Air America RadioFollow

Back when I posted a lot there seemed to be a lot of liberals in this forum. I was wondering if anyone listened to this on one of their local stations. As far as I know, we in the Bay Area started broadcasting it recently, within the last year or so. From what I gather, conservative radio gets all the ratings and having a "liberal" radio station is a financial risk. Everyone knows Rush, does anyone know Ed Schultz?

http://www.airamericaradio.com/

There's a link if anyone is interested.

Edited, Tue Jan 4 18:54:19 2005 by BoondockSaint

I've never heard Sue Ellicot. The hours I'm able to listen to political radio feature:

Al Franken - He's funny sometimes, but for the most part is pretty boring.

Randi Rhodes - A liberal paranoid who is fighting against election stealing.

Majority Report - This show feature Janeane Garofolo (sp?) Need I say more?

Ed Schultz - He seems to be the most objective person on "The Quake" which is our local lib station. I'm not really sure if he's associated with Air America I believe he might be syndicated.

Anywho, I find myself switching back and forth between this station, a conservative station that features Rush, and just a local 24 hr news station. Just to get different takes on what's going on. I think Air America is just a little TOO liberal for me. What do you listen to Joph, to get your objective liberalism? If anything at all.

Edited, Tue Jan 4 18:51:39 2005 by BoondockSaint

There does seem to be a good deal more non-sockpuppet conservative posters here than 6 months ago.

>passes Totem a Pabst Blue Ribbon (Official Beer Of The KKK)<

I've got my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy membership card (#11007) right here, brah.

When I heard that the Left was going to enter the talk radio area, I admit that I was both shocked, amused and more than a bit curious.

Shocked because the typical Leftist tactic is to try to get the other side's Free Speech censored by Governmental fiat. They're all for free speech so long as they agree with what you say.

Amused because I knew from the very beginning that they had zero chance to earn a substantial following because Left-leaning talk radio had been tried before (by, among others, Mario Cuomo)- and been soundly rejected by the listeners.

Curious because I wanted to see who they could line up as on-air personalities and about the format they'd use. When I saw that they weren't going for anyone with any sort of substantial journalistic or news background, my curiosity quickly faded because I knew it would be a typical Leftist screech-fest. Stuart Smalley was smart enough to know that he couldn't actually do comedy himself and stuck to writing it. Garofalo is from somewhere to the Left of Mars when it comes to opinion. And the rest of the crew are the Left's answers to Art Bell. Not exactly any reason for Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly to quake in their shoes.

Still, I never mind hearing the Left's take on any given issue. I want to know what they think and how it is that they arrived at their conclusions because listening to only one side stifled intellectual growth- and I don't care which side you exclusively listen to, it's NOT good. If Dead Air America could line up some people of substance to host programs, and were I in a place that I could listen, I would do so.

Bwah-haha

Like trying to stop the Reagan made-for-TV movie from airing because it wasn't flattering toward him?

Or Clear Channel refusing to play The Dixie Chicks songs because they criticized Bush?

Or when radio stations in Mississippi pulled ads that were critical of US Rep. Chip Pickering.

Or efforts to curtail peaceful protest at the RNC this year?

Or the efforts to curtail peaceful protest at DNC this year? Don't forget about those, tricky.

Totem

That's just silly. Liberals just disagree and therefore cannot be civil? I'm pretty damn sure conservatives disagree on issues but still work toward a common goal, and I'm sure liberals can do the same. Disagreeing and questioning is healthy. Having a bunch of yesmen doesn't fix anything.

If you're going to say liberals think about only the "what" and conservatives the "how" please give an example. Also, what makes liberals so "dangerous"?

Edited, Tue Jan 4 20:49:06 2005 by BoondockSaint

I like the first one the best Trick.

Gbaji, I recall a post once when PicklePrince told you to "shut up."
Your response was to say something like "Amazing. Liberals are in favor of free speech except when they disagree with it."

So apparently, you don't know the difference government imposed censorship and private freedoms. Or, you're just a ******* hypocrite.

Spammer!

Whatchoo trying to do? Turn this into a Last thread?

Totem

Not really what I was talking about, but close. Liberals tend to focus on the specifics of a particular issue. Whether liberal or conservative, if you ask 10 people what they think should be done on a particular issue, you'll likely get 10 different answers. That is the same in both cases (cause, as you said, people disagree, and that's usually a good thing).

My point is that Conservatives care more about the process of resolving an issue rather then the specifics of the issue itself. So while you'll get 10 different people all calling in to a conservative talk show professing 10 different "solutions" to a given problem, all will agree on what kinds of processes are "good" and what kinds are bad. In this case, they'll generally agree that government interdiction should be avoided as much as possible, and the rights/actions of private citizens or groups should have the greatest weight. There's a level of consensus and a common ground there.

When Liberals discuss an issue, you'll get the 10 callers with 10 different solutions, but since the liberal focus tends to be on the issue and not the process, they have a harder time getting past those differences. All 10 solutions are issue specific, so if they disagree there is no common ground there.



Example is right in this thread. Look at the issues that Tricky listed. Most conservatives will see a specific pattern to those issues. All of them are private people/organizations taking actions against other private people/organizations that they disagree with. They are all doing it in a way that respects the power and freedom of a private individual. So, the RNC as a private organization has the total right to not *have* to allow people they don't want there to attend. Clear Channel, as a private company, in conjunction with their sponsors has a total right to decide whether they want to play the Dixie Chicks on their stations or not.

Get it? It's about the process. Private individuals and organizations should be allowed the freedom to conduct business unfettered by government interferrence. That is the conservatives "first look" at those issues, and that is the common ground most conservatives will find when looking at those issues.


Tricky is representing the perfect example of the Liberal "issues based" viewpoint. He's looking at the specifics of each situation (the "what"), and ignoring the process involved. He does not like that Clear Channel chose not to play the Dixie Chicks, and so he has decided *on this specific issue* that this was wrong. He probably did not even take the next logical step and realize that the only way to "do something" about that would be to make some kind of law restricting the right of a privately owned broadcast company to choose what they broadcast. That's the "how" of the issue, which conservatives immediately see. But Liberals rarely get past the "what".

Same exact logic applies to the RNC issue. Clearly, if it was the DNC doing the exact same thing (which they did btw, but oddly no one complained about it), he would have no problem with it. So the "how" is not at issue, but the "what". In this case, it's specifically the RNC taking this action that he has an issue with. If he was looking at the "how", he would have said something like: "It's unfair and should be illegal for a private organization to have the right to choose who can attend their own private events". I'm willing to bet that if it were phrased that way, Tricky would have problems with trying to pass such a law, but he's not looking at it that was. He's so caught up in the "what" of the specific issue (RNC preventing "peaceful demonstrator" from attending their convention), that he doesn't see beyond that.


We can literally go down a laundery list of liberal issues and see this same pattern. Liberals tend to find a particular situation that they strongly disagree with and demand that "action" be taken to fix it. They rarely look past the specifics of that issue to see the pattern of what that issue represents. Blacks and Hispanics aren't graduating from College at the same rate as Whites? Just pass laws requiring colleges to meet certain acceptance and graduation levels based on racial quotas. Let's ignore that in the process, we're destroying any sense of "equality" in the process. All that matters is the "what". In this case, we have specific numbers that we want to change and are taking a direct course to legistlatively change it. OMG! "Poverty" is up. Let's legistlatively raise the minimum wage so that poor people have more spending cash. Let's ignore what the process of making that change will cause. All we care about is the numbers and the specifics of this one issue.



The pattern is *obvious* if you stop and look for a moment.