Mickey Announces Rothmann 10-1 Slot
Ciccio
Ciccio
gvk2
> Right On!
>
> Ciccio
Rothmann it is...
Well he was always in the running.
I have it on good word that in order to close the deal, he promised
Micky that he'd soften the "POC" in Pocky-stahnn, his one
objectionable habit with recently polled listeners.
Ciccio
> Rothmann it is...
> Well he was always in the running.
>
> I have it on good word that in order to close the deal, he promised
> Micky that he'd soften the "POC" in Pocky-stahnn, his one
> objectionable habit with recently polled listeners.
Jeez, with Obama so popular in the BA, you'd think that pronouncing
Pakistan like Obama does, would be a hit.
Anyhow, BRAVO! to KGO.
Ciccio
katie
Of the candidates mentioned, best decision by far.
gvk2
Its not just the pronunciation, but mostly the punching-up of the
"POC" portion that is causing troubles.
Ciccio
> On Sep 10, 10:30 am, Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Jeez, with Obama so popular in the BA, you'd think that pronouncing
> > Pakistan like Obama does, would be a hit.
> Its not just the pronunciation, but mostly the punching-up of the
> "POC" portion that is causing troubles.
Listen to Obama, it's not much of a diff...
Ciccio
John Slade
> Right On!
>
> Ciccio
I wonder who's going to take over Ronthman's weekend gig.
John
Stratum101
Seconded.
gvk2
Interesting... Copie's got the time. All he does is sleep during
those hours.
Most of the other candidates for the 10-1 have been women.
Very rarely has a women ever done those all-night hours thus far.
Looks like another 12 months of trials...
John Higdon
<be966fe9-7227-464a...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
katie <kates...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of the candidates mentioned, best decision by far.
I think it was an exceedingly bad choice. I thought the idea was to
lower the age demographic, not raise it. In any event, I certainly hope
they scrap the plan of having him run his own board. As a board
operator, he is certifiably terrible.
If you want an example, go to the archive when JR is substituting Ray
earlier in the week. Pay particular attention to the 1:15 to 1:20 AM
segment.
Sounded worse than Tuna, Texas!
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
David Kaye
>
>Of the candidates mentioned, best decision by far.
I disagree. John Rothmann has been excellent when filling in for Ronn Owens,
so much so that someone actually phoned me and said, "Hey, you've got to
listen." It was true. But on his own show and on 10-1 he reverted to his
all presidents, all the time format.
There is no denying he's good with callers, respectful, and intelligent. It's
just that he seems to have just 3 or 4 topics that he hammers over and over.
It also drives me up a wall when he mentions working for Nixon. Hell, he
couldn't have been older than 19 or 20 when he did that, so it strains
credulity to believe that he had any impact whatsoever on Nixon or his
administration. It's likely he was a glorified gopher.
So, let's see...Ronn hates Gene for taking his topics. Gene hates John for
being pedantic. Hmmm...
My vote all along has been for Christine Craft. I told her several times, she
should have talked more about surfing. That would have brought in the badly
needed younger demographic, as well as being a refreshing break from the
political talk.
--
"San Francisco is the pretty whore who won't
love you back." -- Rush Limbaugh, circa 1990
gvk2
> katie <katesmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It also drives me up a wall when he mentions working for Nixon. Hell, he
> couldn't have been older than 19 or 20 when he did that, so it strains
> credulity to believe that he had any impact whatsoever on Nixon or his
> administration. It's likely he was a glorified gopher.
Seems he was either born in 1949 or 1950.
That would make him 59 or 60 years old.
During the Nixon administration he would have been about age 19 to 24,
possibly 25 at the point of resignation.
Depending on which years are in question, he probably was out of
college and hardly a teenager. Perhaps 22 to 24
Dick Cheney was holding important positions in the Nixon White House
by age 29 and 30.
Thomas Jefferson began his political career at age 26 and was writing
he Declaration of Independence by age 33.
So I'm thinking in your early 20's, out of college, you could learn
lots and even have some responsibility.
Learning more than you might selling shoes at Thom McCann and shooting
the bull with friends at night.
David Kaye
>I think it was an exceedingly bad choice. I thought the idea was to
>lower the age demographic, not raise it.
There is nothing wrong with being old. But there is also the geezer factor
and John Rothmann plays to those people. I'm reminded of a penpal I once met.
He ws in his 20s but acted like he was 90+ and infirm. Why? Because he had
spent years working in rest homes and started taking on the characteristics of
his patients.
John Rothmann apparently has enough money from the coffee fortune that he can
spend all his time giving classes in politics at senior centers. However,
like my penpal, it appears that he's taking on their characteristics.
It's amazing that James Gabbert is older than John Rothmann and yet he comes
across as a generation younger.
>In any event, I certainly hope
>they scrap the plan of having him run his own board. As a board
>operator, he is certifiably terrible.
Agreed. Is it really so difficult to run a board?
gvk2
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>
> It's amazing that James Gabbert is older than John Rothmann and yet he comes
> across as a generation younger.
>
Yes but Gabbert was involved in the 60's, 70's and 80's in a way that
I doubt Rothmann ever was.
I don't get the idea that John Rothmann was ever a long haired pot
smoking hippie driving around in a VW van.
Perhaps that only supports your theme.
I was really a toss up on who would be the best 10 - 1 host.
I was happy with the rotation.
David Kaye
>I don't get the idea that John Rothmann was ever a long haired pot
>smoking hippie driving around in a VW van.
Neither was Gabbert. Fresh out of Stanford with an engineering degree, after
operating a pirate radio station he was convinced by Ney Landry of the FCC to
instead buy a defunct FM. He and some partners bought the license for the old
KLX-FM.
Gabbert was a fairly rightist kind of guy and has never had long hair. Not
sure if he did any pot smoking, but the parties aboard his yachts were
legendary.
At the time "Eve of Destruction" came out, he insisted on playing a really
awful response song called "Dawn of Correction" by a really really bad vocal
group called the Back Porch Majority. I've never known JG personally, but
from the people I know who know him, he was right up there with mom, apple
pie, righteousness, and the occasional indiscretion.
Stratum101
> In article
> <be966fe9-7227-464a-ab17-07ef5e569...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> katie <katesmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of the candidates mentioned, best decision by far.
>
> I think it was an exceedingly bad choice. I thought the idea was to
> lower the age demographic, not raise it. In any event, I certainly hope
> they scrap the plan of having him run his own board. As a board
> operator, he is certifiably terrible.
Now that you mention it, I remember one Saturday
night when a fantastic "Prairie Home Companion"
(the last live one before the summer hiatus, if I
recall correctly) was followed by a fantastic "Selected
Shorts". This was on KERA whose Saturday night
schedule is similar to KQED's but an hour earlier.
In between, there were about 30 seconds of dead air
before the staffer came to the microphone to make
a couple of announcements. He sounded out of
breath. Must've been running back from a
bathroom break.
The dead air meant nothing. I do not
think it will affect the next pledge
drive by one cent.
Only people who don't read books
will be impressed by a "professional"
souinding break between insipid
programs.
Ciccio
> There is nothing wrong with being old. But there is also the geezer factor
> and John Rothmann plays to those people. I'm reminded of a penpal I once met.
> He ws in his 20s but acted like he was 90+ and infirm. Why? Because he had
> spent years working in rest homes and started taking on the characteristics of
> his patients.
Don't sell him short on young people, especially, young academic types
who often tune in to NPR, KQED, etc. My niece is 23 and a history
graduate student, she often listens to Rothmann. She also spoke well
of the book he co-authored, "Icon of Evil."Also, a young lawyer, about
28, I know, also enjoys his show. Likewise, another person I know in
his early 30's mentioned a Rothmann show he listened to. Granted,
it's not a survey, but I'll leave that sorta stuff Luckoff. He
apparently is pretty savvy when it comes to picking winners.
Ciccio
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with being old.
Stations can't sell "old" to advertisers...or so I've been reminded
repeatedly.
> But there is also the geezer factor
> and John Rothmann plays to those people. I'm reminded of a penpal I once
> met.
> He ws in his 20s but acted like he was 90+ and infirm. Why? Because he had
> spent years working in rest homes and started taking on the characteristics
> of
> his patients.
As you point out, he give lectures at senior centers. Everything he says
sounds like it is being delivered from a lectern at a college. If you
dare disagree with him directly, he will assume his schoolmarm stance
and remind you of his credentials.
> John Rothmann apparently has enough money from the coffee fortune that he can
> spend all his time giving classes in politics at senior centers. However,
> like my penpal, it appears that he's taking on their characteristics.
This is so apparent that I really am shocked that a station that is
almost in crisis mode over the ascending age of its audience would
install a host such as this. Sure, he is on after the kook witching
hour, but giving him the slot legitimizes his approach...which is not
what KGO needs.
> It's amazing that James Gabbert is older than John Rothmann and yet he comes
> across as a generation younger.
Jim would have been a wonderful choice. I never seriously considered him
because I couldn't imagine him agreeing to be tied down like that.
> Agreed. Is it really so difficult to run a board?
Understand that Rothmann's technical grasp is somewhat less than zero.
He does everything by rote, and when the slightest anomaly occurs, he is
a fish flapping about on the dock. Listen to that archive I referenced.
It's priceless.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> Gabbert was a fairly rightist kind of guy and has never had long hair. Not
> sure if he did any pot smoking, but the parties aboard his yachts were
> legendary.
Politically and economically, Jim is fairly buttoned down as a
conservative. Yet, he can discuss it all without heating up emotionally,
a wonderful trait in a talkshow host.
> At the time "Eve of Destruction" came out, he insisted on playing a really
> awful response song called "Dawn of Correction" by a really really bad vocal
> group called the Back Porch Majority. I've never known JG personally, but
> from the people I know who know him, he was right up there with mom, apple
> pie, righteousness, and the occasional indiscretion.
That pretty much sums it up.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
How can this be? How can there be nothing above about which I disagree?
John Higdon
<b39e8106-d447-4d34...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seems he was either born in 1949 or 1950.
> That would make him 59 or 60 years old.
He's *younger* than I am? I'm pretty much a codger, but I can't hold a
candle to John Rothmann.
David Kaye
>My niece is 23 and a history
>graduate student, she often listens to Rothmann. She also spoke well
>of the book he co-authored, "Icon of Evil."Also, a young lawyer, about
>28, I know, also enjoys his show.
Why don't they ever call his show? Instead he gets know-nothings who merely
echo what he's saying and contribute nothing to his show, or hasbeens who
probably haven't been out of the house since World War II.
Where are all those younger people? Why aren't they calling?
Gerry
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >My niece is 23 and a history
> >graduate student, she often listens to Rothmann. She also spoke well
> >of the book he co-authored, "Icon of Evil."Also, a young lawyer, about
> >28, I know, also enjoys his show.
>
> Why don't they ever call his show? Instead he gets know-nothings who merely
> echo what he's saying and contribute nothing to his show, or hasbeens who
> probably haven't been out of the house since World War II.
>
> Where are all those younger people? Why aren't they calling?
Young people are not listening to the radio. With all the streaming
music, video, and mp3 players they don't find the time or need to listen
to radio least of all talk radio.
David Kaye
>Young people are not listening to the radio. With all the streaming
>music, video, and mp3 players they don't find the time or need to listen
>to radio least of all talk radio.
But Ciccio said that these were specific people who do. Also, KGO puts more
programming into podcasts than any other station: 24/7 and up for an entire
week at a time. I don't doubt for a minute that people under age 50 will
listen to talkradio -- obviously they listen to KQED -- you just have to give
them something interesting to listen to.
David Kaye
>
>How can this be? How can there be nothing above about which I disagree?
We're soul mates, John.
David Kaye
>If you want an example, go to the archive when JR is substituting Ray
>earlier in the week. Pay particular attention to the 1:15 to 1:20 AM
>segment.
Okay, I just played it back. What happened? In the old days when each spot
was on its own cart and there were multiple cart machines each with its own
pre-amp, if something jammed or quit you could simply move to another machine
and get it to work. What's the case with the audio files? Joe never showed
me any of that. If it's all one one computer and has one interface then I can
understand why it would be frustrating if something didn't fire when it was
supposed to.
When I was a DJ I remember once when a preamp went out on a turntable and
there was only one other turntable and nothing patchable to get the other one
working. And it was a Saturday at 6am and the CE was in Stockton and there
was nobody else around for hours. Luckily there were some carted songs to
play and I could jockey spots around in order to cue up records. But at least
I had something to work with. But what happens when you have nothing to work
with?
Or is there a backup computer online?
AngieC
> Agreed. Is it really so difficult to run a board?
Of course it is, for some. People have different skill sets and
aptitudes. I sucked as a board op - cried through my first solo shift,
in fact. And never did get completely comfortable. Managed to take the
station off the air twice in one night, too.
One can be trained, and I was. But you can only get so good at
something you don't have the knack for, and doing it while focusing on
other tasks (hosting a show) makes it that much harder.
AngieC
> There is nothing wrong with being old.
Nothing wrong with being a white guy, either, but they're already top-
heavy with those.
I adore John Rothmann - excellent host, and a warm, generous man. But
it defies all common sense that in - what, 20 years now? - not a
single woman has been deemed good enough to take a slot there. At
this point, it's hard to deny institutional sexism.
gvk2
Uh, what about Shawn Nix (uncertain spelling) or was she always only
weekend?
Ciccio
> Where are all those younger people? Why aren't they calling?
The ones I mentioned, apparently listen when they're up late studying
or getting home after some youthful party-hardy. Neither one of which
lends well to being a caller. That, however, does raise an
interesting question...Are the demographics of callers and listeners
the same?
Hell, I've been listening to talk shows forever. I, however, have only
called a show once because some tech guy was on. It was way pre-
Google. Anyhow,he couldn't answer my question, and that was that...
Ciccio
BayAreaBroadcast
And practically every host on KGO is Jewish.
Owens, Tillem, Gross, Rothmann, Nemko, ...
David Kaye
>I adore John Rothmann - excellent host, and a warm, generous man. But
>it defies all common sense that in - what, 20 years now? - not a
>single woman has been deemed good enough to take a slot there. At
>this point, it's hard to deny institutional sexism.
One does wonder. If Rachel Maddow were available, KGO would probably put her
on overnight fill-in, too.
Okay, lemme take the other side for a moment. If KGO is going news/talk
rather than just talk, that is, if they're going to specialize in "issues of
the day", then they're going after an audience that is largely men. Men seem
to like to talk politics, espeically when they know nothing about it.
Okay, in entertainment, people tend to like performers who are much like
themselves. Thus, a bluegrass band made up of people in their 60s will
attract people in their 60s and a bluegrass band made up of people in their
20s will attract an audience in their 20s. Believe me, I see this happen all
the time.
So, it would stand to reason that if KGO is going to do political talk as its
mainstay, then it's probably in their interest to select hosts who are much
like their audience: elderly white men.
For me, the steady diet of politics bores me to tears, and I am/have been a
political animal myself.
I still want to hear about surfing.
David Kaye
>That, however, does raise an
>interesting question...Are the demographics of callers and listeners
>the same?
When I did talkradio in Portland I discovered that the callers were for the
most part shut-ins but the audience ran across the board.
I remember one afternoon our call screening software bombed (it was touchy)
and I remembered that there was a memory poke that would keep the computer
from crashing, but I couldn't remember what the memory location was. Okay,
this was a VERY esoteric thing to talk about on the radio. Well, I asked
anyway. And within a couple minutes, a 15 year old computer geek called me
and told me the correct memory location!
So, I know for a fact that there can be people of all ages out there, but they
may not call in unless they feel they can contribute something worthwhile to
the discussion.
I lurk on a lot of newsgroups, for instance, but I only post to about 4. The
others I don't feel I can contribute anything worthwhile. I'm sure it's the
same for most potential callers, the ones who will always be potential.
>Hell, I've been listening to talk shows forever. I, however, have only
>called a show once because some tech guy was on. It was way pre-
>Google. Anyhow,he couldn't answer my question, and that was that...
The only show I'll call is Dr. Dean Edell. Well, maybe once or twice I've
called others, but they were also specialty shows. I don't feel I can
contribute much to the discussion when it comes to politics because the host
has his (and it's always a his) mind made up and isn't going to consider
another point of view anyway, so why bother?
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> The only show I'll call is Dr. Dean Edell. Well, maybe once or twice I've
> called others, but they were also specialty shows. I don't feel I can
> contribute much to the discussion when it comes to politics because the host
> has his (and it's always a his) mind made up and isn't going to consider
> another point of view anyway, so why bother?
I'm amused to see both Wattenburg and Rothmann described similarly, but
with different subjective conclusions. While Rothmann is not as old as
Wattenburg, he sounds older. Both are described as pedantic. Both are
criticized as "topic limited". Both respond quite negatively to
disagreement from a caller.
It would seem that the difference is simply the fact that more listeners
agree with Rothmann's politics.
gvk2
> In article <h8d461$j2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
Both respond quite negatively to
> disagreement from a caller.
>
> It would seem that the difference is simply the fact that more listeners
> agree with Rothmann's politics.
>
I think the "professor"---"I know"...aspect of Rothmann is what irks
me most from time to time.
I would contrast that "I know" attitude sometimes found in Rothmann
with those opinions I would hear from Owens, Gross, and Burns. Those
three have opinions but seldom state them in ways where the
implication is "sure, we'll listen to you air your opinion, but
clearly I'm right, I'm the professor".
Now, that is not always the case, and I enjoy Rothmann much of the
time even though he does that a bit too often.
Its like he gets a idea...establishes his opinion, and then every
other opinion is obviously from a person who doesn't have a grasp of
the truth.
I seldom get that feeling from Owens, Gross, or Burns.
On the other hand, that is the operational mode of Wattenburg about
90% of the time. Rothmann does it far less.
spamtrap1888
> Its like he gets a idea...establishes his opinion, and then every
> other opinion is obviously from a person who doesn't have a grasp of
> the truth.
> I seldom get that feeling from Owens, Gross, or Burns.
>
> On the other hand, that is the operational mode of Wattenburg about
> 90% of the time. Rothmann does it far less.
In terms of how they react when a caller disagrees with him,
Wattenburg is the midpoint between Rothmann and Taliaferro.
John Higdon
<7faf4c25-25f4-455f...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In terms of how they react when a caller disagrees with him,
> Wattenburg is the midpoint between Rothmann and Taliaferro.
Actually, they are functionally identical. If you disagree with
Rothmann, you will get the full professorial dress down, as if you YOU
couldn't possibly have a valid counterpoint to the learned wisdom of the
aged. Rothmann walked five miles to school each day, both directions
uphill, and you are not going to forget it.
chris319
> Fresh out of Stanford with an engineering degree
When I worked for him the legend was that he had not graduated from
Stanford. Graduating with an engineering degree sounds like a recent
creation to me if he was ever enrolled at Stanford at all. One never
heard about Jerry Jensen backing him and Gary Gielow in purchasing the
KLX-FM license.
gvk2
>
> Actually, they are functionally identical. If you disagree with
> Rothmann, you will get the full professorial dress down, as if you YOU
> couldn't possibly have a valid counterpoint to the learned wisdom of the
> aged. Rothmann walked five miles to school each day, both directions
> uphill, and you are not going to forget it.
But, he's got 15,000+ books to back up his opinion!
Hmmm....Assuming he got serious about at age 15 and continued until
age 60, that would be 15,000/45 years or about 333 books per year,
or .90 books per day.
Assume the average book is 350 pages x .90 = 315 pages a day, 7 days
a week.
Just guessing but I don't think he's read all of them cover to
cover. Unless of course he is a Evelyn Wood graduate.
I'd like to know his travel bio. How much time has he spent outside
the USA. How many days, weeks, and in which countries.
I believe he has done a fair amount of travel in some limited areas of
the world.
When hosts begin spouting off about world affairs I always want to
know their sense of reality versus what they get reading Time magazine
and the NY Times.
I remember calling in to Bernie's show once many years ago (about 1994
I think) when he was going on and on about Singapore and the "police
state"...caning etc.
I grilled him to the point where he, in his mid 40's, finally
admitted he had never traveled anywhere outside the continental USA
except for 1 trip to a Baja California "health" farm/spa.
Totally deflating his projection of himself as having any real
knowledge of Singapore or anything else outside of what he read in
Time, National Geographic, and the SF Chronicle..
In that respect Bernie and George Bush #2 were about equal.
So where has Rothmann been? Anyone know the extent of his travels?
John Higdon
<0392c9c6-e40f-4519...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
chris319 <c319...@aol.com> wrote:
> When I worked for him the legend was that he had not graduated from
> Stanford. Graduating with an engineering degree sounds like a recent
> creation to me if he was ever enrolled at Stanford at all. One never
> heard about Jerry Jensen backing him and Gary Gielow in purchasing the
> KLX-FM license.
I guess it depends upon the circles in which you traveled. His
associations with Gary Gielow (ever hear of Gabbert-Gielow
Productions?), Jerry Jensen, Mike lincoln, and others were well-known.
Since I don't give a rat's damn about certificates on walls (I'm more of
a results-oriented person), I never even delved into Jim's sheepskinery.
As far as I know, he did graduate from Stanford.
But who cares? I know there are many Stanford graduates who couldn't see
his actual accomplishments in this industry with a high-powered
telescope.
David Kaye
>When hosts begin spouting off about world affairs I always want to
>know their sense of reality versus what they get reading Time magazine
>and the NY Times.
This is why I hated Karel's show so much. He was in over his depth on most
issues because he was informed on most issues by watching TV news channels.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
John Higdon
<696409f6-c01c-4658...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hmmm....Assuming he got serious about at age 15 and continued until
> age 60, that would be 15,000/45 years or about 333 books per year,
> or .90 books per day.
My question to a "book reader" as well as a certificated academic: "But
what the hell can you DO?"
David Kaye
>When I worked for him the legend was that he had not graduated from
>Stanford. Graduating with an engineering degree sounds like a recent
>creation to me if he was ever enrolled at Stanford at all. One never
>heard about Jerry Jensen backing him and Gary Gielow in purchasing the
>KLX-FM license.
Well, one knew about these guys if one knew about the history of KPEN. Jerry,
for those just joining us, was a well-liked TV news anchor at KRON and later
at KGO-TV.
Anyhow, the story about Gabbert and Gielow being Stanford engineering grads
goes back a long time, not a recent creation at all. Now, I've never seen
their sheepskin so I don't know for a fact.
Peter
> It would seem that the difference is simply the fact that more listeners
> agree with Rothmann's politics.
That is certainly a strong point in favor of granting Rothmann fifteen
hours of prime-time (weekday) airtime, vs What-a-Bore's six hours of
off-prime (weekend) air-time.
Ask What-a-Bore a question of any degree of significance about his
alleged primary field (nuclear bombs and thermonuclear bombs --
insiders all know that there is nothing which is called an "atomic
bomb" by its developers) and all you'll get is a blank stare, and the
usual What-a-Bore dressing down.
And, I'm not referring to a question which is in any way "secret", either.
His responses to honest questions have always been completely evasive
in that respect, yet the truth is widely available in public domain
documents, as released by journalists, or LANL or LLNL or LBNL, or
others who have been directly involved, as What-a-Bore claimes to have
been, in his CV.
--
Peter Haas - Monterey Bay, California
+1 831 GArden 6-5482
Should you quote, please quote only the relevant text!
spamtrap1888
> chris319 <c319ch...@aol.com> wrote:
> >When I worked for him the legend was that he had not graduated from
> >Stanford. Graduating with an engineering degree sounds like a recent
> >creation to me if he was ever enrolled at Stanford at all. One never
> >heard about Jerry Jensen backing him and Gary Gielow in purchasing the
> >KLX-FM license.
>
> Well, one knew about these guys if one knew about the history of KPEN. Jerry,
> for those just joining us, was a well-liked TV news anchor at KRON and later
> at KGO-TV.
>
> Anyhow, the story about Gabbert and Gielow being Stanford engineering grads
> goes back a long time, not a recent creation at all. Now, I've never seen
> their sheepskin so I don't know for a fact.
>
Using "teh Google" I find that a Jim Gabbert is identified as a member
of the Stanford Class of '58. Unless you can be an alumnus without
graduating, I'd say he did.
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/erc/reunions/rh08committee_reader.html?searching=1&search_text=58
John Higdon
<df359ce9-5170-4fa4...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using "teh Google" I find that a Jim Gabbert is identified as a member
> of the Stanford Class of '58. Unless you can be an alumnus without
> graduating, I'd say he did.
What do you know! About the time he put KPEN, Atherton on the air. And
yes, I remember when that went on the air.
John Higdon
Peter <peter...@rattlebrain.com> wrote:
> Ask What-a-Bore a question of any degree of significance about his
> alleged primary field (nuclear bombs and thermonuclear bombs --
> insiders all know that there is nothing which is called an "atomic
> bomb" by its developers) and all you'll get is a blank stare, and the
> usual What-a-Bore dressing down.
Ask Rothmann a question and you'll get either a devotional for Obama or
a promotional spiel for the Democratic party. When one finds politics
100% boring, it really is a tune out.
gvk2
>
> Ask What-a-Bore a question of any degree of significance about his
> alleged primary field (nuclear bombs and thermonuclear bombs --
> insiders all know that there is nothing which is called an "atomic
> bomb" by its developers) and all you'll get is a blank stare, and the
> usual What-a-Bore dressing down.
>
> And, I'm not referring to a question which is in any way "secret", either.
>
> His responses to honest questions have always been completely evasive
> in that respect, yet the truth is widely available in public domain
> documents, as released by journalists, or LANL or LLNL or LBNL, or
> others who have been directly involved, as What-a-Bore claimes to have
> been, in his CV.
>
Fault him for lots of things, but to suggest he doesn't know much
about "nuclear bombs and thermonuclear bombs" is absurd.
Or as he might suggest, you are wearing a "paper hat"
Peter
> Ask Rothmann a question and you'll get either a devotional for Obama or
> a promotional spiel for the Democratic party. When one finds politics
> 100% boring, it really is a tune out.
Well, at least you didn't commit the usual Republican Party� re-writing
of history by calling it the "Democrat Party", rather than its correct,
trademarked and registered name, the Democratic Party�.
Peter
> Or as he might suggest, you are wearing a "paper hat"
Sticks and stones, you "tosser".
John Higdon
Peter <peter...@rattlebrain.com> wrote:
> Well, at least you didn't commit the usual Republican Party� re-writing
> of history by calling it the "Democrat Party", rather than its correct,
> trademarked and registered name, the Democratic Party�.
No matter how much I may disagree with anyone or any organization, it is
not an excuse to show disrespect by using any name other than that by
which they or it wish to be called. I may have lapses from irresistible
situations, but generally I do respect that principle.
SMS
> Well, at least you didn't commit the usual Republican Party� re-writing
> of history by calling it the "Democrat Party", rather than its correct,
> trademarked and registered name, the Democratic Party�.
Somewhere in the right-wing operations manual is an instruction to
always call it the "Democrat Party." When you hear that term used, it's
a pretty accurate indicator that the person using it is about to start
telling some spectacular lies.
Anyway, congratulations to Rothmann, his shows are almost always
extremely interesting and he has a depth of knowledge of the issues that
exceeds that of Owens or Burns. It was an excellent choice by KGO.
Patty Winter
In article <4aab1e44$0$1634$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>Somewhere in the right-wing operations manual is an instruction to
>always call it the "Democrat Party." When you hear that term used, it's
>a pretty accurate indicator that the person using it is about to start
>telling some spectacular lies.
That's for sure! It's just like the people who used to call the
president "Shrub."
>Anyway, congratulations to Rothmann, his shows are almost always
>extremely interesting and he has a depth of knowledge of the issues that
>exceeds that of Owens or Burns. It was an excellent choice by KGO.
IMO, he has the *potential* to be a very good host. But he needs
to put effort into covering a wide range of topics. Otherwise, if
it becomes All Presidents, All the Time, I'll quickly be going back
to the late-evening rerun of ATC.
Patty
spamtrap1888
> In article <4aab1e44$0$1634$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Somewhere in the right-wing operations manual is an instruction to
> >always call it the "Democrat Party." When you hear that term used, it's
> >a pretty accurate indicator that the person using it is about to start
> >telling some spectacular lies.
>
> That's for sure! It's just like the people who used to call the
> president "Shrub."
Calling W. "Shrub" at least avoids making an error in grammar, because
"Shrub" is a synonym for bush, while Democrat substitutes a noun for
an adjective.
Patty Winter
In article <d1804f3e-0797-4ec1...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Calling W. "Shrub" at least avoids making an error in grammar, because
>"Shrub" is a synonym for bush, while Democrat substitutes a noun for
>an adjective.
True, but they're both done to be disrespectful. (Well, there might
be some people who listen to so much conservative radio that they
really think that "Democrat Party" is correct, but I doubt that any
of the talk-show hosts who say it are unaware of what they're doing.)
Patty
chris319
> Anyhow, the story about Gabbert and Gielow being Stanford engineering grads
> goes back a long time, not a recent creation at all.
I'm trying to tell you, and this is just my opinion, that I think
maybe he's taken some creative liberties with his past, a little
historical revisionism. I don't remember hearing about a Stanford
engineering degree until long after I stopped working for him.
> Now, I've never seen their sheepskin so I don't know for a fact.
There may be a reason for that, David. Maybe there's no sheepskin to
see.
chris319
> Using "teh Google" I find that a Jim Gabbert is identified as a member
> of the Stanford Class of '58. Unless you can be an alumnus without
> graduating, I'd say he did.
>
All we can infer from that is that he was in the class. Where does it
say he graduated?
Ciccio
> Calling W. "Shrub" at least avoids making an error in grammar, because
> "Shrub" is a synonym for bush, while Democrat substitutes a noun for
> an adjective.
Typical Democrat who is spinning bullshit...The common noun shrub is
not a synonym for the proper noun Bush.
Ciccio
spamtrap1888
Registered Republican here.
(Some) Democrats may be rude, but those Republicans look uneducated.
Ciccio
> Registered Republican here.
>
> (Some) Democrats may be rude, but those Republicans look uneducated.
What do you mean "those"? It looks uneducated when you assert that
the common noun shrub is a synonym for the proper noun Bush.
Ciccio
Ciccio
Oh nonsense. It is not conclusive proof, but from that it can be
reasonably inferred that he graduated. Surely, it is more reasonable
to infer that, than it is to infer that he didn't, based upon what
you admit is only your "opinion."
Ciccio
John Higdon
<77d56680-4522-44f2...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
chris319 <c319...@aol.com> wrote:
> All we can infer from that is that he was in the class. Where does it
> say he graduated?
Inquiring minds want to know. If he didn't graduate, it was all for
nothing. Clear Channel will have to send back the license for Star101.
Cumulus will have to put KTCT back to one kilowatt. And most certainly
all of the rules in Part 73 that Jim will have to be repealed. And
that's not to mention his fortune and aircraft that he will have to give
up.
We need to know if he graduated and we need to know it NOW!
John Higdon
<553fe88f-2b34-4d85...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
chris319 <c319...@aol.com> wrote:
> There may be a reason for that, David. Maybe there's no sheepskin to
> see.
And that would be just catastrophic, no? All of his contributions to Bay
Area broadcasting may not exist!
spamtrap1888
> In article
> <77d56680-4522-44f2-b44c-fe2592877...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
>
> chris319 <c319ch...@aol.com> wrote:
> > All we can infer from that is that he was in the class. Where does it
> > say he graduated?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know. If he didn't graduate, it was all for
> nothing. Clear Channel will have to send back the license for Star101.
> Cumulus will have to put KTCT back to one kilowatt. And most certainly
> all of the rules in Part 73 that Jim will have to be repealed. And
> that's not to mention his fortune and aircraft that he will have to give
> up.
>
> We need to know if he graduated and we need to know it NOW!
I agree talent and accomplishment are more important than graduation.
Back when I was in college, several computer jocks I knew were so
valuable to their employers that they went imperceptibly from part-
time work to full-time work to every-waking-minute work. As a result,
they never graduated. I also had a professor who had been hired as an
assistant prof while he was in grad school, who never did finish his
PhD. He got tenure anyway.
John Higdon
<70fad595-ed32-4508...@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree talent and accomplishment are more important than graduation.
> Back when I was in college, several computer jocks I knew were so
> valuable to their employers that they went imperceptibly from part-
> time work to full-time work to every-waking-minute work. As a result,
> they never graduated. I also had a professor who had been hired as an
> assistant prof while he was in grad school, who never did finish his
> PhD. He got tenure anyway.
Broadcasting is, to a degree greater than in many other industries,
experience and performance-based. Degrees don't mean a whole lot. The
question is, "Can you do what you need to do?" and in the case of
talent, "Can you do it better than anyone else in the market?"
Whether Jim Gabbert did or did not graduate is at this point of such
little import in his life as to be a "who cares" of monumental
proportions.
This is all about making things happen. "I'll bet Higgy doesn't know
[some trivia out of an applications book]" makes me chuckle. Believe me,
if Higgy needs to know something to get a project done, Higgy will learn
it...fast. What Higgy brings to the party is not a head full of
academia, but the ability (proven over many decades) to get a project
done, or to get equipment back into service with the least amount of
drama.
Looking around at my peers at many station clusters, I can tell you that
such ability does not come from a sheepskin; it comes from
apprenticeship and experience. I notice that when people have both
sheepskins and accomplishment in their life experience, they appear to
talk more about the accomplishment. I can only assume that those who
talk only about their education or obsess over that with regard to
others have yet to do much worthwhile in real life.
Stratum101
wrote:
> On Sep 10, 4:36 pm, AngieC <angieco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:31 pm, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with being old.
>
> > Nothing wrong with being a white guy, either, but they're already top-
> > heavy with those.
>
> > I adore John Rothmann - excellent host, and a warm, generous man. But
> > it defies all common sense that in - what, 20 years now? - not a
> > single woman has been deemed good enough to take a slot there. At
> > this point, it's hard to deny institutional sexism.
>
> And practically every host on KGO isJewish.
> Owens, Tillem, Gross, Rothmann, Nemko, ...
Hmm. Practically every other Bay Area male
connected with broadcasting is gay and has
a predilection for KGO over brainier
radio. What is one to make of this?
Ciccio
Hmm. So, you're saying that 2-3 of the hosts listed above are
homosexuals? Owens is married with 2 kids. Tillem is married with 2
kids. Gross is married with a kid. Rothmann is married with 2 kids.
Nemko is married with a kid. Granted, such is not proof positive of
their heterosexuality, but it sure calls your wild bullshit
speculation into question.
Hmm. Notwithstanding that you constantly post diatribes about KGO, you
admitted that you listened to Rothmann yesterday. So, you are so
obsessed with KGO, as you can't stop listening to KGO even though you
loathe it.
Hmm. Now we know why...it's all about your homosexual fantasies. And
here I thought your homosexual persona was just a remnant of an act
that facilitated your cowardly draft dodging.
Ciccio
Stratum101
> On Sep 13, 11:55 am, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 2:15 am, BayAreaBroadcast <bayareabroadc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > And practically every host on KGO isJewish.
> > > Owens, Tillem, Gross, Rothmann, Nemko, ...
>
> > Hmm. Practically every other Bay Area male
> > connected with broadcasting is gay and has
> > a predilection for KGO over brainier
> > radio. What is one to make of this?
>
> Hmm. So, you're saying that 2-3 of the hosts listed above are
> homosexuals?
No, I didn't write that. Should you ever take up
reading for understanding, you should realize I
had implied that males connected with KGO
who aren't Jewish have a predilection for
being gay, but I don't know what to make
of it.
Nor is another Jew who I regularly
hear is gay, Ira Glass. This mistyping
naturally occurs because intellectually
gifted people are perceived as gay
by lunkheads. Not that I mean
to tar all lunkheads with the same
brush, of course.
> [deletia]
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <h8d461$j2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
> > The only show I'll call is Dr. Dean Edell. Well, maybe once or twice I've
> > called others, but they were also specialty shows. I don't feel I can
> > contribute much to the discussion when it comes to politics because the host
> > has his (and it's always a his) mind made up and isn't going to consider
> > another point of view anyway, so why bother?
>
> I'm amused to see both Wattenburg and Rothmann described similarly, but
> with different subjective conclusions. While Rothmann is not as old as
> Wattenburg, he sounds older. Both are described as pedantic. Both are
> criticized as "topic limited". Both respond quite negatively to
> disagreement from a caller.
>
> It would seem that the difference is simply the fact that more listeners
> agree with Rothmann's politics.
>
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
> AT&T-Free At Last
John generally treats callers with respect unless they deserve a good
whack in the head. Those callers he just drops.
If you call John Rothman to spout a diatribe, he has little tolerance
for that crap. If you have a conversation, even with totally moronic
statements as Gary de Oakland is prone to uttering, John will engage
in conversation. Rothman suffers fools better than most people do.
I don't think news talk is the pathway to younger demographics. If
anything, putting Leo on twice a week would get younger listeners. If
Leo would go for it, I'd put him on for an hour before his national
show, i.e. do an hour for the bay area, which could ultimately be
another hour for his show in general.
Once in a while I stream Leo's last hour. It is certainly more
entertaining than Bob Brinker, which is too infomercial for my taste.
PeterH
<leansto...@democrat.com> said:
> Once in a while I stream Leo's last hour. It is certainly more
> entertaining than Bob Brinker, which is too infomercial for my taste.
Brinker has morphed his formerly informative show into an anti-Obama
informercial.
If, as he did this past weekend, he opens his show with an anti-Obama
monologue (this tiime, he was ragging Obama for signing a protective
order against Chinese-made tires), then the entire show may be
completely useless.
His substitute hosts (Brinker DOES NOT OWN his own show, BTW, it is
owned by ABC) are generally free of "Obominations".
N.B. Brinker was one of the first nationally syndicated hosts to use
the made-up expletive "Obamination", which Brinker initially used to
refer to Obama's presumed economic policies, before Obama had even been
sworn-in.
SMS
> John generally treats callers with respect unless they deserve a good
> whack in the head. Those callers he just drops.
Which is quite unlike "Dr. Bill."
IMVAIO there was no better choice than Rothmann from the available
fill-in hosts on KGO. Extremely knowledgeable on a sufficiently wide
variety of topics, but unlike Gene Burns he doesn't devote entire shows
to subjects which he knows nothing about.
He is more likely to simply drop clueless callers than to waste time
making them look like fools, as Gene Burns tends to do.
David Kaye
>N.B. Brinker was one of the first nationally syndicated hosts to use
>the made-up expletive "Obamination", which Brinker initially used to
>refer to Obama's presumed economic policies, before Obama had even been
>sworn-in.
I also noticed that Brinker never referred to either Clinton or Bush II by
name, but always referred to Obama by name. Why? Probably racism. I'm
surprised he doesn't say, "Democrat Party".
Also, he's been preaching dollar-cost averaging for decades, and yet for the
unsophisticated investor (which sounds like 99% of his audience) dollar-cost
averaging is a nightmare. You have all those little buys every month, which
would likely be odd lots, and then when you go to sell, you have to match all
those buys to sells, which would likely be whole lots, so then you might have
3 or 4 different buy prices to match against a given sell price, and each date
is different, so they could occur during different calendar years. Sorting
out a dollar-cost averaging mess would likely cost more in accountant fees
than the average investor would make on actual return.
And yet Brinker recommends it.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Ciccio
> I also noticed that Brinker never referred to either Clinton or Bush II by
> name, but always referred to Obama by name. Why? Probably racism.
So, if Obama were a Republican with a fiscal conservative agenda,
Brinker would still dislike Obama because he's black?...No way.
Ciccio
David Kaye
>So, if Obama were a Republican with a fiscal conservative agenda,
>Brinker would still dislike Obama because he's black?...No way.
I call your attention to the fact that the majority of white people voted for
McCain, not Obama. If it wasn't for the black and Latino vote, McCain would
have been elected.
leansto...@democrat.com
As you know, there is always an outflow of money from the people who
buy odd lots to the rest of the market. But it probably due to the
fact that odd lotters panic and dump their stock rather than sit out a
recovery.
Regarding dollar cost averaging, it is fine for ETFs.
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >So, if Obama were a Republican with a fiscal conservative agenda,
> >Brinker would still dislike Obama because he's black?...No way.
>
> I call your attention to the fact that the majority of white people voted for
> McCain, not Obama. If it wasn't for the black and Latino vote, McCain would
> have been elected.
DUH! blacks and Latinos are by far more liberal than the general white
population. If Obama were a conservative Republican would he still
have received as many votes from those groups?
You're doing your usual lefty liberal spin of substituting
correlation for causation. Where is the evidence that all, or even
most, of the white voters who voted for McCain did so because Obama is
black?
Ciccio
David Kaye
>You're doing your usual lefty liberal spin of substituting
>correlation for causation.
In past elections whites put Democratic presidents into office. The majority
of voting whites voted for Bill Clinton, for instance. I may not be correct
but I believe this is the first time a Democrat has become president who was
not elected by a majoirty of white voters.
Ciccio
> In past elections whites put Democratic presidents into office. The majority
> of voting whites voted for Bill Clinton, for instance. I may not be correct
> but I believe this is the first time a Democrat has become president who was
> not elected by a majoirty of white voters.
BZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! The majority of voting whites did not vote for
Clinton. 43% voted for Clinton, 46% voted for Dole, and 9% for Perot.
Split the Perot vote and Dole would have the majority of white voters.
Regardless, fewer whites voted for Clinton than Dole. Oh, and what
percentage of the white vote did Obama get...43%!!! The same
percentage that Clinton received.
Face it, Obama isn't delivering on his campaign rhetoric and people
are disliking him for that, not his race. If he starts delivering,
they'll like him for that, not his race.
Sure, there may be a small fraction of whites who will always dislike
Obama only because of his race. But how much you wanna bet that the
percentage of blacks who like Obama only because of his race, is far
greater than the percentage of those whites.
Ciccio
SMS
> On 2009-09-13 22:53:06 -0700, "leansto...@democrat.com"
> <leansto...@democrat.com> said:
>
>> Once in a while I stream Leo's last hour. It is certainly more
>> entertaining than Bob Brinker, which is too infomercial for my taste.
>
> Brinker has morphed his formerly informative show into an anti-Obama
> informercial.
Pre-Obama it was more of a pro-Bush, anti-Democratic informercial. Glad
to see that it's progressed.
If you followed Brinker's advice in the past decade then you're now
penniless and homeless.
SMS
> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> So, if Obama were a Republican with a fiscal conservative agenda,
>> Brinker would still dislike Obama because he's black?...No way.
>
> I call your attention to the fact that the majority of white people voted for
> McCain, not Obama. If it wasn't for the black and Latino vote, McCain would
> have been elected.
I'd just like to find a Republican with a fiscally conservative agenda!
SMS
> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You're doing your usual lefty liberal spin of substituting
>> correlation for causation.
>
> In past elections whites put Democratic presidents into office. The majority
> of voting whites voted for Bill Clinton, for instance. I may not be correct
> but I believe this is the first time a Democrat has become president who was
> not elected by a majoirty of white voters.
What about 1960? Kennedy had only a 113,000 vote margin in the popular
vote and Nixon probably got very few votes from blacks.
Ciccio
> I'd just like to find a Republican with a fiscally conservative agenda!
You're not looking very hard...
Ciccio
bubba
small fraction? you need some reality pills
Ciccio
> small fraction? you need some reality pills
Baloney...I wish you liberal media types would make up your gawd damn
minds...During the election, and the honeymoon period thereafter, the
liberal media types were asserting how the "Bradley Effect" was no
longer an issue, that the liberal messiah loved by all had arrived.
Now, that Obama has fallen in disfavor because of his inabilities, the
liberal media types are trying to provide Obama an alibi for his
decline in the polls, by resurrecting the Brady Effect or its cousin
"the race card."
Ciccio
"Greatest
bubba
and interviewed Tom Bradley ( SEE LA TIMES 1986) ..Tom Bradley knew
about the bradley effect before anyone else acknowledged
it...actually.
Peter
> PeterH <peter...@rattlebrain.comminch> wrote:
>
>> N.B. Brinker was one of the first nationally syndicated hosts to use
>> the made-up expletive "Obamination", which Brinker initially used to
>> refer to Obama's presumed economic policies, before Obama had even been
>> sworn-in.
>
> I also noticed that Brinker never referred to either Clinton or Bush II by
> name, but always referred to Obama by name. Why? Probably racism. I'm
> surprised he doesn't say, "Democrat Party".
Brinker has been using the improper term *Democrat Party* for quite
some time now.
He used to have substitute hosts which were even more *anti-Democtat*
then he was, and is.
I stopped subscribing to his newsletter after he recommended buying
QQQs -- now QQQQs -- for a quick gain, only to have the market
completely tank under Bush II -- and yet Brinker NEVER apologized for
his mistake in his newsletter, and he only remotely apologized for his
strategic error on his radio program after about a year had passed, and
his only comment was, *I was wrong*.
Well, Fuck You, very much!
Why didn:t he -- at least -- admit his catastrophic failure to his
paid-for subscribers?
No, we had to wait more than a year for his admission, and then it
never went to his subscribers, only to his MoneyTalk listeners, and
even then only after being pressured by a caller for a response.
Brinker is a shill for the Right. Case closed.
FWIW, Brinker has his MBA from on of the largest traditionally Black
universities.
All of his schooling, including his undergradute degree, was from
Catholic institutions.
Strange, Brinker never mentions one of his three children, but he has
mentioned his daughter and his name-sake son, Bob Brinker Jr many times.
Perhaps the unmentioned son is gay?
Time for ABC to cut the cord and send Bob Brinker on his way!
--
Peter Haas - Monterey Bay, California
+1 831 GArden 6-5482
Should you quote, please quote only the relevant text!
David Kaye
>
>Brinker is a shill for the Right. Case closed.
I wish that when ABC Radio has their fill of Bob Brinker they'll bring in Rob
Black. He dances circles around any other money talk host I can think of.
>
>Perhaps the unmentioned son is gay?
No idea. I never think that anybody on their air or in movies or rock and
roll actually have families. It just doesn't occur to me.
Ciccio
> I never asserted the bradley effect was no longer an issue..
Well then, you were about the only one in the liberal media, as well
as the professional pollsters, who said it wasn't a factor during the
last Pres election and during the Obama "honeymoon" period. Now, that
Obama;s ratings have taken a nosedive, whenever a non-black is
critical of Obama it's because of race. Now, the Democrats are really
playing the "race card" as a ploy to put a chilling effect on Obama's
critics.
The problem for the Democrats is the backlash from that ploy, because
of the resentment it is creating. Not to mention how it makes Obama
look weaker...So, let them keep playing the race card.
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
Yes, I recall all those posters at the George W Bush protests where
shrub as made up to look like he was wearing black face.
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Yes, I recall all those posters at the George W Bush protests where
> shrub as made up to look like he was wearing black face.
All those? PulllllllLEASE! Maybe a few. I said there was a small
fraction. It's not like most of the millions of non-black people
disapproving of Obama, as represented by a 20 point drop in Obama's
approval rating since February, are displaying Obama in racial
caricature.
Face it...People are getting wise to Obama's...All Show and No Go.
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
I approve of tea bagging.
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> I approve of tea bagging.
Heh. Approve? About 60 million more adult Americans now DISapprove of
Obama's job performance than in February. I guess it took them seven
months to discover that Obama is black [rolls eyes].
Ciccio
David Kaye
>
>I approve of tea bagging.
I guess that depends on your position at the time.
leansto...@democrat.com
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
>
> >I approve of tea bagging.
>
> I guess that depends on your position at the time.
>
> --
> "You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
> Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Looks like the true meaning of tea bagging has not made it's way into
the Ciccio lexicon.
Ciccio
Ahem...That was Kaye who wrote that...Nice try though.
Ciccio
Ciccio
> Looks like the true meaning of tea bagging has not made it's way into
> the Ciccio lexicon.
Hmmm. Obama's DISapproval rating went up another couple of percent. I
guess another couple of million people just now realized Obama is
black. [rolls eyes]
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
No, you have it wrong. Dave knows what tea bagging is, while you
ignored the comment. Hey, the internet can be your friend when it
comes to lingo. I still need to investigate what the hell is so funny
about saddleback.
There is no universal definition of tea bagging, but the bagee can be
a man or woman, and the bagger is always a man. Is that enough of a
clue for you.
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> No, you have it wrong. Dave knows what tea bagging is,
No, you have it wrong. 1. I know the various uses of the term. 2. You
were responding to Kaye. 3. You're doing a typical lefty spin jumping
to the conclusion saying I didn't know a meaning...Nice try though.
> while you ignored the comment.
Because if was sophomoric, if not idiotic.
BTW, Ray T did that "tea bag" bit about a month or two ago. As often
is the case when I am tune in to his show, after about 5 minutes,I
found it boring and I tuned it out.
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
I think I am the only person here qualified to say whose post I was
responding too since I was the person doing the response.
I finally found out what saddleback means. Now I know why those girls
with promise rings walk kind of funny. (OK. bad joke.)
Doesn't anyone in these holier than thou organizations google this
kind of stuff before they use the phrase in their literature.
Bible thumping patriot #1: "Let's do some tea bagging at the
saddleback." (Rick Warren's church)
Bibble thumping patriot #2: "Nah, I'm giving up tea bagging for lent."
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> I think I am the only person here qualified to say whose post I was
> responding too since I was the person doing the response.
Oh, OK, you posted to Kaye's post, that was responding to your post,
but you were responding to me...Sounds like you need some Usenet
lessons.
> Bible thumping patriot #1: "Let's do some tea bagging at the
> saddleback." (Rick Warren's church)
> Bibble thumping patriot #2: "Nah, I'm giving up tea bagging for lent."
Oooooops. Obama's DISapproval rating went up another point again
today. So, I guess another few million people just realized Obama is
black...Amazing how it took scores of millions of people 7 months to
realize Obama is black.[rolls eyes]
Ciccio