;)

[SpeedBallBlues]

OK, so exactly when is AA supposed to go under this time???:rolleyes:

[Cup 'o Coffee]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues
OK, so exactly when is AA supposed to go under this time???:rolleyes:

It won't be long. When your flagship station has to broadcast from the back of a Dodge Polara and the Host needs to scream into a Radio Shack bullhorn to be heard, its usually an indication that the end is near.:p :wave:

[SpeedBallBlues]

It won't be long. When your flagship station has to broadcast from the back of a Dodge Polara and the Host needs to scream into a Radio Shack bullhorn to be heard, its usually an indication that the end is near. Yeah but why should I believe it this time? every other time it was bullcrap.

[astring]

They have a grassroots spirit that is something most conservatives can not understand. It really scares them and they WISH it would go away. But no way, these guys (and gals) have a can do spirit!!!!

[Allroy]

Originally posted by songrytr


There's a difference?

Apparently not for someone who suckles at the teat of the Ailes media.

;)

Are you serious? How is getting the government out of radio(deregulation) similar to corporate welfare? Welfare is a wealth transfer from one person to another. Corporate welfare is the transfer of money from individual taxpayers to a corporation. An example of corporate welfare is the farm subsidies. Large agricultural businesses and small farmers receive money from the government so that they will not grow crops. It is intended to keep prices higher, by reducing supply, than they would be in an unregulated market. Another example is Amtrak. Amtrak is subsidized by the federal government. Deregulation is simply the act of taking authority to regulate an industry away from the government.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy


Are you serious? How is getting the government out of radio(deregulation) similar to corporate welfare? Welfare is a wealth transfer from one person to another. Corporate welfare is the transfer of money from individual taxpayers to a corporation. An example of corporate welfare is the farm subsidies. Large agricultural businesses and small farmers receive money from the government so that they will not grow crops. It is intended to keep prices higher, by reducing supply, than they would be in an unregulated market. Another example is Amtrak. Amtrak is subsidized by the federal government. Deregulation is simply the act of taking authority to regulate an industry away from the government.

Deregulation hurts the taxpayer as well.

Your disregard for this simple fact shows you to be at once deluded and loyal to what you're fed by your preferred media choices.

Say hello to Limbaugh's colon for us...

:)

[Allroy]

Originally posted by songrytr


Deregulation hurts the taxpayer as well.

Your disregard for this simple fact shows you to be at once deluded and loyal to what you're fed by your preferred media choices.

Say hello to Limbaugh's colon for us...

:)

Actually, deregulation helps everyone(except government busy bodies). AM radio was almost dead until it was deregulated and the speech limitation known as the "fairness doctrine" was removed. Now AM radio is extremely popular(people are getting a product that they want). Look at how popular internet shopping is. It is popular because there aren't all of the stupid regulations and taxes that states impose on people. I purchase everything I can on the internet to avoid paying taxes. When industries are deregulated, people get a greater variety of products at a lower cost. A great example is UPS vs. the United States Post Office. One is a competitive business accountable to its customers while the other is a government monopoly with some of the lowest customer satisfaction.

[Duck Commander]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues
OK, so exactly when is AA supposed to go under this time???:rolleyes:

If the Dems don't win this election or in 2008 Air America will fold shortly after is my prediction. Maybe sooner.

[astring]

Originally posted by Duck Commander


If the Dems don't win this election or in 2008 Air America will fold shortly after is my prediction. Maybe sooner. Republicans do not understand grassroots all they know is corperate BS

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


Actually, deregulation helps everyone(except government busy bodies). AM radio was almost dead until it was deregulated and the speech limitation known as the "fairness doctrine" was removed............

When industries are deregulated, people get a greater variety of products at a lower cost. ..................

That's not the consensus of most studies when it comes to radio. If you listen to radio today, most people agree that it's gotten worse and sucks.

Washington, D.C.: A new report analyzing the effects of deregulation in the radio industry since the 1996 Telecommunications Act confirms what many have already observed in their own experience - radio industry consolidation has resulted in less competition, more homogenous radio formats and less programming diversity.

http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/FMCReport.html

When reality clashes with ideology, maybe it's time to rethink your beliefs.

[Allroy]

Originally posted by alcohol


That's not the consensus of most studies when it comes to radio. If you listen to radio today, most people agree that it's gotten worse and sucks.



http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/FMCReport.html

When reality clashes with ideology, maybe it's time to rethink your beliefs.

What you cited was a report by a group opposed to deregulation. That has about as much credibility with me as a "report" from the Excellence In Broadcasting Network would have with you. I read what they wrote and it just doesn't comport with what I see. For example, In high school, in the early to mid 1990's, I was a skater and I loved punk rock. That music(Dinosaur Jr., ALL, the Vandals) never was played on the radio. Now there is a channel locally that plays all the music I like. Also, AM radio was virtually dead and now it is incredibly popular. We have many more choices now than we did ten years ago. I have found that the aim of groups like the one you cited and groups that push for the "fairness doctrine"(speech limitation) have one real objective which is shutting down a medium that has become popular for their political opponents.

By the way, I checked out the band that you link to, and they are really good.

[alcohol]

Originally posted by Allroy


What you cited was a report by a group opposed to deregulation. That has about as much credibility with me as a "report" from the Excellence In Broadcasting Network would have with you. I read what they wrote and it just doesn't comport with what I see. For example, In high school, in the early to mid 1990's, I was a skater and I loved punk rock. That music(Dinosaur Jr., ALL, the Vandals) never was played on the radio. Now there is a channel locally that plays all the music I like. Also, AM radio was virtually dead and now it is incredibly popular. We have many more choices now than we did ten years ago. I have found that the aim of groups like the one you cited and groups that push for the "fairness doctrine"(speech limitation) have one real objective which is shutting down a medium that has become popular for their political opponents.

By the way, I checked out the band that you link to, and they are really good.

The trouble with you Allroy is you assert your subjectivity like it had some rhetorical worth. Maybe to your little sister it does, but to me it doesn't. If you have sources that contradict the information I've provided I would respect your argument, otherwise, I think you haven't learned the difference between opinion and fact and that's a failure you should learn to correct for your own sake.

For a detailed analysis of how deregulation has reduced diversity and choices, you could go to the site linked below. They present their analysis, a criticism by the National Association of Broadcasters, and a response to that criticism. There are particulars we could discuss, but throwing up the argument that the presentation of fact can be dismissed because the presenter has a bias is lame. You refute nothing. Pointing out bias doesn't refute a fact. I have a liberal bias, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration's handling of the federal budget has resulted in the the largest US deficits in history. The analogy is appropriate. The bias of the organization making the point doesn't negate the fact that there is less diversity in radio broadcasting as a result of deregulation.

Radio Deregulation, has it served musicians and citizen's? (http://www.futureofmusic.org/research/nabresponse.cfm)

By the way, I checked out the band that you link to, and they are really good.

Thanks, that's my son's band and we recorded the EP in my basement studio.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Allroy
For example, In high school, in the early to mid 1990's, I was a skater and I loved punk rock. That music(Dinosaur Jr., ALL, the Vandals) never was played on the radio. Now there is a channel locally that plays all the music I like.

And you think that's due to regulaton??

PS: You're far too young to have a perspective on the Fairness Doctrine - other than what your preferred media choices tell you.