Looks like Air America is on the ropes:

Air America filing for Banruptcy

AAR isn't doing as well nationally as it is on 620 in Portland. I can't imagine CC will let the format go here.

Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz have made their mark and that is all that counts.
Coming out of bankruptcy will help them with their bills and they could be just fine. Or they could fold up shop. Either way Progressive talk/Lib talk will be just fine.
Without another outlet talk radio will be worthless....

This from AAR: I can't verify it as being verified, know what I mean?

UPDATE: Air America responds.

If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist long ago; it may be frustrating to some that this hasn’t happened. No decision has been taken to make any filing of any kind, we are not sure of the source of these rumors and frankly can not respond to every rumor in the marketplace.

They will announce a major restructuring on Friday which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing according to the article.

I guess we'll know Friday.

Maybe the extreme right can piss and moan if Soros bails them out again....

Has it occurred to anyone that leaking the bankruptcy rumor might be a way to help get the funding they need to keep going?

Andrew

Will Bush fire the leaker?

I have no doubt that any member of his administration who worked at AAR would have been fired a long time ago. :-)

Andrew

Ah geez...now I gotta take a leak.

>>>"Maybe the extreme right can piss and moan if Soros bails them out again.."

Actually, I don't think anyone to the right of center cares one way or another about Air America. It has no relevancy, no influence. On the positive side, it burns up some of Soro's money so he won't have it to spend supporting liberal candidates.

Of course Air America has relevancy, Deane. Why else are you even talking about them?

Andrew

"help them get the funding they need to keep going"

Isn't that why they sell ads???

Do you think Fox News was able to roll along its first few years based on ad sales alone? Rupert Murdoch didn't invest millions on it to get it started and keep it rolling?

Andrew

Take a look at the latest quarterly reports of XM or Sirius. Do these companies and/or their product not have relevance?

Ed Schultz is Liberal Talk's best talent, and he doesn't even work for air america. Progtalk will survive. Portland may be the best market it has in the country. Does anyone know of another city that comes close?

While I'm not always a fan of the shrill style of some of the AAR hosts (ditto Savage and some of the right-wingers) it seems to me that most of the opinions expressed on AAR (about the Iraq war, for example) are, judging from the polls, the opinions of a majority of Americans. So, ya gotta wonder, who's extreme? I agree, regardless of what happens with AAR, "progressive" talk is here to stay. And shouldn't we all want that? Aren't we better off with a diversity of views?

There is no diversity on AAR.

True enough. I miss the old days of talk radio when one station would have liberal and conservative hosts. Apparently, though, those days are gone. (Most talk radio programmers compare this to the way that music radio has increasingly specialized...a big change from the '60's when you could find Peter, Paul and Mary and the Stones on the same KISN playlist) What I meant is that having a "progressive talk" station in the mix makes the overall talk radio universe more diverse. (along with sports talk, business talk, etc.)

Yes, and there's plenty of diversity on right-wing radio. You get George Bush's viewpoint and Dick Cheney's viewpoint. (Apologizes to Steven Colbert).

Andrew

Colbert is one of a kind!

I hate to say it, but I'm seriously reconsidering my stand on the whole fairness bit. We have diversity of views in AAR. That's a good thing. We also have the ability for one to fairly easily just choose one view and continue to feed on it, until it's unhealthy. That's dividing us and given where we are today, I don't think it's worth it.

I like hearing my proggy talk just as much as the next person loving their rightie talk. But it's unhealthy for society as a whole the way things are now. If we would see less division, in particular less reinforcement of extremes, I would easily trade exclusive content and some entertainment value for a more sane political disucssion.


What good is being entertained in a hosed up nation?

Well said!

Oh, yeah...and I agree. As an added bonus I even think it's more entertaining to have a variety of viewpoints involved in a discussion. I'm always intrigued when a talk show host gets a good, articulate caller who disagrees. And what's wrong with curiosity? One problem with being in the age of know-it-all pontificating talk show hosts is that, after awhile, it becomes a drag.

Try listening to Thom Hartmann's show on KPOJ. He not only takes calls from people who disagree with him, he gets conservative guests on to argue with them. And these are rational, articulate guests, not push-overs like alan colmes. How many other talk show hosts do that?

Andrew

I like this too. You can easily get it if you seek it. The problem is that people do not seek it.

I agree. I like Thom a lot. He's obviously very bright and brings the knowledge to the table to defend his POV. I hear a number of hosts who just don't seem to have the intellectual preparation to really debate the issue...so they'll call a disagreeing caller a "traitor" or a "fascist" and hang up. Yawn....

One of the reasons I can't listen to Randi Rhodes anymore is the way she handles callers with opposing viewpoints.

She has the smarts and the facts she needs to totally eviscerate these callers, but it always ends up a yelling match.

I agree with you about Randi - unlistenable. And she tends to exaggerate and jump a little too deeply into the Looney Left for my tastes.

Andrew

By Andrew2 on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 7:38 am:
Yes, and there's plenty of diversity on right-wing radio. You get George Bush's viewpoint and Dick Cheney's viewpoint. (Apologizes to Steven Colbert).

Andrew


We have plenty of diversity on left wing radio too. Liberal and extreme liberal points of view.

You do get diversity on Thom Hartmann's show. He has real conservatives on the show, not push-overs like alan colmes. He has respectful argument with them. How many right-wing talk shows do that?

Andrew

What I was getting at is that rush used toi say that HE IS diversity in the overall scope of the media, to which the left scoffed. Now we see the left saying the this about AAR while they previously ripped rush for the same exact definition of diversity.

So when does Rush have liberal guests (not callers) on his show and give them equal time and be respecful of their argument, the way Hartmann does?

I didn't claim all AAR shows are "diverse." It's obviously a liberal talk network - they boast about that. It's an attempt to add diversity to the radio dial by having a liberal voice. But Hartmann's show in particular does offer opposing points of view in a way the right-wing talkers don't.

Andrew

Bill O'Rielly does that (has respectful argument with persons with opposite viewpoint often), although I think O'Rielly isn't really "right wing".

KGO (at least at late night) is dominated by liberal hosts (except for Dr. Bill W.). So if 620 goes bankrupt and puts Elvis back on, some of you people can tune to 810.

How would a fairness doctrine be structured?
Alternating hosts every hour? alternating days? Dual Hosts? Nuetral Host? Who decides what is nuetral? Does it apply to newscasts? (How) should bunk be debunked?

O'Rielly not right wing. OK, and Teddy Kennedy isn't left wing, either.

620 isn't going to go bankrupt no matter what AAR does. Clear Channel has just inked a deal with ThinkProgress, probably to create some new syndicated liberal talk shows. No doubt they are hedging their bets with AAR, as Clear Channel has invested a lot in many "progressive talk" stations around the country, KPOJ being the most successful of them all. If AAR goes away, Clear Channel will just provide new shows. No big deal.

Andrew

Bill O'Rielly does that (has respectful argument with persons with opposite viewpoint often), although I think O'Rielly isn't really "right wing".

62kgw, you must not listen to O'Reilly much. Just like Lars he tries to sound respectful when he talks to people, but sometimes loses his cool, then uses sound bites out of context to abuse them, just like Lars does.

Anyone who agrees to talk to either of these guys just adds to the belief that Liberals are idiots, because at least those callers truly are.

That's what I've always respected about O'Reilly.

His respectful tone when talking to others who disagree with him.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumo r&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moveon.org%2Ffox%2F

Wow!!! That is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Have the FTC prohibit O'Reilly and FOX from using "Fair and Balanced." Only the ultra-libs at MoveOn would come up with a suggestion for that kind of government regulation.

I absolutley never listen to O'Reilly and rarely listen to FOX. But I know asking the FTC to ban them from using "Fair and Balanced" is the kind of thing only a group dedicated to big government could come up with.

I like to see Randi and Ann Coulter put on the gloves and go at it. Makes me hot.

Diversity: Since Reagan had the Fairness Doctrine overturned, the requirement for "fair and balanced" coverage of anything (news, public service, etc.) no longer exists. Over time, heavily partisan stations and eventually networks came into existence. It is only logical to see stations and networks leaning the opposite way emerge as well. However, choosing sides by itself is not a guarantee for success in a business sense. If you're running on someone else's dime, eventually they get tired of funding a financial loser. Be it through mismanagement, poor quality, or whatever. Case and point, Paul Allen and the Blazers. Or conversely, Ted Turner. Remember CNN when it was in its infancy? Very successful, Ted calling the shots, Ted paying the bills.

(my wikipedia entry for
Bill O'Reilly: Shallow, arrogant, repugnant.( I )worked at KATU (when he was there). His only interest was/is Bill O'Reilly. NO ONE befriended him (not anyone that would admit to it). Universally hated in every department of the station. Has made
a fortune telling lies and distorting the truth. Of course, he was "mortified" when the Ling Ling video made air (in my archives, fyi)).

Nothing pisses me off more than low lifes claiming a higher moral ground. Ship Bill, Rush and Sean to Mars with the rest of the radical right and America might be saved.

Um, I've dealt with Bill personally, and find him to be a polite, professional guy. If he didn't get along with a lot of people in the newsroom, maybe it was he was busy. Busy preparing working towards having the biggest news-talk TV show in the world, while they were phoning it in, and reading wire copy.

Something like that.

O'Lielly is a scumbag. Anybody that rails on sexual predators, while being one himself, is the lowest society has to offer.

what kind of proof do you have he is a sexual predator? oh, wait. you have none.
just another shrill attack from the left who have no ideas.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

The world is a better place with the Smoking Gun in it!

62: I'm not sure. I'm not too worried about the overall ratio of right - left - other as much as I am the damage being caused by increasing segmentation. IMHO, this is caused by having venues dedicated to one view in particular. It's also caused by a much higher degree of choice.

Our media today is putting people into little slots. Many just stay right there, fat 'n happy. This is not good longer term.

So it's more than radio on that score.

Getting back to radio:

I think all stations should carry some news. The smaller market music stations often do. They weave it in throughout the day. Would be nice to see more than that, but I've no idea how to even begin formulating a sound regulation toward that end.

All I know is there is something wrong with the idea that the world could be on fire, while the hits just keep on playing.

There are four things that affect behavior:

law, money, physical limits, social norms.

Of course everybody goes right for the law, but maybe there is something in the others that could help this. I'm thinking some combination of money and social norms might achieve something like what the fairness doctrine used to do.

Honestly, I want less division because we would have more tolerance. With tolerance at a healthy level, our nation will make sound decisions overall.

We've essentially lost the current voting generation. Well, maybe not all of them --maybe just the ones that have settled at one extreme or the other.

The reality today is that an extreme view is far more socially normal (social norms) than it used to be. We hear them a lot and groups of people can focus on them to a degree not possible some time ago.

Extreme is good in that it often is the genesis for many good new ideas. However, moderate really should be the norm in that it speaks to the practical nature of our day to day world and general need for some measure of stability.

Where radio is concerned, this automatically implies bland, but does that have to be the case? The biggest opposition to some kind of fairness scheme is that bland does not equal dollars.

We've lots of creative people and a ton of tech we didn't have long ago. Surely there is a way to make things compelling without doing a greater public harm in the process.

Since we now have more than three networks delivering all the news on radio and TV the need for a new fairness doctrin is obviated.

competetion in the free market of ideas is a much better way to go.

This allows the listener/viewer to check out all the opinions available from the many varied sources and make up their own minds.

The government telling us what is fair has the inherent problem of whatever the politics of the day happen to be.

Whoever is in power will be able to appoint their own "fairness" commission.

The whole idea could only be embraced by someone trying to control ideas and opinions which we already have enough of in politics.

The concept of liberal/progressive/socialist talk is just fine.

Ultimately whoever tries it will have to operate a good business and do good radio in addition to having their opinion.

This is probably why KPOJ works and AAR doesnt.

That and PDX is now Berkeley north.

LOL!!

Berkeley North Indeed!

I'm not gonna complain for sure.

Looks like I derailed this thread --sorry all.

Free markets essentially boil down to placing the rights of corporations above the rights of people. The right to make money trumps the burden to contribute to the public interest.

We granted licenses in exchange for this service. That means, by definition, the broadcast market really isn't free, nor should it be.

I've more to say on that, but not right now.

"Busy preparing working towards having the biggest news-talk TV show in the world, while they were phoning it in, and reading wire copy.

Something like that."

Hardly the case. Mostly he manipulated anyone and everyone that would allow it. Being the high paid anchor of those days at 2, he tried to bully those that had to put up with his crap. It was his choice. When he first got there pretty much everyone gave him an opportunity to work as a team. It was clear from early on he held the Portland market in disdain, and just a launching point (as it is for many) for his career. I worked with others that moved on to larger markets or became more significant in this market, and no one else was such an asshole as Bill. And it's not about his right wingedness. I worked with Lars and although I disagree with many of his positions, he was very professional. O'Reilly doesn't know what the word "professional" means. His eventual success is not founded in an enviable work ethic. It's called misuse of power (see Bush, George W.)

It was great being in engineeering and being able to tell him to "fill out a discrep, we'll get to it when these other fires are extinguished."

62KGW said>>>
Bill O'Rielly does that (has respectful argument with persons with opposite viewpoint often), although I think O'Rielly isn't really "right wing".

OH MY GOD! NOT right wing??? WOW!

Do you watch him at all, Trix? He is liberal on many issues and he often has liberal guests. He seems to let them get away with a lot.

What issues, pray tell, is O'Reilly "liberal" on? Being against the death penalty and having on some push-over liberal guests he can ridicule and make look bad in editing doesn't make O'Reilly "liberal."

Andrew

Q: What issues, pray tell, is O'Reilly "liberal" on?
A: Enviromental, Global warming, Oil company greed.

Environment, Global Warming, and "Oil company greed" are not "liberal" issues. The question is, what is his position on them? Saying Global Warming is bad is one thing - but what do you want to DO about it?

What are O'Reilly's positions on:

Abortion
Labor Unions
Funding for Public Schools
Cuts in Military Spending
Withdrawl from Iraq
Universal Health Care
Tax Cuts for the Rich
Estate Tax
Full and Adequate Funding of the EPA

?

Andrew

So did AAR file BK today?

O'Reilly is also for alternative fuel and against drilling for oil in our own country which is a liberal position. He also is against the Iraq invasion. He thinks one person sets the oil prices. Those sure sound liberal to me.

Is one of 620's host's being paid a
sub-minimum wage? or not being paid?
Is that "progressive"? Is that legal?

Thinking "one person sets the oil prices" is paranoid, not liberal. Don't think he was opposed to the Iraq war at the time and in fact ridiculed people who were against it if I'm not mistaken. Even the conservative Republican Christopher Shays is calling for a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq now, so it's hard to call O'Reilly's position on that "liberal."

Even Bush has mouthed support for "alternative fuel" - the question is, what do you DO about it? Most conservatives are in favor of "alternative fuel" but differ with liberals on how to develop it. Conservatives want the free market to do it all. What does O'Reilly think we should do?

Most liberals are not opposed to "drilling for oil in our own country" except the extremist anti-car bike riders who think we should stop burning all fossil fuels.

Andrew

Thinking "one person sets the oil prices" is paranoid, not liberal.

And your point would be?

That O'Lielly is a paranoid. After all, what else would you call a guy that thinks there's a "war against Christmas"??

O'Lielly is as conservative as they come. There's nothing liberal about him at all.

Seems like a conservative wolf in moderate sheep's clothing to me.

And you can bet he'll be reading this. He actually uses air time to call TV columnist Peter Ames Carlin names for mentioning well-established news about O'Reilly and his feud with Al Franken. Maybe paranoia is the root cause for his style, not just an enormous ego (what I'd always assumed).

You sure he will be reading this?

Great!

KSKD to Oreilly: Shut UP!

Heheh..

And now back to the discussion at hand.

You know, if we just look at O'Reilly, Lars and Victoria, not to mention Savage, as damn good actors playing roles that give them bigger bucks than they would otherwise be worth, they are easier to take, especially since we can't take them seriously.

Skeptical to O'Reilly: Shut up!, Shut up!, Shut up!

Right Wing = No global warming, its all or mostly hype, or if there is some, its natural.
Left wing, plus Bill O', plus Art Bell = Global Warming is true, and its caused by man. Drastic measures (except for nucular power, hydro power, coal power, LNG power, etc.) need to be taken to stop or reverse it. We have less than 10 years, or the world is doomed. The sky is falling. Note: Asia is exempt from any requirements.
Bill O' = Al Gore + Clinton did nothing to address Global Warming '93-'00.
Is there a "moderate" position on global warming?
I would consider joining up with that.

By Sky_sterling on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 12:57 pm:
Seems like a conservative wolf in moderate sheep's clothing to me.


You need to actually watch that show! The first guest he had on today was some democratic anti-Bush congressmen and Geraldo who is as liberal as they come!

I listen to Bill and watch him on FOXNews all the time. I still think he is FULL of poo. I also listen to LimBALH and Huge Hewit.
Hell, FOXNews is my source of laughter every day.

At least you watch it and I commend you for that. Who knows maybe you might learn something,Trix! I am getting to like Mark Levin! He comes on after Sean on 860 and he can handle the liberals.

Topic drift...

Do non radio people recognize when someone does not have a voice for radio? Or lacks a sense of radio experience?

There are plenty of people lately with radio shows who clearley do not have a radio voice or radio experience prior.

Also there are certain talk hosts with lazy speech habits like slurring words together and talking to fast at the same time. Or saying Uh and Like a lot. Ya know?

Or how about a high pitched voice male, low pitched female.

Nasal talkers, screechy talkers, mumblers...

I am curious if having been trained to recognize and correct those things makes me more sensitive to it...

Do these things, whether male or female, actually matter to non radio people?

Politics and content aside.

I don't think they matter so much to ordinary people. Same thing happens in music too. (And I'm in a simlar spot where vocals are concerned.)

There are lots of people performing songs with less than stellar voices and they use them in "wrong" ways. Very similar to the talkers you describe.

People listen though --sometimes a lot of people, despite the issues.

Content really is king!

---or put another way, we are easily entertained!

Insannity is one that I just can't stomach Wayne. He is so out to lunch it's horrible.....

Victor Boc was good at having guests with opposing views come in for extended interviews. He would be very curtious and give them lots of time to explain thier opinions and even helped them articulate their positions when it seemed confusing, and not argue with them much.
Of course, the next day or whenever, he would go on the attack.

By Trixter on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 10:42 pm:
Insannity is one that I just can't stomach Wayne. He is so out to lunch it's horrible.....


I never thought you were that way Trix! I don't agree with Bill on quite a few things. But he does have quite a few guests on you probably would agree with. He manages to have someone on from "code pink" and what could be more liberal than that? But he is right about the war on Christmas and about Jessica's law and liberal judges doing everything they can to free criminals who harm our children.

Wayne, do you honestly believe that "liberal judges doing everything they can to free criminals who harm our children."? Seriously.

Andrew

What constitutes a "liberal" judge? One who rules in a way you don't agree with?

>>>"Wayne, do you honestly believe that "liberal judges doing everything they can to free criminals who harm our children."? Seriously."


I certainly do.

Well, Deane, all I can say is: my reaction to your belief would be about the same as your reaction to the notion that "conservative judges do everything they can to get innocent people executed."

Andrew

By Deane_johnson on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 1:50 pm:
>>>"Wayne, do you honestly believe that "liberal judges doing everything they can to free criminals who harm our children."? Seriously."


I certainly do.

So do I. Those judges think criminals who do that have some kind of a mental disease. That good looking female teacher who got probation would have gotten 15 years in jail if she were ugly or a male. I think the judge was infatuated by her.

By Musicman on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 1:35 pm:
What constitutes a "liberal" judge? One who rules in a way you don't agree with?


A liberal judge will give a preditator probation instead of jail because the judge doesn't believe in punishment. A liberal judge thinks a cross on public property violates the separation of church and state.

Wait a minute, Waynes_world. Wouldn't a "liberal judge" want an "ugly [woman] or a male" to get out of jail just as soon as possible, too, so they could harm our children? Wouldn't these evil liberal judges want ALL criminals to get out quickly so they can do more harm, not just attractive women? Seems having the same lenient standard for all criminals would be the most effective way to fullfil the liberal goal of harming as many children as possible, as quickly as possible, don't you think?

Andrew

Is a preditator anything like a suicider?

Not really, one has a predilection for 'Tator Tots, the other one doesn't care any more.

By Andrew2 on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 3:02 pm:
Wait a minute, Waynes_world. Wouldn't a "liberal judge" want an "ugly [woman] or a male" to get out of jail just as soon as possible, too, so they could harm our children? Wouldn't these evil liberal judges want ALL criminals to get out quickly so they can do more harm, not just attractive women? Seems having the same lenient standard for all criminals would be the most effective way to fullfil the liberal goal of harming as many children as possible, as quickly as possible, don't you think?

Andrew

The liberal judges seem to care about only one thing: their agenda. I don't know why they let the pedifiles go free.One thing the they aren't is very consistant in their rulings. But that attractive woman who was off the hook would be in jail if that were a man wouldn't that be true? I think America is too free for some judges!

I think your brain is mush.

Those who assume there's evil in the hearts of those who disagree with them ... above and beyond just a difference of opinion ... are themselves opening themselves up to evil.

Agreed.

If we can't make the assumption that most people are good people, trying to do what's right, we have bigger problems than who our president is, or terror.

IMHO, that's actually propagating a kind of evil through fear.

Bush once said, "You're either evil, or you're good." I don't agree with that at all. People are much more complex than that. I think most people have some good and some evil and a whole lot of human nature in between.

Andrew

The question really is is there such a thing as evil? To some liberals the only evil in the world is in the minds of conservatives! Everything is relative in the mind of liberals.

Your wishful sterotyping of "liberals" doesn't make it reality, Wayne.

Andrew

Wayne's post reminds me that some people are not evil, they're just stupid. Unfortunately, stupid is forever.

So now we know that liberals think conservatives are stupid and conservatives think liberals are stupid.

Next...

"Next..."

Forever Is No Time At All ~ Pete Townshend

Then again, he doesn't have to live in the Fiefdom of Bush.

By Sutton on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 6:25 pm:
Wayne's post reminds me that some people are not evil, they're just stupid. Unfortunately, stupid is forever.


My post said that there is evil in the world. Your post implies that its stupid to think there is evil at all.

There is an area on this forum for this kind of thing. Why not start a thread there and have at it?

While listening to Portland Radio, I've noted KPOJ has started announcing their new lineup.

Yep, and I see that Rachel Maddow is on 12-2AM - better than nothing I guess, although I almost never listen to the radio at that hour. But there's a better chance I'd be listening to Rachel LIVE 3-5PM Pacific than listening to Randi Rhodes on tape at that time, because I can't stand to listen to her show anymore.

Seder's show is on about the same time here (just an hour earlier) though he's got a whole new timeslot in NYC. He's going to have to build a new audience. I'm guessing many of his existing listeners aren't listening to the radio 9-noon eastern time. I hope this doesn't kill his show.

Andrew

Me too, he's got a great show.

I'll bet he does just fine. Some places will air him on delay and he's had a chance to tell his existing audience what's going on.

Musicman asked a good question>>>>>
What constitutes a "liberal" judge? One who rules in a way you don't agree with?

neo-CONers???? Anyone??

*Crickets*

Uh, this is the RADIO side of the board...

So, did AAR file for BK, or was this just another wet dream of Bill O'Lielly's??

This report came from a left wing site, a site possibly more left than you Pete. If you had checked the link I originally posted you would know it had nothing to do with O'Reilly.

O'Reilly has been predicting Air America's demise since they first started. It's true that this latest story appeared on ThinkProgress.org (which has since retracted the story, obviously), but O'Reilly has been been predicting this on the air forever.

Andrew

Onetimeradiodud: O'Lielly often brings up the financial failings of AAR on his TV show, and IT IS a wet dream of his for them to go under. Otherwise, he wouldn't bother to give them his valuable airtime.

I hope he keeps it up, frankly.

If AAR is on his radar, it must be something worth checking out.

Pete...

You know you're predilection for cute little names is about sophomore mentality. Don't you think it's about time you grew up and acted your age...or are you really 15?

Now, as for O'Reilly, I wouldn't know what he thinks about AAR because I never -- NEVER -- listen to his show...radio or TV. The prediction of AAR's imminent bankruptcy came from an extreme left wing website. Did O'Reilly ever mention it...I wouldn't know.

Rush Limbaugh uses cute little names like "Algore" all the time. Onetime, have you ever asked how old Rush is?

Andrew

What's a matter onetimer, can't you take a heaping tablespoon of your own medicine? I've seen you dish it out to others without problem.

If you weren't such a rude and condescending a-hole, sophomoric humor wouldn't be necessary.

Pete...

If it was just me, that would be one thing. But you do it with anyone who happenns to disagree with you or, more often, gets the better of you. Now, would you like to tell me when I have called people stupid, sophomoric names? That's what I thought, you can't because I don't. Notice, please, that I called you Pete.

You can call me rude and condescending all you want. That's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

Andrew...

I don't know about Limbaugh because, again, I never listen to Limbaugh. Nor do I listen to Lars, or Hannity, or Savage, or Franken, Shultz or Rhodes...or any talk radio. So, don't try to stick me with Limbaugh's foibles.

Onetime said>>>>
You know you're predilection for cute little names is about sophomore mentality. Don't you think it's about time you grew up and acted your age...or are you really 15?

WOW! YOUR the GD man there Onetime! Never called anyone a name or made fun of anyone??? Or are you one of those neo-CONers that is holier than thou????

Wow Trix, you couldn't be more wrong!!! I was chiding Pete for using sophomoric names...O'Lielly, Insanity, Limblah, onetimeradiodud, etc. Never said a thing about making fun of anyone, especially when they are being stupid. Remember that guy Yorkie. I had no problem making fun of him. Just as I had no problem making fun of Pete for being stupid and raising the matter of O'Reilly and AAR.

As for being a Neo-Con. Wrong again. I'm more of a (small L) libertarian. Actually I look at each issue and decide. Some issues I'm one of you lefties and on others I side with the conservatives. I think Bush sucks and think he has totally f**ked up Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. I think the Kyoto Treaty is a piecer and it is good that we haven't signed it and we aren't doing enough to get the oil out of ANWR. I'm pro-abort and anti-death penalty...but that's only because I think spending life behind bars is a much tougher sentence. Just a taste...but maybe you get the idea.

Points well taken....

just watched "LEFT OF THE DIAL" "the rise, fall and resurrection of America's First Liberal Talk Radio Network"

documentary format, highlights strengths and weaknesses of AAR

I can't wait for the sequel.

they are already one fall behind.

that's funny, Notalent
so what would the sequel be called?