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

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

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

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

..

In article ,
(RHF) wrote:

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

Another voter wakes up.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

= = = 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

..

..

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

.

.