|
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: Sorry you look like an idiot but why address the resident prime Troll instead of the issue you raised with what I stated. The communists haven't taken over yet, so I can address whoever I want at least for the time being. You didn't raise any issues, you the claimed that Air America is being backed by the commies. If right- wing businessmen can back rightwing talk radio, it seems fair to me that leftwing businessmen can back leftwing talk radio. If it's a plot when leftists do it, why isn't it a plot when rightwingers do it? That's free speech. That's the American way of doing things, no? We have a Republican president, two majority Republican houses of Congress, a majority Republican-appointed Supreme Court, and as we now know who have been following these threads, 14 million people listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis. I think you can lower the shotgun. The problem you are having is not that I have any "Birchite tendencies" but that you are wrong. Living in ignorance is a choice you made. Don't blame me. No Telamon, the problem is that you are wrong. It is not anti-American to speak out against the policies of the US government if you disagree with them. You want to think that people who don't like George Bush are in the employ of the forces of darkness, that's fine with me. You want to keep your set tuned to the instant replays of the great twilight struggle between the superpowers, that's fine too. If I'm wrong maybe they'll be confiscating our modems and radios next winter. We'll compare notes then. I hope I'm wrong. Free speech is a good thing by anyone wether they agree with the current administration or not. Subversion is another matter. People with a left wing bent should have radio they want to listen to similar to people on the right. They just need to pay attention to wether the man (men) behind the curtain has the best interests of the country at heart. This network starting up now is clearly in the interest of influencing the coming election. Due to campaign fiance reform this past year it looks to me that it is being used to make an end run around the large donation reforms. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message ... I just figured it out. Of course you are right. Kerry is the Manchurian Candidate. He runs for president with the secret backing of the Commies, cleverly laundered through Air America and Equal Time, doing an end around campaign spending limits, just as you say. In a gesture of bi-partisanship, who is his VP candidate? Why of course, John McCain. And there it is plain as the nose on your face! McCain was as we all know a POW in Vietnam and was brainwashed and is just a ticking bomb. Kerry/McCain get elected thanks to the "useful idiots" of the American left, Kerry gets assassinated and bingo, Hanoi John McCain becomes the first Communist president of the USA. HoHoHo Chi Minh is pulling the strings! Do I get my Robert Welch junior space cadet medal now? I've seen this as well, and Hillary Clinton is the Queen of Hearts. I tried to share my vision with Brother Stair, but the Prophet says he has a backlog now, and is only accecpting visions which end with these two lines: "They sure blowed up good!" "They blowed up reeeeaaaaal good!" Frank Dresser |
Larry Ozarow wrote in message ...
UJ wrote: It makes perfect sense to call Democrats socialists.There is a group in the US Congress called the Progressive Caucus.Here is a list of their 54 members, overwhelmingly if not entirely comprised of Democrats: http://bernie.house.gov/pc/members.asp . Presidential candidate and Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Dennis Kucinich is at the top of the list. So what, you ask? Well, the Progressive Caucus has close ties to the Democratic Socialists Of America http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html . As far as I know, there is no organization called the Republican Nazis Of America, so your Democrat/Socialist = Republican/Nazi comparison is way off target. MB This is a ridiculous argument, and I assume it's at least partly a joke. The "Democratic" in DSA of course has nothing to do with the Democratic Party, but is an adjective to distinguish the DSA from the various anti-democratic (i.e. pro-Soviet) socialist parties that have been around. The link you provide is that of Bernie Sanders, who as you doubtless know, is not a Democrat. By the way, you used "comprised" incorrectly. Not at all ridiculous, Larry. This is part of their resolution on the 2004 presidential election: " Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee (DSA PAC) is not endorsing any candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination at this time.....We are, however, sobered about where this candidate will emerge from. He (and it will be a "he") will come from among the mix of present Democratic contenders, and not from even the most well-meaning and creative third party effort. DSA welcomes the grassroots renewal movement within the Democratic Party, named for the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, in which DSA members have taken a leadership role in some areas around the country." Obviously, the DSA is quite cozy with the late Senator Wellstone's Democratic Party. Notice that they say that when the time comes, the recipient of their endorsement for president wll come from within the Democratic Party. I'll concede that Not ALL Democrats are socialists, but undoubtedly it is the Democratic Party's political platform that makes it an attractive home for the DSA. As for Bernie Sanders, yes I know that he is officially an Independent, not a 'Democrat'. But that is nothing more than deceptive labeling. Look up his voting record, and you'll find that this admitted socialist votes consistently with the Democrats. MB |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: Sorry you look like an idiot but why address the resident prime Troll instead of the issue you raised with what I stated. The communists haven't taken over yet, so I can address whoever I want at least for the time being. You didn't raise any issues, you the claimed that Air America is being backed by the commies. If right- wing businessmen can back rightwing talk radio, it seems fair to me that leftwing businessmen can back leftwing talk radio. If it's a plot when leftists do it, why isn't it a plot when rightwingers do it? That's free speech. That's the American way of doing things, no? We have a Republican president, two majority Republican houses of Congress, a majority Republican-appointed Supreme Court, and as we now know who have been following these threads, 14 million people listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis. I think you can lower the shotgun. The problem you are having is not that I have any "Birchite tendencies" but that you are wrong. Living in ignorance is a choice you made. Don't blame me. No Telamon, the problem is that you are wrong. It is not anti-American to speak out against the policies of the US government if you disagree with them. You want to think that people who don't like George Bush are in the employ of the forces of darkness, that's fine with me. You want to keep your set tuned to the instant replays of the great twilight struggle between the superpowers, that's fine too. If I'm wrong maybe they'll be confiscating our modems and radios next winter. We'll compare notes then. I'm not wrong. I never stated "It is anti-American to speak out against the policies of the US government if you disagree with them." I'm just fine with free speech. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Jeez, man. You are identifying the
part with the whole. Of course Socialists are going to be more at home in the Democratic Party, just as Klansmen are going to be more at home in the Republican party (at least since the great realignment of the 1960s, before which they were all Democrats). That doesn't make all Republicans into KKKers. We have two fairly broad centrist parties, and each of them will have an "extreme" wing. In 1948 as you will recall, the Democratic party had two extreme wings, one basically Communist and one Klannist and they both ran against Truman in the middle. Wellstone was a great guy in my book but by no means was he in the mainstream of the Democratic party. UJ wrote: Larry Ozarow wrote in message ... UJ wrote: It makes perfect sense to call Democrats socialists.There is a group in the US Congress called the Progressive Caucus.Here is a list of their 54 members, overwhelmingly if not entirely comprised of Democrats: http://bernie.house.gov/pc/members.asp . Presidential candidate and Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Dennis Kucinich is at the top of the list. So what, you ask? Well, the Progressive Caucus has close ties to the Democratic Socialists Of America http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html . As far as I know, there is no organization called the Republican Nazis Of America, so your Democrat/Socialist = Republican/Nazi comparison is way off target. MB This is a ridiculous argument, and I assume it's at least partly a joke. The "Democratic" in DSA of course has nothing to do with the Democratic Party, but is an adjective to distinguish the DSA from the various anti-democratic (i.e. pro-Soviet) socialist parties that have been around. The link you provide is that of Bernie Sanders, who as you doubtless know, is not a Democrat. By the way, you used "comprised" incorrectly. Not at all ridiculous, Larry. This is part of their resolution on the 2004 presidential election: " Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee (DSA PAC) is not endorsing any candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination at this time.....We are, however, sobered about where this candidate will emerge from. He (and it will be a "he") will come from among the mix of present Democratic contenders, and not from even the most well-meaning and creative third party effort. DSA welcomes the grassroots renewal movement within the Democratic Party, named for the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, in which DSA members have taken a leadership role in some areas around the country." Obviously, the DSA is quite cozy with the late Senator Wellstone's Democratic Party. Notice that they say that when the time comes, the recipient of their endorsement for president wll come from within the Democratic Party. I'll concede that Not ALL Democrats are socialists, but undoubtedly it is the Democratic Party's political platform that makes it an attractive home for the DSA. As for Bernie Sanders, yes I know that he is officially an Independent, not a 'Democrat'. But that is nothing more than deceptive labeling. Look up his voting record, and you'll find that this admitted socialist votes consistently with the Democrats. MB |
Telamon wrote: I'm just fine with free speech. On this we can agree. That's why I think it's dangerous to be so quick to question the motives of the guys behind Air America. Our current government has already given itself the power to go around the Constitution in cases of suspected terrorism. To accuse people who disagree with that government of being communists gives the government the tool it needs to deal with them in ways outside what we think of as legal, and bring the whole thing down. I have a friend at work from Greece and we had lunch after the recent change of governments there. I asked him how their general ebb and flow of political power went, and among other things he summarized it as the pigs on the right feed for 10 years, then the pigs from the left push them aside and take their turn. At the very least we have to hope in this country that both sides continue to have elbow room. |
|
|
Telamon, you sound like Claude Rains in Casablanca, you are "Shocked, shocked!" that a bunch of liberal Democrats are spending a lot of money in media, and part of their motivation might be to support a Democrat in an election. As people have pointed out in this newsgroup, various of the rightwing commentators have support that comes from "foundations," I've pointed out that often political magazines - which almost always strongly support one side or the other, are at least partly bankrolled by individuals. As for not planning to make any money for two or three years, this isn't a sign of evil intent, as Peter Maus pointed out in his response, this is about normally what they should expect. And calm down a little. If this plot is such a clear and present danger, but Al Franken will honestly answer about it if you call him - THEN CALL HIM, and expose the whole charade for what it is. He's a pretty lame conspirator in that case, anyway. Look, there has been talk about doing this for a couple of years. Any even-numbered year they would have done it in is a congressional election year, and you could get all up in arms in that case about the same issue. Telamon, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - people on the left have every right to throw their money around to influence elections, just as people on the right have been doing. Their secret plan that you are so worked up about, if it is indeed merely a plot to influence the election, and not a business venture, is to elect a government that spends a little more on education and health care and a little less on military, respects environmental treaties, and throws our military weight a little less. I don't think a Kerry administration is going to suspend civil liberties and install secret tribunals and socialize the means of production - is that what you really think is in the offing? And by the way, you refer to the "older, established" means of raising money having been eliminated. Were they fair? Didn't groups on one side or another abuse campaign financing laws of all kinds? And also if the law has suddenly become so Draconian how come Bush is spending a couple of hundred million in his un-opposed PRIMARY campaign alone, before even gearing up for the general election? The total capitalization of Air America is dwarfed by what Bush is going to spend this spring alone. Telamon wrote: The following Public service message uses non standard capitalization for the reading comprehension impaired. I don't use profanity very often but WAKE THE HELL UP ! They are not planning to make any money for 2 to 3 YEARS ! This effort is designed to influence the coming ELECTION THIS FALL. WHY ? BECAUSE of last years campaign finance reform. It's an end run around the rules to abuse the electorate by Lawyer's doing their thing. Let me put this another way for the thick heads out there. People who are not willing to have intentions known are using the startup of this network to influence the election since the older and established methods of doing so were eliminated last year. It's not about FREE SPEECH. It's not about MAKING MONEY. It's just a POLITICAL MANEUVER. If you don't believe me then just call AL Franken on his show. He's honest enough to tell you why its happening now. Go ahead and CALL HIM or write to http://www.airamericaradio.com/www/p...balDefault.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com