Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!! by Skywalken

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!

POSTED BY: SKYWALKEN
UPDATED: Friday, May 20, 2005 23:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7860
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, May 1, 2005 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I agree that the key to success is a balance. But it's important to note that Socialism is not balance. Socialism is not Norway's strong social programs floating in a democratic country with capitalist tendencies. Socialism is absolute. The government owns everything, and distributes according to need. (Or, what they perceive the need to be.)

Ok, I'm breaking my not participating b/c this is just effectively one big lie. I don't blame you, I just really think you don't understand it.

There is a major difference between modern socialism and what you discribe. You are probably confusing it with Marxism or Leninism.

Please update your knowledge.

Going back to /ignore.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 7:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I hope that you will not vanish after making such a comment. Though I have a Spanish heritage, I am not sure that guerilla combat is the way to go in a discussion.

Every definition of socialism thus far presented on this thread agrees that the government owns or controls production. This definition seems ubiquitous on both sides of the debate.

Do you have an alternative definition?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 7:45 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Sigmanuki,

This is a definition I found quoted in one of your posts, and is the definition I believe we were arguing from on both sides?

" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

We can dissect the definition to make it easier.

1) Social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is either:
1A) Owned Collectively: Everyone owns it. But of course, even if everyone owns it, every Tom, Dick, or Harry can't point to a yacht and say he wants one, so...
2A) By a Centralized Government: This seems pretty self explanatory. The government either owns or controls the means of producing. The government distributes.

2) That Often Plans and Controls the Economy: I don't know who else could plan or control an economy other than a government in a socialist state?

Now, the United States has wellfare programs. Does that make us Socialist? I don't think so. Canada and England have better wellfare programs. Are they Socialist? I don't think so. Maybe Norway has the best wellfare programs ever. Are they Socialist? Not to my knowledge.

Please help me to understand what a 'modern' socialist government is.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 7:58 AM

WHOISRIVER

Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience:
Quote:
Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal...

BULLSHIT. No way in the 'verse would either Mal or Zoe support the fascism that is gun control or the stalinism that is taxation.

Libertarian yes, liberal hell no!

Ok-ayyyyyyyy... Do you write the characters now, do you?

Tell you what. I am meeting Joss in a few months - I will take my tape recorder and actually ask him, since he DOES write the characters.

It's worth noting that Serenity (the movie) deals with some things that some of you are going to get real worked up over...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 12:03 PM

AMNESIAC

People forget that America experimented with evil evil socialism in the 1930s and 40s under President Franklin Roosevelt. In that time, and as a result of policies that were designed to serve the American people as opposed to corporate shareholders we did a bunch of insignificant things like escape the Great Depression, Win WW2, and build most of the infrastructure that is still used today by capitalists all over America to move goods. Socialism gets demonized because it’s a superior way to get important things done, but the rich don’t get any profits. Having some Socialist policies more people have jobs. More people live comfortably, but the very rich don’t get to increase their hordes.

About the Air America thing: All the liberals say ‘if you don’t like it, don’t listen.’ All the conservatives say ‘It should be silenced because I disagree with it.’ How American is it to want to throw away the Bill of Rights? FOX News is unapologetically Neo-Conservative propaganda that has no problem with outright lying (watch the film Out Foxed and there are a couple sites online that keep track of Fox’s casual relationship with truth) to push their agenda. And all other news on TV and in major print is biased towards reporting their own best interests, and because ABC, NBC, FOX, the New York Times, and CNN are all publicly traded companies, they are all anti socialism, and pro corporation. So they’re all right wing biased. Do I want to shut them up? No.

Crap. I’ve got to go to work
Bye

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 12:41 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
People forget that America experimented with evil evil socialism in the 1930s and 40s under President Franklin Roosevelt. In that time, and as a result of policies that were designed to serve the American people as opposed to corporate shareholders we did a bunch of insignificant things like escape the Great Depression, Win WW2, and build most of the infrastructure that is still used today by capitalists all over America to move goods. Socialism gets demonized because it’s a superior way to get important things done, but the rich don’t get any profits. Having some Socialist policies more people have jobs. More people live comfortably, but the very rich don’t get to increase their hordes.

About the Air America thing: All the liberals say ‘if you don’t like it, don’t listen.’ All the conservatives say ‘It should be silenced because I disagree with it.’ How American is it to want to throw away the Bill of Rights? FOX News is unapologetically Neo-Conservative propaganda that has no problem with outright lying (watch the film Out Foxed and there are a couple sites online that keep track of Fox’s casual relationship with truth) to push their agenda. And all other news on TV and in major print is biased towards reporting their own best interests, and because ABC, NBC, FOX, the New York Times, and CNN are all publicly traded companies, they are all anti socialism, and pro corporation. So they’re all right wing biased. Do I want to shut them up? No.

Crap. I’ve got to go to work
Bye

Hello,

Socialism (actual socialism) is demonized because actual human beings can't pull it off without actual tyranny.

I think that anyone who says that the social welfare programs of the 30's weren't beneficial is really not paying attention to history.

But likewise I don't think social welfare programs make the United States a Socialist state. Nor do our Capitalist policies make us the Ferrengi. (To throw in a Star Trek tidbit.)

I have noticed two things about governments that sport a great deal of welfare programs.

One, they seem to have really high tax rates to pay for everything. There is something in England, for instance, called the VAT. My British friend and I joke that VAT stands for 'Very Astronomical Tax.'

Two, they seem to have really small militaries. (Compared to us, anyhow.) They can't afford all these welfare programs AND afford a military capable of fighting big wars (on two fronts, no less!)

I think that if the United States was to adopt greater and more effective welfare reform, we'd have to give up the idea of fighting two front wars, or even one front wars, and instead concentrate on homeland defense with the occasional ability to participate in a month-long police action.

That may or may not be a bad thing. After all, the military is one of the government's biggest job-providing programs. Not just the soldiers, but the vehicle and ordinance makers. The US Military is one of the last great American Industry supporters. We might need to increase taxes to get the money to create programs that equal its economic benefit.

Would I be willing to pay a 70% tax if that meant that I could have free medicine, free higher education, guaranteed housing, and a government unemployment and job placement program that works?

I dunno.

But I do think, even with all that, we wouldn't be a Socialist government. We'd be a democratic capitalism with excellent Welfare programs.

--Anthony

P.S. Fox News doesn't need to be silenced. It needs to be renamed. The Daily Show has the decency to call itself 'Fake News.' We should demand the same from Fox.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 1:25 PM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
All the liberals say ‘if you don’t like it, don’t listen.’ All the conservatives say ‘It should be silenced because I disagree with it.’ How American is it to want to throw away the Bill of Rights?

The person who started this thread is obviously happy that Air America has (*perhaps*... depending on who you believe) fallen upon hard times. I gather he was delighted that the information he found indicated that America didn't care for what it was hearing on Air America. But I didn't see him calling for the "silencing" of Air America... i.e., I didn't perceive the thread as a "call to action" to shut it (or any other liberal outlet) down.

I just did a quick review of the posts from the more notorious conservatives participating in this thread. None of them called for actively silencing the radio network. They do vigorously dispute its accuracy/integrity... but again, no call to action.

So I find your absolute claim about the conservatives' desire to silence Air America puzzling. I gather you weren't referring to the conservatives in this thread... but to conservatives in other venues. But that would disprove your claim as well, because the global "conservatives" you referred to include the ones here. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that you could find a published claim somewhere that someone wants Air America actively shut down immediately. That wouldn't be evidence that all conservatives actively support that desire.

The point I am trying to make is that humans are more complex than hyperbole'. And hyperbole' has no place in a rational debate. You could state that "most" conservatives want something. Or many. Or "XX percent" and cite a reference. But unsubtantiated hyperbole' is like a neon sign that says "let's stop discussing stuff rationally... I want to slur other's people's character and get into a bar fight!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 1, 2005 8:10 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Since you have reacted in a way that's... not Finn (read arrogant, condescending, etc) I'll reply. Please understand that Finn and I have participated in a number of discussions together and my fuse has become short with him. Because of this, and the fact that I don't need any extra stress in my life right now, I don't believe that I'll directly interact with him anymore (which is the reason for /ignore). Some people just don't understand logic, no matter how well laid out it is ie Finn sticking to some archaic defintion not acknowledging the fact that such things evolve. I could go on.

I feel at this point, after some of your comments, that I must point out that no country has a pure implementation of any political system. There will be elements of many in any government. Countries only call themselves something b/c there particular hybrid contains a majority of that something (to one degree or another).

Canada for instance, has taken elements of Socialism and Capitalism in an attempt to get the benefits of both, without the drawbacks of either (I forget the actual term for it). It has had mixed success, as expected. Recently, it has moved in a more Capitalist direction. Something that I have started to move against.

Regarding your request for a modern definition of Socialism. I have already provided one. See my previous post that quotes the wiki. I'll paste it here for convenience:

"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

In modern socialist theory, it is in the pursuit of the goal of creating a democratic society that has a responsible people and a sympathetic government that would form the backbone of an ideal welfare state.

Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state before jumping to conclusions.
There are three main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
* the provision of welfare services by the state.
* an ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough. It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right.
* the provision of welfare in society. In many "welfare states", welfare is not actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services.
"""

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

P.S. Fox News doesn't need to be silenced. It needs to be renamed. The Daily Show has the decency to call itself 'Fake News.' We should demand the same from Fox.

I 100% agree. On a similar note though, since I've watched both, I must say that the Daily Show is far more accurate than F*X "news" has ever been. Anyone else find that as sad as I do?

On a final note, anyone else notice that the original poster never participated in this thread?!?!? Troll if I ever saw one.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 6:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Canada for instance, has taken elements of Socialism and Capitalism

Sapitalism? Goverment by Saps. Yup, thats Canada.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 6:03 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Since you have reacted in a way that's... not Finn (read arrogant, condescending, etc) I'll reply. Please understand that Finn and I have participated in a number of discussions together and my fuse has become short with him. Because of this, and the fact that I don't need any extra stress in my life right now, I don't believe that I'll directly interact with him anymore (which is the reason for /ignore). Some people just don't understand logic, no matter how well laid out it is ie Finn sticking to some archaic defintion not acknowledging the fact that such things evolve. I could go on.

The definition listed in a 1991 dictionary has become archaic in 14 years? Wow. That word evolved fast. Let’s solve this problem. Today at work, I’ll try to remember to stop by the research Library and look up the word ‘socialism’ in a newer dictionary. Then we’ll see if the definition is archaic, shall we? What do you suppose I will find?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 6:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It must be a great frustration to Joss to have his characters and message so thoroughly misunderstood by a bunch of psuedo-libertarians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 6:50 AM

VITO

Oh man, I got a sweet tooth for this crap.

A wise man once said that," the two greatest threats to democracy in this country are:
The illusion among the poor that they actually have one
and

The fear among the rich that they may someday get one."

I have spent some time driving long haul truck here in the U.S. and I have listened to both sides on the AM radio war. I am neither Left nor Right, not that it really makes a difference, but you can all go on thinking it does, I know most of you do.

As far as the the back and forth on the AM talk shows goes, its just that, Americas favorite sport is running off at the mouth. If you want a clear picture of whats going on in this country, try reading the news from another country.

I love that fact that people in my country still think that the presedent is really running the show. The man needs help tying his shoe. He spent most of his adult life as a bar hopping power drinking coke-head and has had the world handed to him on a silver plate. You may have voted for G.W. but he rode into office on the shoulders of some of the most evil men to hold power since the axis of WWII.

People in this country still think 9-11 was an unprovoked attack. And they think this because thay are to stupid or scared to go looking for the facts. They would rather sit at home in their comfy chair and be spoon fed thier point of view by a government controlled media.

A government, of the people, by the people and for the people is indeed parishing from the earth.....if, in point of fact it was ever here at all.

And befor you write me off as Bush hater, let me just say, even if I had thought Kerry was running to win and not just there to put a face behind the other podium at the debate. I still would have voted for Jon Stewart.

Divided We Fall, my friends......think about it.

"People are stupid, they will beleve in somthing for one of two reasons. Either they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it might be true."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 7:07 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigmanunki"I feel at this point, after some of your comments, that I must point out that no country has a pure implementation of any political system. There will be elements of many in any government. Countries only call themselves something b/c there particular hybrid contains a majority of that something (to one degree or another)."

Hello,

I have been reviewing your post, and I must say I agree with this. There are no governments to my knowledge that follow a pure model. That is perhaps one of the things that made Star Trek fun to watch but at the same time unrealistic. You had imaginary pure governments. Bajor is, I think, what we would call a Theocracy. Ferenginar a true Capitalist state. Etc.

But then, perhaps it is a good thing that we have these absolutes to draw upon, in order to form a combination government. If any of the absolutes are diluted, then it changes the meaning of the combination.

Maybe, instead of evolving the word Socialism to mean something new, maybe it would be wiser to create a new term to represent the new ideal.

One thing I notice in the new Socialist definition is that you are automatically dumped into a democratic society. This makes it impossible to include socialism in a dictatorship or whatnot.

It made more sense (to me) that Socialism as a government that owns/distributes production be seperate from Socialism as a democratic welfare state. One includes the effect of government, the other includes the leadership type and effect.

Please don't take this as a jab, but I wonder if this re-definition of socialism hasn't come about because Socialists wish to distance themselves from the tyrannical so-called Socialists of the past. By inserting 'democracy' into the Soclialist definition, they cleverly avoid comparisons to any of the evil red states of the past.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 7:10 AM

VITO

Next election I'm gonna vote for Anthony.

"People are stupid, they will beleve in somthing for one of two reasons. Either they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it might be true."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 9:12 AM

DAL

I only heard of this station through that joke which went around a while ago:
"Tuesday was Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address. As Air America Radio pointed out, it was an ironic juxtaposition: one involved a meaningless ritual in which we looked to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication and the other involved a groundhog."
I had visions of a thousand socializing champaign socialists all around America sheepishly laughing amongst their circles; making a mental note to consult a dictionary a while later to try and figure out half of what it meant.
Maybe big words from faux-intellectual Marxist judeo-atheists straying from their trained field of linguistics doesn't necessarily make big entertainment.

Fox news is bombastic in its news reporting because it values entertainment as much as information. If people enjoy something they're more likely to come back! That's the idea which has made Murdoch the most sucessful media baron in the world, and the only leftists I know who do the same well are Tony Blair and Michael Moore.

It takes millions of pounds extorted from taxpayers under fear of pain to keep that boring communist condescendista machine called BBC News working. Socialism does work providing there's enough money left in the victims' bank accounts: 59 million of 60 million (not counting any Islamist morons prepared to blow themselves up after hearing the world service) would like to kill G.W. Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 9:42 AM

DAL

Quote:
...Please don't take this as a jab, but I wonder if this re-definition of socialism hasn't come about because Socialists wish to distance themselves from the tyrannical so-called Socialists of the past. By inserting 'democracy' into the Soclialist definition, they cleverly avoid comparisons to any of the evil red states of the past.

Some European social democrat parties follow a doctrine called the "third way", sort of a balance between market-friendliness (ie. their knowledge of economics stems from economists and not a work-shy 19thC German) and society taking care of its members, which is the original definition of socialism. Along with Christian democrats and neo-cons, the only real difference I see between them is their rhetoric.

I actually vote for them, but I'd never vote "real" socialists. "real" socialists are a mixture of the power-hungry and feel-fuzzy who latch onto any idea that'll further that power or make them feel more moral than the existing regime. Engels supported Germany conquering the lesser-race French, Marx supported south USA slavery, "international" Marxists oppose globalization, Trots complain about an evil called monopoly, the modern Socialist Worker's Party of the UK is in bed with the Islamists while the French Communist Party is happy to move homeless shelters from black areas to white in order to grab a few votes from the Le Pen fascist party. It's scary when you realise these people can actually influence more than their wardrobe arrangements.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
- Winston Churchill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 9:42 AM

VITO

Nobody is going to kill bush, because if they did Dick Chaney would be running the country....

.....Oh wait, Dick Chaney already IS running the country. I almost forgot.

"People are stupid, they will beleve in somthing for one of two reasons. Either they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it might be true."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 1:32 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@Hero:
I will not take your troll bait.

@Vito:
I agree with just about everything you said.

@SignyM:
Agreed!

@AnthonyT:
I agree with your evaluation of Star Trek, but I really don't think that it is possible to stop the evolution of any theory. It is the natural course of things.

A theory is just some idealized case of society working in a theoretical way. Clearly, in practice things must be changed, because as a people, we are rather more irrational than some imaginary idealized society, which is where the mixture comes in.

Also, any theory that tries to create something practical, would become so convoluted that it wouldn't be able to be implemented. It'd be to confusing.

Best to stick to ideal models and let the real world figure out a proper mixture for that particular country.

This gives a nice play between theory and practice. They can and do learn from eachother, which is where the refining of theory comes from. Look to any feild of science for any number of examples.

I did cite Canada as creating a mixture of (mainly) two different political systems and instead of stating that we are one or the other, a new term was created. I think it really depends on the mixture (or percentages therein) whether a new term is created or an old one is used. Where this line is drawn is too fuzzy to speculate.

But, I would assume that democracy was put into the definition of Socialism because the world has come to the conclusion that no-one can hold dictorial powers and still keep the best interests of the people in mind (basically the whole point of Socialism). This has been proven time and time again.

And this is all I have time for right now.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 2, 2005 10:03 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
It's not a grassroots movement. It's a propaganda outlet. None of the people involved in this have any real interest in being radio talk show hosts

how do you know this , have you talked to any of the host on that show, have you asked them...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 6:01 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:
It's not a grassroots movement. It's a propaganda outlet. None of the people involved in this have any real interest in being radio talk show hosts

how do you know this , have you talked to any of the host on that show, have you asked them...

I agree (GASP!). I watched the 'Air America' documentary on HBO. I found those people, both in front of the microphones and behind the scenes to be quite sincere. (Although I found their treatment of the one "real" radio person on their staff to be insulting, after all she HAD a successful liberal radio show but seemed to be ignored in favor of the celebraties.)

All politics aside, they demonstrated the drive, creativity, and work ethic that make America a great place. Every year similar Americans of all political flavors start businesses and face many of the same hardships. They carried on and did great service to themselves if not their cause. I applaud their effort and encourage them to carry on.

That said, if they want their business to succeed, eventually they're going to need ratings. I suggest they seek to end NPR, thats their greatest competitor for the liberal radio market share.

Or they can hire conservative hosts and really make some money.

Locally (in Ohio) we now have Jerry Springer trying to pretend that he didn't make millions exploiting the poor so he can legitimately run for governor in a couple years. His show sucks, but its early and I don't think he's hit his stride yet. I don't like him, but Springer usually talks a pretty good game. Interesting trivia: Ken Blackwell (OH Sec of State who garnered so much attention by scandal-mongering Democrats in the days following the election) was Deputy Mayor of Cinncinnati under Springer all those years back.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 6:07 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
how do you know this , have you talked to any of the host on that show, have you asked them...

Nope. It’s pure speculation on my part based on my assessment of some of the celebrities that I’ve seen talk about Air America whom are currently involved with the show and listening to them on the radio. (E.g. Frankin, Garafolo, et al.) They seem to me to have the attitude of someone who does what they do because they have a ‘grudge.’ But that’s just my assessment and based on nothing more then speculation.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2005 1:13 AM

SQUIGS

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

That said, if they want their business to succeed, eventually they're going to need ratings. I suggest they seek to end NPR, thats their greatest competitor for the liberal radio market share.

Or they can hire conservative hosts and really make some money.

I listened to a bit of the station, and wasn't surprised that it's not popular. It just seems like 24 hour ranting about politics. Maybe I listened at the wrong time or something.

Does the US have a station anything like BBC Radio 4? Something with a regular schedule, and 30 minute programmes, that are not neccesarilty political. It's a very popular format over here. I'd be surprised if it didn't get pinched.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2005 7:41 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Squigs:

Does the US have a station anything like BBC Radio 4?

LOL, that's great!!!

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 8:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not sure if the LA programming is different than other cities, but the AM Stephanie Miller show is funnier'n hell! I laughed so hard my abs hurt!

By listening to the Miller show, I learned...

DR HAGER
Bush appointee, fundamentalist Christian, chair of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, author of "As Jesus Cared for Women" and other smarmy tomes, and purveyor of prayer(!)as the cure for PMS and other "womanly" ills... was divorced by his wife because of emotional abuse and BRUTAL, NON-CONSENSUAL SODOMY while she was passed out from narcolepsy.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050512/cm_thenation/20050530
mcgarvey/nc:742

JAMES WEST
Republican mayor of Spokane and staunch anti-gay campainger, is being accused of abusing Boy Scouts, and investigated for trolling for gay sex on the internet.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7794694/

JOHN BOLTON
Bush nominee for UN Ambassador, tyrannical manager and notorious head-banger, forced his first wife to have group sex.
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/larry_flynt_bolton_511

GUCKERT/ GANNON
And then of course we have the presence of a male prostitute accepted into the White House with a fabricted cover story of being a (snicker) "reporter". "Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House."
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm

Gosh- family values ain't what they used to be!
----------------------------------

I also learned a lot about "shooting birds in Church". It's not what you think! (THAT was the funny part).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2005 6:01 AM

COSTUMEGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
There are aproximately 60 million people in the U.K.
Aproximately 59 million of them would like to kill G.W. Bush.

Believe me, you are not alone. If moving out of this country would solve anything, I would have been gone the day after the election. However, the last thing that we need is for him to become a martyr and be solidified in our history books as a martyred president, replace Lincoln on our $5 bills, and be considered the greatest president of all time, surpassing Washington. That's what half of this brain-washed country thinks of him already.

I am programmed to understand humans!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2005 11:18 PM

REAVERINA1985RIVIERA

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I feel at this point, after some of your comments, that I must point out that no country has a pure implementation of any political system. There will be elements of many in any government. Countries only call themselves something b/c there particular hybrid contains a majority of that something (to one degree or another).

Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. Any country with a 100% pure political system cannot last because human nature is not 100% pure or 100% equal.
Pure Socialism fails because it's "give, give, give" untill all it's resources are spread around so evenly, everyone has the same meager portion, and pure Capitalism is "take, take, take", leaving little for those that can't take what they need, and those who have the most, take even more.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Canada for instance, has taken elements of Socialism and Capitalism in an attempt to get the benefits of both, without the drawbacks of either (I forget the actual term for it).

There is a small drawback: high taxes, but considering what you get for those high taxes, I'd say it works out pretty evenly.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

P.S. Fox News doesn't need to be silenced. It needs to be renamed. The Daily Show has the decency to call itself 'Fake News.' We should demand the same from Fox.

I 100% agree. On a similar note though, since I've watched both, I must say that the Daily Show is far more accurate than F*X "news" has ever been. Anyone else find that as sad as I do?

Yep.

The Daily Show doesn't have an idiot (hiii, Mr. O'Riiiiielly

) accusing Barbra Boxer of saying that Condolizza Rice doesn't support the troops. Senator Boxer actually said "truth", and several people called in and told him that and yet he still refused to correct that little mistake. All he had to say was "Oops. Sorry", and at least pretend to be "fair and balanced"

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
On a final note, anyone else notice that the original poster never participated in this thread?!?!? Troll if I ever saw one.

Yet another thing I agree on.

---------------------------------------------
The real-life box droppin', man-ape gone wrong thing, now without the pesky falling boxes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE