the continued undoing of democracy

[Guest Guest]

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}>

Where exactly, do you get your numbers from?

[Bryan]

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.

That's hilarious. I've encouraged you to post as much as you like, knowing that you'll just continue to make bonehead errors to whatever degree you attempt to include content. Did you give us your apology yet for recommending that stupid targeted gasoline boycott idea that was debunked at Snopes.com?

I was told to shut up last December, probably by you.

Don't listen to him/her. Keep right on showing what an unhinged ideological extremist you are.

You think you can lie about my son, and I'm supposed to let you.

Isn't turnabout fair play? Your son lied about somebody else by taking quotations out of context and attacking the same person via his supervisors.

Can I have your employer's number? I just want to point out to him that you don't understand the Big Bang theory nor the oil economy.

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.

This guy sounds angry ... and unhinged.

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.

And there it is again ... the appeal to the people. The guy argues like an unscrupulous lawyer.

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}>

Anyone who posts their opinion on the Internet where anybody can read it is at least a little bit arrogant. More so if it's under their own name. Relatively speaking, however, the really arrogant ones are those who avoid engaging the other side in serious debate (that's you, Paul) in favor of demagoguery (that's you again, Paul).

And when that person makes colossal errors that are perfectly manifest (such as a blunder on the oil economy or criticizing somebody else's understanding of the Big Bang while possessing a badly outdated--and incoherent--understanding of the theory himself) without owning up to his mistakes ... that's arrogant.

Paul's own behavior provides the evidence; there's no escape with his demagogic complaints of projection.

[Bryan]

"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"?

Yes. Their figures are consistent with numerous surveys.

In several ways, Nowka is a typical talk-radio fan. She's aged 35 to 64, as are 70 percent of news/talk listeners. Fully 66 percent of news/talk listeners are white, 32 percent have a college degree or above, and 58 percent make $50,000 or more, according to Talkers Magazine.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m402...v20/ai_20302979

AM talk—Rush, Dr. Laura, Hannity—targets middle-aged white guys. Surprise: They tend to be conservative. But FM talk—Stern, Joyner, Mancow, Don and Mike in Washington, Tom Leykis in Los Angeles—scores with young men, guys who like their radio on the risqué side, with a bulging menu of sex jokes and a powerful message that this is America and you can do whatever you want. Hint to Democrats: You may not like to admit this, but these are your voters.

http://www.slate.com/id/2079038/

Figure it out. Conservative talk radio sells because the demographic has purchasing power.

I fail to see the relevance of "Facts" that were published in a small newspaper in June of 1999.

You only say that because you are ignorant.

Nevada Journal is not a newspaper. It is a journal. Big difference. It's the kind of thing that would turn up if you were doing research using Lexisnexis and relegated the search to "magazines and journals"--but you'd only have to do that if you were trying to find supporting documentation for some paper you were writing ...

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.

You could write the Democratic Party (who paid for the website) and ask them if the Nevada Journal just made it up.

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.

You're listening to the wrong shows if that's your experience. If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, for example, you'll get to hear him interview and obtain opinions from people like Erwin Chemerinsky, Peter Beinart, or Michael Ware.

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."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The shows I listen to give preference to disagreeing callers. If O'Reilly is your choice then live with it.

[WilliamK]

If I want half truths, I read your comments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must be an optimist.

[Guest Radagast]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And O'Reilly is sane? Well, to each his own.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you seriously expect the guy to respond to this? At least you can't be accused of passive-aggressive behavior. You're just plain aggressive. Rude would be an understatement.

You're also unaware of the fact that no one is required to swear on the Bible. Not in court, not taking an oath of office. If you're going to call names and challenge people to answer what you obviously think are brilliant questions, you really should gather a few facts instead of revealing the fact that you're a complete ignoramus.

Now I can't speak for Paul, but I do understand his point. And my guess is that if a president declined to take the oath of office on a Bible, Paul would say that this was an important symbolic step toward a nation where people were truly free to worship as they saw fit without having any particular religion forced on them. Or religion in general for that matter. I know I would. After all, if this country could elect a president just because that was the person who would do the best job of leading our country, that would be quite an improvement. Ever think of that, genius?

[Guest a proud american]

Where exactly, do you get your numbers from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you think they get them. They get them from the Fox Noise Channel.

[Bryan]

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.

No doubt Patriot referred to slander in the non-legal sense (definition #2) rather than the legal sense (in which case it would be libel, not slander).

LaClair the Unhinged strikes again.

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?

We'll continue to laugh at you, LaClair, as you act consistently by calling for Congress to stuff a sock in its right to free collective expression.

Unless you don't prove consistent, of course.

[Guest Guest]

Paul, Matt, and Strifey just don't get it and Hillary tells them to "bite her".

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton told FOXNews.com Thursday night that she sometimes wears a pin to show her patriotism. “Wearing a flag pin, flying the flag, pledging allegiance to the flag, talking about the values that are important to America, teaching your children about what a great nation you have, standing up for those values, speaking out … there’s just so many ways that one can demonstrate patriotism,” Clinton said at a Chicago fundraiser.

[Bryan]

I'm surprised nobody else has updated this thread in the light of recent events.

Imagine that a liberal Congress and President control our government, as one day they will. Imagine a liberal Congress passing a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for expressing his ridiculous, fact-free political views on the air. Their justification is that he says things that have no basis in fact, and they'd be right; he does it all the time.

Recently the Democrats, who possess majorities in both houses of Congress, attempted to pressure Clear Channel Communications into demanding an apology from Rush Limbaugh. Did Limbaugh prompt them by expressing an opinion not based in fact? No, the Democrats acted based on a distortion created by the Frankenstein's monster of political fact-checking, the George Soros-funded Media Matters.

Brian Maloney provides the background on the smear:

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/09...ersy-media.html

The eBay store Limbaugh set up to auction off the letter for charity has a list of the Democrats who were stupid enough to fall for the Media Matters distortion (some or even all of them might be pandering to their base rather than simply being stupid, I should note).

http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?V...ter-for-charity

Responding to the political pressure, sponsors pull out, and stations pull Limbaugh off the air. Right-wing pundits with similar views are also pulled, and the airwaves are left with a diet of middle-to-left public discourse because everything to the right of center has been deemed unacceptable. In time, the center shifts further and further to the left, until the only comments anyone is allowed to make publicly are far left. Would conservatives say we were on the brink of (or in) a left-wing tyranny? They'd be right.

As this case shows, the government doesn't have that type of power to drive public opinion. Despite an assist from many mainstream media outlets, people did not buy the smear. The political figures who signed the letter ended up looking silly to most people.

I urge people to contact everyone you can think of to bring this to people's attention.

67034[/snapback]

For real?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

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.

67598[/snapback]

The flag is a symbol. It's what the flag stands for that is the most important. Do you support criminalizing flag burning? If so the it's terribly ironic because that goes against everything the flag stands for. If you let the mere destruction of a symbol actually destroy what the symbol stands for then we are hosed. Thank a lot pal.

As I recall GW put his hand on the bible for his oath of office which we all know automatically causes one to tell the truth. Iraq anyone?

Actually I would find it refeshing to have a president that refused to swear on the bible. That way they show no religious preference which I think would be great.

[Guest a proud amereican]

Fine.

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

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

And ABC is a hardline conservative company.

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

Could ratings be a factor?

No, it's just balanced.

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

How is MSNBC doing in the ratings, BTW? 

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

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

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?

67527[/snapback]

Yes Bryan it's all about profits. I don't know where you get your facts from, but the Ed Schultz show consistently beat hannity in the ratings in San Diego. Why CLear Channel is going to an all sports program is probably because they believe they can make more money or else Ed would stay on. Would they lie? Of course they would. Just like when Jack FM came along and the company fired all of its disk Jockeys. They did it for the profits. And as I understand it Hannity isn't on clear channel in San Diego at the same time because he's on ABC Radio.

Where I live We have a show on an FM station that features the former Police Commissioner Ed Norris. He's certainly no flaming liberal and in fact makes no secret that he tends to be conservative on many issues. As of this week, he has the number one radio program in the area. And the reason he's been so successful is that unlike the other talking heads like Limbaugh and Hannitty he listens to both sides and doesn't act like a fool when he disagrees with someone. He allows all the callers to voice their opinions. Try doing that on other talking head shows. And when he's wrong he admits he's wrong. Try getting the other talking heads to do that.

Clear Channel is only one of several companies that own broadcast shows. And as far as Mark Levin, apparently you must turn off you radio because Levin follows his show on I believe ABC in New York?

Now as far as Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, you obviously never watch their shows. For the first half hour- 8-8:30 p.m. Olbermann has taken the first half hour and Billo the second. And I believe the reason is because most of the important information on Keith's show is over by then. But you failed to say anything about Tucker Carlson or Chris Matthews. Are they nut jobs too because if they are what mental classification would you give to Bill-o and Hannitty.

So you can keep believing your delusion that corporations aren't in it for the money. And you can also keep dreaming that Fox Noise is a real independent not swayed by any party organization Corporation.

[Bryan]

Yes Bryan it's all about profits.

Well, not counting NPR.

I don't know where you get your facts from, but the Ed Schultz show consistently beat hannity in the ratings in San Diego.

I got the numbers from the site for which I provide the URL. How tough is that?

You provided no URL to provide a fact-check on your claims, in contrast.

Why CLear Channel is going to an all sports program is probably because they believe they can make more money or else Ed would stay on. Would they lie? Of course they would. Just like when Jack FM came along and the company fired all of its disk Jockeys. They did it for the profits.

The numbers for KLSD were bad. You can't run a station on the strength of one three-hour show unless it's way strong.

In radio, the money follows the ratings. If you believe that KLSD is changing the format because they think they can make more money with a different format, then you should realize that they're expecting better ratings following the change (not all ratings are equal, of course--some demographics are far more valuable than others).

“And KLSD is way below what the ratings were for KPOP (the station's former call letters).”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...-1b27clear.html

And as I understand it Hannity isn't on clear channel in San Diego at the same time because he's on ABC Radio.

That should make it tough for Schultz to beat Hannity head-to-head, unless I misunderstand what you're saying.

Where I live We have a show on an FM station that features the former Police Commissioner Ed Norris. He's certainly no flaming liberal and in fact makes no secret that he tends to be conservative on many issues. As of this week, he has the number one radio program in the area. And the reason he's been so successful is that unlike the other talking heads like Limbaugh and Hannitty he listens to both sides and doesn't act like a fool when he disagrees with someone.

Let me know when he's got as many listeners as either Limbaugh or Hannity.

He allows all the callers to voice their opinions. Try doing that on other talking head shows. And when he's wrong he admits he's wrong. Try getting the other talking heads to do that.

Seems like I already mentioned conservative shows that do that. Weren't you listening?

Clear Channel is only one of several companies that own broadcast shows. And as far as Mark Levin, apparently you must turn off you radio because Levin follows his show on I believe ABC in New York?

The AM radio signals from New York rarely reach Florida. Sometimes at night I'll receive a station from Iowa, though. But the reception is spotty.

Now as far as Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, you obviously never watch their shows.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

So you can keep believing your delusion that corporations aren't in it for the money.

Where did you get the delusion that I think corporations aren't in it for the money?

And you can also keep dreaming that Fox Noise is a real independent not swayed by any party organization Corporation.

69922[/snapback]

Fox was developed to fill a niche, since it became apparent that the existing cable networks provided what appeared to be slanted coverage to a substantial number of viewers. Argue with the numbers if you wish.

[Guest Robert]

Regarding a President not placing his hand on the Bible at their innauguration. For the record: John Quincy Adams placed his hand on a book of laws when taking the oath. Theodore Roosevelt had no book at his swearing in. Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover declined to take a Bible-sworn oath -- they made an affirmation at their innaugural ceremony. Adams and Pierce were ardent secularists; Hoover was an oath-shunning Quaker; and Teddy R apparently was never asked and never commented about the absence of a Bible or other book at his swearing-in.

[Guest a proud american]

Well, not counting NPR. 

I got the numbers from the site for which I provide the URL.  How tough is that?

You provided no URL to provide a fact-check on your claims, in contrast.

The numbers for KLSD were bad.  You can't run a station on the strength of one three-hour show unless it's way strong.

In radio, the money follows the ratings.  If you believe that KLSD is changing the format because they think they can make more money with a different format, then you should realize that they're expecting better ratings following the change (not all ratings are equal, of course--some demographics are far more valuable than others).

“And KLSD is way below what the ratings were for KPOP (the station's former call letters).”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...-1b27clear.html

That should make it tough for Schultz to beat Hannity head-to-head, unless I misunderstand what you're saying.

Let me know when he's got as many listeners as either Limbaugh or Hannity.

Seems like I already mentioned conservative shows that do that.  Weren't you listening? 

The AM radio signals from New York rarely reach Florida.  Sometimes at night I'll receive a station from Iowa, though.  But the reception is spotty.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Where did you get the delusion that I think corporations aren't in it for the money?

Fox was developed to fill a niche, since it became apparent that the existing cable networks provided what appeared to be slanted coverage to a substantial number of viewers.  Argue with the numbers if you wish.

70021[/snapback]

Well at-least you understand that it is about the money.

With regards to Hannitty and schultz, I may have confused Schultz with someone else but the essence of the comment was that they competed directly with each other.

WIth regards to ABC in New York at-least you admit that you don't know so should you have commented?

And as far as Limbaugh and Hannittyand their ilk is concerned, do you think either myself or anyone with common sense are delusional enough to belive that they will allow someone to express an opposing opinion that contradicts what they are saying? If so I have some choice land in Florida I'll sell you as long as you agree to look at it at night.

And with regards to the Fox Noise Channel they have a certain niche allright. None of these talking heads you so desparately believe were able to make it on other Networks without either being fired or quitting. And before you correct me, yea I know what you're going to say. They were driven out by the Liberals right? Or maybe they were driven out because their former bosses saw them for what they were.

It is also apparent that you have never watched MSNBC. But if you have, then tell me what catagory you would put Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough in.

But to be fair, Rush is still on in Baltimore although I don't think for too much longer since his ratings are slightly higher than the daily farm report. And this is his second stint. His last station here dumped him and why? Money.

So keep repeating that it's about ratings. Like the fox noise channel, if you say it enougth times people believe it even if it isn't true.

[Bryan]

Well at-least you understand that it is about the money.

With regards to Hannitty and schultz, I may have confused Schultz with someone else but the essence of the comment was that they competed directly with each other.

WIth regards to ABC in New York at-least you admit that you don't know so should you have commented?

Huh? What possible objection could you have regarding my commentary about Mark Levin?

And as far as Limbaugh and Hannittyand their ilk is concerned, do you think either myself or anyone with common sense are delusional enough to belive that they will allow someone to express an opposing opinion that contradicts what they are saying? If so I have some choice land in Florida I'll sell you as long as you agree to look at it at night.

I've already got choice land in Florida.

Yes, Rush and Hannity both welcome callers who disagree with them. I hear about the same type of stuff from liberals who call their shows as I do from the liberals I know in real life.

And with regards to the Fox Noise Channel they have a certain niche allright. None of these talking heads you so desparately believe were able to make it on other Networks without either being fired or quitting. And before you correct me, yea I know what you're going to say. They were driven out by the Liberals right? Or maybe they were driven out because their former bosses saw them for what they were.

Calm down, you're sounding unhinged. I watch Fox News maybe one hour every two weeks (counting cable surfing). Television news is generally a waste of time regardless of the network.

It is also apparent that you have never watched MSNBC. But if you have, then tell me what catagory you would put Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough in.

I watch MSNBC about as much as I watch Fox. I know Carlson mostly from his stint on Crossfire. But really I don't even know why you brought them up. Regardless of Carlson and Scarborough (a conservative who seems to like to be considered open-minded), Buchanan and Olbermann are nutcases.

But to be fair, Rush is still on in Baltimore although I don't think for too much longer since his ratings are slightly higher than the daily farm report. And this is his second stint. His last station here dumped him and why? Money.

I'm sure Rush is crying all the way to the bank.

So keep repeating that it's about ratings. Like the fox noise channel, if you say it enougth times people believe it even if it isn't true.

70101[/snapback]

Get real. You said yourself it's about money and ratings (in the right demographics) are money in radio.

Sell advertising to businesses who call sell something to your listeners and you make money in radio (depending on what you're paying for programming).

[Guest Guest]

The flag is a symbol. It's what the flag stands for that is the most important. Do you support criminalizing flag burning? If so the it's terribly ironic because that goes against everything the flag stands for. If you let the mere destruction of  a symbol actually destroy what the symbol stands for then we are hosed. Thank a lot pal.

As I recall GW put his hand on the bible for his oath of office which we all know automatically causes one to tell the truth. Iraq anyone?

Actually I would find it refeshing to have a president that refused to swear on the bible. That way they show no religious preference which I think would be great.

69909[/snapback]

Way to go hick. Why not head back to the Mid-East.

[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.

67521[/snapback]

In case you have not seen it recently around Kearny Schools, moral is at an all time low. Teachers are just going through the motions without any feelings for doing a good job and again it shows in the students. The passion that they once put into their work is now gone. You have a second grade teacher at Lincoln School even falling asleep in the class room. The pride that was once high in this town has now been destroyed and teachers are thinking retirement at an alarming rate so they do not have to deal with having to deal with the likes of you and your son.

I am sure you are very proud of yourself. Glad you finally caught up with that ambulance.

[Guest Guest]

In case you have not seen it recently around Kearny Schools, moral is at an all time low. Teachers are just going through the motions without any feelings for doing a good job and again it shows in the students. The passion that they once put into their work is now gone. You have a second grade teacher at Lincoln School even falling asleep in the class room.  The pride that was once high in this town has now been destroyed and teachers are thinking retirement at an alarming rate so they do not have to deal with having to deal with the likes of you and your son.   

I am sure you are very proud of yourself.  Glad you finally caught up with that ambulance.

70190[/snapback]

Give me a break.

[Guest a proud american]

Huh?  What possible objection could you have regarding my commentary about Mark Levin?

I've already got choice land in Florida. 

Yes, Rush and Hannity both welcome callers who disagree with them.  I hear about the same type of stuff from liberals who call their shows as I do from the liberals I know in real life.

Calm down, you're sounding unhinged.  I watch Fox News maybe one hour every two weeks (counting cable surfing).  Television news is generally a waste of time regardless of the network.

I watch MSNBC about as much as I watch Fox.  I know Carlson mostly from his stint on Crossfire.  But really I don't even know why you brought them up.  Regardless of Carlson and Scarborough (a conservative who seems to like to be considered open-minded), Buchanan and Olbermann are nutcases.

I'm sure Rush is crying all the way to the bank.

Get real.  You said yourself it's about money and ratings (in the right demographics) are money in radio.

Sell advertising to businesses who call sell something to your listeners and you make money in radio (depending on what you're paying for programming).

70140[/snapback]

I'm not coming unhinged. I do enjoy the part though about Hannitty and Rush allowing for dissent. Now since you're done trying to convince me, try to convince yourself. Responding to a fifferent point of view in an intelligent manner is not the same thing these guys do. And as far as Keith and Buchanan, if they're nut job what catagory do place rush and Hannitty in. And I'm sure Rush isn't hurting for money, prescription pills maybe but not money. And he won't worry as long as he has people who believe everything he says in spite of the fact he's wrong most of the time.

[Matthew LaClair]

In case you have not seen it recently around Kearny Schools, moral is at an all time low. Teachers are just going through the motions without any feelings for doing a good job and again it shows in the students. The passion that they once put into their work is now gone. You have a second grade teacher at Lincoln School even falling asleep in the class room.  The pride that was once high in this town has now been destroyed and teachers are thinking retirement at an alarming rate so they do not have to deal with having to deal with the likes of you and your son.   

I am sure you are very proud of yourself.  Glad you finally caught up with that ambulance.

70190[/snapback]

The machine does not work unless every person plays his or her tiny role as a cog in the wheel. Critical thinking does make things harder for a public school but, that is what a public school in a free country should teach and appreciate. No other current student in the school has come out publicly and supported my position. They have told me privately, but not publicly.

You say moral is at an all time low, that teachers do not care about doing a good job, that they have lost their passion, that teachers are thinking retirement. If this is the case, then these teachers of which you speak are not true teachers.

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. " - Adolf Hitler

[Strife767]

Way to go hick. Why not head back to the Mid-East.

70189[/snapback]

This makes absolutely no sense--it's places in the middle east where you're most likely to find laws prohibiting flag-burning (which he's obviously not in favor of), you know.

[Strife767]

In case you have not seen it recently around Kearny Schools, moral is at an all time low. Teachers are just going through the motions without any feelings for doing a good job and again it shows in the students. The passion that they once put into their work is now gone. You have a second grade teacher at Lincoln School even falling asleep in the class room.

Reading that actually reminded me that that happened once or twice (always the same teacher, but I won't bother naming him/her) in KHS--during a test, even.

The pride that was once high in this town has now been destroyed and teachers are thinking retirement at an alarming rate so they do not have to deal with having to deal with the likes of you and your son.

Are you seriously suggesting that the prospect of being held to the standards the Constitution demands is literally enough to make KHS teachers not want to teach? Even if you are right (which I seriously doubt, as this is just another baseless accusation), that says far worse about the teachers than the LaClairs.

I am sure you are very proud of yourself.  Glad you finally caught up with that ambulance.

70190[/snapback]

You do realize petty remarks like these do nothing but reflect badly on you, don't you?