• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Randi Rhodes quits Air America

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

craftech

Senior member
Nov 26, 2000
779
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Speaking of not thinking or comprehending.

I provided this as a definition
Quite easily, somebody who believes in a nanny state, govt is the answer for all of our ills, tax the rich, and go after the corporations while playing the race\class card any chance they get.
Then provided you with a reason why liberal talk radio fails due to the plethora of outlets liberals can get their information. Just because you dont want to think it can and does happen doesnt mean it isnt. Sticking your hands over your ears and screaming like a child doesnt make you enlightened.
If believing that being able to defend one's position by providing examples that can be corroborated is "sticking your hands over your ears and screaming like a child" then:


Whaaa! Whaaa! :(
John


You still lost the argument because you could not defend your position.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Heh speaking of not getting it. Conservative radio makes money from ad revenue because people actually listen to it. When more people listen to the shows, they can get a higher rate on advertising. The "looney left" is hardly broke. George Soro's hard up for cash?
 

craftech

Senior member
Nov 26, 2000
779
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Heh speaking of not getting it. Conservative radio makes money from ad revenue because people actually listen to it. When more people listen to the shows, they can get a higher rate on advertising. The "looney left" is hardly broke. George Soro's hard up for cash?

Since you lost the argument about "liberals", Define a "Conservative" and provide something to corroborate your definition and an example that can be verified.

John
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Heh speaking of not getting it. Conservative radio makes money from ad revenue because people actually listen to it. When more people listen to the shows, they can get a higher rate on advertising. The "looney left" is hardly broke. George Soro's hard up for cash?

Since you lost the argument about "liberals", Define a "Conservative" and provide something to corroborate your definition and an example that can be verified.

John
What are you a broken record? You seem hell bent on scientific proof of a mostly emotional feeling. Good luck with your quest heh.


 

craftech

Senior member
Nov 26, 2000
779
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Heh speaking of not getting it. Conservative radio makes money from ad revenue because people actually listen to it. When more people listen to the shows, they can get a higher rate on advertising. The "looney left" is hardly broke. George Soro's hard up for cash?

Since you lost the argument about "liberals", Define a "Conservative" and provide something to corroborate your definition and an example that can be verified.

John
What are you a broken record? You seem hell bent on scientific proof of a mostly emotional feeling. Good luck with your quest heh.
So then we are to take your "emotional feeling" as an argument to put any stock in?

Is that what you are suggesting? You probably wouldn't do very well on a debate team unless someone like Tim Russert were moderating it.

John
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Heh speaking of not getting it. Conservative radio makes money from ad revenue because people actually listen to it. When more people listen to the shows, they can get a higher rate on advertising. The "looney left" is hardly broke. George Soro's hard up for cash?

Since you lost the argument about "liberals", Define a "Conservative" and provide something to corroborate your definition and an example that can be verified.

John
What are you a broken record? You seem hell bent on scientific proof of a mostly emotional feeling. Good luck with your quest heh.
So then we are to take your "emotional feeling" as an argument to put any stock in?

Is that what you are suggesting? You probably wouldn't do very well on a debate team unless someone like Tim Russert were moderating it.

John
When this is an officially moderated debate competition let us know.
 

craftech

Senior member
Nov 26, 2000
779
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sportage
Al Franken was the cornerstone of Air America.
He had great shows and info.
He talked about Val Plane (sp) long before it became main stream.
And exposed so many other issues that are common knowledge now.

Once Al quit, I stopped tuning in. No point.
That's part of the problem with liberal talk radio, there just aren't enough people who do that sort of thing to build a movement or even a radio station out of.

Not only is the conservative side of the fence overflowing with the type of hosts conservative listeners want, there are hundreds of mostly interchangeable gomers waiting in the wings to step in and do basically just as good a job if the front runners quit.
Man, so close yet so far.

You understand the difference of what you said don't you?

No apparently not. I'll spell it out for you.

The "conservatives" and their listeners have gobs of money from their kind that control corporations, churches and the government.

The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Heh speaking of not getting it. Conservative radio makes money from ad revenue because people actually listen to it. When more people listen to the shows, they can get a higher rate on advertising. The "looney left" is hardly broke. George Soro's hard up for cash?

Since you lost the argument about "liberals", Define a "Conservative" and provide something to corroborate your definition and an example that can be verified.

John
What are you a broken record? You seem hell bent on scientific proof of a mostly emotional feeling. Good luck with your quest heh.
So then we are to take your "emotional feeling" as an argument to put any stock in?

Is that what you are suggesting? You probably wouldn't do very well on a debate team unless someone like Tim Russert were moderating it.

John
When this is an officially moderated debate competition let us know.
It's not, but a poster's credibility when they state their opinion is relevant.
So far, you don't seem to be able to back up your opinions very well. Did you ever think that perhaps those people you are using as sources for what you think are lying to you? Has that ever crossed your mind?

John

 

craftech

Senior member
Nov 26, 2000
779
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Are you denying conservative talk radio is conservative?
OK, I have always considered myself a "conservative" (I'm 62). Those who identify themselves as "conservatives" today are not the Barry Goldwaters of yesterday. Those who identify themselves as "conservatives" today are the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys, Tucker Carlsons, Joe Scarboroughs, etc. Those people lie to their listeners.

For me to call myself a "conservative" today is to identify with those people and their lies. I resent that.
I find that an insult to "conservativism". William F. Buckley Jr wasn't a liar. He was a conservative by not just yesterday's definition , but by the definition that still exists in the dictionaries. Before he died he was kept on at the National Review out of respect, but Rich Lowry is of another breed. He is a liar and an embarrassment to the principles of Buckley's news magazine.

I resent that I have to accept perverse definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" just because through brainwashing by nationwide consolidated newsmedia monopolies they decided that simpleton categories make it easier to dumb down the public into accepting lies as truth.

I don't trust any of them and with good reason.

John
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The looney lefty liberals" are poor blokes.

How can they stay on the air without gobs of money?
Ah, yes. Hollywood elite and George Soros are going bankrupt. :roll:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Are you denying conservative talk radio is conservative?
OK, I have always considered myself a "conservative" (I'm 62). Those who identify themselves as "conservatives" today are not the Barry Goldwaters of yesterday. Those who identify themselves as "conservatives" today are the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys, Tucker Carlsons, Joe Scarboroughs, etc. Those people lie to their listeners.

For me to call myself a "conservative" today is to identify with those people and their lies. I resent that.
I find that an insult to "conservativism". William F. Buckley Jr wasn't a liar. He was a conservative by not just yesterday's definition , but by the definition that still exists in the dictionaries. Before he died he was kept on at the National Review out of respect, but Rich Lowry is of another breed. He is a liar and an embarrassment to the principles of Buckley's news magazine.

I resent that I have to accept perverse definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" just because through brainwashing by nationwide consolidated newsmedia monopolies they decided that simpleton categories make it easier to dumb down the public into accepting lies as truth.

I don't trust any of them and with good reason.

John
Well I alluded to that in one of my posts above. That a clearcut always right defintion of liberal and conservative is nearly impossible because it changes. 200 year ago liberals are todays conservatives. So I dont think we that far off what we are thinking. Only we decided to argue over semantics. And I agree it sucks that defintitions have to change. But that is the nature of life and politics unfortunately.

Edit: I want to add that I understand what you are saying about the definition of liberal vs conservative. There is a two headed monster in this argument. One being the actual definition. The other being what is commonly accepted as the definition. The common definition changes because people and groups eventually overtake the name for their cause. Vic talks about that to rather long length on this msgboard. About people claiming to be liberals when they arent. But they will continue to claim to be and the general easily accepted definition changes.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Guess she got another gig:

"The Nova M Radio Network is thrilled to announce the addition of "The Randi Rhodes Show" to its nationally syndicated talent offerings beginning this Monday, April 14, 2008.


Randi Rhodes is the #1 rated progressive talk radio host in the nation.


Nova M CEO John Manzo says, "I just can't stop smiling - Randi is simply the biggest and the best. Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy under one roof - talk about TALENT!"


Randi Rhodes adds, "With Manzo at helm of Nova M, I am truly going to work for the best of the best. He is radio elite...and I am too . I'm home, I'm home, I'm home!""


Pfft. She's elite alright, those bangs might even be classified as leet.
 

craftech

Senior member
Nov 26, 2000
779
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: craftech
Originally posted by: Genx87
Are you denying conservative talk radio is conservative?
OK, I have always considered myself a "conservative" (I'm 62). Those who identify themselves as "conservatives" today are not the Barry Goldwaters of yesterday. Those who identify themselves as "conservatives" today are the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys, Tucker Carlsons, Joe Scarboroughs, etc. Those people lie to their listeners.

For me to call myself a "conservative" today is to identify with those people and their lies. I resent that.
I find that an insult to "conservativism". William F. Buckley Jr wasn't a liar. He was a conservative by not just yesterday's definition , but by the definition that still exists in the dictionaries. Before he died he was kept on at the National Review out of respect, but Rich Lowry is of another breed. He is a liar and an embarrassment to the principles of Buckley's news magazine.

I resent that I have to accept perverse definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" just because through brainwashing by nationwide consolidated newsmedia monopolies they decided that simpleton categories make it easier to dumb down the public into accepting lies as truth.

I don't trust any of them and with good reason.

John
Well I alluded to that in one of my posts above. That a clearcut always right defintion of liberal and conservative is nearly impossible because it changes. 200 year ago liberals are todays conservatives. So I dont think we that far off what we are thinking. Only we decided to argue over semantics. And I agree it sucks that defintitions have to change. But that is the nature of life and politics unfortunately.

Edit: I want to add that I understand what you are saying about the definition of liberal vs conservative. There is a two headed monster in this argument. One being the actual definition. The other being what is commonly accepted as the definition. The common definition changes because people and groups eventually overtake the name for their cause. Vic talks about that to rather long length on this msgboard. About people claiming to be liberals when they arent. But they will continue to claim to be and the general easily accepted definition changes.
Well at least you aren't trying to label me like some do. When I tell some people that identify themselves as conservatives that I consider myself a conservative as well and they hear my views they go nuts and insist I have to "admit" I am a liberal. It is so dumb and what it all boils down to is - which information is truthful and which is not. Unfortunately today knowing that is a lot of work. It shouldn't be, but it is. News media consolidation has been the worst thing that has happened in this country and it began with Ronald Reagan when he removed the Fairness Doctrine and his systematic relaxation of FCC media ownership rules. It was with his administration and it's radical concept of conservativism that I began to be turned off to my own party (Republican). Now it's even worse than it was then. The more research I do the more lies I see across the networks and the airwaves designed to keep the public stupid and voting Republican. And the more it works the worse our party becomes because they know they can go on national television and say ANYTHING and not be challenged. I haven't switched parties, but I also haven't voted Republican since Reagan.
And thanks to the likes of Grover Norquist and his http://reaganlegacy.blogspot.com/ Reagan Legacy Project and with the help of the news media Ronald Reagan polls better now than he did when he was president. On December 18, 2007 a new FCC rule change was quietly passed by the Bush administration that allows the television networks to buy up all the newspapers in the country. It was the worst event of 2007 and hardly anyone knows about it. http://www.tvweek.com/news/200...ttee_delays_vote_o.php
The Senate won't overturn it because our party will filibuster it like they have been doing with everything else since January 2007 and the news media won't report it because they benefit from the rule and have decided that through repetition of a falsehood (that it takes 60 votes instead of 51 votes to "pass" legislation in the Senate) they can protect Republican obstructionism instead of saying that the bill never made it to a vote because it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. They do this by saying "the required 60 votes to pass" - a lie.
John
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY