Liberal Air AmeriKa
T R A C E Y..
and other conservative talk hosts because of their level of influence,
but the left is having a few problems getting off to a good start, haha!:
See the entire story here: http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
Liberal talk radio must find new Los Angeles, Chicago stations
Tue Apr 20 2004 19:14:50 ET
It was on, then it was off, then it was on again, and now it will be off
again.
Al Franken and the gang at Air America Radio, the recently launched
liberal talk-radio network that became embroiled last week in a
financial dispute with the owner of its Chicago and Los Angeles
stations, will broadcast over WNTD-950 AM in Chicago for the last time
on April 30, the CHICAGO TRIBUNE is reporting in fresh runs.
MORE
George Kerby
Franklin is nothing more than a punk with an attitude. Did ANYONE really
think his silly shit would fly?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
T R A C E Y..
Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Ever watch Colmbs? Robotic.
Nightwing
Is that why they just signed up 14 more channals this week? Go back to
Drudger you're too stupid
to think for yourself.
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BCABDDEB.43DC4%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
George Kerby
"Nightwing" <gf...@uggv.fr> wrote:
>
> Is that why they just signed up 14 more channals this week? Go back to
> Drudger you're too stupid
> to think for yourself.
>
English a challenge for you, no?
_______________________________________________________________________________
In Your Dreams
Dear Douche-bag,
http://www.airamericaradio.com/
4-13-04
Progress Media's Air America Radio Network Announces Additional
Nationwide Affiliations, Bringing Total Number of Broadcast Outlets to
16
KSQR (1240 AM) IN SACRAMENTO, CA
WMTW (870 AM) IN PORTLAND, ME
KBZC (1300 AM) IN COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
WJNO (1290 AM) IN WEST PALM BEACH, FL
WTWK (1070 AM) IN PLATTSBURGH, NY & BURLINGTON, VT
WKIZ (1500 AM) IN KEY WEST, FL
----
MORE TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON
New York, April 13, 2004--Air America Radio
, the new national progressive entertainment talk radio network,
announced today it will broadcast in six new markets beginning this
week, bringing the nationwide total of broadcast outlets to sixteen.
KSQR-AM (1240) will provide coverage in Sacramento and surrounding
communities. WMTW-AM (870) has a signal covering Portland, ME. KBZC-AM
(1300) has a signal covering Colorado Springs, CO. In Florida, WJNO-AM
(1290) has a signal covering West Palm Beach, and WKIZ-AM (1500) has a
signal covering Key West. WTWK-AM (1070) has a signal covering
Plattsburgh, NY and Burlington, VT. Since the network's launch on
March 31, listeners in these markets have had access to Air America
Radio's programming via live Internet streaming on
www.airamericaradio.com, and on XM Satellite Radio.
_____________________________________________________________________
4-16-04 press release adds:
WCHL (1360 AM) In Chapel Hill, NC
that will be 17!
______________________________________________________________________
4-20-04 fresh release:
Air America Radio to Announce New Stations in Chicago and Los Angeles
Shortly
_______________________________________________________________________
Looks like you chumps with your many-faced pravda are in for a wee bit
of an actual national debate finally, but as Satchel says,
'Don't look over your shoulder, something may be gaining on you'
punch up this url and you too can listen along:
http://www.airamericaradio.com/
John R Cambron
There is one very important thing missing here. All of these
stations are being paid by "Air America Radio" to carry their
content.
None of the stations that carry the established talk radio
networks that carry hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz
and Savage have such an agreement with those networks. These
station pay the network to carry the content and the content
is supported by revenue from advertisers paying both the
networks and host radio stations.
This is one of the reason why Air America Radio is doomed to
fail.
There is one big question that has not been answered. Being
that Air America Radio is a imfomercial paid for by its
underwriter. Might the content on the stations that carry the
Air America Radio network be in violation of the of the
political campaign financing laws?
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or >>>Hebron<<< MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
Bill
<*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>There is one very important thing missing here. All of these
>stations are being paid by "Air America Radio" to carry their
>content.
Well, yes, if you want to start a radio network, and you don't happen
to own any broadcast facilities, you do have to buy or rent. What is
unusual about that?
>None of the stations that carry the established talk radio
>networks that carry hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz
>and Savage have such an agreement with those networks. These
>station pay the network to carry the content and the content
>is supported by revenue from advertisers paying both the
>networks and host radio stations.
Air America rents broadcast facilities and pays its employees while
collecting revenue from advertisers. That's not a particularly
unusual business model, is it?
>This is one of the reason why Air America Radio is doomed to
>fail.
>
>There is one big question that has not been answered. Being
>that Air America Radio is a imfomercial paid for by its
>underwriter. Might the content on the stations that carry the
>Air America Radio network be in violation of the of the
>political campaign financing laws?
Only if the same logic applies to Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.
But I've always thought there was something inherently out-of-whack
about a system where Rush Limbaugh can be on the air fifteen hours a
week telling people to vote for Bush, but if I wanted to buy thirty
seconds of airtime to tell people who to vote for, my thirty seconds
would be counted as a campaign donation.
Is John York dead yet?
"John R Cambron" <*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
news:108fk0d...@corp.supernews.com...
Gee, I wonder if the same could be said for the scumbags that own Clear
Channel?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
*camb...@chesapeake.net* says...
>
> None of the stations that carry the established talk radio
> networks that carry hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz
> and Savage have such an agreement with those networks. These
> station pay the network to carry the content and the content
> is supported by revenue from advertisers paying both the
> networks and host radio stations.
Which merely goes to prove that the myth of liberal domination of the
news media is just that -- a myth.
Mark T. Evert
"Is John York dead yet?" <tommys...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40881...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Rush Limbaugh......and the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Error
America is that radio stations will fight each other in a market to carry
the show whereas Error America has to fight the radio stations and even pay
them to carry their worthless show.
Bill
<mte...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>The difference is that Clear Channel pays for the rights to air shows like
>Rush Limbaugh......and the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Error
>America is that radio stations will fight each other in a market to carry
>the show whereas Error America has to fight the radio stations and even pay
>them to carry their worthless show.
Air America is not a show, it is a network. Instead of syndicating
their programs to various stations in a piecemeal fashion, they chose
to secure their own broadcasting facilities in order to air their
complete lineup of programming. They pay for the use of the
broadcast facilities and for their own staff, and in return, they
collect the revenue from advertisers. If revenues exceed expenses,
then they're making a profit. Whether they will or not remains to be
seen, but it's not that unusual a business model.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
@NOSPAMoptonline.net says...
> Air America is not a show, it is a network. Instead of syndicating
> their programs to various stations in a piecemeal fashion, they chose
> to secure their own broadcasting facilities in order to air their
> complete lineup of programming. They pay for the use of the
> broadcast facilities and for their own staff, and in return, they
> collect the revenue from advertisers. If revenues exceed expenses,
> then they're making a profit. Whether they will or not remains to be
> seen, but it's not that unusual a business model.
What *is* unusual is how positively terrified some right-wingers seem to
be of Air America.
Chris Bellomy
: In article <mobi80lsk5h98636s...@4ax.com>, bwillis8
What's unusual about right-wingers being terrified?
cb
Matthew Russotto
Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>Air America rents broadcast facilities and pays its employees while
>collecting revenue from advertisers. That's not a particularly
>unusual business model, is it?
It sounds like the radio version of a "vanity press".
Bill
Except this model produces revenue (or will if it succeeds).
Matthew Russotto
So does the author who uses a vanity press, if he can sell enough of
his books.
Bill
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <8aki80149hom5ipor...@4ax.com>,
>Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:12:24 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <vcuf8015jvc2v1lmi...@4ax.com>,
>>>Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Air America rents broadcast facilities and pays its employees while
>>>>collecting revenue from advertisers. That's not a particularly
>>>>unusual business model, is it?
>>>
>>>It sounds like the radio version of a "vanity press".
>>
>>Except this model produces revenue (or will if it succeeds).
>
>So does the author who uses a vanity press, if he can sell enough of
>his books.
I was thinking of "vanity press" as more of an outfit where people
have their book printed up with no intention or expectation of selling
it, just to have something with their name on it.
So, if Air America's approach is somehow illegitimate or tainted, what
would be the preferred method of starting up a new radio network?
Would it be better if they'd simply bought the stations outright?
If I want to start a business selling computers, let's say, is my
business plan flawed if I have to rent my retail space instead of
owning it?
George Kerby
MPG.1af2fcf91...@news.comcast.giganews.com, "Jeffrey E. Salzberg"
<spammer...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Yep Jeffy-Bob I'm just pissing all over myself because of my incontrollable
fear of such Brainiacs as those that make THAT lineup.
Al Frankin has me "s-s-s-h-h-h-a-a-k-k-ing in my boots!!!"
BAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!!!
MORON!
Six months. In six months it will be only in the memories of your ilk.
Get over it in advance...
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ori...@earthlink.net says...
> >Air America is not a show, it is a network.
>
> Not much of one if they can't pay their bills.
Not a problem so far. They stopped a check in a business dispute, as
their only recourse against a man who was cheating them.
You guys really *are* feeling threatened.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ori...@earthlink.net says...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:12:46 GMT, Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
> wrote:
> Unfortunately, books and CDs cost nothing to store and you can work in
> a library or as a background vocalist to pay the bills as the orders
> trickle in. Talk radio is a 24/7 job even if you only broadcast 5-8
> hours a day and the money has to come in or you get booted out of your
> station booth - which has started to happen to AA already.
Not at all. They stopped payment on a check as their only recourse in a
business dispute.
It's never a good idea to believe what you read on Drudge.
Baldin Pramer
Not really.
Air America is like an independent magazine, taking advertising, and
hoping to make a profit. A vanity press publication is usually for
vanity, and a one time shot. It is a sure thing that Air America's
business model is set up to make a profit eventually. They have sponsors
already, and they are aiming for more.
--
Baldin Pramer
"'Hello', he lied." Dorothy Parker
Baldin Pramer
No, that profit is based on sales of the item, not revenue from
advertising. If Air America was syndicating its shows for money, with no
adverts, then you would be right, but that is not the case.
Keith A. Glass
wrote:
>>>>It sounds like the radio version of a "vanity press".
>>>
>>>Except this model produces revenue (or will if it succeeds).
>>
>>So does the author who uses a vanity press, if he can sell enough of
>>his books.
>
>I was thinking of "vanity press" as more of an outfit where people
>have their book printed up with no intention or expectation of selling
>it, just to have something with their name on it.
>
>So, if Air America's approach is somehow illegitimate or tainted, what
>would be the preferred method of starting up a new radio network?
>Would it be better if they'd simply bought the stations outright?
>
>If I want to start a business selling computers, let's say, is my
>business plan flawed if I have to rent my retail space instead of
>owning it?
Well, generally, the businessman is looking to market a product or
service that enough people want, to make it a successful business.
Preliminary info seems to say that Air America is not selling a
product that a sufficient number of people in critical markets want...
Keith A. Glass
(Jeffrey E. Salzberg) wrote:
>In article <nhjj80p9109uenjl4...@4ax.com>,
>ori...@earthlink.net says...
>
>> >Air America is not a show, it is a network.
>>
>> Not much of one if they can't pay their bills.
>
>Not a problem so far. They stopped a check in a business dispute, as
>their only recourse against a man who was cheating them.
Let's look at that a little more closely: They bought rights to time
on a station, then decided not to use it for a period of time. So
what was the guy supposed to do, take the station off the air ?
That would put a rather large kink in his business when he came back
on the air, as the station would have the rep of being technically
unreliable, no matter what the truth was.
So the guy sold the week or two of unused airtime to somebody else. ..
What's the big deal ?
Keith A. Glass
Afraid ? Hardly. Amused at the tilting at windmills of Air America ?
Absolutely. It's a case of preaching to the choir, and as a result is
a net money sink for liberal causes which could have been more
effectively used in other ways.
But do continue: it amuses us. . .
Cap'nTrVTh
"Keith A. Glass" <sal...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:cbnk801d83f2f5clq...@4ax.com...
Hey, it looks like Franken found a way to ring the register.
http://www.hawaii-politics.com/flopsweat.htm
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
The_shining_l...@dealwithit.net says...
> Hey, it looks like Franken found a way to ring the register.
> http://www.hawaii-politics.com/flopsweat.htm
I love the references to "failing Air-America Network". It's doubled
its market in the last week; I wish *my* business would grow as fast.
It was no surprise, of course, to see the network described as "Air
anti-America"; some right-wingers can't seem to resist demonstrating
that they have no understanding of the fact that nothing is more
American than diversity of opinion. Air America really has them
frightened.
Bill
wrote:
>Arthur Liu's account was that they hadn't even paid the security
>deposit on their lease when he kicked them out. Their attorney
>alleged he was double billing them for air time. That's too bad.
>take the dirty bastard to court but pay your bills up UNTIL the point
>where you say he's cheating you. The court let them back on the air
>in Chicago until the end of the month but he DID order them to post a
>$640,000 bond against what they owed, which kind of blows a hole in
>their argument.
It also brings into question the notion that they're broke. I'd heard
someone representing AA claim that they were prepared to go two years
before realizing a profit, which led me to believe that they had some
significant cash reserves. Whether they'll succeed or not I don't
know, but I don't think there's anything inherently unsound in their
plan.
Cap'nTrVTh
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <spammer...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af441c2b...@news.comcast.giganews.com...
It'll be gone within 90 days.
I'll be sure to stop back and remind you.
-Cap
Bill
<sal...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:12:46 GMT, Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>So, if Air America's approach is somehow illegitimate or tainted, what
>>would be the preferred method of starting up a new radio network?
>>Would it be better if they'd simply bought the stations outright?
>>
>>If I want to start a business selling computers, let's say, is my
>>business plan flawed if I have to rent my retail space instead of
>>owning it?
>
>Well, generally, the businessman is looking to market a product or
>service that enough people want, to make it a successful business.
>
>Preliminary info seems to say that Air America is not selling a
>product that a sufficient number of people in critical markets want...
Where can this preliminary info be perused? I wasn't aware there had
been a ratings book out since they went on the air.
Bill
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:03:59 GMT, Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:30:21 GMT, "Mark T. Evert"
>><mte...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The difference is that Clear Channel pays for the rights to air shows like
>>>Rush Limbaugh......and the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Error
>>>America is that radio stations will fight each other in a market to carry
>>>the show whereas Error America has to fight the radio stations and even pay
>>>them to carry their worthless show.
>>
>>Air America is not a show, it is a network.
>
>Not much of one if they can't pay their bills.
So far, the only problem I'm aware of is an instance where they
stopped payment on a check. That's not the same as not being able to
pay bills.
>Consider the "left brain/right brain" notion. Liberals, who are more
>"in tune with their feelings" than conservatives, tend to be
>left-brain thinkers. Conservatives are
>screw-the-presentation-give-me-the-bottomline right-brain thinkers.
>Left-brain thinkers are more into music than right-brain thinkers.
>Ergo, most liberals prefer music to talk radio.
Perhaps the idea is to give listeners, whether they're liberal or not,
something they haven't heard before, and see if they like it. "left
brain/right brain" psychobabble aside, that is.
>If Franken could sing, he might have a shot. I've heard his speaking
>voice; I wouldn't hold out much hope for that.
Agreed.
Bill
<sal...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Let's look at that a little more closely: They bought rights to time
>on a station, then decided not to use it for a period of time. So
>what was the guy supposed to do, take the station off the air ?
>That would put a rather large kink in his business when he came back
>on the air, as the station would have the rep of being technically
>unreliable, no matter what the truth was.
>
>So the guy sold the week or two of unused airtime to somebody else. ..
>
>What's the big deal ?
Breach of contract?
Keith A. Glass
wrote:
>>Well, generally, the businessman is looking to market a product or
>>service that enough people want, to make it a successful business.
>>
>>Preliminary info seems to say that Air America is not selling a
>>product that a sufficient number of people in critical markets want...
>
>Where can this preliminary info be perused? I wasn't aware there had
>been a ratings book out since they went on the air.
AA is now out of both the LA and Chicago markets. You can't get
national advertisers without those markets. The key phrase is
CRITICAL MARKETS. . .
Stephen Thompson
>The court let them back on the air in Chicago until the end of the
>month but he DID order them to post a $640,000 bond against what they
>owed, which kind of blows a hole in their argument.
This alleged bond seems to be growing. When you made this claim two days
ago, the bond was $460,000. I asked you for evidence, but you didn't
provide any.
The only bond I've seen reported was for $156,000, which was posted to the
court pending the outcome of the LA dispute. IF the court determined that
Air America owed Liu anything, the bond would have gone to him. Since the
two parties settled instead, the bond itself must have gone back to Air
America. Who had to pay what in the settlement is something we don't know.
=========================================================================
"If you don't disagree with me, how will I know I'm right?" - Sam Goldwyn
My opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.
The weird part is... I'm self-employed.
Stephen Thompson
>Let's look at that a little more closely: They bought rights to time
>on a station, then decided not to use it for a period of time. So
>what was the guy supposed to do, take the station off the air ?
>That would put a rather large kink in his business when he came back
>on the air, as the station would have the rep of being technically
>unreliable, no matter what the truth was.
>
>So the guy sold the week or two of unused airtime to somebody else. ..
>
>What's the big deal ?
If Air America's version is true, the big deal is that the two months of
airtime he resold wasn't his to sell.
What was the guy supposed to do, you ask? Well, for one thing, if he
didn't want dead air, it was his responsibility to require Air America to
run something from the start of their lease, OR include a provision
allowing him to run something else if they didn't. He could also resell
the airtime Air America wasn't using -- with their knowledge and
permission -- and share the money with them.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ori...@earthlink.net says...
> "not pay your bills" in a billing dispute.
That's a completely different matter. You claimed that AA was being
booted out of their booth because money wasn't coming in, and I refuted
that.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ori...@earthlink.net says...
> If you can't understand this simple fact that's probably why your
> business isn't growing.
If you can't tell the difference between "isn't growing" and "isn't
doubling in a week", it explains the inaccuracies in your other posts.
Stephen Thompson
>In Commercial law there's no such protection unless it's written into
>the contract.
Do you know what was written into the contract in this case?
>As I'm reading the complaint...
Do you mean that literally? If so, where are you reading the complaint?
The only complaint I've seen is in the tangential Chicago dispute, which
doesn't go into the LA details.
>You don't DO that. They VOLUNTARILY elected not to use it. Liu was
>forced to reprogram that unused airtime and WHETHER OR NOT he billed
>the replacement show they were obligated to pay for it.
What do you mean "Liu was forced?" Who forced him? And if it really was
*mandatory* that he run something, wouldn't it be his responsibility to
require that in the contract?
Stephen Thompson
>They gave Arthur Liu a deposit against the use of the station but asked
>him not to cash the check just then - and then never made good on it.
That's assuming you accept Liu's word completely. You really shouldn't
state his side as though it's known fact. Air America's side is that they
stopped payment to resolve the billing dispute, and requested arbitration
as the contract required.
>The court in Chicago let them back on the air but only after posting a
>bond to cover the deposit and the cost of air time they hadn't paid
>for.
But only IF the court later determined that they actually owed Liu
anything in the LA dispute. That's why it was a bond to the court, and not
a direct payment to Liu. Since there was no further court ruling, the bond
must have gone back to Air America.
>They didn't even bother trying in LA, probably because they didn't have
>another $640,000 to post as a bond there.
You're wrong on three counts:
1. Air America *was* suing in LA, but the two parties settled before
there was a ruling.
2. Considering that Air America has enough investment capital to operate
for at least a couple years, posting another bond wouldn't have been
a problem.
3. According to every article I've seen that mentioned the bond, it was
for $156,000, not $640,000.
Dave Simpson
> What *is* unusual is how positively terrified some right-wingers seem to
> be of Air America.
"Unusual," yes, because nobody on the planet is worried at all about Pravda.
Those who have an opinion are mainly laughing at its quick failure.
Dave Simpson
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
david_l...@yahoo.com says...
Air America has already doubled its number of markets and will more than
double again in May; if you think that's "failure", then that explains
why you think GW Bush is a success.
David Galehouse
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.0404...@posting.google.com...
No. It's much deeper than that. And by the way, Fox News is MUCH closer to
Pravda than any other news source. They're in direct collusion with each
other and are feeding information back and forth. It's damn near state run
TV. We're laughing ten times as hard at you because you think you're getting
real news.
Tracey..----
stations, and his show is aired once each week on Sunday late at night!
Democrats are a little slow, however.
Tracey Levin
Nightwing wrote:
>Is that why they just signed up 14 more channals this week? Go back to
>Drudger you're too stupid
>to think for yourself.
>
>"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:BCABDDEB.43DC4%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>>On 4/20/04 10:24 PM, in article TPlhc.6099$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com, "T R
>>
>>
>A
>
>
>>C E Y.." <...yecar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The commie/libs are trying to come up with a liberal alternative to Rush
>>>and other conservative talk hosts because of their level of influence,
>>>but the left is having a few problems getting off to a good start,
>>>
>>>
>haha!:
>
>
>>>See the entire story here: http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Liberal talk radio must find new Los Angeles, Chicago stations
>>>Tue Apr 20 2004 19:14:50 ET
>>>
>>>It was on, then it was off, then it was on again, and now it will be off
>>>again.
>>>
>>>Al Franken and the gang at Air America Radio, the recently launched
>>>liberal talk-radio network that became embroiled last week in a
>>>financial dispute with the owner of its Chicago and Los Angeles
>>>stations, will broadcast over WNTD-950 AM in Chicago for the last time
>>>on April 30, the CHICAGO TRIBUNE is reporting in fresh runs.
>>>
>>>MORE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Franklin is nothing more than a punk with an attitude. Did ANYONE really
>>think his silly shit would fly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>____________________________________________________________________________
Tracey..----
With the commie/libs now on 16 stations, should the world expect a new
marxist revolution?
Tracey Levin
In Your Dreams wrote:
>"T R A C E Y.." <...yecar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<TPlhc.6099$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>
>
>>The commie/libs are trying to come up with a liberal alternative to Rush
>> and other conservative talk hosts because of their level of influence,
>>but the left is having a few problems getting off to a good start, haha!:
>>
>>See the entire story here: http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Liberal talk radio must find new Los Angeles, Chicago stations
>>Tue Apr 20 2004 19:14:50 ET
>>
>>It was on, then it was off, then it was on again, and now it will be off
>>again.
>>
>>Al Franken and the gang at Air America Radio, the recently launched
>>liberal talk-radio network that became embroiled last week in a
>>financial dispute with the owner of its Chicago and Los Angeles
>>stations, will broadcast over WNTD-950 AM in Chicago for the last time
>>on April 30, the CHICAGO TRIBUNE is reporting in fresh runs.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dear Douche-bag,
>
> http://www.airamericaradio.com/
> 4-13-04
>
> Progress Media's Air America Radio Network Announces Additional
> Nationwide Affiliations, Bringing Total Number of Broadcast Outlets to
> 16
>
> KSQR (1240 AM) IN SACRAMENTO, CA
>
> WMTW (870 AM) IN PORTLAND, ME
>
> KBZC (1300 AM) IN COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
>
> WJNO (1290 AM) IN WEST PALM BEACH, FL
>
> WTWK (1070 AM) IN PLATTSBURGH, NY & BURLINGTON, VT
>
> WKIZ (1500 AM) IN KEY WEST, FL
>
> ----
>
> MORE TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON
>
> New York, April 13, 2004--Air America Radio
> , the new national progressive entertainment talk radio network,
> announced today it will broadcast in six new markets beginning this
> week, bringing the nationwide total of broadcast outlets to sixteen.
> KSQR-AM (1240) will provide coverage in Sacramento and surrounding
> communities. WMTW-AM (870) has a signal covering Portland, ME. KBZC-AM
> (1300) has a signal covering Colorado Springs, CO. In Florida, WJNO-AM
> (1290) has a signal covering West Palm Beach, and WKIZ-AM (1500) has a
> signal covering Key West. WTWK-AM (1070) has a signal covering
> Plattsburgh, NY and Burlington, VT. Since the network's launch on
> March 31, listeners in these markets have had access to Air America
> Radio's programming via live Internet streaming on
> www.airamericaradio.com, and on XM Satellite Radio.
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> 4-16-04 press release adds:
>
> WCHL (1360 AM) In Chapel Hill, NC
>
> that will be 17!
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> 4-20-04 fresh release:
>
> Air America Radio to Announce New Stations in Chicago and Los Angeles
> Shortly
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Looks like you chumps with your many-faced pravda are in for a wee bit
> of an actual national debate finally, but as Satchel says,
> 'Don't look over your shoulder, something may be gaining on you'
>
> punch up this url and you too can listen along:
>
> http://www.airamericaradio.com/
>
>
Tracey..----
the air. Air AmeriKa is so unpopular, it has to pay stations for
transmitter time. We know this is true because of the recent news about
the three stations that dropped Air AmeriKa because of non payment.
The Democratic Propaganda Machine is suffering.
Tracey Levin
John R Cambron wrote:
>There is one very important thing missing here. All of these
>stations are being paid by "Air America Radio" to carry their
>content.
>
>None of the stations that carry the established talk radio
>networks that carry hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz
>and Savage have such an agreement with those networks. These
>station pay the network to carry the content and the content
>is supported by revenue from advertisers paying both the
>networks and host radio stations.
>
>This is one of the reason why Air America Radio is doomed to
>fail.
>
>There is one big question that has not been answered. Being
>that Air America Radio is a imfomercial paid for by its
>underwriter. Might the content on the stations that carry the
>Air America Radio network be in violation of the of the
>political campaign financing laws?
>
>
>
Tracey..----
Bill wrote:
>
>
>Well, yes, if you want to start a radio network, and you don't happen
>to own any broadcast facilities, you do have to buy or rent. What is
>unusual about that?
>
Stations pay Rush Limbaugh.
Tracey Levin
Tracey..----
Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
>In article <108fk0d...@corp.supernews.com>,
>*camb...@chesapeake.net* says...
>
>
>
>
>
>>None of the stations that carry the established talk radio
>>networks that carry hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz
>>and Savage have such an agreement with those networks. These
>>station pay the network to carry the content and the content
>>is supported by revenue from advertisers paying both the
>>networks and host radio stations.
>>
>>
>
>Which merely goes to prove that the myth of liberal domination of the
>news media is just that -- a myth.
>
>
Tracey..----
Chris Bellomy wrote:
>In dfw.politics Jeffrey E. Salzberg <spammer...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>: In article <mobi80lsk5h98636s...@4ax.com>, bwillis8
>: @NOSPAMoptonline.net says...
>:
>: > Air America is not a show, it is a network. Instead of syndicating
>: > their programs to various stations in a piecemeal fashion, they chose
>: > to secure their own broadcasting facilities in order to air their
>: > complete lineup of programming. They pay for the use of the
>: > broadcast facilities and for their own staff, and in return, they
>: > collect the revenue from advertisers. If revenues exceed expenses,
>: > then they're making a profit. Whether they will or not remains to be
>: > seen, but it's not that unusual a business model.
>:
>: What *is* unusual is how positively terrified some right-wingers seem to
>: be of Air America.
>
>What's unusual about right-wingers being terrified?
>
>cb
>
>
Tracey..----
Are you suggesting that Air AmeriKa, originally designed to compete
with Rush Limbaugh, will have a whopping 32 stations?
Rush has over 600.
Tracey Levin
Matthew Russotto
Baldin Pramer <bal...@mailtoworld.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article <8aki80149hom5ipor...@4ax.com>,
>> Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:12:24 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <vcuf8015jvc2v1lmi...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Air America rents broadcast facilities and pays its employees while
>>>>>collecting revenue from advertisers. That's not a particularly
>>>>>unusual business model, is it?
>>>>
>>>>It sounds like the radio version of a "vanity press".
>>>
>>>Except this model produces revenue (or will if it succeeds).
>>
>>
>> So does the author who uses a vanity press, if he can sell enough of
>> his books.
>
> No, that profit is based on sales of the item, not revenue from
>advertising.
Please do not overstretch the analogy. It is not made of Lycra.
Stephen Thompson
>Stephen Thompson <th...@cableaz.com> wrote:
>>>Liu was forced to reprogram that unused airtime and WHETHER OR NOT he
>>>billed the replacement show they were obligated to pay for it.
>>What do you mean "Liu was forced?" Who forced him? And if it really was
>>*mandatory* that he run something, wouldn't it be his responsibility to
>>require that in the contract?
>When a station goes "dead air" people who have programmed it into
>their radio tuner assume it's died and reprogram to other stations.
You said Liu was "forced" to air something, but it sounds like what you
really mean is that he *wants* to air something because it's in his
interest to do so. Not quite the same thing.
In any case, the fact remains: it's HIS responsibility to protect his own
interests. If he wants something on the air during the entire time Air
America paid for, it had to be in the contract. Otherwise, Air America can
do what it wants with the airtime, including nothing.
>If it was a standard commercial lease contract I doubt there was any
>provision in the document, "Lessee reserves the right to bounce checks
>if he feels like he's getting shafted!" or legalese to that effect.
According to Air America, no check bounced. Payment on the check was
intentionally stopped.
>Generally when you're not going to pay a bill over a dispute you DON'T
>hand the other party the check first.
Obvious exception: when you don't discover the problem until the check has
already been handed over.
>Courts don't like to hear that you've dishonored a check already written
>and handed over: It makes it sound like you're cruising for a criminal
>fraud investigation.
Not when you've requested arbitration to resolve the dispute, as provided
in the contract. Air America tried to resolve the matter in good faith,
but Liu refused.
>AA had already given him checks for the security deposit but told him
>not to cash them: Paying that bill should have had no bearing on any
>alleged double billing later on.
Whether they were right or wrong to withhold payment is something we'll
probably never know, since there was no court ruling and the parties
aren't talking. In general, if I think I'm being cheated, I would rather
resolve it with the money in my pocket than in theirs.
Stephen Thompson
>>Air America's side is that they stopped payment to resolve the billing
>>dispute, and requested arbitration as the contract required.
>Except that a commercial lessee has no right under the law to stop
>payment on a check issued for services already rendered in accordance
>with the contract. Again, if Liu was double-billing them that's a
>matter for the courts to decide. They didn't have the right to stop
>payment on their checks, INCLUDING the ones issued before the alleged
>double-billing occurred.
Whether they had the right to withhold payment pending arbitration (and
then legal action) is *also* a matter for the courts to decide. It won't
be decided by the court, though, because the parties settled instead. So,
it's basically a moot point.
By the way, did you ever find a source for that $640,000 bond figure? I'm
pretty sure that's bogus.
Bill
I'm wondering how you know what the people in those markets want. The
situation in LA and Chicago had nothing to do with demand, it was a
dispute with the guy they were leasing their broadcast facilities
from.
Bill
Rush's show is syndicated. That's how syndication works. The Air
America folks chose not to go that route and, instead, chose to start
their own network with a complete set of programming. Whether it was
a wise choice or not is yet to be known, but that's what they're
doing.
Bill Gamelson
>America folks chose not to go that route and, instead, chose to start
>their own network with a complete set of programming. Whether it was
>a wise choice or not is yet to be known, but that's what they're
>doing.
Stations pay Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity too.
VRWC Destruction Machine
<th...@cableaz.com> wrote:
>Keith A. Glass <sal...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>Let's look at that a little more closely: They bought rights to time
>>on a station, then decided not to use it for a period of time. So
>>what was the guy supposed to do, take the station off the air ?
>>That would put a rather large kink in his business when he came back
>>on the air, as the station would have the rep of being technically
>>unreliable, no matter what the truth was.
>>
>>So the guy sold the week or two of unused airtime to somebody else. ..
>>
>>What's the big deal ?
>
>If Air America's version is true, the big deal is that the two months of
>airtime he resold wasn't his to sell.
>
Who is this company Liu was alleged to sell Air America's airtime to?
>What was the guy supposed to do, you ask? Well, for one thing, if he
>didn't want dead air, it was his responsibility to require Air America to
>run something from the start of their lease, OR include a provision
>allowing him to run something else if they didn't. He could also resell
>the airtime Air America wasn't using -- with their knowledge and
>permission -- and share the money with them.
>
Err America bought 17 hours of airtime daily. What part did Liu sell?
-
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Whose misstatements could fill up a bucket.
Oft the truth he has bent,
Like his "Irish descent."
Of his record he says, "I'll just duck it."
Must be of the man whose middle name is "F*ck It"
Is John York dead yet ?
"And I paraphrase"...
"Anyone caught doing drugs illegally, should just be locked up and the key
thrown away."
-Rush Limbaugh 1999
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Steven M (remove cola to reply)
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:16:13 GMT, "Tracey..----"
><tracey12_12@yahoo123........-----> wrote:
>
>>WOW! Lets see.....16 stations X 2 = 32 stations.
>>Are you suggesting that Air AmeriKa, originally designed to compete
>>with Rush Limbaugh, will have a whopping 32 stations?
>>
>>Rush has over 600.
Air America only has about 12 stations now, and that might include
satellite (XM and Sirius).
I'm not saying that it will approach Rush Limbaugh, who is a phenom in
the broadcast world regardless of political affiliation. But I'm sure
that Rush started small.
--
Steve M - uns...@houston.rrdirt.com (remove dirt for reply)
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly,
while bad people will find a way around the laws.
-- Plato (427-347 B.C.)
Tracey..----
Neal Atkins
<uns...@houston.rrcola.com> wrote:
>>>WOW! Lets see.....16 stations X 2 = 32 stations.
>>>Are you suggesting that Air AmeriKa, originally designed to compete
>>>with Rush Limbaugh, will have a whopping 32 stations?
>>>
>>>Rush has over 600.
>
>Air America only has about 12 stations now, and that might include
>satellite (XM and Sirius).
>
>I'm not saying that it will approach Rush Limbaugh, who is a phenom in
>the broadcast world regardless of political affiliation. But I'm sure
>that Rush started small.
Rush started with around 300 stations. On day one. Fifteen + years
ago.
Stephen Thompson
>>If Air America's version is true, the big deal is that the two months
>>of airtime he resold wasn't his to sell.
>Who is this company Liu was alleged to sell Air America's airtime to?
Don't know. I don't think it's ever been named publicly. No reason to drag
them into it, since no one alleges that they did anything wrong.
>>What was the guy supposed to do, you ask? Well, for one thing, if he
>>didn't want dead air, it was his responsibility to require Air America
>>to run something from the start of their lease, OR include a provision
>>allowing him to run something else if they didn't. He could also resell
>>the airtime Air America wasn't using -- with their knowledge and
>>permission -- and share the money with them.
>Err America bought 17 hours of airtime daily. What part did Liu sell?
According to Air America, the two months or so from the start of the lease
to their broadcast debut.
John R Cambron
Bill wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:03:28 -0400, John R Cambron
> <*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>
> >There is one very important thing missing here. All of these
> >stations are being paid by "Air America Radio" to carry their
> >content.
>
> Well, yes, if you want to start a radio network, and you don't happen
> to own any broadcast facilities, you do have to buy or rent. What is
> unusual about that?
>
> >None of the stations that carry the established talk radio
> >networks that carry hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz
> >and Savage have such an agreement with those networks. These
> >station pay the network to carry the content and the content
> >is supported by revenue from advertisers paying both the
> >networks and host radio stations.
>
> Air America rents broadcast facilities and pays its employees while
> collecting revenue from advertisers. That's not a particularly
> unusual business model, is it?
This is not a typical business model in talk radio. most if not
all of the radio shows that are heard on multiple stations
started out in one market. After building an audiences in that
market and making a profit either the personality or the
station makes a deal with a syndicater to sell the content of
the show nationally.
This is how all of the personalities mentioned above started out.
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or >>>Hebron<<< MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
Mike Smith
wrote:
No he didn't.
If I remember correctly, it was 84, including the unknown KSEV in
Houston.
Mike Smith
VRWC Destruction Machine
<th...@cableaz.com> wrote:
>VRWC Destruction Machine <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Stephen Thompson <th...@cableaz.com> wrote:
>
>>>If Air America's version is true, the big deal is that the two months
>>>of airtime he resold wasn't his to sell.
>
>>Who is this company Liu was alleged to sell Air America's airtime to?
>
>Don't know. I don't think it's ever been named publicly. No reason to drag
>them into it, since no one alleges that they did anything wrong.
>
I wonder why they didn't mention the company in their "Sludge Report"?
Err America has exhibited they are a classless company.
The wouldn't taken off the "Sludge Report" in their web site if they
received positive feedback.
>>>What was the guy supposed to do, you ask? Well, for one thing, if he
>>>didn't want dead air, it was his responsibility to require Air America
>>>to run something from the start of their lease, OR include a provision
>>>allowing him to run something else if they didn't. He could also resell
>>>the airtime Air America wasn't using -- with their knowledge and
>>>permission -- and share the money with them.
>
>>Err America bought 17 hours of airtime daily. What part did Liu sell?
>
>According to Air America, the two months or so from the start of the lease
>to their broadcast debut.
Was any of Err America's broadcasts interrupted
due to "Liu selling their time?"
Bill
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:20:37 -0400, spammer...@volcanomail.com
>(Jeffrey E. Salzberg) wrote:
>
>>In article <5547e6f3ec5b9063...@news.teranews.com>,
>>The_shining_l...@dealwithit.net says...
>>
>>> Hey, it looks like Franken found a way to ring the register.
>>> http://www.hawaii-politics.com/flopsweat.htm
>>
>>I love the references to "failing Air-America Network". It's doubled
>>its market in the last week; I wish *my* business would grow as fast.
>
>"Doubling its market in a week" doesn't mean much if you're not
>getting paid. If I owned a gas station and hung a"FREE GAS" sign out
>front I'm sure I could more than "double" my market that very day. It
>doesn't mean I'm not going broke doing it.
Air America isn't getting paid for those commercials they're running?
>
>If you can't understand this simple fact that's probably why your
>business isn't growing.
Bill
And Air America pays Al Franken and its other employees.
So?
Bill
<tracey12_12@yahoo123........-----> wrote:
>So far, they are a non-starter. Maybe in 2 or 3 years,,
Sounds okay to me. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Bill
<*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> Air America rents broadcast facilities and pays its employees while
>> collecting revenue from advertisers. That's not a particularly
>> unusual business model, is it?
>
>This is not a typical business model in talk radio. most if not
>all of the radio shows that are heard on multiple stations
>started out in one market. After building an audiences in that
>market and making a profit either the personality or the
>station makes a deal with a syndicater to sell the content of
>the show nationally.
You're right in that AA's business plan is not typical for talk radio,
but there's nothing especially irrational about it. It may not have
ever been tried before, but is that sound reason not to try it?
>This is how all of the personalities mentioned above started out.
And most ot them took many years to achieve national success. Perhaps
AA believes their plan will "jump start" things and get them to
national prominence more quickly. Maybe they're right, maybe they're
wrong; only time will tell.
George Kerby
York dead yet ?" <noe...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Rush. Another laugh. You really do provide them, Tracey.
>
> "And I paraphrase"...
>
> "Anyone caught doing drugs illegally, should just be locked up and the key
> thrown away."
> -Rush Limbaugh 1999
>
I want you to PROVE that supposed quote, asshole.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Juan*Jimenez
news:BCB15738.4465B%ghost_...@hotmail.com:
> On 4/24/04 6:43 PM, in article 408afbb9$1...@corp.newsgroups.com, "Is
> John York dead yet ?" <noe...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Rush. Another laugh. You really do provide them, Tracey.
>>
>> "And I paraphrase"...
>>
>> "Anyone caught doing drugs illegally, should just be locked up and
>> the key thrown away."
>> -Rush Limbaugh 1999
>>
> I want you to PROVE that supposed quote, asshole.
<one moron asshole, skewered, coming right up... go ahead and defend him
now, you hypocritical asswipe...>
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies
and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they
ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites
are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this
disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not
putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out
and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send
them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
"It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy
sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what
we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with
the other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence
and make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about
punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks,
especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush Limbaugh Show, 9-23-93
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) He says that, I know every expert in the world
will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of drug
abuse. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice.
Every time you go back, you're making a personal choice. I feel very
strongly about that.' What he's saying is that if there's a line of
cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I
don't know how--how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If
there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it
and--and pull the trigger. And his point is that we are rationalizing
all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and
we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood
celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they
were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of
rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility.
Rush Limbaugh Show, 1-15-96
In fact, I'm reminded--I had this story about three weeks ag--maybe it
was before Christmas, maybe it was as far back as November--but there
were a couple of drug convictions out in--I think it was a Colorado
court. And these guys had--had done some really bad stuff, and there
were mandated federal sentences for the crimes they had committed. And
the judge apologized to the criminals while sentencing them because he
thought it was too severe. He apologized and the com--the community was
outraged. So we've gone from a judge sentencing a mother who makes her
child beg six months in jail, to judges apologizing for getting dope
dealers and crack dealers and drug salesmen off the streets with too
severe a sentence.
Rush Limbaugh Show, 10-13-95
Now get this: Bob Johnson, drunk, driving around Minneapolis,
threatening to shoot himself with a BB gun--Wonder where Al Cowlings was
this night?--was drunk and calling people on the phone. Lis--listen to
this. Bob Johnson was once listed in legislative directories as a school
social worker, quote, "recognized for work in fields of youth and family
problems and alcohol drug prevention."'
Another Democrat--another--folks, these people are taking it really
hard, you know, these Democrats, threatening to kill themselves with a
BB gun, getting drunk. Here--a guy who had been cited, who had been
recognized for his great work in alcohol and drug abuse is drunk on the
highways. This is just--it's tragic, but it's just--it's outrageously
funny. And he is just the latest in a series of Democratic legislators
in Minnesota accused of crimes including shoplifting, spouse abuse and
insurance fraud. Conflict resolution, Democrats and all their good
social works, and still, look at what ha--it just--it's--it's hypocrisy.
...
Rush Limbaugh Show, December 16, 1994
So we're not going to get on--we don't fault these animals for a lack of
discipline, but we get on human beings who are fat for lack of
discipline and you know it and I know it. But here's the thing that
struck me about this. We have alcoholics and drug addicts in our
society, don't we? And what do we say about them? Well, they can't help
it. Why, it's genetic. Why, they have a disease. Why, put one thimbleful
of scotch in front of them and they can die.' We totally exempt them
from any control over their lives, do we not? Some athlete will spend
two years snorting lines of coke. He can't help it.' You know, it's--
it's just--it's not--it's--it's genetic. These people--they're
predisposed to having this addictive syndrome. They--they can't help--
yeah, like that line of cocaine just happened to march into the hotel,
go up to the athlete's room and put itself right there in front of him
on his blotter.
"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs.
And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are
out of whack, folks."
RUSH LIMBAUGH
Stephen Thompson
>Stephen Thompson <th...@cableaz.com> wrote:
>>VRWC Destruction Machine <vr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Who is this company Liu was alleged to sell Air America's airtime to?
>>Don't know. I don't think it's ever been named publicly. No reason to
>>drag them into it, since no one alleges that they did anything wrong.
>I wonder why they didn't mention the company in their "Sludge Report"?
I just answered that: No reason to drag them into it, since no one alleges
that they did anything wrong.
>>>Err America bought 17 hours of airtime daily. What part did Liu sell?
>>According to Air America, the two months or so from the start of the
>>lease to their broadcast debut.
>Was any of Err America's broadcasts interrupted due to "Liu selling
>their time?"
No, but that doesn't matter. If he sold the airtime to Air America, it was
theirs, not Liu's to sell again. Any revenues from selling it to a third
party should have gone to Air America, either in whole or substantial
part.
Dave Simpson
> Air America has already doubled its number of markets and will more than
> double again in May; if you think that's "failure", then that explains
> why you think GW Bush is a success.
Whatever you wish to make up, that makes you happy, little one.
Dave Simpson
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
david_l...@yahoo.com says...
If you think I'm making it up, by all means feel free to cite data that
contradict me.
What? You can't?
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you....
Dave Simpson
> No. It's much deeper than that.
It is as I wrote.
> And by the way, Fox News is MUCH closer to Pravda than any other news source.
> They're in direct collusion with each other and are feeding information back
> and forth. It's damn near state run TV. We're laughing ten times as hard at
> you because you think you're getting real news.
Another lefty makes another joke on himself. Unlike you and your
assumptions, no doubt coming in large part from projection, I don't
watch TV.
Nor am I a mentally-defective or simply loserish hater of
less-liberal Fox.
(I'm surprised the same lefties who deny and lie when it comes to
the truth about the liberal media don't behave more honestly and call
Fox a "traitor" for not being as liberal as the rest of the networks.)
Dave Simpson
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
david_l...@yahoo.com says...
> (I'm surprised the same lefties who deny and lie when it comes to
> the truth about the liberal media don't behave more honestly and call
> Fox a "traitor" for not being as liberal as the rest of the networks.)
More like we laugh at the hypocrisy of righties who denounce
CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC as "liberal biased", but merely refer to FNC ("We
distort, you decide") as "less-liberal".
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ori...@earthlink.net says...
> Expanding into 5, 10, 20 stations doesn't mean you'll make a profit,
> it just means you'll spend money faster. If they can't pay their
> bills already it means they're expanding too fast
...But, as has been explained to you several times, they're having no
trouble paying their bills.
Ford Prefect
"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tdlo809ec3lq4b1e5...@4ax.com...
They don't "own" the
> airwaves, they lease the right to use them
The "right", eh?
Hmmm. So, the guvmint "owns" them, eh?
I think you need to check your Supreme Court cases.
Stephen Thompson
>>>Was any of Err America's broadcasts interrupted due to "Liu selling
>>>their time?"
>>No, but that doesn't matter. If he sold the airtime to Air America, it
>>was theirs, not Liu's to sell again. Any revenues from selling it to a
>>third party should have gone to Air America, either in whole or
>>substantial part.
>Depends on how the contract read.
Absolutely, and I've mentioned several times that we can't be sure what
the contract said. I was just describing Air America's claim.
>If the contract merely said, "Arthur Liu guarantees Air America 17
>hours of programming time a day starting on 3/1/04 at the rate of
>$456.78/hour", then no; Liu has no other obligation under commercial
>law than to provide that airtime to AA when they show up with a
>broadcast tape.
True, but I doubt -- and obviously this is speculation -- that Air America
would have objected if the contract had actually been structured that way.
Stephen Thompson
>So in other words, AA expected the stations to go dark until they got
>around to starting their broadcasts. I can certainly see how AA would
>expect not to pay for that time, but they shouldn't have leased it if
>they weren't going to use it, right? Sounds pretty stupid to me.
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Air America didn't expect not to pay
for that time. They expected to pay for it, but not to have it resold. I
believe they thought they were entitled to at least part of the revenues
from the resale.
As for leasing early, perhaps they had to do that to guarantee that the
station would be available to them when they were ready to launch.
John R Cambron
Sure Air America pays Al Franken and its other employees. but
the station on the networks that carry Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Neal Boortz and Michael Savage don't get paid to carry
there programing. These station pay the syndicater for the
right to carry the programing.
John R Cambron
Time is infinite, money is not. but as you say "only time will
tell".
Frankly in my opinion what trying to sell there is no market for.
T R A C E Y..
See the "Kerry Lies" below.
Conservatives! Use this info on talk programs!
John R Cambron
Ford Prefect wrote:
>
> "OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tdlo809ec3lq4b1e5...@4ax.com...
>
> They don't "own" the
> > airwaves, they lease the right to use them
>
> The "right", eh?
> Hmmm. So, the guvmint "owns" them, eh?
> I think you need to check your Supreme Court cases.
Nit pic. Liu owns the license granted to him by the FCC to
broadcast on the frequency at a power level enumerated in
the license.
T R A C E Y..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38191
The American abortion lobby is poised to hold its death march in
Washington, D.C., to renew their commitment to the slaughter of
premature babies. Of course, they will cynically disguise their agenda
as concern for the lives of women who might be killed if abortion is
again made illegal.
As always, these people are lying through their teeth and as proof I
predict the following:
1. There will be no mention of the women who are currently being
killed in their "safe and legal" abortion clinics. Our website,
LifeDynamics.com, lists several hundred of them, and we know of several
hundred more, including at least six in just the last few months.
2. There will be no mention of the American women who are being
murdered by pro-choice men because these women refuse to submit to
abortions. This is a common and very well-documented problem that has
victimized women for years.
3. There will be no mention of the suspected link between abortion
and breast cancer.
4. There will be no mention of the women who are raped and sexually
assaulted in these "safe and legal" abortion clinics. This problem was
well documented in my book, "Lime 5," also available at LifeDynamics.com.
5. There will be no mention of the almost universal use by
abortion-industry lawyers of the "slut or nut" defense against women who
bring malpractice suits against abortionists.
6. There will be no mention of what the abortion industry intends to
do about the substandard quacks they know are working in their "safe and
legal" abortion clinics. Even some industry apologists have admitted
that they can only attract the washouts and losers of medicine, with one
chain of clinics killing at least 10 women as of February of 2000.
7. There will be no mention of what the abortion industry plans to
do to stop over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptives despite
the fact that these drugs are known to cause serious problems in some women.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
@yahoo.com says...
> John "Fing" Kerry: Can he tell the truth?
David, you're a hypocrite.
Barry Worthington
> See the entire report at:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38191
>
>
>
> The American abortion lobby is poised to hold its death march in
> Washington, D.C., to renew their commitment to the slaughter of
> premature babies.
Tracey, you and your friends are the sort of people that almost make
me feel physically ill...not because of the subject matter, but
because of the way your minds work. All that these people want is the
right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body....in this
case, have an abortion. But you and your friends say that that "is a
commitment to the slaughter of premature babies."
I have a great deal of respect for someone who decides that their
personal morality will not allow them to have an abortion. But not for
people who want to inflict their version of morality upon everyone
else and then distort the language to produce rather sick posts like
this.
A premature baby is a phrase to describe a delivery....when human life
properly begins. We all think that human life is precious (apart from
some uncivilised Americans who have a kink about capital punishment,
but that's another issue), and we would move heaven and earth to
protect a baby. But a foetus is not a baby. Yes, mothers (and fathers)
will fondly refer to it as their 'baby' and that is entirely
understandable. But technically, it isn't.
A foetus cannot survive without the mother. It is part and parcel of
the mother's body. Morally, it must be considered as part of the
mother. Now, if there is a terrible choice between aborting a foetus
and the death of the mother, most people would opt to abort.
We don't like late abortions, for both medical and psychological
grounds. But early abortions are considered in a number of cases where
there is a good case. Surely, a mother has the right to consider how
she will deal with a possible deformity, whether her health will cope
with the pregnancy or its aftermath, or whether the child will have a
decent quality of life. People don't make these decisions lightly, and
no-one actually likes the idea of abortion. But these are individual
choices, and each woman must be allowed to make them.
Of course, they will cynically disguise their agenda
> as concern for the lives of women who might be killed if abortion is
> again made illegal.
And that is an important consideration, nothing cynical about it. I
would imagine that the death toll was just as horrendous in America as
it was over here in Britain before the law reform...
> As always, these people are lying through their teeth and as proof I
> predict the following:
>
> 1. There will be no mention of the women who are currently being
> killed in their "safe and legal" abortion clinics. Our website,
> LifeDynamics.com, lists several hundred of them, and we know of several
> hundred more, including at least six in just the last few months.
Yes, people do die in the course of medical procedures. So what is
your point?
>
> 2. There will be no mention of the American women who are being
> murdered by pro-choice men because these women refuse to submit to
> abortions. This is a common and very well-documented problem that has
> victimized women for years.
Really? I do hope that you have the statistics and sources to back
this up.
>
> 3. There will be no mention of the suspected link between abortion
> and breast cancer.
And there are other 'suspected links to cancer'. So what?
>
> 4. There will be no mention of the women who are raped and sexually
> assaulted in these "safe and legal" abortion clinics. This problem was
> well documented in my book, "Lime 5," also available at LifeDynamics.com.
I am coming to the conclusion that you are a nutter...why not post
this 'evidence' here and now?
>
> 5. There will be no mention of the almost universal use by
> abortion-industry lawyers of the "slut or nut" defense against women who
> bring malpractice suits against abortionists.
Are these particularly common? How many instances of this are they?
>
> 6. There will be no mention of what the abortion industry intends to
> do about the substandard quacks they know are working in their "safe and
> legal" abortion clinics. Even some industry apologists have admitted
> that they can only attract the washouts and losers of medicine, with one
> chain of clinics killing at least 10 women as of February of 2000.
The fact that you have some pretty dubious medical provision in
America is not an argument. This isn't an issue in other places...
>
> 7. There will be no mention of what the abortion industry plans to
> do to stop over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptives despite
> the fact that these drugs are known to cause serious problems in some women.
We have provision for this type of medication in Britain. It doesn't
cause a problem as far as I'm aware.
You are really scraping the barrel, aren't you?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Tracey..--
Bill
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:32:26 GMT, Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
>wrote:
>>Air America isn't getting paid for those commercials they're running?
>
>There's "getting paid" and then there's "getting paid enough". There
>are different commercial rates for broadcast shows depending on time
>of day and likely audience. A 3 AM show on flower arranging wouldn't
>be expected to have a very large following, no? So anyone advertising
>on that show would demand to pay the lowest commercial rate for that
>time period
I have no idea what the cash flow situation is, I would guess at the
moment it is negative. I was just refuting the falsehood that they're
not getting paid for their programming.
>Likewise with a brand new show there's no way to gauge how popular
>it's going to be so advertisers will insist on the lowest rate for
>that time of day in that area. Only when the quarterly ratings come
>in and the sales people can (they hope) point to large audience shares
>can they negotiate higher rates. Considering start-up costs,
>initially ad revenues may not cover the cost of running the network.
>That's why liberal talk radio has always failed before: the audiences
>don't materialize so they can't dig themselves out of the hole they
>started in so they get dropped. Franken & crew are trying to sidestep
>that by creating the network themselves so they CAN'T get dropped but
>that doesn't mean they'll have the ratings to justify the higher ad
>rates they need to stay in business.
And it doesn't mean they won't. And you're right, they are trying to
sidestep a problem which has afflicted past efforts to syndicate
liberal talkers. There's no way of knowing now whether they'll be
successful or not, but do you blame them for trying something
different?
>Incidentally, the RA streaming hits are useless for gauging market
>share. These can easily be manipulated and most advertisers are
>LOCAL. It does a Chicago car dealer no good if the show is popularly
>in Berkeley, CA does it now?
No. Air America will have to court national advertisers, the way
Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. do.
>Expanding into 5, 10, 20 stations doesn't mean you'll make a profit,
>it just means you'll spend money faster. If they can't pay their
>bills already it means they're expanding too fast and will run out of
>start-up money before they can find their market niche.
I've seen no evidence so far that they're having a problem paying
their bills. As I said before, someone from AA said that they were
prepared to wait two years to see a profit, which suggests they're
prepared for a slow build-up.
Bill
<*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> And most ot them took many years to achieve national success. Perhaps
>> AA believes their plan will "jump start" things and get them to
>> national prominence more quickly. Maybe they're right, maybe they're
>> wrong; only time will tell.
>
>Time is infinite, money is not. but as you say "only time will
>tell".
>
>Frankly in my opinion what trying to sell there is no market for.
In the last two presidential elections, candidates who were attacked
as being not just "liberal", but "ultra-liberal" won in the
neighborhood of half the votes. Why wouldn't there be a market for
liberal talk radio?
Bill
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:44:39 GMT, Bill <bwil...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>You're right in that AA's business plan is not typical for talk radio,
>>but there's nothing especially irrational about it. It may not have
>>ever been tried before, but is that sound reason not to try it?
>
>It's not a good reason to expect it will work.
Why not? Have you seen their business plan?
Bill
<*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>
>
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:22:26 GMT, "Bill Gamelson"
>> <bill.g...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Stations pay Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity too.
>>
>> And Air America pays Al Franken and its other employees.
>>
>> So?
>
>Sure Air America pays Al Franken and its other employees. but
>the station on the networks that carry Rush Limbaugh, Sean
>Hannity, Neal Boortz and Michael Savage don't get paid to carry
>there programing. These station pay the syndicater for the
>right to carry the programing.
Do you understand that Air America is not a syndicated program?
If you open a store, more often than not you pay rent to a landlord.
Air America is paying for the use of broadcast facilities, that's all.
Stephen Thompson
>>Air America didn't expect not to pay for that time. They expected to
>>pay for it, but not to have it resold. I believe they thought they
>>were entitled to at least part of the revenues from the resale.
>Nope. You have to "take possession" of an asset to resell or rent it
>out and AA didn't do that.
Three reasons to doubt your conclusion:
First, you claim that an owner is allowed to release something if the
lessee isn't using it -- you gave the example of a boat -- but I don't
know if that's true. Cite?
Second, even if that's true with some assets, there may be specific laws
regarding radio airtime that differ.
Third, regardless of what generally applies, as you said in another post,
in this case it "depends on how the contract read." Even if the rule about
taking possession is true and applies to airtime, the contract could still
say something like "Arthur Liu agrees that Air America has possession of
all leased airtime for the duration of this lease."
>If they thought they were being shafted they could have challenged the
>charges in court but they were obligated to make the payments until they
>either got a court order saying they didn't have to or the court decided
>the issue.
Incorrect. The law allows for stopped payments when there is a "good faith
dispute" for a variety of reasons, including a possible overcharge.
Here are excerpts from a summary of California's laws about checks:
"Special rules apply if the drawer of a check has stopped payment.34 These
rules preserve the right of a drawer to stop payment for any legitimate
reason. If a drawer exercises the right to stop payment in order to
resolve a good faith dispute with the payee, no statutory penalty can be
imposed, even if the court later determines that the drawer is obligated
to pay the obligation for which the check was given."
"A drawer who acts in good faith can exercise his or her right to stop
payment without incurring the risk of liability for the statutory penalty,
a service charge or mailing costs. Even if it turns out that the drawer
was obligated to make the payment for which the check was given, the payee
cannot recover a service charge, mailing costs or a statutory penalty, if
the drawer stopped payment in good faith."
"A 'good faith dispute' is one in which the court finds that the drawer
had 'a reasonable belief of his or her legal entitlement to withhold
payment.' The statute states that '[g]rounds for the entitlement include,
but are not limited to, the following: services were not rendered, goods
were not delivered, goods or services purchased are faulty, not as
promised, or otherwise unsatisfactory, or there was an overcharge.'"
Robert M.
Robert M.
How come all these so called ProLife Conservatives are also for the
Death Penalty?
Dave Simpson
> > > Air America has already doubled its number of markets and will more than
> > > double again in May; if you think that's "failure", then that explains
> > > why you think GW Bush is a success.
> >
> > Whatever you wish to make up, that makes you happy, little one.
>
> If you think I'm making it up, by all means feel free to cite data that
> contradict me.
>
> What? You can't?
"Then that explains why you think GW Bush is a success" -- this is
simply illogical and made-up horseshit by you.
> I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you....
That's not all that's wrong with your head.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> > (I'm surprised the same lefties who deny and lie when it comes to
> > the truth about the liberal media don't behave more honestly and call
> > Fox a "traitor" for not being as liberal as the rest of the networks.)
> More like we laugh at the hypocrisy of righties who denounce
> CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC as "liberal biased", but merely refer to FNC ("We
> distort, you decide") as "less-liberal".
You left out "because" of the flat earth, etc.. Your head is up your ass.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> WOW! Lets see.....16 stations X 2 = 32 stations.
I let that claim of his slide, as there was other bullshit in what
he posted.
> Are you suggesting that Air AmeriKa, originally designed to compete
> with Rush Limbaugh, will have a whopping 32 stations?
>
> Rush has over 600.
There are several conservative talk radio shows that are found on
stations all over the nation, which is what we expect before we'll
ever take Pravda with any seriousness. These radio shows are able to
sell their time instead of having to buy it as Pravda has. (In
particular, this was an especially big blunder by the Pravda people
because their NPR competition is has an advantage, funding
[mis]appropriated by the government out of the taxpayers' pockets.)
The "mainstream" media already should have their Blue cheerleader
uniforms on when it comes to the 2004 campaign, as well as
representing their liberalism in other ways. There is no lack of the
liberal viewpoint on the airwaves (nor in print); in fact,
conservative talk radio sprung up as an alternative because so many
people were tired of the liberal-view near-monopoly on the airwaves
(and in published news) as well as the bias in "news" presentation.
There never was a "need" that was going missing, despite what Pravda's
people or any other leftists have been claiming. Who cares if a small
number of extremists are dishonest with us and with themselves and
even accuse the media of being "right wing" instead? (FAIR is a
stellar example of this gross distortion and even dishonesty).
Dave Simpson
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> There are several conservative talk radio shows that are found on
> stations all over the nation, which is what we expect before we'll
> ever take Pravda
The fact that you equate "liberal" and "communist" merely proves that
*you* are not to be taken seriously.
Juan*Jimenez
@news05.east.earthlink.net:
> Luckily January 20, Kerry will be sworn in.
>
>
> How come all these so called ProLife Conservatives are also for the
> Death Penalty?
It's called "do as I say, not as I do." there's no such thing as pro-life,
it's anti-choice.