Dave wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
dxAce wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently, they finally succeeded in achieving that goal.
I'll have to check the shortwave relays next week to see if Rush is
still
on. I
recall the push to at least get him off, seemingly in contrast to
what
the
troops
wanted.

How many of the troops are over 45 or 50? There are very few talk
listeners
(of the WLS / WJR / WGN type) under that age, so it makes sense to
look
for
programming the bulk of the armed forces would enjoy, not just
somebody
who
has been in long enough to make light bird or above.
Or maybe the troops just like Rush?

Isn't it amazing that never occurs to programmers?

When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Maybe they want the truth from home.




He doesn't get it, Steve.

Consider that there are a number of things that are not like things at
home. One is that the listener him/herself is different. They're
committed. They're focussed. They're trained. They've volunteered to
serve. They're politically active at the most basic level. They're less
concerned about the fluff that dominates the evening news than they are
defending the fundamental freedoms that permit the behaviours that lead
to the fluff that dominates the evening news.

That takes them off most squares of the psychographic grid. Hometown
demography doesn't apply. They're a different type of people with
listening tastes and habits that reflect a different type of lifestyle.

Another consideration is that there are dramatically fewer choices for
listening in theatre. Unlike you and me, who have a dial full of
selections, troops in theatre have a fraction of the offerings. They
listen, as you say, for fresh truths from home. Not for the latest
George Michael release.

And politically, they tend to a more conservative path. Rush is big
with military, as a whole, regardless of demography.

Programming AFN is not like programming WKSC.

Drop Gleason into a Marine base in-country and he'd get a dose of
reality he assiduously avoids in his current position.


You talk tough for a old fart safely behind a desk. Here's my old fart
take:

Our fighters in the Iraq ****-hole are fighting for each other. (That's
a period).

I'd rather fight the enemy here, rather than over there.

You're not up to it, Rickets.

dxAce wrote:

You're not up to it, Rickets.


And you are? Tell us about all the medications you're on.



mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

You're not up to it, Rickets.

And you are?

You bet!

Tell us about all the medications you're on.

Heck, I'd rather spend my time telling you that you're a dumbass Canuck!

Dave wrote:


You talk tough for a old fart safely behind a desk.


Your assumptions are amusing. But you don't know what you're talking
about.

dxAce wrote:

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

You're not up to it, Rickets.
And you are?

You bet!

Tell us about all the medications you're on.

Heck, I'd rather spend my time telling you that you're a dumbass Canuck!

Your physical condition is so bad that you have a difficult time getting
out of the door. Why lie about it?


mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

You're not up to it, Rickets.
And you are?

You bet!

Tell us about all the medications you're on.

Heck, I'd rather spend my time telling you that you're a dumbass Canuck!

Your physical condition is so bad that you have a difficult time getting
out of the door.

I get out the door just fine.

Why lie about it?

I'm not. You are indeed a dumbass Canuck.

D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote:


You talk tough for a old fart safely behind a desk.


Your assumptions are amusing. But you don't know what you're talking
about.


I don't have to. I'm not attempting to mis-characterize the soldiers as
some kind apple-pie GI Joes.

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on
Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:14:36 -0700, Dave wrote: Begin

I'd rather fight the enemy here, rather than over there.

If the enemy here had been fought successfully,
we might not have created so many enemies there.

I like that, I think.

m II wrote:
dxAce wrote:
m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

You're not up to it, Rickets.
And you are?
You bet!

Tell us about all the medications you're on.
Heck, I'd rather spend my time telling you that you're a dumbass Canuck!

Your physical condition is so bad that you have a difficult time getting
out of the door. Why lie about it?


mike


I have to climb ladders and rigging sometimes. If I couldn't do that
I'd be severely limited in my ability to rake in the bongos.

D Peter Maus wrote:

And politically, they tend to a more conservative path. Rush is big
with military, as a whole, regardless of demography.


A Rush Limbaugh listener is the farthest thing from a true conservative.

If the Iraq vets are so pro-right wing, why doesn't Mr. mBush want
them to vote?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Vetera...rans_0410.html