Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 .. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
= = = 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 .. .. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 . . |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Understanding Shortwave Radio Listening and Antenna Design and Construction | Shortwave | |||
I wonder... | Shortwave | |||
WHERE ARE ALL THE TOUGH GUYS IN THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP? | Shortwave | |||
WHERE ARE ALL THE TOUGH GUYS IN THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP? | Shortwave | |||
WHERE ARE ALL THE TOUGH GUYS IN THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP? | General |