the continued undoing of democracy

[Guest 2smart4u]

Commercial airwaves are what they are. In spite of the right wing flooding radio and tee vee with smug, know it all hatred, the Dems still took control of Congress in 2006 and will very likely take the White House and a more sizable chunk of Congress in 2008. Of course, what that will translate into in terms of change remains to be seen.

O'Reily, Limbaugh and the like, IMHO, are 'political entertainment'. Some people listen to bolster their beliefs, some listen to yell at the radio because they like to disagree. They are the same as those goofy tabloids we say we never read but can't take our eyes off of on the supermarket check out line.

They are first and foremost a side show. Why folks get upset over them, I will never know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must be living in a bubble. O'Reilly's numbers are more than CNN and

MSNBC combined and he's close to overtaking CBS and NBC network news in

sheer numbers. Put the Kool-aid down and sober up.

[Guest Guest]

More blow from the blowhard.

The MoveOn ad appeared before Petraeus had appeared before Congress, and predicted that he would lie.  Have a look if it's hard for you to remember.

https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

The Senate resolution doesn't keep them from saying it.  All it does is recognize that what they said was bogus--and there really is good reason for saying that.  Apparently Paul wants to muzzle the Senate from passing resolutions that make assertions amounting to free speech.

The ad repeats false claims debunked here

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/li...ks_context.html

as well as making a number of new false claims (such as "Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed").  Independent reporters such as Michael Yon and Michael J. Totten both reported impressive results from the surge.

Except when Paul disagrees with the Senate expressing its sense of the ad.  Then it's not okay any longer.

More baloney from LaClair.  The ads attacking Cleland were widely condemned from the right.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said of one ad, "t's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible;" Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the ads were "beyond offensive to me."

And that ad was far, far tamer than the MoveOn ad.

Yeah, except Petraeus isn't running for election.  He's part of the armed services and has earned respect--a fact noted by a supermajority in the Senate, including roughly half the Democrats.

What have you got in mind regarding McCain other than the push-poll?  And what was made up regarding either Kerry or Cleland?

And what part of it approaches anything like the MoveOn ad, where betrayal (lying) is predicted rather than shown with evidence?

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_vetera...e_betrayed.html

1)  Political figures involved

2)  arguments built on plausible evidence

And I'd have supported the Senate's free-speech right to condemn any of the ads by expressing their sense of the content.

How?

One wonders what case Paul can imagine would end up in court from this incident.

I can imagine two.  One, an inquiry into whether or not the NYT was in the habit of giving discounted ad rates to liberal groups (possibly resulting in campaign finance charges against the NYT, with an associated trial).  Two, an attempt by someone like LaClair to attempt prior restraint on the ability of the Senate to express its sense of an issue via resolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you seem to be overlooking the distinction between the Senate expressing its views on a subject, versus the Senate using its power to condemn private speech.

[Guest Loki]

If the Fairness Doctrine applied to that, the right wouldn't be able to have more programs, so you don't know what you're talking about.

People on the right seem to need others to reinforce what they already think they believe. You guys are dead sure you're right, yet because deep down you know you're full of it, you seem to need people telling you that you were right all along. Liberals don't think that way. So have your jollies with your talk shows. It'll all catch up to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love that no one, besides you, knows what he's talking about. When your son stands up for his beliefs, and good for him, he is doing everyone a service. Yet, when someone disagrees with your viewpoint, they are ". . . full of it. " Heaven forbid, (oops did I just cite that place) you could ever agree to disagree with someone.

I hope to God that your son never disagrees or disappoints you, I'm not sure that you would be able to survive. After all, you can't both be right all the time and disagree on something; a paradox of epic proportions is what that would be.

You will never convince me to cast aside my beliefs with your, "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" logic.

[Guest Guest]

I don't know you personally, but I have the urge to vomit anyway. "Shouldn't be slandered," says Patriot. In the first place, he's a public figure, MoveOn's statement is a political opinion and as such is not subject to a charge of slander absent extraordinary circumstances not present here. That's as a matter of law.

Put the shoe on the other foot, as I suggested. What if a liberal Congress one day decides to attack Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter? What then?

Oh, and by the way, this is not World War II. Nice try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really Paul, this is not World War II? I didn't know that. That was probably the one thing you said here that wasn't a lie. Nice try yourself. And thank the people for giving you the liberties which you have today then stab them through slander. Thank you Paul LaClair. You are a true American.

[Guest Radagast]

More blow from the blowhard.

The MoveOn ad appeared before Petraeus had appeared before Congress, and predicted that he would lie.  Have a look if it's hard for you to remember.

https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

The Senate resolution doesn't keep them from saying it.  All it does is recognize that what they said was bogus--and there really is good reason for saying that.  Apparently Paul wants to muzzle the Senate from passing resolutions that make assertions amounting to free speech.

The ad repeats false claims debunked here

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/li...ks_context.html

as well as making a number of new false claims (such as "Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed").  Independent reporters such as Michael Yon and Michael J. Totten both reported impressive results from the surge.

Except when Paul disagrees with the Senate expressing its sense of the ad.  Then it's not okay any longer.

More baloney from LaClair.  The ads attacking Cleland were widely condemned from the right.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said of one ad, "t's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible;" Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the ads were "beyond offensive to me."

And that ad was far, far tamer than the MoveOn ad.

Yeah, except Petraeus isn't running for election.  He's part of the armed services and has earned respect--a fact noted by a supermajority in the Senate, including roughly half the Democrats.

What have you got in mind regarding McCain other than the push-poll?  And what was made up regarding either Kerry or Cleland?

And what part of it approaches anything like the MoveOn ad, where betrayal (lying) is predicted rather than shown with evidence?

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_vetera...e_betrayed.html

1)  Political figures involved

2)  arguments built on plausible evidence

And I'd have supported the Senate's free-speech right to condemn any of the ads by expressing their sense of the content.

How?

One wonders what case Paul can imagine would end up in court from this incident.

I can imagine two.  One, an inquiry into whether or not the NYT was in the habit of giving discounted ad rates to liberal groups (possibly resulting in campaign finance charges against the NYT, with an associated trial).  Two, an attempt by someone like LaClair to attempt prior restraint on the ability of the Senate to express its sense of an issue via resolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the Washington Post:

"Civilian casualty numbers in the Pentagon’s latest quarterly report on Iraq last week, for example, differ significantly from those presented by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his recent congressional testimony. Petraeus’s chart was limited to numbers of dead, while the Pentagon combined the numbers of dead and wounded — a figure that should be greater. Yet Petraeus’s numbers were higher than the Pentagon’s for the months preceding this year’s increase of U.S. troops to Iraq, and lower since U.S. operations escalated this summer."

In short, Petraeus cooked the books to make the 'surge' look as if it is succeeding.

He was one of the few Generals that Bush could find that agreed with him on Iraq. That's why he is there. He fits right in with a White House that cherry picks the numbers they like and ignores the big picture.

Iraq continues to get worse everyday. Our troops should never have been sent there. They should not stay a minute longer than the next transport out of there.

Gen. David H. Petraeus has betrayed his own troops and he has betrayed this country by acting as a rubber stamp for BushCo.

[Guest Guest]

I love that no one, besides you, knows what he's talking about.  When your son stands up for his beliefs, and good for him, he is doing everyone a service. Yet, when someone disagrees with your viewpoint, they are ". . . full of it. "  Heaven forbid, (oops did I just cite that place) you could ever agree to disagree with someone.

I hope to God that your son never disagrees or disappoints you, I'm not sure that you would be able to survive.  After all, you can't both be right all the time and disagree on something; a paradox of epic proportions is what that would be.

You will never convince me to cast aside my beliefs with your, "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been posting here as guest mostly since this who debacle started and I couldn’t agree with you more. I might have even thought about agreeing with the kid if it wasn't for the arrogance of the old man. I am sure you will get a reply from Strife767 (AKA MATTHEW or PAUL) to your post because it is beneath Paul to say such things. He keeps saying he is not going to reply to such things, but never stop himself. However it still is fun hearing his "how dare you challenge me" attitude when you disagree in one of his beliefs. I am just counting the days until junior graduates so we can be rid of this once and for all. Would love to know what liberal collages he is applying too? Wouldn’t be too surprised if it was Seminary School. Let them worry about him then.

[Guest Guest]

You must be living in a bubble.  O'Reilly's numbers are more than CNN and

  MSNBC combined and he's close to overtaking CBS and NBC network news in

  sheer numbers. Put the Kool-aid down and sober up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And Burger King sells more meals in Manhattan than Lutece, does that make it better food? Then again, for someone like you who has a deeply ingrained Kool-Aid fetish it probably does.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you seem to be overlooking the distinction between the Senate expressing its views on a subject, versus the Senate using its power to condemn private speech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed. Why don't you explain the difference to us?

[Bryan]

Bryan, you seem to be overlooking the distinction between the Senate expressing its views on a subject, versus the Senate using its power to condemn private speech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if you can't, then I hereby condemn your comment above.

[Bryan]

The blowhard just keeps right on blowin' ...

Controlling the airwaves???  Do you mean like the Fairness Doctrine?  You know the one where they want equal time for Liberal talk shows.  Problem is the ratings are for conservative talk show hosts, and in radio, ratings rule, PERIOD.  If the left came up with an interesting alternative, there would be Liberal Talk Radio, and not just Air America, which is kind of like chewing thumbtacks.  I do love a free enterprise system.

If the Fairness Doctrine applied to that, the right wouldn't be able to have more programs, so you don't know what you're talking about.

Non sequitur (yet another fallacy for the logically-challenged elder LaClair). Loki said nothing about more right-leaning programs as a result of the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, Loki rightly noted that the "Fairness Doctrine" has the result of government control of the airwaves whereas Loki prefers the free enterprise system.

People on the right seem to need others to reinforce what they already think they believe.

They do? Which one of us appeals more to the people (yeah, that other favorite LaClair fallacy) in making his arguments?

You guys are dead sure you're right, yet because deep down you know you're full of it, you seem to need people telling you that you were right all along.

OK, so we're sure we're right and at the same time we know we're completely wrong.

What a mixed-up bunch we are (unless of course the blowhard is just blowing out one of his orifices).

Liberals don't think that way. So have your jollies with your talk shows. It'll all catch up to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"TALK-RADIO AUDIENCE FACTS" says the heading, pointing out the upscale demographics of talk radio listeners, and suggesting the latter usually:

* have an income over $75,000.

* have graduated college.

* read a newspaper daily.

* own their residence.

* are likely to use the Internet.

* have opinions that mirror those of the general population.

These are interesting statistics and, because they fit the profile of what sociologists call opinion leaders, they suggest why the DNC is concerned to—as the organization says elsewhere on its web site—"correct the misinformation and lies that are spread by extremist radio hosts and columnists."

http://nj.npri.org/nj99/06/media.htm

Paul's answer my friend

is blowin' in the wind

Paul's answer is blowin' in the wind

[Guest a proud american]

If the Fairness Doctrine applied to that, the right wouldn't be able to have more programs, so you don't know what you're talking about.

People on the right seem to need others to reinforce what they already think they believe. You guys are dead sure you're right, yet because deep down you know you're full of it, you seem to need people telling you that you were right all along. Liberals don't think that way. So have your jollies with your talk shows. It'll all catch up to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One way to look at Conservative vs Liberal radio is to look a who owns the Stations that broadcast the shows.

If you listen to the right it's all about how their ratings are higher than liberal stations. But, if you look deeper to find who actually owns the stations that broadcast their shows you get a truer picture. For example, ABC owns the Hannity radio show and the show that follows his. Hannity insisted that his friend have a show and so instead of one biased program you get two.

Fox noise has its own shows. With the exception of Colmes there are no other liberal programs on Fox. At-least MSNBC has both Keith Olberman and Tucker Carlson Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan. Thats fair and balanced.

Salem Broadcasting is a conservative company so you won't find and liberal shows there either.

Then there is Air America. They sindicate parts of their programs to individually owned stations. What the dirty little secret the right doesn't want to hear is that in markets where there is competition, the liberal shows do far better than others. In San Diego for example, the Hannity show is consistently beaten in the ratings. Why this is important is that this part of California is considered very conservative.

What it really comes down to is money. Corporations don't pay people like Hannity lots of money and Rush lots of money and then hire liberal talk shows that would compete directly with them on their other owned stations. So, in reality it has less to do with ratings and more to do with money.

And as far as the commandoes who listen and believe everything they hear, maybe thats the problem. They aren't going to hear both sides to be able to tell when they are being mis led which is the majority of the time.

[Guest Paul]

I love that no one, besides you, knows what he's talking about.  When your son stands up for his beliefs, and good for him, he is doing everyone a service. Yet, when someone disagrees with your viewpoint, they are ". . . full of it. "  Heaven forbid, (oops did I just cite that place) you could ever agree to disagree with someone.

I hope to God that your son never disagrees or disappoints you, I'm not sure that you would be able to survive.  After all, you can't both be right all the time and disagree on something; a paradox of epic proportions is what that would be.

You will never convince me to cast aside my beliefs with your, "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think.

You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it.

All you're getting back is a taste of your own medicine. If you don't like the taste of it, then think about what you righties do every day of the week.

[Strife767]

Strife767 (AKA MATTHEW or PAUL)

All caps doesn't make it any less false.

[Paul] keeps saying he is not going to reply to such things,

I'm pretty sure he's been saying the exact opposite.

Would love to know what liberal collages [Matthew] is applying too?

Most likely ones where they'd be more likely to accept a student who knows the correct usage of to/two/too, and who can actually spell "college."

[Guest Radagast]

Independent reporters such as Michael Yon and Michael J. Totten both reported impressive results from the surge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again, Bryan, your idea of 'independent' tends to lean a bit right. They are both conservative bloggers who try to paint a rosy picture even in hell. The VAST majority of reports out of Iraq are dismal.... but of course. that's all the biased MSM.

[Bryan]

Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think.

You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it.

That must explain why LaClair is avoiding me.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=62567

[billydee4]

"TALK-RADIO AUDIENCE FACTS" says the heading, pointing out the upscale demographics of talk radio listeners, and suggesting the latter usually:

* have an income over $75,000.

* have graduated college.

* read a newspaper daily.

* own their residence.

* are likely to use the Internet.

* have opinions that mirror those of the general population.

These are interesting statistics and, because they fit the profile of what sociologists call opinion leaders, they suggest why the DNC is concerned to—as the organization says elsewhere on its web site—"correct the misinformation and lies that are spread by extremist radio hosts and columnists."

http://nj.npri.org/nj99/06/media.htm

Bryan: Are you saying that you agree with the "Talk-Radio Audience Facts"? I fail to see the relevance of "Facts" that were published in a small newspaper in June of 1999. The article states that the "Facts" came from a Democratic website that is now inactive, so there is no way of proving that any Democrat even suggested that these "Facts" were true.

On liberal talk shows you can hear a variety of opinions. On radical right-wing radio, if you don't say you agree with the host, you are not put on the air. On BillO's show an dissenting voice is dismissed or trashed. His usual response to facts presented by the other side is, "Well, that's your opinion."

[Guest Paul]

I have been posting here as guest mostly since this who debacle started and I couldn’t agree with you more.  I might have even thought about agreeing with the kid if it wasn't for the arrogance of the old man.  I am sure you will get a reply from Strife767 (AKA MATTHEW or PAUL) to your post because it is beneath Paul to say such things. He keeps saying he is not going to reply to such things, but never stop himself.  However it still is fun hearing his "how dare you challenge me" attitude when you disagree in one of his beliefs.  I am just counting the days until junior graduates so we can be rid of this once and for all.  Would love to know what liberal collages he is applying too?  Wouldn’t be too surprised if it was Seminary School.  Let them worry about him then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You guys will try absolutely everything you can think of to shut me up, because you just can't stand having your little fantasy world upset. I was told to shut up last December, probably by you. You think you can lie about my son, and I'm supposed to let you. You get to say every asinine thing you want to say, just make it up out of thin air; maybe we can disagree with you once, but if we are as persistent as you are then we're forcing our beliefs on you. No doubt you'd be supporting Matthew if it wasn't for me --- suuuuuuuure you would --- that's just variation # 133 in your attempt to reinvent what happened, and it's not going to work either. So sit on the potty until you get it. I don't care if you think it's arrogant. It is arrogant, but you're being an idiot, and I've had it up to my eyebrows with every one of you. Especially you, Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Oh, and of course I'm the only one actually posting on our side of this. There couldn't possibly be anyone agreeing with us. Guess you didn't bother to read any of the hundreds of web sites that supported Matthew. I must have been behind all of those, too.

You want to call me arrogant, go ahead, you're not telling me anything I don't know. But when you say that, you're only looking in the mirror.

[Guest Guest]

Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think.

You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it.

All you're getting back is a taste of your own medicine. If you don't like the taste of it, then think about what you righties do every day of the week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen!

[Bryan]

One way to look at Conservative vs Liberal radio is to look a who owns the Stations that broadcast the shows.

Fine.

Clear Channel is one of the big boys, and they've been willing (in the past, anyway) to experiment with Air America.

If you listen to the right it's all about how their ratings are higher than liberal stations. But, if you look deeper to find who actually owns the stations that broadcast their shows you get a truer picture.

A truer picture of what? Ownership doesn't affect the ratings directly, does it?

For example, ABC owns the Hannity radio show and the show that follows his. Hannity insisted that his friend have a show and so instead of one biased program you get two.

And ABC is a hardline conservative company.

Who's his friend? Mark Levin? Levin's not available in this market (Hannity is).

Fox noise has its own shows. With the exception of Colmes there are no other liberal programs on Fox.

Could ratings be a factor?

At-least MSNBC has both Keith Olberman and Tucker Carlson Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan. Thats fair and balanced.

No, it's just balanced.

Olbermann is a nutjob, and Buchanan may not be far behind.

How is MSNBC doing in the ratings, BTW?

Then there is Air America. They sindicate parts of their programs to individually owned stations. What the dirty little secret the right doesn't want to hear is that in markets where there is competition, the liberal shows do far better than others. In San Diego for example, the Hannity show is consistently beaten in the ratings. Why this is important is that this part of California is considered very conservative.

Who beats Hannity in the ratings?

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/D...10/16/2007&CE=0

According to my information, Air America is getting booted by Clear Channel (in the San Diego market) in favor of an all-sports format (they say it's because of the ratings--are they lying?).

“Clear Channel has no agenda to shut down progressive voices,” programming director Cliff Albert said at the rally. Consideration of a format change is motivated solely by falling Arbitron ratings and concerns over advertising dollars, KLSD insiders have disclosed.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5013

What it really comes down to is money. Corporations don't pay people like Hannity lots of money and Rush lots of money and then hire liberal talk shows that would compete directly with them on their other owned stations. So, in reality it has less to do with ratings and more to do with money.

Why would a liberal talk show be considered competition for a conservative talk show? Are they drawing from identical demographics?

And as far as the commandoes who listen and believe everything they hear, maybe thats the problem. They aren't going to hear both sides to be able to tell when they are being mis led which is the majority of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're saying it's about the money, except that maybe it's not about the money.

Have you considered a career in liberal talk radio?

[Guest Loki]

Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think.

You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it.

All you're getting back is a taste of your own medicine. If you don't like the taste of it, then think about what you righties do every day of the week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not kidding one bit, you just won't see it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

One way to look at Conservative vs Liberal radio is to look a who owns the Stations that broadcast the shows.

If you listen to the right it's all about how their ratings are higher than liberal stations. But, if you look deeper to find who actually owns the stations that broadcast their shows you get a truer picture. For example, ABC owns the Hannity radio show and the show that follows his. Hannity insisted that his friend have a show and so instead of one biased program you get two.

Fox noise has its own shows. With the exception of Colmes there are no other liberal programs on Fox. At-least MSNBC has both Keith Olberman and Tucker Carlson Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan. Thats fair and balanced.

Salem Broadcasting is a conservative company so you won't find and liberal shows there either.

Then there is Air America. They sindicate parts of their programs to individually owned stations. What the dirty little secret the right doesn't want to hear is that in markets where there is competition, the liberal shows do far better than others. In San Diego for example, the Hannity show is consistently beaten in the ratings. Why this is important is that this part of California is considered very conservative.

What it really comes down to is money. Corporations don't pay people like Hannity lots of money and Rush lots of money and then hire liberal talk shows that would compete directly with them on their other owned stations. So, in reality it has less to do with ratings and more to do with money.

And as far as the commandoes who listen and believe everything they hear, maybe thats the problem. They aren't going to hear both sides to be able to tell when they are being mis led which is the majority of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the wackiest explanation of why conservative radio dominates the

airwaves that you'll ever read. FYI......Air America is going, going, almost

gone, they're bankrupt. Bill O'Reilly is slightly behind Rush as the most popular

talk show in the U.S. On TV, Fox news shows draws more viewers than CNN

and MSNBC combined. The O'Reilly Factor blows away the competition every

night, O'Reilly's numbers are only slightly behind CBS and NBC network news.

"a proud american" uses the term "fair and balanced", that's Bill O'Reilly's

term from "The Factor". I think "a proud american" may be a closet O'Reilly

fan.

[Guest Guest]

Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think.

You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it.

All you're getting back is a taste of your own medicine. If you don't like the taste of it, then think about what you righties do every day of the week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you do not have a response, this is what you come back with? Right wing? God, you really are so very ignorant. So many repeatedly post here about how you cannot take criticism and then you come back with that they all must be right wing. How about this: they are American people who can think and opinionate for themselves and instead of listening to them and trying to better yourself, you act like captain, William Bligh in Mutiny in the Bounty and everyone is after you. Today’s word is "listen". Keep that food entrance of yours closed for a little bit and just "listen".

[Guest Guest]

So sit on the potty until you get it. I don't care if you think it's arrogant. It is arrogant, but you're being an idiot, and I've had it up to my eyebrows with every one of you. Especially you, Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Oh, and of course I'm the only one actually posting on our side of this. There couldn't possibly be anyone agreeing with us. Guess you didn't bother to read any of the hundreds of web sites that supported Matthew. I must have been behind all of those, too.

You want to call me arrogant, go ahead, you're not telling me anything I don't know. But when you say that, you're only looking in the mirror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's all sticks and stones, Mate. Sticks and stone.

Tell me when you start telling the truth.

[Guest a proud american]

This is the wackiest explanation of why conservative radio dominates the

    airwaves that you'll ever read.  FYI......Air America is going, going, almost

    gone, they're bankrupt. Bill O'Reilly is slightly behind Rush as the most popular

    talk show in the U.S.  On TV, Fox news shows draws more viewers than CNN

    and MSNBC combined.  The O'Reilly Factor blows away the competition every

    night, O'Reilly's numbers are only slightly behind CBS and NBC network news.

      "a proud american" uses the term "fair and balanced", that's Bill O'Reilly's

    term from "The Factor".  I think "a proud american" may be a closet O'Reilly

    fan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual 2dim you missed the point. Most stations now are owned by Corporations.

Since many of these Corporations are conservative, they play to particular audiences that share their views. And since they are in business to make a profit, they aren't going to hire people with opposite views to go up against each other since not all talk shows air at the same time.

And look at the drivel they put out. Any sane person knows that they are only going to give you some of the facts. By doing this you hear one side. And as far as O'Reilly he's one of the worst. He just hangs up the phone when someone disagrees with him. So much for fair and balanced.

You ought to watch MSNBC for once and see how they do it. YOu might actually learn something from it. OF course I doubt it since you only believe what you want and hear anyway. And also, rest assured I don't watch Billo. If I want half truths, I read your comments.

[Guest Guest]

You guys will try absolutely everything you can think of to shut me up, because you just can't stand having your little fantasy world upset. I was told to shut up last December, probably by you. You think you can lie about my son, and I'm supposed to let you. You get to say every asinine thing you want to say, just make it up out of thin air; maybe we can disagree with you once, but if we are as persistent as you are then we're forcing our beliefs on you. No doubt you'd be supporting Matthew if it wasn't for me --- suuuuuuuure you would --- that's just variation # 133 in your attempt to reinvent what happened, and it's not going to work either. So sit on the potty until you get it. I don't care if you think it's arrogant. It is arrogant, but you're being an idiot, and I've had it up to my eyebrows with every one of you. Especially you, Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Oh, and of course I'm the only one actually posting on our side of this. There couldn't possibly be anyone agreeing with us. Guess you didn't bother to read any of the hundreds of web sites that supported Matthew. I must have been behind all of those, too.

You want to call me arrogant, go ahead, you're not telling me anything I don't know. But when you say that, you're only looking in the mirror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you and your family obviously have no respect for the flag of the United States of America, I am now pondering what you think of the Bible.

Now try to follow me on this one you fat lump of lard if you can before you open that pie hole of yours.

You claim that since the Flag for you is only a symbol and it is your right not to stand when people say the Pledge. How would you feel that someone would dare not put his hand on the Bible when being asked to “swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.” That would be a slap in your face in that you wouldn't know if he was telling the truth or not. Similar to your daily rants here.

What if the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican refused to place his hand on the Bible when being swore into office? How would you feel?

Being a Lawyer, I am sure that seeing the Bible in the court room is an everyday sight for you.

One more for you, when the Judge enters the courtroom, do you stand? He is also a symbol as well.

Point being that all these symbols, the people of the United States hold dear. Each of them has meaning and purpose. Try to see why people are against you. You attempting to destroy what the people of this country have built for so many years. Yet you do it for what? Your own personal fame. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You say that respect is no longer present in this country and it starts with you. You constant passive aggressive behavior here shows just what kind of person you are.