Uh-oh...is Air America gone from 910?

[tunahelper]

Re: Uh-oh...is Air America gone from 910? - Edited

IT's all about ratings. Like it or not Rush, Hannity, Savage and others deliver numbers for their stations. If liberals could do the same somebody would put their shows on. Or perhaps they have? While not a political show in nature, Stern is certainly liberal. What about Russ Martin in DFW? He's surely not conservative? Both shows draw a solid audience which is of course key to any show's success.
The problem I see is that the liberal side hasn't found many entertaining political talk hosts that are appealing to the masses and thus able to bring home the cash.

 

[bluescreen]

Re: Uh-oh...is Air America gone from 910? - Edited

> IT's all about ratings. Like it or not Rush, Hannity,
> Savage and others deliver numbers for their stations. If
> liberals could do the same somebody would put their shows
> on. Or perhaps they have? While not a political show in
> nature, Stern is certainly liberal. What about Russ Martin
> in DFW? He's surely not conservative? Both shows draw a
> solid audience which is of course key to any show's success.
>
> The problem I see is that the liberal side hasn't found
> many entertaining political talk hosts that are appealing to
> the masses and thus able to bring home the cash.
>
Oh I know the ratings game all too well and you're correct liberal talk radio needs good hosts. I was merely pointing out the fact that I believe Air America would be better served in this market by a different ownership interest and better signal. Will it ever be a major player? Who knows, but it's obvious BMP is putting as little effort into this endeavor as possible. The station sounds _worse_ than small-market radio.

 

[gallen]

Re: Uh-oh...is Air America gone from 910? - Edited

> Addendum: I listened at lunchtime and it was back on and
> running Franken.

Hey! How dare you post a message relevant to the original!

*tweet*

15 yards for you, mister!

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Re: Uh-oh...is Air America gone from 910? - Edited

KXEB is starting to advertise "Air America". A small 10 second logo and liner read during the Ch.8 5p news.

 

[frbob]

> >
> >
> > I've never heard the Republican say they invented any of
> > those programs. I have seen them try and FIX them.
> Democrat
> > or Republican, folks, Social Security needs fixing. The
> > Republicans are the only ones to try. The Democrats just
> > live in the past.
> >
> > And God Help us if we get a National Health Care system
> like
> > Great Britian. I hopw they do block it.
>
>
> I think you are repeating yourself again. Read your post
> above.
>
OHHHH Plezzzzz I hit the wrong button and it sent it twice. But the second did correct the typo.. I'm surprized you didn't whine about that!

 

[frbob]

> > >
> > > Now they act like they invented it.
> > >
> > > Same with Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start and every
>
> > > progressive program ever developed by ... Democrats.
> > >
> > > And when the time comes, they will block national health
>
> > > care.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've never heard the Republican say they invented any of
> > those programs. I have seen them try and FIX them.
> Democrat
> > or Republican, folks, Social Security needs fixing. The
> > Republicans are the only ones to try.
>
>
> They ACT like they invented it.
>
> You don't hear them criticize SS do you?
>
> Philosophically, why did they oppose them in the first place
> -- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the Civil Rights Act,
> the Voting Rights Act and on and on?
>
> Because philosophically, conservatives are against progress
> by the very definition of the word. They are for the status
> quo.

Show me where they act like it... you can't. Sorry all you can give is your personal bias.

BTW they did not oppose the Civil Rights Act. The Demos did. Johnson had to go to the Republican to get it passed cause his own party of most southern Democrated were not in favor of it.... Look it up.

I have never seen where the Republicans are for the status quo. If it wasn't for the Democrat's in congress we'd have a flat tax or a national sales tax and not have to keep dealing with the IRS. Piff

Ok you didn't say GB...how about Canada. They have a National Health care system. The stats on it arn't any better than GB...Yes I do have a health plan. Paid out of my own pocket. But if I chose I could go the the county hospital which would cost less or even the VA since I'm a vet. Health care is there if you want to take advantage of it. The problem is you want the government to give it to you as if you had a right to it......

OH wait that what the democrats tell you to buy your vote......

>

 

[Phantom]

> > > >
> > > > Now they act like they invented it.
> > > >
> > > > Same with Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start and
> every
> >
> > > > progressive program ever developed by ... Democrats.
> > > >
> > > > And when the time comes, they will block national
> health
> >
> > > > care.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've never heard the Republican say they invented any of
>
> > > those programs. I have seen them try and FIX them.
> > Democrat
> > > or Republican, folks, Social Security needs fixing.
> The
> > > Republicans are the only ones to try.
> >
> >
> > They ACT like they invented it.
> >
> > You don't hear them criticize SS do you?
> >
> > Philosophically, why did they oppose them in the first
> place
> > -- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the Civil Rights
> Act,
> > the Voting Rights Act and on and on?
> >
> > Because philosophically, conservatives are against
> progress
> > by the very definition of the word. They are for the
> status
> > quo.
>
> Show me where they act like it... you can't. Sorry all you
> can give is your personal bias.


When they try to reinvent it with personal accounts, they are claiming some sort of ownership on it.



> BTW they did not oppose the Civil Rights Act. The Demos did.
> Johnson had to go to the Republican to get it passed cause
> his own party of most southern Democrated were not in favor
> of it.... Look it up.


I said conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act -- both Democrats and Republicans. Barry Goldwater was against it. Much of the non-Rockfeller wing of the party then opposed it because they thought it infringed on states' rights.

Conservatives have opposed almost every piece of progressive legislation since FDR. It is a fact.

Look it up, as you would say.


> I have never seen where the Republicans are for the status
> quo.


Conservative means status quo by definition. Generally, they do not want change.

Do you not understand the meaning of status quo?


> flat tax or a national sales tax and not have to keep
> dealing with the IRS. Piff


Both, especially the national sales tax, would hurt the poor the most because the poor have to spend a greater percentage of what they make on essentials.

Any sales tax, national or otherwise, and any increase of a sales tax, hurts the poorest in our society the most.

Surely you understand that -- don't you?




> Ok you didn't say GB...how about Canada. They have a
> National Health care system. The stats on it arn't any
> better than GB...Yes I do have a health plan. Paid out of my
> own pocket. But if I chose I could go the the county
> hospital which would cost less or even the VA since I'm a
> vet. Health care is there if you want to take advantage of
> it. The problem is you want the government to give it to
> you as if you had a right to it......


I did not mention Canada, but now that you did, what are the stats?

Have you been to some of the VA hospitals lately? Some are a disgrace. Vets like you should receive better care.

Again, tell me specifically how a Wal-Mart employee making minimum wage and sometimes required to work off the books, could afford the premiums I mentioned.

Or how would someone laid off at General Motors afford health care coverage?

What do you mean it is there if you want it? It's not there if you cannot afford it.

How about the children of parents that cannot afford health care for them? You do not believe the government has any role in that?

Again, the conservatives of FDR's day called SS socialism. Do you think it is socialism?

But now you knock health care for children just like the conservatives of yesterday opposed Social Security.

They simply did not know any better.

And neither do you.

> OH wait that what the democrats tell you to buy your
> vote......


Actually, Republicans raise more money nationwide to buy votes.

Look it up ....

 

[Phantom]

> > >
> > >
> > > I've never heard the Republican say they invented any of
>
> > > those programs. I have seen them try and FIX them.
> > Democrat
> > > or Republican, folks, Social Security needs fixing.
> The
> > > Republicans are the only ones to try. The Democrats
> just
> > > live in the past.
> > >
> > > And God Help us if we get a National Health Care system
> > like
> > > Great Britian. I hopw they do block it.
> >
> >
> > I think you are repeating yourself again. Read your post
> > above.
> >
> OHHHH Plezzzzz I hit the wrong button and it sent it twice.
> But the second did correct the typo.. I'm surprized you
> didn't whine about that!


"OHHHH Plezzzz" -- your words.

You are whining about my not whining about it?

Typical whiner.

 

[_Jim]

_Jim - positively the ONLY sane one of the bunch!

It has been my experience that those that simply MUST discuss
'style' have no come-back for the SUBSTANCE.


I would still like someone to show where it is that the 'Fairness
Doctrine' results in anything but bland, dull, colorless radio - kinda
like what we used to have once upon a time ...

_Jim

 

[Phantom]

Re: _Jim - the only one who positively thinks he is sane ...

> It has been my experience that those that simply MUST
> discuss
> 'style' have no come-back for the SUBSTANCE.


Sometimes if your style of writing is so poor, then the substance of what you are trying to impart is lost.

I simply mentioned that Rush no longer pretends to be a conservative.

He is a Republican and admits it.

Bloated budgets and intrusion into private lives are not conservative values. That's why Barry Goldwater near the end of his life had such a problem with the GOP.

But you had no response.

I would call that, in your words, no comeback.



> I would still like someone to show where it is that the
> 'Fairness
> Doctrine' results in anything but bland, dull, colorless
> radio - kinda
> like what we used to have once upon a time ...
>
> _Jim



Well, most people on this board whine and whine about radio's old days so something must have interested them in those days.

Come on, Jim -- many entertaining talk show hosts were around during the Fairness Doctrine.

And why do you put it in quotes?

Like them or not: Joe Pyne and Michael Jackson in LA, Rod Roddy in Dallas to name a few.

The Fairness Doctrine is gone, finished. Why harp on it?

 

[_Jim]

> >
> >
> > I've never heard the Republican say they invented any of
> > those programs. I have seen them try and FIX them.
> Democrat
> > or Republican, folks, Social Security needs fixing. The
> > Republicans are the only ones to try.

FDR back in his day had considered some 'privatization',
but those of you who don't dig deeper than the six o'clock
news or C^BS won't know that ...

>
>
> They ACT like they invented it.


Nixon gave us the EPA and OSHA, both programs look out for
people and were created by an evil Republican^TM.

>
> You don't hear them criticize SS do you?
>
> Philosophically, why did they oppose them in the first place
> -- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the Civil Rights Act,

Deomcrats were the ones that actualy OPPOSED civil rights and
such bills as The Civil Rights Act - you *do* remember
reading that in histiry class don't you (or were you playing
pool at the pool hall that day)?


> the Voting Rights Act and on and on?
>
> Because philosophically, conservatives are against progress
> by the very definition of the word. They are for the status
> quo.

And DEMS what the same-old same-old on SS? GIMME A BREAK! IF that
isn't 'stuck in the mud' and anti-progressive (doing things
the same yr after yr w/o regard to inherent problems in a system)
I would hard pressed to find a better example.

>
> That is what conservative means.
>
> How would they fix SS?
>
> "Social Security benefits are adjusted yearly for increases
> in the cost of living -- a feature not present in many
> private plans."
>
> -- from the Social Security Administration website
> explaining the advantages of of Social Security benefits
> over individual retirement accounts, which President Bush
> has pushed so unsuccessfully.
>
>
> > And God Help us if we get a National Health Care system
> like
> > Great Britian. I hope they do block it.
>
>
> Show me where I ever mentioned Great Britain's system.

There is a move afoot to allow - BRACE YOURSELVES - for private
health care in GB! b/c their *socialistic* system seems to be, ahhh
... broken ...

>
> But you could not be bothered because you have health care
> coverage, right?

TAKE from Peter to GIVE to Paul eh?

>
> Simply put, something is wrong with America when we cannot
> provide health care for children whose parents cannot afford
> it -- even those that work at places like Wal-Mart. Imagine
> someone making minimum wage affording a $250 premium per
> month.
>

PURE socialism (and I'll for sure work out a scheme where
I can make my hobby qualify as 'a job' but with a low enough
income I can live off the rest of you guys ... see how that works?).


If this is truly what you'd like to see, then we must all vote for
Hitlery - I mean Hillary, but then we will not have any room
to complain when the federal jackboots arrive to collect back
taxes to pay for all these *wonderful* utopian programs.

It's at a point like this that I begin to wonder if y'all have ever
had kids and how they turned out; tell me; didja give 'em everything
they ever wanted without first earning it? More to the point - how
did they turn out, are they productive, honest, hard-working people?


That is all for now; just answer any posed questions with thoughtful,
studied responses *preferably* including cites, links, author's names,
book titles et cetera to support your logic.

_Jim

 

[_Jim]

I should like to add ...

... that maintaining the 'status quo' on radio (and in 'the media'
in general) does nothing but stunt a country's growth, serving to
stunt both her mental and spiritual expansion.

I whole-heartedly realise this is not a board full of 'egg heads'
that can trace the development of culture, of mankind's slow and
painful rise out of the muck (you DO know something about mankind's
development - don't you? If not, you may, in fact are advised to
leave this thread immediately.)


THIS is a board full of, basically, 'mechanics'; people who quite literally
are 'hands on' in their particular field and therefore would seem
to view everthing from that prism, that viewpoint. This is only
natural, and one can fault anyone else for that or for their view, They
may be faulted, however, for the undying defense that they have seen/found
is the one ond only true 'view' or 'way in life'. This is where the
debate seems to be, seems to end up: each person's ability to judge a
radio host's or another person's honesty, credibilty and breadth of
experience varies greatly. Not everyone has had a wide and varied background
or 'training' and experience in the 'righ areas'. Simple 'consumers' of
goods are the not the ones to consult for, say, designing a new product
however it is useful to observe those persons for any improvements
or changes that the trained eye can observe ... but I have digressed ...


Back to subject to wanted to address: the part radio (and again, the media
in general) can play in the mental and spiritual development of a
nation and the individual that necessarily make up that nation.

I really now have to ask, "does a steady diet of Stern, Springer, Franken
further that goal"?

Seriously now - do they?

Besides Stern, is there any other 'mental diet' that the vast numbers of
you out there 'consume', make 'part of' yourself just by listening or
reading or ?????

I have to confess, I used to listen to Stern when he was aired in this
market. I enjoyed his use of logic, his examination of issues and while
having some fun doing it; but THEN he turns on the potty mouth ... as an
old proverb says "You do what you are" and I made the decision that I
didn't want that kind of crap in my head, "and so I went elsewhere ..."

I was looking for entertaining, thoughtful, talk radio; not 'happy jabber',
not 'happy talk' between tunes, and after awhile, tunes just don't cut it
anyway. I have found myself tuning over to WRR any more, if it's just
'music' that I want. Otherwise, it is inciteful talk radio. I'll even
listen to the rantings of that multiple PhD in the biological sciences,
a man trained in science, for his perspective on current subjects and
other subject of interest. Do I take what he;'s got lock stock and
barrel? Not without 'checking it out' first, and again, not everyone is
'well equipped' nor prone to do so ...


_Jim

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by _Jim on 06/10/05 02:39 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Jim on"civil Rights"
Strom Thurmond was a democrat,he hated civil rights,and he became a republican. Study your history closely,the southern democrats who opposed Civil Rights,were staunch conservatives. Starting with 1978 and peaking in 1983 became members of the Republican Party. As I said,you need to broaden your view, and look through the eyepiece of a microscope,not the other end.

 

[_Jim]

Re: _Jim - the only one who positively think he is sane ... <-- note the 'bad grammer'

Is turnabout fair play?

_Jim

 

[Phantom]

Re: I should like to add ...

> ... that maintaining the 'status quo' on radio (and in 'the
> media'
> in general) does nothing but stunt a country's growth,
> serving to
> stunt both her mental and spiritual expansion.
>
> I whole-heartedly realise this is not a board full of 'egg
> heads'
> that can trace the development of culture, of mankind's slow
> and
> painful rise out of the muck (you DO know something about
> mankind's
> development - don't you? If not, you may, in fact are
> advised to
> leave this thread immediately.)
>
>
> THIS is a board full of, basically, 'mechanics'; people who
> quite literally
> are 'hands on' in their particular field and therefore would
> seem
> to view everthing from that prism, that viewpoint. This is
> only
> natural, and one can fault anyone else for that or for their
> view, They
> may be faulted, however, for the undying defense that they
> have seen/found
> is the one ond only true 'view' or 'way in life'. This is
> where the
> debate seems to be, seems to end up: each person's ability
> to judge a
> radio host's or another person's honesty, credibilty and
> breadth of
> experience varies greatly. Not everyone has had a wide and
> varied background
> or 'training' and experience in the 'righ areas'. Simple
> 'consumers' of
> goods are the not the ones to consult for, say, designing a
> new product
> however it is useful to observe those persons for any
> improvements
> or changes that the trained eye can observe ... but I have
> digressed ...


Yes sir, you have


> Back to subject to wanted to address: the part radio (and
> again, the media
> in general) can play in the mental and spiritual development
> of a
> nation and the individual that necessarily make up that
> nation.
>
> I really now have to ask, "does a steady diet of Stern,
> Springer, Franken
> further that goal"?


Seriously, no. I never listen to any of them.

I have heard "snippets" of each of them, and all are repugnant to me.


> Seriously now - do they?
>
> Besides Stern, is there any other 'mental diet' that the
> vast numbers of
> you out there 'consume', make 'part of' yourself just by
> listening or
> reading or ?????
>
> I have to confess, I used to listen to Stern when he was
> aired in this
> market. I enjoyed his use of logic, his examination of
> issues and while
> having some fun doing it; but THEN he turns on the potty
> mouth ... as an
> old proverb says "You do what you are" and I made the
> decision that I
> didn't want that kind of crap in my head, "and so I went
> elsewhere ..."


Me too. He is smart enough, but much of his show is trash.

Others, I know, will disagree including Mel K .



> I was looking for entertaining, thoughtful, talk radio; not
> 'happy jabber',
> not 'happy talk' between tunes, and after awhile, tunes just
> don't cut it
> anyway. I have found myself tuning over to WRR any more, if
> it's just
> 'music' that I want.


Well, more in common Jim. WRR is relaxing to me.

And for a classical music station, it's ratings are not bad. Sometimes WRR beats KRLD.



Otherwise, it is inciteful talk radio.
> I'll even
> listen to the rantings of that multiple PhD in the
> biological sciences,
> a man trained in science, for his perspective on current
> subjects and
> other subject of interest. Do I take what he;'s got lock
> stock and
> barrel? Not without 'checking it out' first, and again, not
> everyone is
> 'well equipped' nor prone to do so ...
>
>
> _Jim


I like all-sports radio, and I believe anything that anyone says there

 

[Phantom]

Re: _Jim - the only one who positively thinks he is sane ... <-- note the 'bad grammer'

> Is turnabout fair play?
>
> _Jim



Sure it is

I see it now ... thinks.

Oops, someone changed it when I wasn't looking .

By the way, it's grammar not grammer

 

[Phantom]

> > >
> > >
> > > I've never heard the Republican say they invented any of
>
> > > those programs. I have seen them try and FIX them.
> > Democrat
> > > or Republican, folks, Social Security needs fixing.
> The
> > > Republicans are the only ones to try.
>
> FDR back in his day had considered some 'privatization',
> but those of you who don't dig deeper than the six o'clock
> news or CBS won't know that ...


According to FDR's grandson, FDR never considered it. He says he has done an extensive search of FDR's papers.

He has criticized President Bush for taking FDR's comments out of context.



> >
> > They ACT like they invented it.
>
>
> Nixon gave us the EPA and OSHA, both programs look out for
> people and were created by an evil RepublicanTM.



Yes, he did, and I give him credit for it as well as his trip to China.

But the good he did simply did not outweigh his crimes.



> >
> > You don't hear them criticize SS do you?
> >
> > Philosophically, why did they oppose them in the first
> place
> > -- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the Civil Rights
> Act,
>
> Deomcrats were the ones that actualy OPPOSED civil rights
> and
> such bills as The Civil Rights Act - you *do* remember
> reading that in histiry class don't you (or were you playing
>
> pool at the pool hall that day)?


Actually, it was Republicans AND southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act as well.

For example, in the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater emphatically opposed federal civil rights legislation. He said he felt such legislation encroached on individual state's rights.

However, if we had waited for Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, etc. to see the light, blacks would still be fighting for their rights.

Right?



>
>
> > the Voting Rights Act and on and on?
> >
> > Because philosophically, conservatives are against
> progress
> > by the very definition of the word. They are for the
> status
> > quo.
>
> And DEMS what the same-old same-old on SS? GIMME A BREAK! IF
> that
> isn't 'stuck in the mud' and anti-progressive (doing things
> the same yr after yr w/o regard to inherent problems in a
> system)
> I would hard pressed to find a better example.



Again Jim, the amount of progressive legislation passed by Democrats is overwhelming -- civil rights, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, etc.

Are you for or against these programs Jim? Simply say yes or no.

The amount of progressive legislation by Republicans is underwhelming.

Theodore Roosevelt was the last progressive Republican president -- and one of the greatest.


> > That is what conservative means.
> >
> > How would they fix SS?
> >
> > "Social Security benefits are adjusted yearly for
> increases
> > in the cost of living -- a feature not present in many
> > private plans."
> >
> > -- from the Social Security Administration website
> > explaining the advantages of of Social Security benefits
> > over individual retirement accounts, which President Bush
> > has pushed so unsuccessfully.


The Social Security Administration is not exactly in sinc with the president, eh Jim?


> >
> > > And God Help us if we get a National Health Care system
> > like
> > > Great Britian. I hope they do block it.
> >
> >
> > Show me where I ever mentioned Great Britain's system.
>
> There is a move afoot to allow - BRACE YOURSELVES - for
> private
> health care in GB! b/c their *socialistic* system seems to
> be, ahhh
> ... broken ...
>
> >
> > But you could not be bothered because you have health care
>
> > coverage, right?
>
> TAKE from Peter to GIVE to Paul eh?
>
> >
> > Simply put, something is wrong with America when we cannot
>
> > provide health care for children whose parents cannot
> afford
> > it -- even those that work at places like Wal-Mart.
> Imagine
> > someone making minimum wage affording a $250 premium per
> > month.


How bout the policy at Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other companies of forcing people to work "off the books" and forego their overtime pay?

What do you think should be done ... if anything?



> PURE socialism (and I'll for sure work out a scheme where
> I can make my hobby qualify as 'a job' but with a low enough
>
> income I can live off the rest of you guys ... see how that
> works?).



Well, the Republicans called FDR a Socialist over and over again.

Do you think he was?

What about children whose parents cannot afford health care? I am not talking about national health care for anyone other than children.

Do you oppose that ... Yes or No?


> If this is truly what you'd like to see, then we must all
> vote for
> Hitlery


Did not think you would stoop so low to compare her or anyone with Hitler.

Besides, it is just ignorant if you truly believe it. She is considered a liberal. Hitler was a right-wing fascist.


- I mean Hillary, but then we will not have any room
>
> to complain when the federal jackboots arrive to collect
> back
> taxes to pay for all these *wonderful* utopian programs.


Oh brother


> It's at a point like this that I begin to wonder if y'all
> have ever
> had kids and how they turned out; tell me; didja give 'em
> everything
> they ever wanted without first earning it? More to the point
> - how
> did they turn out, are they productive, honest, hard-working
> people?


Mine just graduated from law school. Will take the bar in February.

Let loose with the lawyer jokes ...


>
> That is all for now; just answer any posed questions with
> thoughtful,
> studied responses *preferably* including cites, links,
> author's names,
> book titles et cetera to support your logic.
>
> _Jim


How many links, sites (with an s, not a c), author's names, book titles did you provide?

You just stated your opinions as I did.

 

[nocternal_freek]

I've given you a chance to rant and now that I have enough ammo, here we go. I never disputed the fact that AAR is doing crappy. In fact, I wouldn't doubt it in the least. Their content is presented horribly. They have the fervor just not the presentation. I don't know if this will take time, but I'm in a small market that will probably never get an AAR afilliate. But you want proof of your bias? Here we go. Quoted from a plethora of your posts:


"If this is truly what you'd like to see, then we must all vote for
Hitlery - I mean Hillary, but then we will not have any room
to complain when the federal jackboots arrive to collect back
taxes to pay for all these *wonderful* utopian programs."

Hmmmmm....comparing her to Hitler? Maybe it's just a coincidence.

"There is a move afoot to allow - BRACE YOURSELVES - for private
health care in GB! b/c their *socialistic* system seems to be, ahhh
... broken ..."

If I'm not mistaken, Britain is not a socialist system. You're starting to sound like a religous freak on a local newspaper's message board. Go bash Lenin somewhere else.

"Oh YEAH, Both sides were about as bland as a head of iceburg
lettuce yielding nothing but mild pap ... that's why radio nearly
DIED until 'ol Rushbo saved it with some earsthile honesty and
no holds barred discussion."

How much more obvious can you make it that you sniff Rush's throne?

And finally....

"And DEMS what the same-old same-old on SS? GIMME A BREAK! IF that
isn't 'stuck in the mud' and anti-progressive (doing things
the same yr after yr w/o regard to inherent problems in a system)
I would hard pressed to find a better example."

Once again, I never refuted your claims about AAR. I said that your bias was blinding and I think I've made that painfully clear especially with this last statement. I WILL NOT argue over the validity of these statements as fact either. This is a radio message board, not a bullhorn for your political views. If you want to argue politics, go find a political message board. And finally, remember, saying you have no problem is the first sign.

 

[jd]

Re: _Jim - the only one who positively thinks he is sane ... <-- note the 'bad grammer'

> > Is turnabout fair play?
> >
> > _Jim
>
>
>
> Sure it is
>
> I see it now ... thinks.
>
> Oops, someone changed it when I wasn't looking .
>
> By the way, it's grammar not grammer

I've watched this thread as it took an ugly turn and began to provoke personal attacks, but I decided not to join in. That is, until now. Can we resist the temptation to transform a discussion of a radio station's programming into a political firestorm? Apparently we can't.

Jim, allow me to make an observation. Your debating skill is not one of your assets, and you may want to consider a refresher course in grammar, spelling and composition. You didn't miss your calling as a writer; the phone never rang. If this sounds like a personal attack, I apologize, but civility is important to me, whether it be on this board or in everyday living. You see, I'm not being critical of you as a person; rather I'm suggesting a little moderation when you're trying to make a point.

I liked your posts much better when you were doing radio spectrum analysis.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> The M.O. of every single one of their hosts is precisely
> what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Instead of coming
> up with solutions to the problems they take the easy road
> and deride everything the GOP does. I agree with them on a
> lot of the points they bring up but c'mon...solve something.
> If you're not helping with a solution you're part of the
> problem.

This isn't a fair criticism. After all, back in the nineties when Clinton was president, conservative talk show hosts seemed to devote their time to attacking Clinton, not coming up with solutions. The sad fact of the matter is that commercial talk radio is mostly about throwing "red meat" in the form of attacks and criticism out to the target audience. It worked very effectively for building conservative talk radio in the nineties, and given time it is likely to work for liberals in the next decade.

Needless to say, I'm not going to spend much time looking for credible solutions from talk radio hosts on either the right or the left.