O'Franken getting higher ratings than the big fat idiot in NYC

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 70
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    OK you're either disingenuous or dumb. How does Rush get on on all those stations? ClearChannel et al are big companies. Who do big companies like? Dubya and the pandering filthy right-wing media like Faux and Rush. Duh?



    Look man, Rush is on because listeners want him, thus the stations PAY to carry his feed, they make it back with a percentage of commercials being local, non network spots and bamo, the station makes more money and pays for a show, thus premere makes $, local makes money and rush himself makes money.



    Libnet is working off of the "paid program/infomercial" model, buy the cheapest airtime you can get and try to sell products between rants and rank attempts at humor.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 70
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I think it's a bit too early to judge if they're going to fail or not. But if they are beating Rush at the same time slot, or even competing, that's fairly big news.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    The claims made here seem to be clearly qualified as to the extent and scope of what is being claimed. No one's try to claim Air America has Rush beat hands down in all ways everywhere... all that's being said is "Hey. This looks pretty good for a new radio program and a new network. These are good signs for potential future success."



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This is absurd. Absolutely absurd. These ratings don't mean Franken beat Rush in NYC. They don't. End of story.



    Classic straw man argument.



    Aquatic, I think the answer to your question is disingenuous at best.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,067member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Classic straw man argument.









    It's not straw man and you can't disqualify it as such. The ratings that have been linked to and quoted DO NOT mean that Franken beats Rush in NYC, because they account for two additional hours that Rush is not on the air. Rush's audience is so huge (20 million listeners per day) that the talk radio landscape completely changes after 12 p.m. Yet, being the absurd ASS that he is, Franken tries to twist this nonsense into "we're taking on Rush". And worse, the lefty brigade buys right into it.



    Speaking of straw man tactics, you should go back and look at what some of your like minded posters have to say. When someone points out how ridiculous it is to say "O'Franken getting higher ratings than the big fat idiot in NYC", such members resort to semantics and divert the attention from the real (and larger) issue: Air America is buying air time. It's no different than a commercial. Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck et al....they are supported by ad revenue. The listeners want it, so they stay on the air. The shows continue to add stations because there is profit for those stations. Air America and its lefty message won't succeed because their business model is competely backwards.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 70
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    Libnet is working off of the "paid program/infomercial" model, buy the cheapest airtime you can get and try to sell products between rants and rank attempts at humor



    OK so you're dumb. You just explained it to yourself. Who would companies want to fund more? Republicans, who are corrupt and for tax handouts to big business, or liberal radio, which is slanted against big companies and media monopolies? Big companies like each other and like keeping money. Thus they like Republicans. Don't be disingenuous. Look that up here btw. www.dictionary.com



    Quote:

    Air America and its lefty message won't succeed because their business model is competely backwards.



    Gee you think? Maybe because of a bunch of huge businesses funding the likes of ClearChannel. Because Republicans and Big Business have taken over America. At least for now. Unless Che Guevara sprouts out of nowhere or John Kerry orders a pair of testicles.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,067member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    OK so you're dumb. You just explained it to yourself. Who would companies want to fund more? Republicans, who are corrupt and for tax handouts to big business, or liberal radio, which is slanted against big companies and media monopolies? Big companies like each other and like keeping money. Thus they like Republicans. Don't be disingenuous. Look that up here btw. www.dictionary.com







    Gee you think? Maybe because of a bunch of huge businesses funding the likes of ClearChannel. Because Republicans and Big Business have taken over America. At least for now. Unless Che Guevara sprouts out of nowhere or John Kerry orders a pair of testicles.




    Oh! Those evil, fat, corrupt Republicans! As if Democrats aren't every bit as tied to Big Business. Secondly, this really doesn't even have much to do with big business in the first place. It's about local stations making money. That happens when ad time is sold. God forbid! Profits!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    I was liberal when I was younger and now that I'm married, own a house and two cars, I'm only a conservative one day out of the year: the day I write that big-assed check to pay my taxes (and believe me, it is usually a big-assed check...I guess I picked the wrong year to sell a house and make a sizeable profit off of it).



    Cheers

    Scott



    .




    Well imagine if you could ponder selling four or five of them. Then you would likely be a conservative for at least a couple weeks a year.



    Mid, if this is too personal for a public forum just pm me, but was this your primary residence? If so the gains should have been tax exempt up to $500,000 of gains. (assuming it was owned jointly by your wife and yourself, it is $250k if just owned by you)



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thegelding

    almost 43, own my home, three cars, etc etc...



    was raised a crazy liberal, will die a crazy liberal...



    the sound of rush limburger's voice causes pain to my intestines...



    and i am even a liberal 365 days a year, even on tax day...i love paying taxes...i live in the best country in the world, why wouldn't i want to support it??



    to me, all those repubs complaining about taxes are kinda unamerican





    g




    Hey gelding, good for you. I hope though that your brand of liberalism is still considered liberal when your kids begin defining it to you. I mean if one of those daughters has a boyfriend that just doesn't want to get married and makes her sit around for 10 years figuring it all out (while holding dead end jobs, borrowing money, and getting free milk from the cow so to speak, that you will be totally cool with it. I don't mean just tolerate it, I mean endorse it as a valid and fully equal choice.



    I had a dear friend in college that was my roommate. He was more than just a leftist. He was a full blown Communist. He was very cool, caring and exceptionally honest. The deal was of course that while very accepting he thought everyone would act as he did when all financial variables were equalized. I did not and that is basically where our belief systems diverged.



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 70
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I hope though that your brand of liberalism is still considered liberal when your kids begin defining it to you. I mean if one of those daughters has a boyfriend that just doesn't want to get married and makes her sit around for 10 years figuring it all out (while holding dead end jobs, borrowing money, and getting free milk from the cow so to speak, that you will be totally cool with it.



    So that's liberalism? Oh I see, you're saying that might be liberalism in the future. Who knows, maybe that will be conservatism in the future. I really don't get your point in bringing gelding's family into it and saying that somehow his liberalism will... I don't know, involve his daughter getting screwed over by her boyfriend somehow.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    So that's liberalism? Oh I see, you're saying that might be liberalism in the future. Who knows, maybe that will be conservatism in the future. I really don't get your point in bringing gelding's family into it and saying that somehow his liberalism will... I don't know, involve his daughter getting screwed over by her boyfriend somehow.



    I'm not bringing his family into it to be mean. I mention it because our beliefs are clearest when the stakes are highest.



    Also that isn't his daughter getting screwed over. It is a fully valid alternative lifestyle. Why should marriage, pursuit of money or any other such nonsense get in the way of one's happiness. Your prove my point exactly! Most people think that liberalism just means insuring all get a fair shake as we all pursue suburban bliss. They also think it means tolerance when what they really are asking for is endorsement.



    You call "screwed over" what is very much happening today. Marriage is being broadly abandoned by young people. Our legal institutions treat marriage as if it were still a lifetime commitment when most often it is not. It also still assumes traditional roles when true liberalism would let any roles be assumed, not just traditional ones.



    Let me ask you, if they were married, and he supported her while she worked a series of part-time jobs, would she be screwing him over? Of course not because, guess what, you are a liberal perhaps by say the definition of the 50's, but perhaps not by the definition of the twenty-first century.



    This is what I addressed by his children defining it to him. In 2004, it is fine for a woman to support a man. It is fine to marry down or not marry at all. That is my point. Don't assume the very tolerant lines you draw will be the same place your children will draw them. By their definition , you could be quite conservative. Gelding declared himself still very liberal. All I said is that liberalism might have changed. Non-marriage, supporting a partner who might not even work at all, or marrying or committing down in terms of finances or education are concepts that men have always had available for consideration. Women should too without it being seen as "screwing up their lives."



    You're sounding quite conservative there BRussell. You better get with the 21st century.



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 70
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    I had a dear friend in college that was my roommate. He was more than just a leftist. He was a full blown Communist. He was very cool, caring and exceptionally honest. The deal was of course that while very accepting he thought everyone would act as he did when all financial variables were equalized. I did not and that is basically where our belief systems diverged.



    Wait a minute so what you're saying is you're a cheapass. Who charges even his best friend for stuff? How many friends do you have? (that aren't republican! Those don't count! ) Ah you conservatives. Reminds me of the tightwads at URI in that call themselves Students for Awareness of Conservatism...or SAC. Heh. SAC.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Wait a minute so what you're saying is you're a cheapass. Who charges even his best friend for stuff? How many friends do you have? (that aren't republican! Those don't count! ) Ah you conservatives. Reminds me of the tightwads at URI in that call themselves Students for Awareness of Conservatism...or SAC. Heh. SAC.



    I don't quite get you Aquatic. I think perhaps you were reading too fast. I was saying that he believed the innate goodness of people would become a reality for all when economic equality had become a reality for all as well.



    I didn't mention anything about our living situation at all except for being roommates?!?!



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 70
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    It's not straw man and you can't disqualify it as such. The ratings that have been linked to and quoted DO NOT mean that Franken beats Rush in NYC, because they account for two additional hours that Rush is not on the air.



    Reread my post, and the posts I quoted including your own.



    Straw man.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 70
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    I don't have a whole lot to contribute to this debate other than to add this:



    If a liberal radio program starts outperforming competition in a liberal city amongst a demographic that is largely liberal, I don't see that as being very unexpected or big news. Perhaps that is just me though. And it's not meant to diminish any accomplishments, rather it just seems that it would be an inevitable eventuality.



    And the title of this thread sucks. But flame bait works I suppose...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 70
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    ANalogy:

    In 194*

    A freakshow comes to town, people go over to see the 2-headed man and the bearded lady, but after a week or two, NOBODY is comeing back for more, they are all going, as they did before to the local baseball games.



    Moral of the story

    libnet roll into town saying hay look at us, libws on am, WE-BE-FREAKS-OF-NATURE! Lots of people listen to O'Frankin for the same reasons that 9.5 out of 10 people slow down to see the 12 car pile up on any given metro free way in rush hour. (pun not intended.)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Look that evil conservative instrument, the New York Times is running bad news about AirAmerica radio. I'm amazed they could stop covering NASCAR long enough to find room for it.





    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 70
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I'm not bringing his family into it to be mean. I mention it because our beliefs are clearest when the stakes are highest.



    Also that isn't his daughter getting screwed over. It is a fully valid alternative lifestyle. Why should marriage, pursuit of money or any other such nonsense get in the way of one's happiness. Your prove my point exactly! Most people think that liberalism just means insuring all get a fair shake as we all pursue suburban bliss. They also think it means tolerance when what they really are asking for is endorsement.



    You call "screwed over" what is very much happening today. Marriage is being broadly abandoned by young people. Our legal institutions treat marriage as if it were still a lifetime commitment when most often it is not. It also still assumes traditional roles when true liberalism would let any roles be assumed, not just traditional ones.



    Let me ask you, if they were married, and he supported her while she worked a series of part-time jobs, would she be screwing him over? Of course not because, guess what, you are a liberal perhaps by say the definition of the 50's, but perhaps not by the definition of the twenty-first century.



    This is what I addressed by his children defining it to him. In 2004, it is fine for a woman to support a man. It is fine to marry down or not marry at all. That is my point. Don't assume the very tolerant lines you draw will be the same place your children will draw them. By their definition , you could be quite conservative. Gelding declared himself still very liberal. All I said is that liberalism might have changed. Non-marriage, supporting a partner who might not even work at all, or marrying or committing down in terms of finances or education are concepts that men have always had available for consideration. Women should too without it being seen as "screwing up their lives."



    You're sounding quite conservative there BRussell. You better get with the 21st century.



    Nick




    I still don't see what it has to do with liberalism as a political philosophy. At least not the liberalism that I know. The only way you get that is if you think liberalism = anything bad about society.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 70
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I still don't see what it has to do with liberalism as a political philosophy. At least not the liberalism that I know. The only way you get that is if you think liberalism = anything bad about society.



    I think he's implying that liberals are so open-minded that they're OK with anything.



    Never forget that old maxim:



    Liberals think conservatives are heartless and mean.

    Conservatives think liberals are stupid.



    Cheers

    Scott
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 70
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Hey gelding, good for you. I hope though that your brand of liberalism is still considered liberal when your kids begin defining it to you. I mean if one of those daughters has a boyfriend that just doesn't want to get married and makes her sit around for 10 years figuring it all out (while holding dead end jobs, borrowing money, and getting free milk from the cow so to speak, that you will be totally cool with it. I don't mean just tolerate it, I mean endorse it as a valid and fully equal choice.



    Hmm. Honestly, I think the problem here is that you're not writing anything here directly. You start with a platitude, then write a topic sentence about a possibly different future definition of liberalism, then follow that up with examples of how liberalism might be defined in the future-- but you never directly state what you're getting at. If there's a reason behind those examples, it's lost on me (and evidently unclear to other readers as well). I think you're trying to say that economic self-sufficiency is not a liberal position, or something about how liberals must tolerate some ill-defined behavior, just for the sake of tolerance.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 70
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    If a liberal radio program starts outperforming competition in a liberal city amongst a demographic that is largely liberal, I don't see that as being very unexpected or big news. Perhaps that is just me though. And it's not meant to diminish any accomplishments, rather it just seems that it would be an inevitable eventuality.



    Well this leaves two possibilities.



    One, it really is an accomplishment because for years everyone has said that liberal radio has no chance. If it is an accomplishment then kudos.



    or



    Two, it was an inevitability but conservative radio owners have been ignoring this profitable market for political reasons. Perhaps the 'firing' of Howard Stern is a good example of this.



    Either way I think it's worth discussing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I still don't see what it has to do with liberalism as a political philosophy. At least not the liberalism that I know. The only way you get that is if you think liberalism = anything bad about society.



    Liberalism is about maximizing personal freedoms. I proposed a scenario where a woman is free to marry down, be it intellectually or financially, or even to not marry at all.



    The reply from you is that I was suggesting she would be "screwed over." I attempted to clarify that I don't view that as her being screwed over. Rather it is more choices being available to her. She could also marry or have a relationship with someone much younger than her and have the likelyhood of it being socially being accepted to be much higher.



    My point is that what when people consider maximizing personal freedoms, they often think of others being able to exercise the choices they, themselves would exercise. The reality is that entirely different choices might be made. Choices that would leave older "liberals" looking conservative compared to their offspring. A parent might proclaim for example that they would be accepting of their child marrying someone from any race or religion, even any gender. However the reality is that marriage limits personal freedom and as a result, more and more young people choose not to indulge in it. That concept for example might not go over as well.



    Don't make this so hard to explain BRussell. I'm not suggesting some scenario where someone is out of control of their impulses, drug addicted, abusive or something of that nature. It is mearly an arrangement that would have been seen as destructive for the woman in the past. That was because the woman was considered unable to earn or care for herself by our society. However we know a woman can not only care for herself, but for others as well, including a partner or husband. Just as having a man work to support his wife isn't "screwing him over", neither is the reverse.



    But a lot of people still impulsively think it is, which of course shows that they still think about personal freedom along a lot of traditional lines.



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.