bubba and howard
John TIbbs
"bob" <than...@coldmail.nu> wrote in message
news:kj0t30lv1e9nfc5jn...@4ax.com...
> Clear Channel nuked Bubba the Love Sponge this week and they suspended
> Howard Stern for the immediate future. I'm back to NPR but ... this
> really sucks. I admit that I've turned the volume down while listening
> to both Todd Clem and Howard Stern because their subject matter wasn't
> of interest (some things are better left unsaid) to me but .... I
> turned the volume down and then turned it back up when I figured the
> segment was over.
>
> The whole thing is a freaking election year crusade.
>
> It's all horseshit.
>
> So, what does Rush (Mr. Oxycontin) fan have to say about 1st amendment
> violation?
I heard him today praising CC radio but pleading for the Gov't to not
censor. So did Sean Hannity.
The company has the right to cancel shows it does not approve of. No
violation of the first anywhere here.
jt
Will the Drill
"John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Kmw%b.21920$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
:
: "bob" <than...@coldmail.nu> wrote in message
It's been reported John Kerry would like to bring back the "Fairness
Doctrine"
That would shut down talk radio pretty much.
That's censorship to a degree.
John Gilmer
>
>
> It's been reported John Kerry would like to bring back the "Fairness
> Doctrine"
> That would shut down talk radio pretty much.
Actually, it might well lead to the complete political destruction of modern
liberalism. Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
following by a hour of NPR type tree hugging nonsense. It would be "fun to
watch."
> That's censorship to a degree.
Hey: Scratch a liberal and you find a FASCIST!
>
>
Fletch F. Fletch
news:Kmw%b.21920$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
Yeah, right. The government is just an innocent bystander. Oh look what
Clear Channel did. How nice. I wonder why they did it.
Even Rush is worried about this.
Slainte,
Fletch
Rob Duncan
"bob"
> So, what does Rush (Mr. Oxycontin) fan have to say about 1st amendment
> violation?
What violation? The 1st Amendment applies to gov agencies, not private
enterprise.
Rob
Phil "Fair & Balanced" MacRackin
Yes and no. Broadcast media use the public airwaves, they are licensed,
not owned by the broadcast companies.
jonah thomas
> Rob Duncan wrote:
>>"bob"
>>>So, what does Rush (Mr. Oxycontin) fan have to say about 1st amendment
>>>violation?
>>What violation? The 1st Amendment applies to gov agencies, not private
>>enterprise.
> Yes and no. Broadcast media use the public airwaves, they are licensed,
> not owned by the broadcast companies.
We should probably withdraw all the commercial radio licenses.
Replace them with something like a cellphone system. Those
wavelengths are too valuable to waste on giant radio stations
broadcasting advertising.
John TIbbs
"Will the Drill" <drill...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:TImdnTkwDY5...@adelphia.com...
The left has been scratching sores for as long as I can remember to silence
anything that may make sense on the media. If censorship of any kind is
allowed, they will be the ones screaming that they should pick who and what
to censor. All of us conservatives believe the media companies should be
the monitors and set the standards of decency for all media.
jt
>
>
John TIbbs
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mA%b.10429$ax2....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
As am I.
jt
John TIbbs
"Phil "Fair & Balanced" MacRackin" <p...@plumberpants.com> wrote in message
news:403F4BF3...@plumberpants.com...
Yes, and I remember how a Jackson MS station lost it's license in the late
sixties for televising 'mainstream' reporters inciting the blacks in MS to
antagonize the cops to the point of breaking the cops' restraint so they
could have a 'picture' of police abuse to show the nation.
jt
jonah thomas
> The left has been scratching sores for as long as I can remember to silence
> anything that may make sense on the media. If censorship of any kind is
> allowed, they will be the ones screaming that they should pick who and what
> to censor. All of us conservatives believe the media companies should be
> the monitors and set the standards of decency for all media.
Of course. If the media companies were liberal then positions of the
left and right would be reversed.
"Where you stand depends on where you sit."
Fletch F. Fletch
news:taqdnbnZeeG...@gbronline.com...
That's a humorous take on things. Let's all pretend the govt is applying no
pressure.
Slainte,
Fletch
Steve Murgaski
> The left has been scratching sores for as long as I can remember to
silence
> anything that may make sense on the media. If censorship of any kind is
> allowed, they will be the ones screaming that they should pick who and
what
> to censor. All of us conservatives believe the media companies should be
> the monitors and set the standards of decency for all media.
"Decency." *tehe* It's okay: just come out and say what you really think.
It's not so terrible, in its way.
Isn't it that `Objectivity' shouldn't be pursued, as a primary goal of
reporting. What's really important is maintaining order, against the chaos
of special interest groups, trying to overwhelm everyone with their various
agendas. In the end, order is better than chaos, even if that order has
some imperfections.
A big media conglomerate has a lot vested in the current status quo. They
have power and wealth, which means they can be trusted, more or less, to
work at maintaining things as they are. It's only if they become
dissatisfied, for some reason, that they might betray conservatives as a
whole and start yammering for some sort of change. After 9/11, for
instance, The New York Times often seemed to forget which side their bread
was buttered on. There was the president trying to declare "War without
end," which sounds like a lot of fun, and a great chance for investors to
make a pile of cash, but the Times was complaining that people in NY weren't
getting unemployment benefits. That shouldn't have happened.
bnichols
Well, now, *there's* a "long jump" you won't see in the Olympics. <g>
The man's name's not even on the ballot for the election yet & just
based on rumor you've already got him violating the Constitution! <lol>
Bill
John Gilmer
> We should probably withdraw all the commercial radio licenses.
> Replace them with something like a cellphone system. Those
> wavelengths are too valuable to waste on giant radio stations
> broadcasting advertising.
What you propose would have been the equivalent of banning mass circulation
newpapers one hundred years ago.
Equivalent in that the newspapers were the means by which everyone had the
same story at the same time.
Profitable newspapers then (and profitable broadcasting operations today)
have to at least "give a nod" to those who opinions they dislike.
It "might be nice" to lease the airwaves for limited periods to the highest
bidder but to eliminate broadcasting is just anti-democratic.
BTW: the anti-billboard laws have the same effect. A billboard can be
read and will be noticed by those you want to receive your message AND those
you don't. With broadcasting, liberals can listen to Rush and
conservations can watch ABC news.
jonah thomas
>>We should probably withdraw all the commercial radio licenses.
>>Replace them with something like a cellphone system. Those
>>wavelengths are too valuable to waste on giant radio stations
>>broadcasting advertising.
> What you propose would have been the equivalent of banning mass circulation
> newpapers one hundred years ago.
Not at all. But if one hundred years ago we had the custom of putting
news banners across rivers and harbor entrances which blocked
shipping, then it would be equivalent to banning those.
> Equivalent in that the newspapers were the means by which everyone had the
> same story at the same time.
Everybody who wants the same story at the same time can get it on
their cell phone. We could get radios that work like cell phones, and
we'd waste a hundredth of the bandwidth. (Or use the same bandwidth
for a hundred times as many stations, whichever we prefer.)
> Profitable newspapers then (and profitable broadcasting operations today)
> have to at least "give a nod" to those who opinions they dislike.
If you get to choose from 300 news organizations to listen to with
just a little trickle of broadcast, then you aren't restricted to
broadcasters 'giving a nod' to your interests.
> It "might be nice" to lease the airwaves for limited periods to the highest
> bidder but to eliminate broadcasting is just anti-democratic.
Using that bandwidth for this trivial purpose is not democratic or
anti-democratic, it's simply ridiculous. There is no excuse to waste
that bandwidth this way. We can get equivalent results using far less
power and far less pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum. As it
is we have a strict limit on the number of powerful AM and FM stations
that get to propagandise each urban area, and that limit creates an
artificial scarcity. It would be far better use of those frequencies
to instead lease them for industrial use, at lower powers.
> BTW: the anti-billboard laws have the same effect. A billboard can be
> read and will be noticed by those you want to receive your message AND those
> you don't. With broadcasting, liberals can listen to Rush and
> conservations can watch ABC news.
There's nothing wrong with getting more choices while using up less
bandwidth. Traditional radio stations are dinosaurs and will go
extinct as soon as they lose enough of their political clout.
Phil "Fair & Balanced" MacRackin
Not that govt pressure on the broadcast media is inappropriate. The
airwaves belong the public, not the broadcast companies.
Slainte-bha
phil
John TIbbs
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:403f9035$0$51...@dingus.crosslink.net...
Just as today, I can choose NOT to watch any program I find boring(PBS) or
offensive (HBO,Starz,etc) or anti-Christian("Last Temptation..etc) So can
everyone else.
My suggestion is when a show offends you, turn it off, remember the sponsors
and don't buy their products. Money talks most when it's silent in some
cases.
jt
>
>
steve horan
> >
> >
> > It's been reported John Kerry would like to bring back the "Fairness
> > Doctrine"
> > That would shut down talk radio pretty much.
>
> Actually, it might well lead to the complete political destruction of modern
> liberalism. Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
> following by a hour of NPR type tree hugging nonsense. It would be "fun to
> watch."
Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
radio, is far more rational.
>
> > That's censorship to a degree.
>
> Hey: Scratch a liberal and you find a FASCIST!
How is enforcing a presentation of diverse opinions
fascistic? Right-wingers who cannot tolerate dissenting
opinions, as they can't, are more fascistic. I think
it would be great if they'd bring back the fairness
doctrine as then the public would be better informed.
Stuff like MSNBC, Fox News and Talk Radio are little
more than propoganda organs.
Jim Alder
news:kj0t30lv1e9nfc5jn...@4ax.com:
> Clear Channel nuked Bubba the Love Sponge this week and they
> suspended Howard Stern for the immediate future. I'm back to
> NPR but ... this really sucks. I admit that I've turned the
> volume down while listening to both Todd Clem and Howard Stern
> because their subject matter wasn't of interest (some things
> are better left unsaid) to me but .... I turned the volume
> down and then turned it back up when I figured the segment was
> over.
>
> The whole thing is a freaking election year crusade.
>
> It's all horseshit.
>
> So, what does Rush (Mr. Oxycontin) fan have to say about 1st
> amendment violation?
The first amendment forbids the government from censoring
anyone. It doesn't say that everyone has to put up with anything
anyone wants to say.
--
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
Fletch F. Fletch
news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
Left, right, liberal, conservative, whatever. The Fairness Doctrine is a
bad deal. It discourages what it seeks to encourage. Even the name is
chilling.
Slainte,
Fletch
Fletch F. Fletch
The pressure may be appropriate or inappropriate. Personally, I feel a
strange wind blowing, and I don't like it.
Slainte,
Fletch
John Gilmer
>
> Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> radio, is far more rational.
If you say so.
John Gilmer
>
> > What you propose would have been the equivalent of banning mass
circulation
> > newpapers one hundred years ago.
>
> Not at all. But if one hundred years ago we had the custom of putting
> news banners across rivers and harbor entrances which blocked
> shipping, then it would be equivalent to banning those.
To compare commercial broadcasting (with the partial exception of the
relatively unused UHF bands) with blocking a river with a banner puts you
100% in the ranks of the very silly.
>
> > Equivalent in that the newspapers were the means by which everyone had
the
> > same story at the same time.
>
> Everybody who wants the same story at the same time can get it on
> their cell phone. We could get radios that work like cell phones, and
> we'd waste a hundredth of the bandwidth. (Or use the same bandwidth
> for a hundred times as many stations, whichever we prefer.)
As expected of silly people, you miss the point: what you propose would end
up with most folks only paying the messages with which they already agree.
That's not the way to generate democratic consensus.
John Gilmer
> Everyone is worried. I listen to a Tampa/Orlando Clear Channel show on
> the way home from work every day. It's called "The Fiasco". Tonight
> they apologized to listeners several times during the show. However,
> they didn't change their subject matter *all* that much. They are on
> the current (ant that's a changing thing folks) edge. They rarely go
> over the edge but who knows where the line will be next quarter.
>
> All in favor of Ozzie and Harriet reruns dominating prime time say
> aye.
Frankly, I would prefer a situation where I don't have to change the channel
when a child enters the room.
I understand that there are some successful cable/sat channels (I only get
on the air broadcasts) that are doing quite well.
IOW: Ozzie and Harriet have "legs."
Rob Duncan
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> bob
> - it's all about interpretations
What have you been babbling on about? You yip and yap, this and that...
pointlessly. This isnt a 1st Amendment issue. This was a business
decision. Stifle already. jeesh.
Rob
jonah thomas
>>>What you propose would have been the equivalent of banning mass
>>>circulation newpapers one hundred years ago.
>>Not at all. But if one hundred years ago we had the custom of putting
>>news banners across rivers and harbor entrances which blocked
>>shipping, then it would be equivalent to banning those.
> To compare commercial broadcasting (with the partial exception of the
> relatively unused UHF bands) with blocking a river with a banner puts you
> 100% in the ranks of the very silly.
You made an extremely silly comparison, and I made one that looked
superficially sillier.
>>>Equivalent in that the newspapers were the means by which everyone had
>>>the same story at the same time.
>>Everybody who wants the same story at the same time can get it on
>>their cell phone. We could get radios that work like cell phones, and
>>we'd waste a hundredth of the bandwidth. (Or use the same bandwidth
>>for a hundred times as many stations, whichever we prefer.)
> As expected of silly people, you miss the point: what you propose would end
> up with most folks only paying the messages with which they already agree.
> That's not the way to generate democratic consensus.
Already most folks only listen to the messages they agree with. And
advertisers tend to pay only for the messages *they* already agree
with. If advertisers want to pay for cellphone bandwidth they could
send to you for free, supposing you were willing to listen. No
different than now except it wouldn't clutter the EM spectrum nearly
as much.
Using obsolete radio technology, we have a limited number of stations
and a limited number of viewpoints presented -- *the **majority** of
them by Clear Channel*. This is unnecessary. Use new technology and
we can get many many more stations that each cost much less money to
run. What does anybody lose by breaking this oligopoly, except the
oligopolists?
Rob Duncan
"jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
news:EvT%b.1252$xI4....@news.uswest.net...
Wrong. The costs to run a station are majorly wages and equipment. Those
costs wont change by removing peoples right-of-way to the publics airways.
Your idea isnt a good one. Radio works just fine.
Rob
jonah thomas
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>Already most folks only listen to the messages they agree with. And
>>advertisers tend to pay only for the messages *they* already agree
>>with. If advertisers want to pay for cellphone bandwidth they could
>>send to you for free, supposing you were willing to listen. No
>>different than now except it wouldn't clutter the EM spectrum nearly
>>as much.
>>Using obsolete radio technology, we have a limited number of stations
>>and a limited number of viewpoints presented -- *the **majority** of
>>them by Clear Channel*. This is unnecessary. Use new technology and
>>we can get many many more stations that each cost much less money to
>>run. What does anybody lose by breaking this oligopoly, except the
>>oligopolists?
> Wrong. The costs to run a station are majorly wages and equipment. Those
> costs wont change by removing peoples right-of-way to the publics airways.
> Your idea isnt a good one. Radio works just fine.
There is something to that. But the equipment would be far cheaper,
and the employees could be somewhat cheaper without the high-power
radio electronics guys. *And*, we could use the bandwidth that is
presently getting absorbed by high-power radio stations for something
useful. That last is a central point for me.
Plus radio would no longer be such a limiting resource. The number of
stations would be limited only by how many stations investors were
willing to pay for, and not nearly so much by available bandwidth.
Many more stations possible. Much less interference among them.
It isn't just me. It's the future. High-power commercial radio
stations are dinosaurs that should not survive and will not survive.
Rob Duncan
As long as advertisors pay, radio will always exist. Besides, people arent
into pay radio yet. They may be someday, but its a ways off. What would
the poor listen to?
Rob
>
jonah thomas
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in
>>It isn't just me. It's the future. High-power commercial radio
>>stations are dinosaurs that should not survive and will not survive.
> As long as advertisors pay, radio will always exist. Besides, people arent
> into pay radio yet. They may be someday, but its a ways off. What would
> the poor listen to?
Advertisers can pay for modern radio as easily as they pay for the
obsolete stuff.
John Gilmer
> Advertisers can pay for modern radio as easily as they pay for the
> obsolete stuff.
Well, sport, look at the "pizza pan" based sat systems.
There are ALL subscription services.
The US (as always, we seems to be blessed) was lucky in that our broadcast
system got an early, private, independent, competitive, and essentially
uncensored start. In most of the world "broadcasting" is a "service" of
the government.
>
Gay Marriage Kerry
wrote:
>"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message news:<403eaaaa$0$46...@dingus.crosslink.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> > It's been reported John Kerry would like to bring back the "Fairness
>> > Doctrine"
>> > That would shut down talk radio pretty much.
>>
>> Actually, it might well lead to the complete political destruction of modern
>> liberalism. Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
>> following by a hour of NPR type tree hugging nonsense. It would be "fun to
>> watch."
>
>Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
>NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
>radio, is far more rational.
If you can't see the liberal agenda, you're either a naive liberal, or
just naive.
>
>>
>> > That's censorship to a degree.
>>
>> Hey: Scratch a liberal and you find a FASCIST!
>
>How is enforcing a presentation of diverse opinions
>fascistic? Right-wingers who cannot tolerate dissenting
>opinions, as they can't, are more fascistic. I think
>it would be great if they'd bring back the fairness
>doctrine as then the public would be better informed.
>Stuff like MSNBC, Fox News and Talk Radio are little
>more than propoganda organs.
You left out CNN? I bet you think of in the same way you think of NPR.
ROTFLMAO
jonah thomas
>>Advertisers can pay for modern radio as easily as they pay for the
>>obsolete stuff.
> Well, sport, look at the "pizza pan" based sat systems.
> There are ALL subscription services.
So? There is no necessity for that.
> The US (as always, we seems to be blessed) was lucky in that our broadcast
> system got an early, private, independent, competitive, and essentially
> uncensored start. In most of the world "broadcasting" is a "service" of
> the government.
Now our broadcast system is no longer independent, competitive, or
uncensored. And it is not a particularly good use of the spectrum.
Time to pull the plug.
John TIbbs
necessary today.
jt
>
John TIbbs
"bob" <than...@coldmail.nu> wrote in message
news:65jv30tkua8na30tm...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:30:47 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
> <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"bob"
> >
> >> So, what does Rush (Mr. Oxycontin) fan have to say about 1st amendment
> >> violation?
> >
> >What violation? The 1st Amendment applies to gov agencies, not private
> >enterprise.
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> bob
> - it's all about interpretations
Well, I interpret that to mean that government should NOT interfere with
religious displays such as the crucifix, nativity scene, menorah, ten
commandments etc. But they do!
jt
John TIbbs
"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MiQ%b.1000$6c5...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
> news:<403eaaaa$0$46...@dingus.crosslink.net>...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's been reported John Kerry would like to bring back the
"Fairness
> > > > Doctrine"
> > > > That would shut down talk radio pretty much.
> > >
> > > Actually, it might well lead to the complete political destruction of
> modern
> > > liberalism. Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
> > > following by a hour of NPR type tree hugging nonsense. It would be
> "fun to
> > > watch."
> >
> > Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> > NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> > radio, is far more rational.
Is telling direct lies (NPR) more rational? That's about all I've heard
from the wackos on NPR.
jt
Steve Murgaski
"Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote in xmessage
news:jJSdneH6L4v...@gbronline.com...
> Wrong. The costs to run a station are majorly wages and equipment. Those
> costs wont change by removing peoples right-of-way to the publics airways.
> Your idea isnt a good one. Radio works just fine.
Already you can download winamp and choose from 5000 radio stations over the
net. (It's default is to look for 500, for some reason, but just increase
that under preferences.) Radio stations for every genre imaginable, and
many languages. You can start one yourself, if you feel like it.
There's a wireless network adapter on this computer. If I wanted to, I
could use it like a walkman.
steve horan
> news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > fascistic? Right-wingers who cannot tolerate dissenting
> > opinions, as they can't, are more fascistic. I think
> > it would be great if they'd bring back the fairness
> > doctrine as then the public would be better informed.
> > Stuff like MSNBC, Fox News and Talk Radio are little
> > more than propoganda organs.
>
> Left, right, liberal, conservative, whatever. The Fairness Doctrine is a
> bad deal.
Why?
> It discourages what it seeks to encourage.
How? Right now Talk Radio is almost 100% conservative
and it's had repercussions on the media overall.
If it weren't for the Democratic primaries we
wouldn't get any liberal advocacy at all in the
media.
> Even the name is
> chilling.
"Fairness" has a chilling ring to it? It must
be the word "doctrine". Does the expression
"the Monroe Doctrine" sound frightening? I
doubt it. Maybe it's the two words together
that you find chilling. It does sound like
an Orwellian conxtruct but I think giving
equal time to the other "side" or party is
essential to having a well-informed electorate.
What we have now is the real Orwellian "peace
through war" nightmare.
>
> Slainte,
> Fletch
I was going to start my post with "Fletch, you
ignorant slut" but I was afraid that jokey reference
might be a little dated or obscure.
steve horan
Sterling comeback :-)
steve horan
> On 27 Feb 2004 12:50:07 -0800, steveho...@yahoo.com (steve horan)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> >NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> >radio, is far more rational.
>
> If you can't see the liberal agenda, you're either a naive liberal, or
> just naive.
Care to support your argument with any factual
evidence?
>
> >
> >>
> >> > That's censorship to a degree.
> >>
> >> Hey: Scratch a liberal and you find a FASCIST!
> >
> >How is enforcing a presentation of diverse opinions
> >fascistic? Right-wingers who cannot tolerate dissenting
> >opinions, as they can't, are more fascistic. I think
> >it would be great if they'd bring back the fairness
> >doctrine as then the public would be better informed.
> >Stuff like MSNBC, Fox News and Talk Radio are little
> >more than propoganda organs.
>
> You left out CNN? I bet you think of in the same way you think of NPR.
> ROTFLMAO
You're easily amused.
steve horan
> > "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> > > radio, is far more rational.
>
> Is telling direct lies (NPR) more rational? That's about all I've heard
> from the wackos on NPR.
> jt
Examples?
John TIbbs
> "Fletch F. Fletch" <notme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<MiQ%b.1000$6c5...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> > "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > How is enforcing a presentation of diverse opinions
> > > fascistic? Right-wingers who cannot tolerate dissenting
> > > opinions, as they can't, are more fascistic. I think
> > > it would be great if they'd bring back the fairness
> > > doctrine as then the public would be better informed.
> > > Stuff like MSNBC, Fox News and Talk Radio are little
> > > more than propoganda organs.
> >
> > Left, right, liberal, conservative, whatever. The Fairness Doctrine is
a
> > bad deal.
>
> Why?
>
> > It discourages what it seeks to encourage.
>
> How? Right now Talk Radio is almost 100% conservative
> and it's had repercussions on the media overall.
> If it weren't for the Democratic primaries we
> wouldn't get any liberal advocacy at all in the
> media.
We get plenty liberal advocacy on the TV networks and CNN, however subtle
and not-so-subtle. But every time a liberal gets on the radio the audience
turns him off. Witness all the failures in that genre. People WANT to hear
conservatives speak much more than liberals and that, not bias is what
drives the programming. Stations and networks simply cannot live and thrive
if people won't listen to them.
jt
John TIbbs
NPR guys do talk softly when blaspheming all they don't like
(conservatives), John.
jt
John TIbbs
news:<e41140lnm4uommvo2...@4ax.com>...
> > On 27 Feb 2004 12:50:07 -0800, steveho...@yahoo.com (steve horan)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> > >NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> > >radio, is far more rational.
> >
> > If you can't see the liberal agenda, you're either a naive liberal, or
> > just naive.
>
> Care to support your argument with any factual
> evidence?
>
jt
John TIbbs
"steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
> "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<h020c.25685$hm4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6b178197.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> > > > NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> > > > radio, is far more rational.
> >
> > Is telling direct lies (NPR) more rational? That's about all I've heard
> > from the wackos on NPR.
> > jt
>
> Examples?
Don't have any here in front of me but I can remember how while at sea NPR,
BBC, VOA, Radio Moscow, and a few other SW networks were all we had to
listen to. The only time I listen to them any more is when I'm out of range
of private networks.
jt
Jim Warren
wrote:
>We get plenty liberal advocacy on the TV networks and CNN, however subtle
>and not-so-subtle. But every time a liberal gets on the radio the audience
>turns him off. Witness all the failures in that genre. People WANT to hear
>conservatives speak much more than liberals and that, not bias is what
>drives the programming. Stations and networks simply cannot live and thrive
>if people won't listen to them.
There is no people. Liberals and Neo-Conservatives are a minority.
Liberal and Neo-Conservative is a personality trait. Neo-Consevatives
enjoy hearing the same thing repeated over and over again. Liberals
and moderates don't. The Clinton years were a prime example. The same
allegations were repeated over and over again for eight years. The
Neo-Cons loved it the moderates and liberals tuned it out. Net result
Clinton left office with very high approval ratings. While I may enjoy
hearing negative things about Bush a couple of iterations are enough
for me.
-- Remove word virus from return address
Need new signature old one not good.
bukvich
> Using that bandwidth for this trivial purpose is not democratic or
> anti-democratic, it's simply ridiculous. There is no excuse to waste
> that bandwidth this way. We can get equivalent results using far less
> power and far less pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum. As it
> is we have a strict limit on the number of powerful AM and FM stations
> that get to propagandise each urban area, and that limit creates an
> artificial scarcity. It would be far better use of those frequencies
> to instead lease them for industrial use, at lower powers.
After dark you can hear WWL 870 AM in New Orleans (50 000 watts) from
El Paso to Chicago to Tampa. After ten p.m. they broadcast the guy who
runs the church Jimmy Swaggart used to (before he got busted
patronizing prostitutes in the lowest rent part of this prospering
metropolis).
I quickly tried to scan for the World Series last October and could
not find it. The World Series. I felt like McMurphy in the Cuckoo's
Nest.
Bukvich
David O'Bedlam
> Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
That's like imagining dehydrated water.
D.
--
"The David is just another pathetic Usenet loser." - Bill Palmer, Genius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 2004 by 'TheDavid^TM' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
David O'Bedlam
> "steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > Is telling direct lies (NPR) more rational? That's about all I've heard
> > > from the wackos on NPR.
>
> Don't have any here in front of me but I can remember how while at sea NPR,
> BBC, VOA, Radio Moscow, and a few other SW networks were all we had to
> listen to.
That's not evidence of hearing lies on radio, only of hearing radio.
> The only time I listen to them any more is when I'm out of range
> of private networks.
Can't miss the latest Janet Jackson, eh.
David O'Bedlam
> People WANT to hear conservatives speak much more than liberals
People suck, and they're stupid. So?
> and that, not bias is what drives the programming.
Political radio IS biased, one way or another. Grow up.
> Stations and networks simply cannot live and thrive if people won't
> listen to them.
If what I gave up listening to is the best they do, let 'em starve.
When will you dry up and blow away?
D.
David O'Bedlam
> While I may enjoy hearing negative things about Bush a couple of
> iterations are enough for me.
Good point. All want to hear of Bush is that he dried up and blew away.
David O'Bedlam
> >
> > Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> > NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> > radio, is far more rational.
>
> If you say so.
But he does! That makes it 110% true! Because he says so! Really!
Chortlingly,
The
David O'Bedlam
> >> Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> >> NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> >> radio, is far more rational.
> >
> >If you say so.
> >
>
> Are you going to respond in the same manner?
Let me know if that works.
Personally, I'm as put off by "liberal" as by "conservative" propaganda.
I don't even pay attention to the far-left or far-right wackos anymore;
they're just not as funny as they used to be, or maybe I'm not.
I like it when absolute total strangers I've never heard of SEND ME MONEY.
Paypallably,
thed...@shell.rawbw.com <= verified!
David O'Bedlam
> > > Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> > > NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> > > radio, is far more rational.
> >
> > If you say so.
>
> Sterling comeback :-)
Nah, "german silver."
D.
David O'Bedlam
> NPR guys do talk softly when blaspheming all they don't like
> (conservatives), John.
WHILE CONSERVATIVES YELL *REAL LOUD*!
David O'Bedlam
> If you can't see the liberal agenda, you're either a naive liberal, or
> just naive.
So tell me about the conservative agenda, why don't you?
But I hope you and your new husband will be very happy, Mr. Kerry.
David O'Bedlam
> > > If you can't see the liberal agenda, you're either a naive liberal, or
> > > just naive.
> >
> > Care to support your argument with any factual
> > evidence?
> >
> I think your opinion of NPR is all the support he needs.
Oh, more "german silver" wit. Whoop-de-doo.
David O'Bedlam
[...]
> > ROTFLMAO
^^^^^^^^
> You're easily amused.
And outdated by about 10 years.
David O'Bedlam
> I'm a liberal fascist.
I'm a conservative stalinist!
David O'Bedlam
> John TIbbs wrote:
>
> > All of us conservatives believe the media companies should be
> > the monitors and set the standards of decency for all media.
>
> Of course. If the media companies were liberal
Wait a minure, I thought they were. Isn't "liberal media" like
"red rose" -- or better, "round sphere"?
> then positions of the left and right would be reversed.
I wish I could reverse my right and left arms.
> "Where you stand depends on where you sit."
And whose ox you gore.
D.
David O'Bedlam
[...]
> All in favor of Ozzie and Harriet reruns dominating prime time say aye.
Nay. George and Gracie get my vote.
David O'Bedlam
> I would prefer a situation where I don't have to change the channel
> when a child enters the room.
So quit watching game shows then.
David O'Bedlam
> We should probably withdraw all the commercial radio licenses.
> Replace them with something like a cellphone system.
Satellite radio? Pay-per-listen?
> Those wavelengths are too valuable to waste on giant radio stations
> broadcasting advertising.
Well, I agree there. They should play more Mingus.
D.
Jim Warren
>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:00:40 -0800, David O'Bedlam
><thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, John TIbbs wrote:
>>
>>> NPR guys do talk softly when blaspheming all they don't like
>>> (conservatives), John.
>>
>>WHILE CONSERVATIVES YELL *REAL LOUD*!
>
>When a redneck stops yelling and starts speaking softly it's probably
>getting close to ass whoopin time.
Due to their poor eating habits and heavy drinking, they are easy to
defeat. The only exercise they get is climbing up to the top of a
water tower with five gallons of paint to defend their sisters honor
:^p
jonah thomas
>>>I'm a liberal fascist.
>>I'm a conservative stalinist!
> I'm a bible thumping satan worshipper.
What do you thump them with, a ten-foot pole?
Rob Duncan
> >>stations are dinosaurs that should not survive and will not survive.
>
> >><http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/>
>
> > As long as advertisors pay, radio will always exist. Besides, people
arent
> > into pay radio yet. They may be someday, but its a ways off. What
would
> > the poor listen to?
>
> Advertisers can pay for modern radio as easily as they pay for the
> obsolete stuff.
Radio stations dont have to pay for stuff they already own. They dont have
to pay for new equipment. Meaning advertising costs are less.
Rob
Bulldog
Howard - The Originator
"bob" <than...@coldmail.nu> wrote in message
news:dps140hq9mu6q37im...@4ax.com...
> "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >We get plenty liberal advocacy on the TV networks and CNN, however subtle
> >and not-so-subtle. But every time a liberal gets on the radio the
audience
> >turns him off. Witness all the failures in that genre. People WANT to
hear
> >conservatives speak much more than liberals and that, not bias is what
> >drives the programming. Stations and networks simply cannot live and
thrive
> >if people won't listen to them.
>
> interested in listening to either conservative or liberal talk shows.
> If NPR gets too drooly I turn the volume down. I did the same thing
> with the Bubba show and with the Howard Stern show ... shit, I wonder
> if Howard's on in Tampa.
>
> Some of Bubba's stuff is classic, some of it is a bit much. I really
> don't understand why people are interested in listening to women using
> a dildo to get off. I generally turned the volume off during those
> segments.
>
> http://www.bubbaarmy.com/freedom.php
jonah thomas
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>Advertisers can pay for modern radio as easily as they pay for the
>>obsolete stuff.
> Radio stations dont have to pay for stuff they already own. They dont have
> to pay for new equipment. Meaning advertising costs are less.
You are grasping for straws. At best this expense would slow the new
technology a bit. The fact that we had plenty of canals already built
and had to build new railroads didn't do much at all to save the canals.
Traditional radio is obsolete. It might linger in the USA long after
it's gone from the advanced nations -- the way cell phones are always
years behind here -- but it gives us too little for the spectrum it uses.
John Gilmer
> John Gilmer wrote:
>
> >>Advertisers can pay for modern radio as easily as they pay for the
> >>obsolete stuff.
>
>
> > There are ALL subscription services.
>
> So? There is no necessity for that.
>
> > The US (as always, we seems to be blessed) was lucky in that our
broadcast
> > system got an early, private, independent, competitive, and essentially
> > uncensored start. In most of the world "broadcasting" is a "service"
of
> > the government.
>
> Now our broadcast system is no longer independent, competitive, or
> uncensored.
GOSH!
Three errors in one sentence!
John TIbbs
"Jim Warren" <jmwa...@Virus.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:v2q1405vbj27tle31...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:58:10 GMT, "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >We get plenty liberal advocacy on the TV networks and CNN, however subtle
> >and not-so-subtle. But every time a liberal gets on the radio the
audience
> >turns him off. Witness all the failures in that genre. People WANT to
hear
> >conservatives speak much more than liberals and that, not bias is what
> >drives the programming. Stations and networks simply cannot live and
thrive
> >if people won't listen to them.
>
>
> There is no people. Liberals and Neo-Conservatives are a minority.
> Liberal and Neo-Conservative is a personality trait. Neo-Consevatives
> enjoy hearing the same thing repeated over and over again. Liberals
> and moderates don't.
Then why do the broadcast media, MSNBC and CNN keep repeating ad nauseum the
BEAT BUSH, BEAT BUSH, BEAT BUSH drumbeat?
jt
The Clinton years were a prime example. The same
> allegations were repeated over and over again for eight years. The
> Neo-Cons loved it the moderates and liberals tuned it out. Net result
> Clinton left office with very high approval ratings. While I may enjoy
> hearing negative things about Bush a couple of iterations are enough
> for me.
>
But obviously your comtemporaries on the left do not tire of them.
John TIbbs
"David O'Bedlam" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:2004022811...@shell.rawbw.com...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, John Gilmer wrote:
>
> > Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
>
> That's like imagining dehydrated water.
Then why do you on the left resent it so much?
jt
John TIbbs
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, bob wrote:
>
>
> > I'm a liberal fascist.
>
> I'm a conservative stalinist!
I'm a radical moderate!
>
>
Vicki
> >Bubba - The Imitator
> >Howard - The Originator
>
> Howard - old old old
I have never heard Bubba. I don't think he was ever on in the new york
market.
Does bubba's crew constantly kiss his ass, like the Hdouche band of ass
lickers?
Does bubba live with a woman who is 20 years younger than him, and if so was
she a former professional escort?
Steve Murgaski
> On 27 Feb 2004 12:50:07 -0800, steveho...@yahoo.com (steve horan)
> wrote:
>
> >"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message news:<403eaaaa$0$46...@dingus.crosslink.net>...
> >> > It's been reported John Kerry would like to bring back the "Fairness
> >> > Doctrine"
> >> > That would shut down talk radio pretty much.
> >>
> >> Actually, it might well lead to the complete political destruction of modern
> >> liberalism. Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
> >> following by a hour of NPR type tree hugging nonsense. It would be "fun to
> >> watch."
> >
> >Conservative talk radio is all about fanning emotions.
> >NPR, while not agenda driven like conservative talk
> >radio, is far more rational.
>
> just naive.
Please explain what you see as "The liberal agenda." I'm not saying
there isn't one, but I'm curious to know what you mean by it. My
favorite discussions are the ones where people define their terms,
instead of arguing vaguely around in circles.
> >Stuff like MSNBC, Fox News and Talk Radio are little
> >more than propoganda organs.
>
> You left out CNN? I bet you think of in the same way you think of NPR.
> ROTFLMAO
CNN is "liberal?"
I haven't watched it lately, but I gather from this thread that it's
been critical of Bush. Is everyone who's critical of bush "Liberal"
by definition?
David O'Bedlam
> "David O'Bedlam" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, John Gilmer wrote:
> >
> > > Imagine an hour of common sense conservative talk radio
> >
> > That's like imagining dehydrated water.
>
> Then why do you on the left
What makes you assume I'm on the left? Hitler didn't like conservatives.
> resent it so much?
Resent it? I ignore it, exceot when fools like you bring it up -- when
I answer you to put you in perpective: you and all you are proud of are
irrelevant to me. Like a gnat in my jacket I never notice. That you're
deluded enough to think you matter is YOUR problem, you poor thing.
David O'Bedlam
> Does bubba live with a woman who is 20 years younger than him,
> and if so was she a former professional escort?
If so, did he write a HOW TO book? (The lucky bahstid, I sware.)
D.
David O'Bedlam
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > Now our broadcast system is no longer independent, competitive, or
> > uncensored.
>
> GOSH! Three errors in one sentence!
No, I count only one: your post itself.
bnichols
And I'm Tsar of all the Russias. <laugh>
B
Vicki
And does Bubba shit where he eats?
jonah thomas
> jonah thomas wrote:
>>We should probably withdraw all the commercial radio licenses.
>>Replace them with something like a cellphone system.
> Satellite radio? Pay-per-listen?
There is no technical reason to keep that from being paid by
advertisers. The technology is there even to record the number of
radios in each cell area that are receiving the ad, and possibly a
demographic breakdown of the owners.
That isn't currently being done, because the financial and marketing
systems aren't in place and advertisers don't consider that medium.
Satellite radio is not necessary, it's main function is to cheaply
bypass the existing networks that each want to take their cut of the
profits.
John TIbbs
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:49:33 GMT, "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Warren" <jmwa...@Virus.msu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:v2q1405vbj27tle31...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:58:10 GMT, "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We get plenty liberal advocacy on the TV networks and CNN, however
subtle
> >> >and not-so-subtle. But every time a liberal gets on the radio the
> >audience
> >> >turns him off. Witness all the failures in that genre. People WANT
to
> >hear
> >> >conservatives speak much more than liberals and that, not bias is what
> >> >drives the programming. Stations and networks simply cannot live and
> >thrive
> >> >if people won't listen to them.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is no people. Liberals and Neo-Conservatives are a minority.
> >> Liberal and Neo-Conservative is a personality trait. Neo-Consevatives
> >> enjoy hearing the same thing repeated over and over again. Liberals
> >> and moderates don't.
> >
> >Then why do the broadcast media, MSNBC and CNN keep repeating ad nauseum
the
> >BEAT BUSH, BEAT BUSH, BEAT BUSH drumbeat?
>
Nope! It's because he isn't a flaming liberal!
jt
John TIbbs
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:42:28 GMT, "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net>
He is too liberal for me but he isn't as ridiculous as most of today's
liberals with their nose in the air and their brains in special interests
that are detrimental to the security of the US.
jt
>
> Are you sure?
>
> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/319.html
>
> Go back a couple of pictures (to 317). Make sure no children are
> around your computer. If you are easily offended don't bother.
>
> Here's a pg Bush page.
>
> http://www.ip-developers.com/html/bush.html
Steve Murgaski
[Bush]
> He is too liberal for me but he isn't as ridiculous as most of today's
> liberals with their nose in the air and their brains in special interests
> that are detrimental to the security of the US.
*sigh* I wish one of you `conservatives' would be brave enough to actually
make an argument. All I see here is wining: "They're not protecting my
national security! I'm soooo insecure! They're fascists, and they're
always beating up on president Bush!"
Do you have any ideas, or just party loyalty? Should we print out a little
red book for you, "The Sayings of Rush Limbaugh," maybe, which you can quote
from instead of thinking? Or, maybe red isn't your favorite color -- how
about an orange book?
steve horan
> > Liberal and Neo-Conservative is a personality trait. Neo-Consevatives
> > enjoy hearing the same thing repeated over and over again. Liberals
> > and moderates don't.
>
> Then why do the broadcast media, MSNBC and CNN keep repeating ad nauseum the
> BEAT BUSH, BEAT BUSH, BEAT BUSH drumbeat?
Because they're covering the Democratic primaries and
a major story in that campaign is the importance of
choosing a nominee who's "electable". It is not "the
broadcast media, MSNBC and CNN" who are saying that
Bush needs to be beat but rather the people they are
covering. Fox is also covering the race for the Dem
nomination but you didn't list them with the others,
why not?
I don't think you can tell the difference between
advocacy in the media and news reporting.
> jt
>
>
> The Clinton years were a prime example. The same
> > allegations were repeated over and over again for eight years. The
> > Neo-Cons loved it the moderates and liberals tuned it out. Net result
> > Clinton left office with very high approval ratings. While I may enjoy
> > hearing negative things about Bush a couple of iterations are enough
> > for me.
> >
> But obviously your comtemporaries on the left do not tire of them.
>
He had a good point. Talk Radio skews right not because
there are more conservatives than liberals in the general
population but because Talk Radio is medium preferred by
right-wingers. Liberals apparently prefer to listen to
music on the radio or NPR I guess. Talk Radio is a medium
that appeals to feelings of resentment and anger.
This is kind of puzzling though. I keep hearing in the
media about how angry people on the left are. Specifically
a big media mantra was that Dean's campaign succeeded early
on becausae he appealed to this seething anger at Bush.
If liberals are so angry, you would think that they would
want their own slice of the Talk Radio pie but that doesn't
seem to be the case. Speaking as one liberal, a Dean supporter,
and someone who very much wants to see Bush get his sorry,
illiterate ass tossed out of the White House in November
I wouldn't care for a liberal equivalent of someone like
Rush Limbaugh. I prefer a lively debate to a droning,
repititious monologue. I think liberals are more able
to see things from both sides while conservatives, at
least those who listen to Talk Radio, tend to shun
dissenting opinions.
Smegma Cheesecake
John TIbbs
"Steve Murgaski" <stev...@cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:c1tgp3$fo...@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca...
>
> "John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Cnq0c.26764$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> [Bush]
> > He is too liberal for me but he isn't as ridiculous as most of today's
> > liberals with their nose in the air and their brains in special
interests
> > that are detrimental to the security of the US.
>
> *sigh* I wish one of you `conservatives' would be brave enough to
actually
> make an argument. All I see here is wining: "They're not protecting my
> national security! I'm soooo insecure! They're fascists, and they're
Fascist: A code word for a liberal to use whenever he get whupped
intellectually(often)!
>
> Do you have any ideas, or just party loyalty? Should we print out a
little
> red book for you, "The Sayings of Rush Limbaugh," maybe, which you can
quote
> from instead of thinking? Or, maybe red isn't your favorite color -- how
> about an orange book?
Rush only broadcasts what I have thought for years and never had the
microphone to deliver my thoughts with. I prayed for years for someone to
come along and challenge the lies I constantly heard on the air and read in
print. Thank God for Rush. I don't have to listen to him as he just says
what I already think.
jt
>
>
John TIbbs
"steve horan" <steveho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b178197.04022...@posting.google.com...
According to polls a few years back, liberals were more likely to buy from
the 'infomercials' aired when normal people are asleep.
>
> This is kind of puzzling though. I keep hearing in the
> media about how angry people on the left are. Specifically
> a big media mantra was that Dean's campaign succeeded early
> on becausae he appealed to this seething anger at Bush.
> If liberals are so angry, you would think that they would
> want their own slice of the Talk Radio pie but that doesn't
> seem to be the case.
Oh, they DO want a slice. It's just they cannot muster enough audience to
make a lib show pay off.
Networks and stations don't want to air money losers.
Speaking as one liberal, a Dean supporter,
> and someone who very much wants to see Bush get his sorry,
> illiterate
Illiterate? MBA at Yale is not even a good start, right?
ass tossed out of the White House in November
> I wouldn't care for a liberal equivalent of someone like
> Rush Limbaugh. I prefer a lively debate to a droning,
> repititious monologue. I think liberals are more able
> to see things from both sides while conservatives, at
> least those who listen to Talk Radio, tend to shun
> dissenting opinions.
Wrong again! Rush gives liberals front recognition because he realizes his
audience wants to hear them. You don't listen to him at all, do you?
jt
Emperor Norton Gojira III/I
>"John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Cnq0c.26764$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>[Bush]
>> He is too liberal for me but he isn't as ridiculous as most of today's
>> liberals with their nose in the air and their brains in special interests
How do you put your brain in a special interest? Isn't that painful?
>> that are detrimental to the security of the US.
>*sigh* I wish one of you `conservatives' would be brave enough to actually
>make an argument.
For 'conservative' use Republican, for 'liberal' or 'progressive' use
Democrat. For either, use partisan, usually accompanied by 'hack'.
>All I see here is whining: "They're not protecting my
>national security! I'm soooo insecure! They're fascists, and they're
>always beating up on president Bush!"
Ya know, in 1991, every partisan Republican was beating their chest
about how tough ol' Bush Snr was, and when 1992 and the battle started, the
tough guys inner whiner came out. I guess we gotta re-live EVERY FUCKING
THING that happened during the first Bush Administration.
's some kinda weird RNC gestalt therapy or something.
>Do you have any ideas, or just party loyalty? Should we print out a little
>red book for you, "The Sayings of Rush Limbaugh," maybe, which you can quote
>from instead of thinking? Or, maybe red isn't your favorite color -- how
>about an orange book?
Nononono! Green! Like Q/Gh/Khaddaffi!
I'm mean, Bush is NEARLY as clueful as the Col. Well, he's sorta in
the ballpark. Ok, he's selling parking tickets to the Colonel's ballpark.
STILL!
Now in the interests of balance and fairness, some rude slogans for
Kerry, cuz he's creepy too.
Vote for Kerry: Think President "Lovehammer"! (Now with Prostate 3000!)
Kerry 2004: More Secretaries Than Kennedy
Kerry 2004: Puff the Magic President
Kerry 2004: Happy Happy Snore Snore
Kerry 2004: He's Got the Issues Boxed In on All Sides
Kerry: Nobody Is Afraid of Him. Yet.
Kerry: Benedict Heinz
Kerry: I went to Vietnam and all I got was this lousy campaign
Kerry 2004: If it works, he's for it! (matched pair)
Kerry 2004: If it doesn't work out, he's against it!
A Cuban Missle Crisis of His Own
Help Re-Animate Kerry!
Kerry 2004: Who needs those inbred, ignorant, pig-fucking Southerners anyways?
Kerry: I Can Get To Kennebunkport Too!
Kerry: More Brahmin Bull!
Kerry: Drinking Parties with Ted Kennedy and the Big Red Button!
Kerry: The Only War I'll Fight Will Be Against the Imperialist Running Dogs!
We Need a Stoner In The White House
Kerry: I'll Appoint My Dead Buddies to the Cabinet!
Vote for Kerry Or Get Left Out!
Kerry: You'll Never Have to Worry About My Wife
President Hounddog!
I Don't Know Jane, but I'll Try To Make Intimate Amends!
Kerry: Must Be Used by 2005
I've Got a Bigger Deficit Than Bush
Never Enough Bush, Except In the White House!
He'll Be Watching You
Kerry 2004: Are We There Yet?
ash
['Have I pissed everybody off yet?']
--
"We shoulda drank th' cognac an' walked to git gas."
_________________________________________________________________
Give me Liberty or give me a nice house in France from whence I
can hunt some Liberty down. Or you can eat lead. Get off my wave.
Two|Riven against a Black Sun|six|...that which we are we are|One
David O'Bedlam
[...]
> I don't think you can tell the difference between advocacy in
> the media and news reporting.
There is none. There hasn't been at least since Hearst's "yellow
journalism", and there ain't supposed to be. Every "news organ"
is biased in one way or another, and any "news organ" that claims
otherwise is lying.
If anyone thinks s/he can prove otherwise do. I like to laugh.
The
David O'Bedlam
[...]
> Thank God for Rush. I don't have to listen to him as he just says
> what I already think.
Does he ask you what to say, or do your beam your mind-rays at him?
Keera Ann Fox
> Kerry: The Only War I'll Fight Will Be Against the Imperialist Running Dogs!
> We Need a Stoner In The White House
Which has me remembering when former California governor Gerry Brown jr.
ran for office.
I vote for nostalgia. I vote for the days when you could actually tell
the two parties apart.
--
****** Keera in Norway ******
* Think big. Shrink to fit. *
http://home.online.no/~kafox/
John TIbbs
"Emperor Norton Gojira III/I" <ashurbanipal earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zpmdnXOdLdN...@giganews.com...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:06:55 -0500, in message
<<c1tgp3$fo...@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca>>, Steve Murgaski
<stev...@cyberspace.org> spleniated...
> >"John TIbbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:Cnq0c.26764$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >[Bush]
> >> He is too liberal for me but he isn't as ridiculous as most of today's
> >> liberals with their nose in the air and their brains in special
interests
>
> How do you put your brain in a special interest? Isn't that painful?
Liberals have plenty of room in their skulls.
LOL!>
John TIbbs
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, John TIbbs wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Thank God for Rush. I don't have to listen to him as he just says
> > what I already think.
>
> Does he ask you what to say, or do your beam your mind-rays at him?
>
>
jt
bob
> Emperor Norton Gojira III/I <ashurbanipal earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Kerry: The Only War I'll Fight Will Be Against the Imperialist Running Dogs!
> > We Need a Stoner In The White House
>
> Which has me remembering when former California governor Gerry Brown jr.
> ran for office.
>
> I vote for nostalgia. I vote for the days when you could actually tell
> the two parties apart.
This reminded me of metrosexuals. I vote for the days when you could
actually tell the two sexes apart.
Livendive
"Phil "Fair & Balanced" MacRackin" <p...@plumberpants.com> wrote in message
news:403F9D80...@plumberpants.com...
> Not that govt pressure on the broadcast media is inappropriate. The
> airwaves belong the public, not the broadcast companies.
Hmmm...so if all radio transmitters simultaneously stopped broadcasting,
which exact "airwaves" would we, the public, own?
Blues,
Dave
Keera Ann Fox
bnichols
John's not really a "conservative" in the long-term sense of the
political word. He's one of the latter-day wanna-be's who hijacked
the Republican Party in the 80's & redirected it to further their
own agendas. Barry Goldwater watched the punk kids on the block
carjack the party, got fed up with it, & made some rather astute &
quite interesting comments concerning these "'new' Republicans."
Too many folks calling themselves GOP'ers these days have little
actual political knowledge & think (like John) that the main things
involved in being a "Republican" are ideology & hating the dreaded
liberals. Not much could be further from the actual truth. :)
Bill
John TIbbs
"bnichols" <to...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:12974278.0403...@posting.google.com...
As I've told you before, Bill, I'm not a Republican. I have trouble
discerning between the two parties so I just pick the lesser of two evils to
vote for. Therefore I usually vote Republican, but remain independent.
jt
Fletch F. Fletch
> there are more conservatives than liberals in the general
> population but because Talk Radio is medium preferred by
> right-wingers. Liberals apparently prefer to listen to
> music on the radio or NPR I guess. Talk Radio is a medium
> that appeals to feelings of resentment and anger.
Speculation as fact? Perhaps talk radio is predominantly conservative
because the right felt they had comparatively few other media outlets which
seemed to share anything resembling their point of view. It's worth a
thought.
Personally, I only like sports talk radio.
Slainte,
Fletch