|
MWB,
YES - That is True. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and... unto God the things that are God's http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/renderuntoca.html http://jeffrey.henning.com/renderuntocaesar.htm GRAPHIC= http://www.terpsboy.com/terpsboyarchives/000046.html http://aibi.gospelcom.net/eternity/eternity135.htm The Truth Shall Set You Free ~ RHF .. .. = = = ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote in message = = = ... From: "Stinger" Jesus never advocated "taking." He advocated "giving." He also advocated paying your taxes. He advocated helping the needy. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) .. |
= = = "Stinger" wrote in message
= = = ... "Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... But that is exactly what they are. They advocate taking from those who have, and giving to those who have not. So Jesus was a socialist? No. Jesus never advocated "taking." He advocated "giving." -- Stinger STINGER, Yes - NOT Taking - But Sharing and Giving Sharing and Giving: With a Good Heart and Open Hand {Without Reservation} http://www.keithchandler.com/Fenelon.html The Truth Shall Set You Free ~ RHF .. |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: They are defiantly anti capitalistic and are communist. Don't worry about Franken or what he says worry about what the people supporting this effort want. I want to find out who these "wealthy individuals" are. I'll bet they are communists. Air America Radio web site: http://www.airamericaradio.com/ It's childish to tar people with whom you disagree with nasty labels. Do you really think these people are communists? Do you know what a communist is? This is just as stupid as calling William Buckley or Rush Limbaugh fascists. There are people of both the left and the right who believe in democracy and capitalism. If you are going to disagree with someone's position, attack the position, don't just call names. If you have decided to be childish about this that is your problem. I don't see you providing any links or information just calling names. I did some research and drew some conclusions about the very strong anti-capitalist statements made by the CEO of Air America. The fact that the people that finance this effort are hidden from view raises suspicions. The ideological terminology used in places on the web site is communist. Now I'll joint you and call you a head in the sand dwelling imbecile. No make that an easily manipulated head in the sand dwelling imbecile. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
RHF wrote: N8KDV, Render Your Taxes . . . and RENDER YOUR VOTE To Replace those who would Tax You to Excess. Looking forward to the election RHF... wish it were today. I think most people have already decided who they'll vote for. |
What the hell are you talking about? The names and
vitae of the principles are all on the web-site. Those at the top are business people with backgrounds in media. I will sound like Randi Rhodes here - They are freaking businessmen! Not communists or entertainers like Ed Asner or Jane Fonda, or heirs or heiresses. They are people who made their money by being capitalists. If you think there are commies hiding under the bed, then give some evidence for it. And could you be more specific about the "ideological terminology" on the web site that you've identified as communist? Telamon wrote: In article , Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: call names. If you have decided to be childish about this that is your problem. I don't see you providing any links or information just calling names. I did some research and drew some conclusions about the very strong anti-capitalist statements made by the CEO of Air America. The fact that the people that finance this effort are hidden from view raises suspicions. The ideological terminology used in places on the web site is communist. Now I'll joint you and call you a head in the sand dwelling imbecile. No make that an easily manipulated head in the sand dwelling imbecile. |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: What the hell are you talking about? The names and vitae of the principles are all on the web-site. Those at the top are business people with backgrounds in media. I will sound like Randi Rhodes here - They are freaking businessmen! Not communists or entertainers like Ed Asner or Jane Fonda, or heirs or heiresses. They are people who made their money by being capitalists. If you think there are commies hiding under the bed, then give some evidence for it. And could you be more specific about the "ideological terminology" on the web site that you've identified as communist? First I must apologize to you for the name calling. I had no idea you so easily misdirected. The peoples names you read on the Air America web site are the employees of the broadcast company. Nowhere can you find the names of the people providing the 30 million dollars over 3 years before any profit is realized. It's the people that have financed this operation that may be communist. Apparently this is the plan to do an end run around the latest campaign finance reform rules by Democrats, socialists and communists to equalize the perceived advantage of advertising driven "right wing radio." Telamon wrote: In article , Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: call names. If you have decided to be childish about this that is your problem. I don't see you providing any links or information just calling names. I did some research and drew some conclusions about the very strong anti-capitalist statements made by the CEO of Air America. The fact that the people that finance this effort are hidden from view raises suspicions. The ideological terminology used in places on the web site is communist. Now I'll joint you and call you a head in the sand dwelling imbecile. No make that an easily manipulated head in the sand dwelling imbecile. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Mister FixIt,
People naturally gravitate to what they like and are entertained by... This is why most of AM/FM Radio is Music Programming. Pick: Jazz, Classical, Latin, C&W, Pop, Hip-Hop, whatever. Advertisers who feel or know that these Audience Groups would be interested in their products use these Music Programs to 'reach' people who are most likely "Buy" their Products. * Most of the times the Music Program Advertisers use "CANNED" ADs. This also holds true for "News & Talk" Radio Programming. Some 'people' naturally gravitate to Talk Radio because it is what they like and are entertained by... The Audience Makes the Choice [.] Many of the News & Talk Radio Program Advertisers use ADs that 'feature' the Talk Radio Personality. WHY - Because the Audience has a 'relationship' with the News & Talk Radio Personality and a Bond of Trust with them. * Its Sell More Products when the Radio Personality makes the Sales Pitch. * Paul Harvey is one News & Talk Radio Personality that comes to mind who does many of his own programming ADs. mkia ~ RHF .. .. = = = Mister Fixit wrote in message = = = . .. On 03 Apr 2004 18:06:25 GMT, (Llgpt) wrote: And Limbaugh's and Hannity's aren't being bankrolled by wealthy Republicans? I refrain from using the conservative word, as the majority of republicans are not conservative. Just wondering................. Les Limbaugh and Hannity are "Bankrolled" by companys that buy advertising time during their programs. They buy these ad times because millions of people listen to these show daily. However, about 60% of the successful businesses in the US are owned or operated by Republicans, so I suppose you could say they are bankrolled by Republicans. If there is such a thing as a smart Democrat Businessperson, they would also be wise to advertise to such a large audience. .. |
Telamon wrote: y. Nowhere can you find the names of the people providing the 30 million dollars over 3 years before any profit is realized. It's the people that have financed this operation that may be communist. Oh, I get it. Walsh and Cohen and Sorensen, who seem pretty darn rich among the three of them, at least as far as I can tell, are not the real guys behind the network. It's really the money men of Comintern who have gone into deep cover somewhere since the collapse of the Soviet Union and are just biding their time till they can take over and, uh, pollute our vital essences. Now do I have it right? |
|
In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: Larry Ozarow Oh, I get it. Walsh and Cohen and Sorensen, who seem pretty darn rich among the three of them, at least as far as I can tell, are not the real guys behind the network. It's really the money men of Comintern who have gone into deep cover somewhere since the collapse of the Soviet Union and are just biding their time till they can take over and, uh, pollute our vital essences. Now do I have it right? Yep, Oz, you got a pretty good vision of Telamon's world. And thanks for keeping the repeat of his posts to a minimum - I'm trying to keep him blocked! Still trying to figure out how the kill file works. Must be tough. Keep pretending to have me blocked. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Telamon wrote: In article , ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: Larry Ozarow Oh, I get it. Walsh and Cohen and Sorensen, who seem pretty darn rich among the three of them, at least as far as I can tell, are not the real guys behind the network. It's really the money men of Comintern who have gone into deep cover somewhere since the collapse of the Soviet Union and are just biding their time till they can take over and, uh, pollute our vital essences. Now do I have it right? Yep, Oz, you got a pretty good vision of Telamon's world. And thanks for keeping the repeat of his posts to a minimum - I'm trying to keep him blocked! Still trying to figure out how the kill file works. Must be tough. Keep pretending to have me blocked. Well heck! He's pretended to have a PhD, what can we expect? |
"David" wrote in message ... Bill O'reilly pays KABC $500,000 a year for his air time. And Al Franken is from New York. O'Reilly is syndicated by Westwood One, one of the largest such providers in the country, and is inlarge stations all over the country. He had advertisers. Pls. advise how much he pays WTKK, WJFK, or KFTR, or at least provide a link indicating the financial arrangement with KABC Sean Hannity is #15 in New York. So what, assuming it's true. They too are being subsidized. The word "subsidized" was never used, not that it matters. They aren't on the air by the same means that Air America is--they are there by virtue of arms length businees transactions, but it appears that you won't get this since others have made the same point even clearer than me. The Washington Times has lost over a billion dollars. Yet it continues to publish. Is this the ''free market'' at work. Yes because a) it's Moon's own money, and b) he hasn't run out of it yet. Let's not get all high and mighty here. Giant corporations fill the airwaves with simple-minded extreme right-wing broadcasters in order to keep their favorite whores in office. I promise to stop being "high and mighty" if you stop using inaccurate and nonsensical cliches better suited for junior high school. Deal? |
Telamon wrote: And... "A separate arm, called Equal Time, which has $30m in debt capacity, will acquire and operate radio stations. The group expects to lose money in its first two years and become profitable early in its third." You don't want to know who these people are stay ignorant then. Don't mock me for wanting to know Jerk. 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? |
Michael,
Telamon does come across as reasonable sometimes, and I forgot about his more comical Birchite tendencies. Had I remembered, I wouldn't have prodded him. As for the Jesus thing, it was Steve who denied he existed. I don't doubt it at all. I just didn't think any of the sources you cited constituted actual disinterested third party evidence. Even the synoptic gospels are generally assumed to be second-hand as far as I know. I don't think the absence of independent corroboration weighs in too heavily against his having existed, since there was probably a lot of similar ferment going on in Judea at the time that we don't have any record of. I will give you some push-back on the whole Messiah issue, though :) Oz Michael Bryant wrote: From: Larry Ozarow Oh, I get it. Walsh and Cohen and Sorensen, who seem pretty darn rich among the three of them, at least as far as I can tell, are not the real guys behind the network. It's really the money men of Comintern who have gone into deep cover somewhere since the collapse of the Soviet Union and are just biding their time till they can take over and, uh, pollute our vital essences. Now do I have it right? Yep, Oz, you got a pretty good vision of Telamon's world. And thanks for keeping the repeat of his posts to a minimum - I'm trying to keep him blocked! ;-) And why is it so hard to get a Jew to even admit that Jesus once lived? Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
In article ,
N8KDV wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: Larry Ozarow Oh, I get it. Walsh and Cohen and Sorensen, who seem pretty darn rich among the three of them, at least as far as I can tell, are not the real guys behind the network. It's really the money men of Comintern who have gone into deep cover somewhere since the collapse of the Soviet Union and are just biding their time till they can take over and, uh, pollute our vital essences. Now do I have it right? Yep, Oz, you got a pretty good vision of Telamon's world. And thanks for keeping the repeat of his posts to a minimum - I'm trying to keep him blocked! Still trying to figure out how the kill file works. Must be tough. Keep pretending to have me blocked. Well heck! He's pretended to have a PhD, what can we expect? He may not have a PhD but he's got a P.H.D. Maybe he will be awarded an honorary PhD if he figures out how to use a kill file. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: And... "A separate arm, called Equal Time, which has $30m in debt capacity, will acquire and operate radio stations. The group expects to lose money in its first two years and become profitable early in its third." You don't want to know who these people are stay ignorant then. Don't mock me for wanting to know Jerk. I just figured it out. Of course you are right. Kerry is the Manchurian Candidate. snip Go ahead and make fun of it loser. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"longwave" wrote in message ... Stinger wrote: Gosh, Les... I'm SURE you'll be missed. Don't forget not to write. Nice double negative. In this case, the grammar is correct as a syntax trick, as per Paul Harvey's common usage, "We're not doing nothing about the war on drugs," and etc. (as he gives an example of what we're doing on the war on drugs, etc.) -- Stinger |
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. |
Stinger wrote: "longwave" wrote in message In this case, the grammar is correct as a syntax trick, as per Paul Harvey's common usage, "We're not doing nothing about the war on drugs," and etc. (as he gives an example of what we're doing on the war on drugs, etc.) -- Stinger Reminds me of a story about an professor at the school I went to. Maybe it's apocryphal - He was sitting in the back in someone else's class, and the other guy said it was interesting that a double negative makes a positive, but a double positive doesn't make a negative, and he called out from the back "Yeah, yeah!" |
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 |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: Larry Ozarow Oh, I get it. Walsh and Cohen and Sorensen, who seem pretty darn rich among the three of them, at least as far as I can tell, are not the real guys behind the network. It's really the money men of Comintern who have gone into deep cover somewhere since the collapse of the Soviet Union and are just biding their time till they can take over and, uh, pollute our vital essences. Now do I have it right? Yep, Oz, you got a pretty good vision of Telamon's world. And thanks for keeping the repeat of his posts to a minimum - I'm trying to keep him blocked! ;-) And why is it so hard to get a Jew to even admit that Jesus once lived? Why is it so hard to get some freakin retard to admit he doesn't have a PhD? Better pray Fat Boy! LOL |
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 |
-=jd=- wrote:
On Tue 06 Apr 2004 02:34:51a, Peter Maus wrote in message news:fcscc.44302$He5.853242@bgtnsc04- news.ops.worldnet.att.net: {snippage} Franken was interviewed on NPR this past weekend concerning Air America, and was surprisingly open about the fact that he's not even sure he likes Radio enough to consider it a full time venue. His contract only runs one year. These are admissions that are generally not hte sort of thing that a radio station wants to hear of it's flag hosts. Radio, if it's to garner loyalty, and long term impact, want's commitment and public commitment at that for it's talent. Something that no one at Air America Radio has done. It would not surprise me if whoever is producing the format picked the current hosts thinking thay would "jump-start" it - get it going long enough to ease longer-term talent into place. It's not like that hasn't been tried before. But with generallly poor results. Radio, like most anything in the entertainment field, finds success in consistency. In major markets it often takes a talent two years just to establish. Bait and Switch, usually doesn't work. Radio stations are publicly expected to hit the ground with their fields in place, so that the establishment can begin. Easing in the REAL talent after an initial bang, usuall means that the new talent remains unestablished for that much longer. In today's broadcast environment, that's a stupendous waste of resources. Still, based on what I've heard so far, waste of resource doesn't seem to bother these people. From what's being reported, these big names aren't yet having much of a WOW! effect. I would have expected an "All-Star Blitz" in the first few weeks, just to grab some positive attention and snag as many listeners as possible. Heck, Limbaugh can compete with what they have so far just using guest hosts. Bear in mind how long it took Limbaugh to become established. And his story in notable for his rapid growth. Still, it was far from overnight. And the same can be said of his guest hosts. So far, with the exception of Randi Rhodes, there's not a lot of established radio talent in that stable. Time is something, if they're going to have the impact they wish, that they do not have in abundance. And as scattered as Franken, so far, has been, that WOW effect may have already been missed. Still, the new format is brand-new - it's barely got it's feet wet. I'd give it a year or so before anyone starts doing a post-mortem. It may yet take off like a rocket. And that's the point. What they're attempting may, in fact succeed. It will not be taking off like a rocket. Nothing with a strictly political motive ever does. What the point of much of this thread has been about is the seemingly lack of focus, or lack of long term viability for the network. Long term viability doesn't appear what this network is about. And success in broadcasting is found in focussing on the listeners, not the broadcasters. Franken has already abrogated that position with the very name of his program. By calling the program the "O'Franken" factor, he's clearly calling out Bill O'Reilly. Nothing wrong with that. And it's a pretty brassy way of doing it. But in doing so, Franken has surrendered a crucial indentity issue for his program. Rush, Hannity, even O'Reilly have all staked their identity in their name and personality without compromise. Even Art Bell created a clear and distinct identity for Coast To Coast. But by coopting O'Reilly's "Factor" Franken has surrendered a key element of his show's identity, stating in the very title, that he's there to be a PITA to O'Reilly, and that alone should endear him to listeners. As clever as that is, it's also an enormous waste of opportunity. Radio listeners wish to identify with their favorite personalities. They wish to establish relationships with them. One way, to be sure, but relationships none the less. Franken has tipped his hand, that rather than keeping both eyes and his microphone on his audience, a key factor, so to speak, in building loyalty and establishing credibility among his listeners, he's instead keeping his eyes on O'Reilly. And by his patter, his attention is diverted to Rush as well. Precisely not the way to build a base. Poking fun at the big guys is one thing. But making them a part of your identity, is quite another. What Franken has done is the equivalent of Letterman calling his show 'The Late Show Starring David Lenoman.' He's surrendered a portion of is identity to Leno. Which is a tacit acknowledgement that Leno is bigger than he, and he accepts that without ambition. Franken has acknowleged that O'Reilly is bigger than he is and has accepted it. That's no way to build an audience. And audiences have a way of getting very tired of tuning in to hear Franken, and hearing talk about Rush or O'Reilly. Again, this is not to autopsy this new network. It's barely a week old, for heaven's sake. But they've made some questionable choices in strategy. Choices that radiate the soul of an also-ran. p -=jd=- |
Quoth Peter Maus in
: Franken, Janeane Garofolo specifically, and with the exception of Randi Rhodes, radio is NOT the medium of choice of these performers. You're conveniently ignoring Mark Riley (Morning Sedition) and Katherine Lanpher (O'Franken Factor): both consummate, experienced radio professionals who are teamed with the big name talent to guide them. Riley has been doing a particularly good job of this; I think Lanpher is still a bit in awe of Franken, but she's exerting more control as time passes. And Janeane Garofalo is proving to be a truly gifted radio personality; I suspect that she'll stay on the radio long after Franken has moved on, and adding experience to her natural gifts will be a great success on the radio, either at Air America or elsewhere. -- "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... Wow! Nice solid discussion, with postings by and large from people who sound like they have some knowledge of the radio business. I believe I'll have a better knowledge of the factors involved as I listen to some of this new talk. Of course, I'll have to do that on the web. When you're not listening to shortwave radio, of course! AM stations nown here in the Benighted South broadcast "All Right Wing--All The Time". Does anyone here want to take the time to tell me what happened to the old "fairness doctrine", which used to keep this kind of junk silent? A couple of things happend. First, the fairness doctrine was used as an anti-free speech political club. Second, the expansion of broadcast media nullified the arguement that scarcity made it necessary for the government to regulate who gets access. For a rundown of some of media censorship issues: http://www.mttlr.org/volfour/Hazlett_art.html Also, would someone run down the history of right wing talk radio for me? Further, is this stuff so widespread in part because radio stations are owned by businessmen and businessmen are predominantly conservative? Leonard Well, people listen, no matter who owns the stations. Maybe there's a difference in the employment factor between people who listen to daytime radio vs. people who watch daytime TV. Frank Dresser |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: 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. You call him I don't have to since I already know "what he thinks." http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=12815 Here you go out of the mouth of O'Franken "I'd be happy if the election of a Democrat ended the show, said the networks biggest star Al Franken, who reportedly has signed only a one-year contract to do a weekday three hour show opposite Limbaugh. I'm doing this because I want to use my energies to get Bush unelected." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...399506_5/?hub= Entertainment "We are flaming swords of justice," Franken told a cheering crowd at a party to launch the network Tuesday night. "Bush is going down, he is going down, he is going down. And we're going to help him." "I don't think of it as a business, but I know it has to make money to be sustaining," Franken said in an interview, perching his feet up on the desk after a rehearsal session for the show. "A lot of it is mission." Here is Mark Walsh CEO Mark Walsh, a former America Online executive and adviser to the Democratic National Committee, said liberal politics would be a "teaser .... a loss leader in the window" for the radio network, which is also being broadcast in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore. So liberal politics is just a "teaser" to sell Democratic party politics. Here is some more interesting reading http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives...t-talk-or-just -politics-2004-03-31.html You should be getting the picture by now. 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 -- Telamon Ventura, California |
-=jd=- wrote: I think you nailed it - Well.........'Tis the season. |
His point is he doesn't like the other side coming up with an idea that
might help Kerry to get elected. David wrote: What's your point? On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:42:04 GMT, 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 -----= 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! =----- |
Telamon,
This exchange between us started because you accused the network of being backed by communists. Now the reason you are all worked up is that it is backed by something much more evil and menacing .... Democrats!! Guess what, I'm not afraid of Democrats! I like Democrats. I vote for Democrats, and I will this up-coming election day You wrote all that insulting apocalyptic stuff about people having their heads in the sand, and ignoring the truth, and called me a jerk because of this? I pointed out in my last post that the amount of money being spent on Air America is small compared to what Bush is spending before he even gets nominated. Also you don't think Rupert Murdoch is electioneering for Bush? Just because Fox is profitable on the side doesn't make its subsidy of Republican politics any better than AA's of Democratic politics. You said in an earlier post that you don't have a problem with free speech. Live it. Oz |
= = = Larry Ozarow wrote in message
= = = ... - - - - - S N I P - - - - - As people have pointed out in this newsgroup, various of the rightwing commentators have support that comes from "foundations," - - - - - S N I P - - - - - LO, When it comes to Broadcast Media Programming and on-the-air 'Sponsorship" {Funding} that is 'directly' and 'indirectly' from [FOUNDATIONS]. The Big three a PBS = Public Broadcasting System = 349 'public' TV Stations PBS= http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/ NPR = National Prublic Radio = 750 'public' Radio Stations NPR= http://www.npr.org/about/ PRI = Public Radio Inernational = 746 'affiliate' stations (available internationally through World Radio Network) PRI= http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/inside/index.html WRN = World Radio Network = 'Globally Minded' ABC1 Adult Audience WRN= http://www.wrn.org/about/index.html [ABC1 = The ABC1 Consumer Market Assessment 20-40 Year Olds... http://www.researchandmarkets.com/re...report_id=3865 ADD - A host of state and reaginol networks and consortiums: Oregon Public Broadcastiing (OPB) Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) PLUS -Some PBS "Super Stations" like: WGBN, WETA, WNET, WTTW, WPBA, WPBT, KERA, KRMA, KCET, KQED, KCTS and more. The 'quiet' Liberal-Left-Leaning "Foundation Supported" Radio and TV Media is out there and it is very very strong and growing. jtf ~ RHF .. .. |
Telamon wrote in message ...
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=12815 "The reason: Air America Radio was designed and built to advance the Democratic Party, not necessarily liberalism." "And if it proves unprofitable, preparations are already in place for this network's lucrative dismemberment shortly after the November election.?" http://www.airamericaradio.com/www/p...balDefault.htm jtf ~ RHF .. |
We disagree about whether these networks really
display a "liberal" bias. I listen to both Morning Edition and All Things Considered on a regular basis and I don't think they are biased. True I might be brainwashed, or biased myself, but that could be true of anyone, even you. And even if NPR and PRI and PBS were liberal mouthpieces, and supported heavily by foundations, (which is not strictly true - the news programs which I assume is what you are talking about are overwhelmingly supported by subscriptions from member stations) this would not negate the fact that it's done on both sides, which is all I was saying. RHF wrote: = = = Larry Ozarow wrote in message = = = ... - - - - - S N I P - - - - - As people have pointed out in this newsgroup, various of the rightwing commentators have support that comes from "foundations," - - - - - S N I P - - - - - LO, When it comes to Broadcast Media Programming and on-the-air 'Sponsorship" {Funding} that is 'directly' and 'indirectly' from [FOUNDATIONS]. The Big three a PBS = Public Broadcasting System = 349 'public' TV Stations PBS= http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/ NPR = National Prublic Radio = 750 'public' Radio Stations NPR= http://www.npr.org/about/ PRI = Public Radio Inernational = 746 'affiliate' stations (available internationally through World Radio Network) PRI= http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/inside/index.html WRN = World Radio Network = 'Globally Minded' ABC1 Adult Audience WRN= http://www.wrn.org/about/index.html [ABC1 = The ABC1 Consumer Market Assessment 20-40 Year Olds... http://www.researchandmarkets.com/re...report_id=3865 ADD - A host of state and reaginol networks and consortiums: Oregon Public Broadcastiing (OPB) Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) PLUS -Some PBS "Super Stations" like: WGBN, WETA, WNET, WTTW, WPBA, WPBT, KERA, KRMA, KCET, KQED, KCTS and more. The 'quiet' Liberal-Left-Leaning "Foundation Supported" Radio and TV Media is out there and it is very very strong and growing. jtf ~ RHF . . |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com