Air America, the "Liberals" answer to Rush, may be going under already!

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Looks like drudge has been proven wrong once again.

How so?

CkG

Well if you think Drudge/Chicago Tribune side of the story is correct, why would a judge rule in favor of airamerica?? I mean, if airamerica really did bounce the check, do you think the judge would rule in their favor??

Ah, so Drudge is wrong for breaking the news that the Chicago Tribune was going to do a story on it. Gotcha

How exactly is THIS "proven wrong"? But sure, keep thinking he was "proven wrong"

You people never cease to amaze me so go ahead an nitpick his breaking of the story that actually ran

Oh and BTW - conjur got the - Judge orders it back on - thing, FROM DRUDGE!!! Oh, the irony. You using a Drudge -"developing" to prove he was "proven" wrong

CkG

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the irony here is fantastic..

a bunch of white middle aged liberals ..Garafalo, Franken.. are suing the Multicultural Radio Broadcasting network for shutting them down after they stopped payment on a bill!!!

that's just wrong on so many levels it's too funny!!

And these folks are on the same team?

What really amazes me is the contradictory nature of the ideology. We are invited to believe that the liberal is more tolerant of other cultures. Yet, Air America's broadcasting essentially denies cultural diversity provided by three radio stations.

 

[jahawkin]

Ok Cad, I'll tell you what's wrong with Drudge. Before the trib story was even up, Drudge had text on his site (not the text you linked to) that said air america radio was shut off in chicago and la because they bounced a check.
This is what Drudge had up when the story first broke on his site (complete with the flashing siren, so it must be important)

AIR AMERICA 'BOUNCES CHECK'; LIBERAL RADIO NET TAKEN OFF AIR IN LOS ANGELES, CHICAGO AFTER ONLY TWO WEEKS

So immediatly the story is one sided - Drudge is quoting the owner of the stations yet fails to give any input from air america, even though some is included in the trib article he links to later.
If Drudge is pretending to be a journalist, he's doing a horrible job. Based on the information available to him, wouldn't a more appropriate headline be:
AIR AMERICA IN CONTRACT DISPUTE; LIBERAL RADIO NET TAKEN OFF AIR IN LOS ANGELES, CHICAGO

So I guess Drudge wasn't really "wrong" on this issue, he's just a spectacular hack as a journalist. His breaking news flashes are always the early right spin on everything and he peddels heresay and rumors as if they were true (Kerry love affair anyone??).

Oh and BTW, Bdawg reported the - Judge orders it back on - thing in this thread well before Drudge (and subsequently conjur) did. So no I wasn't using Drudge to prove Drudge wro- errr a hack.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Ok Cad, I'll tell you what's wrong with Drudge. Before the trib story was even up, Drudge had text on his site (not the text you linked to) that said air america radio was shut off in chicago and la because they bounced a check.
This is what Drudge had up when the story first broke on his site (complete with the flashing siren, so it must be important)

AIR AMERICA 'BOUNCES CHECK'; LIBERAL RADIO NET TAKEN OFF AIR IN LOS ANGELES, CHICAGO AFTER ONLY TWO WEEKS

So immediatly the story is one sided - Drudge is quoting the owner of the stations yet fails to give any input from air america, even though some is included in the trib article he links to later.
If Drudge is pretending to be a journalist, he's doing a horrible job. Based on the information available to him, wouldn't a more appropriate headline be:
AIR AMERICA IN CONTRACT DISPUTE; LIBERAL RADIO NET TAKEN OFF AIR IN LOS ANGELES, CHICAGO

So I guess Drudge wasn't really "wrong" on this issue, he's just a spectacular hack as a journalist. His breaking news flashes are always the early right spin on everything and he peddels heresay and rumors as if they were true (Kerry love affair anyone??).

Oh and BTW, Bdawg reported the - Judge orders it back on - thing in this thread well before Drudge (and subsequently conjur) did. So no I wasn't using Drudge to prove Drudge wro- errr a hack.

Right - so Drudge wasn't "proven wrong" then was he - didn't think so. You can whine about being a "hack" or whatever helps you sleep but what he was breaking was infact true. They did bounce a check and they were pulled off the air. But like I said - keep trying to say Drugde is wrong or whatever you massage it to - he broke the story as a headline - get over it - he was right.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

No CAD AAR did not bounce the check, they stopped payment on the check. There is a big difference.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
No CAD AAR did not bounce the check, they stopped payment on the check. There is a big difference.

Not to the person taking payment.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
No CAD AAR did not bounce the check, they stopped payment on the check. There is a big difference.

Not to the person taking payment.

CkG

So you acknowledge there is a difference between bouncing a check and stopping payment.

Why did Drudge report it as a bounced check??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
No CAD AAR did not bounce the check, they stopped payment on the check. There is a big difference.

Not to the person taking payment.

CkG

So you acknowledge there is a difference between bouncing a check and stopping payment.

Why did Drudge report it as a bounced check??

If a person cashes a check made for payment and it comes back from originating bank - it is considered "bounced" to the person who took payment and to that person's bank. Stopping payment is a reason for a check bouncing back - as would insufficient funds. I'd like to see what your CC company would call it if you stopped payment on a check. You think they care what "reason" you give them?

But like I said - you can say what you wish if it helps you sleep at night...and it'll be interesting to see how the actual court thing pans out.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

CAD, do you understand the difference in reporting that AAR bounced a check (this implies that they are out of $$) and reporting AAR stopped payment on a check because of a contract dispute?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
CAD, do you understand the difference in reporting that AAR bounced a check (this implies that they are out of $$) and reporting AAR stopped payment on a check because of a contract dispute?

I understand there are different "reasons" for a check bouncing and yes I realize that stopping payment is one of those "reasons".
Do you understand that the "reason" doesn't change that it bounced back and was unpaid? Didn't think so...

I guess we'll have to wait and see how the actual court case turns out to see if AA had good reason to not fully release funds to pay the bill.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
CAD, do you understand the difference in reporting that AAR bounced a check (this implies that they are out of $$) and reporting AAR stopped payment on a check because of a contract dispute?

I understand there are different "reasons" for a check bouncing and yes I realize that stopping payment is one of those "reasons".
Do you understand that the "reason" doesn't change that it bounced back and was unpaid? Didn't think so...

I guess we'll have to wait and see how the actual court case turns out to see if AA had good reason to not fully release funds to pay the bill.

CkG

Agreed. :beer:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech
Ripped from page 45 of the liberal play book. Bleat some more Ldir.

Show me the way, fanboy. Show me the way. You bleat with the best of them. BAA


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

Ripped from page 56 of the liberal play book.


Paragraph heading.
"That's not me, that's you".

Showing the intellectual depth we expect from you. I am sure that really gets the other third graders.

I have a question. I always wanted to be a bleating Bush fanboy, but I could not afford the lobotomy. How much did yours cost, or are you a natural?

Nah, he sounds like a daddy's boy republican. My daddy votes republican so I vote republican. My daddy is always right. Don't mess with Texas.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It seems kind of stupid to try to compete with low IQ radio anyway, the right already has the audience.

You are right. Liberals do not need lying blowhards to tell them what to think. Liberals think for themselves. Leave conservative Bleat Radio for the sheep.

Ripped from page 45 of the liberal play book. Bleat some more Ldir.

Show me the way, fanboy. Show me the way. You bleat with the best of them. BAA


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

Ripped from page 56 of the liberal play book.


Paragraph heading.
"That's not me, that's you".

Better double-check whose playbook you're reading etech. Ldir led with the dig about bleating: "Leave conservative Bleat Radio for the sheep." You replied by telling him to bleat some more. I'd say your response is the "That's not me, that's you." childishness. Not surprising; I've noticed the Bush fanboys do that a lot. Original thought seems to be a stretch.

But hey, if that's the best you can do, knock yourself out. Please feel free to "zing"

me with another of your "ripped from the liberal playbook" inanities. Perhaps Ldir takes you seriously, but I'm quite comfortable I'm NOT the one who comes out looking "stupid".



(PS. If you're going to call other people stupid, you might want to avoid spelling ridiculous as "rediculous" and opponent as "oponent". It doesn't make a persuasive case that you're qualified to hold that opinion.)

How can anyone take a rediculous oponent like etch seriously?


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It seems kind of stupid to try to compete with low IQ radio anyway, the right already has the audience.

You are right. Liberals do not need lying blowhards to tell them what to think. Liberals think for themselves. Leave conservative Bleat Radio for the sheep.

Ripped from page 45 of the liberal play book. Bleat some more Ldir.

Show me the way, fanboy. Show me the way. You bleat with the best of them. BAA


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

Ripped from page 56 of the liberal play book.


Paragraph heading.
"That's not me, that's you".

Better double-check whose playbook you're reading etech. Ldir led with the dig about bleating: "Leave conservative Bleat Radio for the sheep." You replied by telling him to bleat some more. I'd say your response is the "That's not me, that's you." childishness. Not surprising; I've noticed the Bush fanboys do that a lot. Original thought seems to be a stretch.

But hey, if that's the best you can do, knock yourself out. Please feel free to "zing"

me with another of your "ripped from the liberal playbook" inanities. Perhaps Ldir takes you seriously, but I'm quite comfortable I'm NOT the one who comes out looking "stupid".



(PS. If you're going to call other people stupid, you might want to avoid spelling ridiculous as "rediculous" and opponent as "oponent". It doesn't make a persuasive case that you're qualified to hold that opinion.)

How can anyone take a rediculous oponent like etch seriously?


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

How can anyone worry more about the spelling of the words and not the message of the post. I know, it's in the liberal playbook somewhere. Attack the man, not the message.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Better double-check whose playbook you're reading etech. Ldir led with the dig about bleating: "Leave conservative Bleat Radio for the sheep." You replied by telling him to bleat some more. I'd say your response is the "That's not me, that's you." childishness. Not surprising; I've noticed the Bush fanboys do that a lot. Original thought seems to be a stretch.

But hey, if that's the best you can do, knock yourself out. Please feel free to "zing"

me with another of your "ripped from the liberal playbook" inanities. Perhaps Ldir takes you seriously, but I'm quite comfortable I'm NOT the one who comes out looking "stupid".



(PS. If you're going to call other people stupid, you might want to avoid spelling ridiculous as "rediculous" and opponent as "oponent". It doesn't make a persuasive case that you're qualified to hold that opinion.)

How can anyone take a rediculous oponent like etch seriously?


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

How can anyone worry more about the spelling of the words and not the message of the post. I know, it's in the liberal playbook somewhere. Attack the man, not the message.

How can anyone ignore the bulk of a post and focus on a PS (that was in parentheses)? I know, it's the modus operandi of the Bush-God fanboys.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ]
But hey, if that's the best you can do, knock yourself out. Please feel free to "zing"

me with another of your "ripped from the liberal playbook" inanities. Perhaps Ldir takes you seriously, but I'm quite comfortable I'm NOT the one who comes out looking "stupid".


(PS. If you're going to call other people stupid, you might want to avoid spelling ridiculous as "rediculous" and opponent as "oponent". It doesn't make a persuasive case that you're qualified to hold that opinion.)

How can anyone take a rediculous oponent like etch seriously?


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

How can anyone worry more about the spelling of the words and not the message of the post. I know, it's in the liberal playbook somewhere. Attack the man, not the message.

You mean like Kerry kills babies? Riiight. Would you like me to go back through a few of your posts? Through anything posted by Heartsurgeon? The Bushies have such a great track record on sticking to issues.

(Note to Ldir: etech has no sense of humor, least of all about himself. Your "" was wasted on him.)

 

[etech]

(Note to Ldir: etech has no sense of humor, least of all about himself. Your "" was wasted on him.)

I think it is stupid of people to post an insult and than expect a little smiley face to make it all better because it was "only a joke."

If you call that humor bowfinger, well it's a devious and warped sense of humor and you are right. I don't have it and don't want it.

As for your examples, sure waste your time looking up where I posted or agreed with the statement "Kerry kills babies." Please, by all means spend some time on it. Than come back and apologize when you don't find it.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Looks like drudge has been proven wrong once again.

How so?

CkG

Well if you think Drudge/Chicago Tribune side of the story is correct, why would a judge rule in favor of airamerica?? I mean, if airamerica really did bounce the check, do you think the judge would rule in their favor??

He didn't ruel in their favor, he just granted an injunction keeping them on the air while the dispute is settled. It's pretty common in disputes like this.

 

[teiresias]

It depends on how the contract is written whether the company has a right to suspend broadcast in Chicago over a payment dispute for the LA market, and since I haven't read the contract, I'd have no idea what the answer would be.

 

[heartsurgeon]

No CAD AAR did not bounce the check, they stopped payment on the check. There is a big difference

BOING, BOING, BOING, BOING

If you feel someone has breeched an legal agreement, it is generally accepted that you get an attorney, and contact them about your grevience, and then you may have to resort to the courts to resolve the issue (contractual lawsuits rarely get to court, they are ususally settled out of court.

it is generally NOT appropriate to "counter-breech" the agreement. Stopping payment on a check that is owed is a breech. Pulling the show off the air was probably another breech of the contract.

it all depends on the langauge of the contract, and how it is interpreted.

i suspect that a judge will rule that both parties breeched the contract, and some sort of settlement will occur. what the nature of this settlement will be is unknwn.

finally, what does this mean exactly?

"Air America says it was paid in full on its Chicago contract. It stopped payment on a check for its Los Angeles contract because it discovered Multicultural was double-dipping on rent payments from another party. "We were cheated," said David Goodfriend, the network's executive vice president and general counsel."

WTF does that mean???? Anybody know??

 

[KK]

Is it normal for a radio show to have to pay a station to be on the air? I always thought that the radio stations paid the radio show for syndication rights. What's up with that?

KK

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: KK
Is it normal for a radio show to have to pay a station to be on the air? I always thought that the radio stations paid the radio show for syndication rights. What's up with that?

KK

At first it is.

 

[SViscusi]

Looks like this broke company is somehow adding stations

Liberal talk coming after all

Media Savvy: Local home for Air America?

Air America's home here will be 1240 AM (KSQR), the erstwhile Spanish station that's off the air but on the block, with beleaguered Sacramento broadcaster Paula Nelson the likely buyer.

Could that paramount of journalistic integrity know as Matt Drudge have been wrong?