XM Dumps Ed Schultz for Dave Ramsey?

[David]

Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
time period (3-6P Eastern).

[Von Fourche]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
> time period (3-6P Eastern).


And I am royally ticked about it. There are plenty of conservative talk
shows on XM. They don't need to be getting rid of liberal talk shows.

All I want to know is who do I e-mail? XM or Clear Channel? One of
both of them are getting an angry e-mail from me.

[John Smith]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
> time period (3-6P Eastern).

Ed is a bad as Rush - don't listen to either. Dave Ramsey was already on,
wish they would get someone better.

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Smith]

"Von Fourche" <Khonakong@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eY2Hg.13064$xp2.5048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
> news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
>> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
>> time period (3-6P Eastern).
>
>
> And I am royally ticked about it. There are plenty of conservative
> talk shows on XM. They don't need to be getting rid of liberal talk
> shows.
>
> All I want to know is who do I e-mail? XM or Clear Channel? One of
> both of them are getting an angry e-mail from me.
>

AAR is on all day long, isn't that enough?

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:33:14 GMT, "Von Fourche"
<Khonakong@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
>> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
>> time period (3-6P Eastern).
>
>
> And I am royally ticked about it. There are plenty of conservative talk
>shows on XM. They don't need to be getting rid of liberal talk shows.
>
> All I want to know is who do I e-mail? XM or Clear Channel? One of
>both of them are getting an angry e-mail from me.
>
Who do you write the check to?

[Leigh]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:23:47 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>"Von Fourche" <Khonakong@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eY2Hg.13064$xp2.5048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>> news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
>>> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
>>> time period (3-6P Eastern).
>>
>>
>> And I am royally ticked about it. There are plenty of conservative
>> talk shows on XM. They don't need to be getting rid of liberal talk
>> shows.
>>
>> All I want to know is who do I e-mail? XM or Clear Channel? One of
>> both of them are getting an angry e-mail from me.
>>
>
>AAR is on all day long, isn't that enough?

They also have a Conservative Talk station all day long, Two Fox
stations all day long, and the "Christian" station all day long. (I
have not actually listened to Christian Talk. While I might enjoy true
christian talk, it is often used as a code word for neo-con and I am
therefor suspicious of it.) This does not even include all the
conservative hosts on the supposed non partisan talk stations. Sean
Hannity is on constantly. There is therefor a very clear and obvious
bias toward the right-wing.
remove 1st letter of e-mail address when replying

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work
without any intention of paying for it.
I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major-label recording contracts."

Courtney Love
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lowdown in Lodi]

>>AAR is on all day long, isn't that enough?
>
> They also have a Conservative Talk station all day long, Two Fox
> stations all day long, and the "Christian" station all day long. (I
> have not actually listened to Christian Talk. While I might enjoy true
> christian talk, it is often used as a code word for neo-con and I am
> therefor suspicious of it.) This does not even include all the
> conservative hosts on the supposed non partisan talk stations. Sean
> Hannity is on constantly. There is therefor a very clear and obvious
> bias toward the right-wing.

No.

The reality is there is very little liberal radio programming that people
will listen to. For whatever reason, there has never been a liberal Rush
Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, someone who really can create an entertaining show
with a Leftist attitude.

That's why AAR was created in the first place; because every major liberal
talk show had failed miserably to hold any audience whatsoever (Jim
Hightower was their best shot I think, and it was an abysmal failure). For
whatever reason, liberals have been unable to put together any compelling
talk radio. Instead, them come up with an Al Franken who, rather than
making reasonable cases for his position, just comes across like a lying
attack dog who will say anything to bash the Republicans. Limbaugh and
Hannity have audiences because they, while being extremely conservative,
make good arguments for their positions.

Maybe liberals just don't like to listen to the radio, I don't know. XM's
management, for the most part, is comprised of liberals; but you can't
expect them to put on liberal programming if it doesn't hold an audience.

[David]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:58:09 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:


>
>Maybe liberals just don't like to listen to the radio, I don't know.

Maybe they listen to fact based programming for grownups, like NPR.

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> Maybe they listen to fact based programming for grownups, like NPR.

Fact based? Not sure I'd call it THAT. But, it is definitely more
insidious.

I used to listen to NPR constantly (before satellite radio), and while the
programming was excellent at times, the anti-American, liberal bias was
annoying. If you don't know what you're getting (as with the typical
listener), it could be very much like brainwashing.

NPR can be just about as bad as BBC at times.

[David]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:34:05 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:

>> Maybe they listen to fact based programming for grownups, like NPR.
>
>Fact based? Not sure I'd call it THAT. But, it is definitely more
>insidious.
>
>I used to listen to NPR constantly (before satellite radio), and while the
>programming was excellent at times, the anti-American, liberal bias was
>annoying. If you don't know what you're getting (as with the typical
>listener), it could be very much like brainwashing.
>
>NPR can be just about as bad as BBC at times.
>
Exactly. The brainwashed cretin thinks impartiality is biased because
it makes his fascist construct look bad.

[Dr. Droo]

David wrote:
> Exactly. The brainwashed cretin thinks impartiality is biased because
> it makes his fascist construct look bad.

It could just be that public radio is dry and boring as sin too.

I can listen to those talking heads provide their interpretation of the
situation, or I can go read many different interpretations online and
then go read the comments on Fark.com or Jack's Newswatch about the
topic. There's certainly a lot of polarity on these sites. It's not
an exact science, but I can do that in less time than digesting NPRs
bantering.

I don't have bad things to say of the BBC World Service, but it's a
source like any other. Well-rounded individuals seek out many sources
with differing spin on the same topic. The 'news' is created by people
and all news has some sort of spin and differing in writing style.

To put it bluntly - Any individual who focuses solely on one source and
one direction for anything is a 'brainwashed cretin'. The 'fascist
construct' you speak of tends to lack deviation from the 'provided'
news materials.

--D

[David]

On 24 Aug 2006 09:11:08 -0700, "Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> Exactly. The brainwashed cretin thinks impartiality is biased because
>> it makes his fascist construct look bad.
>
>It could just be that public radio is dry and boring as sin too.
>
>I can listen to those talking heads provide their interpretation of the
>situation, or I can go read many different interpretations online and
>then go read the comments on Fark.com or Jack's Newswatch about the
>topic. There's certainly a lot of polarity on these sites. It's not
>an exact science, but I can do that in less time than digesting NPRs
>bantering.
>
>I don't have bad things to say of the BBC World Service, but it's a
>source like any other. Well-rounded individuals seek out many sources
>with differing spin on the same topic. The 'news' is created by people
>and all news has some sort of spin and differing in writing style.
>
>To put it bluntly - Any individual who focuses solely on one source and
>one direction for anything is a 'brainwashed cretin'. The 'fascist
>construct' you speak of tends to lack deviation from the 'provided'
>news materials.
>
>--D
The BBCWS has a slant, but it is consistent and rarely is exhibited
beyond vocal inflection (the audio equivalent of a raised eyebrow?) or
interview style. The facts presented in their straight newscasts are
overwhelming in line with reality. It ain't like Hannity or Limbaugh
just making stuff up.

[Dr. Droo]

David wrote:
> The BBCWS has a slant, but it is consistent and rarely is exhibited
> beyond vocal inflection (the audio equivalent of a raised eyebrow?) or
> interview style. The facts presented in their straight newscasts are
> overwhelming in line with reality. It ain't like Hannity or Limbaugh
> just making stuff up.

Hannity and Limbaugh aren't newscasters, they're radio talk show hosts.


As for your 'overwhelmingly in line with reality', I'm sure you're
going all over the world as each event is going on and making sure of
this. Unless you are, your guess is as good as mine as to if what
Reuters, AP and other sources are providing.

--D

[John Smith]

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson
"Leigh" <sleighpatrick@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4d7re25hfqf64ilcvf88reinekeekkjfm4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:23:47 -0500, "John Smith"
> <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Von Fourche" <Khonakong@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eY2Hg.13064$xp2.5048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
>>>> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
>>>> time period (3-6P Eastern).
>>>
>>>
>>> And I am royally ticked about it. There are plenty of conservative
>>> talk shows on XM. They don't need to be getting rid of liberal talk
>>> shows.
>>>
>>> All I want to know is who do I e-mail? XM or Clear Channel? One of
>>> both of them are getting an angry e-mail from me.
>>>
>>
>>AAR is on all day long, isn't that enough?
>
> They also have a Conservative Talk station all day long, Two Fox
> stations all day long, and the "Christian" station all day long. (I
> have not actually listened to Christian Talk. While I might enjoy true
> christian talk, it is often used as a code word for neo-con and I am
> therefor suspicious of it.) This does not even include all the
> conservative hosts on the supposed non partisan talk stations. Sean
> Hannity is on constantly. There is therefor a very clear and obvious
> bias toward the right-wing.
> remove 1st letter of e-mail address when replying
>

Not really. You left out all the MSM, plus NPR, BBC, etc. all left wing.
But that was not my point. I was just saying there was other left wing
channels available. I don't listen to Hannity (or Limbaugh for that matter)
so I couldn't tell you about them. I do like Coast to Coast - that is one
funny show.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Smith]

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson
"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:hipre2ttlp73b5ie8emugtt4uttv2tou99@4ax.com...
> On 24 Aug 2006 09:11:08 -0700, "Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>> Exactly. The brainwashed cretin thinks impartiality is biased because
>>> it makes his fascist construct look bad.
>>
>>It could just be that public radio is dry and boring as sin too.
>>
>>I can listen to those talking heads provide their interpretation of the
>>situation, or I can go read many different interpretations online and
>>then go read the comments on Fark.com or Jack's Newswatch about the
>>topic. There's certainly a lot of polarity on these sites. It's not
>>an exact science, but I can do that in less time than digesting NPRs
>>bantering.
>>
>>I don't have bad things to say of the BBC World Service, but it's a
>>source like any other. Well-rounded individuals seek out many sources
>>with differing spin on the same topic. The 'news' is created by people
>>and all news has some sort of spin and differing in writing style.
>>
>>To put it bluntly - Any individual who focuses solely on one source and
>>one direction for anything is a 'brainwashed cretin'. The 'fascist
>>construct' you speak of tends to lack deviation from the 'provided'
>>news materials.
>>
>>--D
> The BBCWS has a slant, but it is consistent and rarely is exhibited
> beyond vocal inflection (the audio equivalent of a raised eyebrow?) or
> interview style. The facts presented in their straight newscasts are
> overwhelming in line with reality. It ain't like Hannity or Limbaugh
> just making stuff up.

Oh you mean like this overwhelming in line with reality story?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/29/hutton.blair/index.html
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The BBC has apologized to the government of Prime
Minister Tony Blair following a damning report into the suicide of a British
expert on Iraqi weapons.

Or this one:

BBC story on Dow Chemical responsibility a hoax

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B6FE956FC-F093-4C49-BE6F-78B487379188%7D&siteid=google&dist=google

How about this one:

BBC uses false photo on NK explosion

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=10641



I like the BBC and in the past they were really great. They have been
slowly but surely moving to the left, but I still enjoy listening to them -
I just take all they say with a large grain of salt.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On 24 Aug 2006 11:01:03 -0700, "Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> The BBCWS has a slant, but it is consistent and rarely is exhibited
>> beyond vocal inflection (the audio equivalent of a raised eyebrow?) or
>> interview style. The facts presented in their straight newscasts are
>> overwhelming in line with reality. It ain't like Hannity or Limbaugh
>> just making stuff up.
>
>Hannity and Limbaugh aren't newscasters, they're radio talk show hosts.
>
>
>As for your 'overwhelmingly in line with reality', I'm sure you're
>going all over the world as each event is going on and making sure of
>this. Unless you are, your guess is as good as mine as to if what
>Reuters, AP and other sources are providing.
>
>--D
The World Service is under a hundred microscopes. When they take
liberty with the facts it's front-page news worldwide.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/02/15/broadcast_blues/

That being said, I listen to WRN for Kol Israel too.

[David]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:56:25 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1257981.htm

[David]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:38:01 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>Not really. You left out all the MSM, plus NPR, BBC, etc. all left wing.
>But that was not my point. I was just saying there was other left wing
>channels available. I don't listen to Hannity (or Limbaugh for that matter)
>so I couldn't tell you about them. I do like Coast to Coast - that is one
>funny show.

I don't see where lumping the BBC and NPR in with infotainment news
sources is logical or productive. To assert that General Electric or
Newscorp are ''left wing'' is assinine.

[Lowdown in Lodi]

>>>> The BBCWS has a slant, but it is consistent and rarely is exhibited
>>>> beyond vocal inflection (the audio equivalent of a raised eyebrow?) or
>>>> interview style.

When I talked about "brainwashing", this is precisely what I meant.

People become convinced they're getting unbiased reporting when they are
getting a double-ultra-extreme leftist agenda.

[David]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:48:07 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:

>>>>> The BBCWS has a slant, but it is consistent and rarely is exhibited
>>>>> beyond vocal inflection (the audio equivalent of a raised eyebrow?) or
>>>>> interview style.
>
>When I talked about "brainwashing", this is precisely what I meant.
>
>People become convinced they're getting unbiased reporting when they are
>getting a double-ultra-extreme leftist agenda.
>
Can you give an example that shows such an agenda?

Do you believe the news on your TV?

[Von Fourche]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
> time period (3-6P Eastern).


I've finally realized they are cutting Schultz's time. Many are
predicting Democrats have a great chance to win back the House of Senate.
This is big businesses attempt to fight the tide buy axing a popular liberal
talk show host. Well, screw Clear Channel. After the Democrats regain
control I hope they gut the hell out of "anti-free speech" Clear Channel.

[Leigh]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:58:09 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:

>
>The reality is there is very little liberal radio programming that people
>will listen to. For whatever reason, there has never been a liberal Rush
>Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, someone who really can create an entertaining show
>with a Leftist attitude.
>
Unfortunately for most of the mindless public, lies are much more
entertaining than truth.

>That's why AAR was created in the first place; because every major liberal
>talk show had failed miserably to hold any audience whatsoever (Jim
>Hightower was their best shot I think, and it was an abysmal failure).
>
Actually it was created because most media is controlled by a few
large corporations. While it is ridiculous on it's face to suggest
that these corporations interests lie with democrats, some still
believe in the liberal media myth. Just check the facts. Public
election finance records prove that they give far more to republicans
than democrats.

>For
>whatever reason, liberals have been unable to put together any compelling
>talk radio. Instead, them come up with an Al Franken who, rather than
>making reasonable cases for his position, just comes across like a lying
>attack dog who will say anything to bash the Republicans.
>
Have you actually ever listened to Al Franken. Somewhat boring yes,
but an attack dog, hardly. The only ones who call him an attack dog
are right wing pundits because he points out their lies and backs it
up with facts. Actually he mixes intelligent and reasoned talk with
really bad, boring humor. Listen to it for one week and then tell me
if you still consider him an attack dog, assuming you can tolerate his
humor for that long. (BTW, don't bother next week. He will be on
vacation.)

> Limbaugh and
>Hannity have audiences because they, while being extremely conservative,
>make good arguments for their positions.
>
That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
One of the best liberal radio shows, IMHO, is Stephanie Miller of The
Jones Radio Network and Sirius (one of the few reasons I considered
Sirius over XM). She starts her show with "Right Wing World" in which
she plays clips of Hannity, Rush and their ilk while pointing out
their lies. She almost always has enough of their lies to fill the
first hour and sometimes more.
I highly recommend her show. It's intelligent but absolutely hilarious
(as she describes it, a mensa meeting with fart jokes).
Another recommendation is Rachel Maddow on AAR. Also funny although
more serious than Stephanie Miller. Also more straight news oriented.

remove 1st letter of e-mail address when replying

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work
without any intention of paying for it.
I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major-label recording contracts."

Courtney Love
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[John Smith]

"Leigh" <sleighpatrick@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aeqte2tu13i58l0st6ejga20c8jselp57g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:58:09 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>The reality is there is very little liberal radio programming that people
>>will listen to. For whatever reason, there has never been a liberal Rush
>>Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, someone who really can create an entertaining
>>show
>>with a Leftist attitude.
>>
> Unfortunately for most of the mindless public, lies are much more
> entertaining than truth.
>

The people on AAR have the same elitist attitude you show here, and it comes
through loud and clear. This turns a lot of people off - probably why few
people listen to AAR.

>>That's why AAR was created in the first place; because every major liberal
>>talk show had failed miserably to hold any audience whatsoever (Jim
>>Hightower was their best shot I think, and it was an abysmal failure).
>>
> Actually it was created because most media is controlled by a few
> large corporations. While it is ridiculous on it's face to suggest
> that these corporations interests lie with democrats, some still
> believe in the liberal media myth. Just check the facts. Public
> election finance records prove that they give far more to republicans
> than democrats.

Please give cites for those financial records.

If Newscorp is so conservative then why is Rupert Murdock hosting a
fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and why is Hillary attending a FOX NEWS
anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch?

>
>>For
>>whatever reason, liberals have been unable to put together any compelling
>>talk radio. Instead, them come up with an Al Franken who, rather than
>>making reasonable cases for his position, just comes across like a lying
>>attack dog who will say anything to bash the Republicans.
>>
> Have you actually ever listened to Al Franken. Somewhat boring yes,
> but an attack dog, hardly. The only ones who call him an attack dog
> are right wing pundits because he points out their lies and backs it
> up with facts. Actually he mixes intelligent and reasoned talk with
> really bad, boring humor. Listen to it for one week and then tell me
> if you still consider him an attack dog, assuming you can tolerate his
> humor for that long. (BTW, don't bother next week. He will be on
> vacation.)

>> Limbaugh and
>>Hannity have audiences because they, while being extremely conservative,
>>make good arguments for their positions.
>>
> That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
> One of the best liberal radio shows, IMHO, is Stephanie Miller of The
> Jones Radio Network and Sirius (one of the few reasons I considered
> Sirius over XM). She starts her show with "Right Wing World" in which
> she plays clips of Hannity, Rush and their ilk while pointing out
> their lies. She almost always has enough of their lies to fill the
> first hour and sometimes more.
> I highly recommend her show. It's intelligent but absolutely hilarious
> (as she describes it, a mensa meeting with fart jokes).
> Another recommendation is Rachel Maddow on AAR. Also funny although
> more serious than Stephanie Miller. Also more straight news oriented.

The few times I have heard Limbaugh or Hannity, they did the same thing.
Took clips of liberals and pointed out the lies, that just gets boring.


--
"Anybody who deliberately propagandizes with lies should be held up to scorn
and ridicule" - Al Franken



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:34:21 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>

>
>The people on AAR have the same elitist attitude you show here, and it comes
>through loud and clear. This turns a lot of people off - probably why few
>people listen to AAR.

The Neorepublicans and their supporters are the epitome of elitism.
To label the loyal opposition as such is deflection at best.
>
>If Newscorp is so conservative then why is Rupert Murdock hosting a
>fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and why is Hillary attending a FOX NEWS
>anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch?
>
Because Hillary is a -----?

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> Can you give an example that shows such an agenda?

Nothing specific since I don't listen to the channel. But BBC has an
extreme anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Arab slant.

> Do you believe the news on your TV?

Not unless reported by multiple services; but I listen to a mix of FNC, CNN,
MSNBC (not much), and the BBC on my local PBS channel, and thanks to FNC I
am able to come up with a reasonable composite. Without FNC, you might as
well be watching Al Jazeera.

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:59:18 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:

>> Can you give an example that shows such an agenda?
>
>Nothing specific since I don't listen to the channel. But BBC has an
>extreme anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Arab slant.
>
That's funny because if anything the Beeb has a pro USA/UK slant. It
has even been accused of being a propaganda arm for the CIA and MI6.

I'm inclined to believe you are a closed minded partisan and quite
willing to believe people who are shilling for the corporatists.

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> That's funny because if anything the Beeb has a pro USA/UK slant.

ROTFLMAO.

Sounds like the brainwashing worked well on you. Some people are really
susceptable to it.

[Lowdown in Lodi]

>>>The reality is there is very little liberal radio programming that people
>>>will listen to. For whatever reason, there has never been a liberal Rush
>>>Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, someone who really can create an entertaining
>>>show
>>>with a Leftist attitude.
>>>
>> Unfortunately for most of the mindless public, lies are much more
>> entertaining than truth.
>>
>
> The people on AAR have the same elitist attitude you show here, and it
> comes through loud and clear. This turns a lot of people off - probably
> why few people listen to AAR.

AAR should be considered an absolute embarrassment for the Left. The
material presented there is totally consistent with the problem the
political Left has right now -- so far out of the mainstream, "Win At All
Costs" mentality.

At least Limbaugh and Hannity, while entertaining, do not misrepresent the
facts. While a person may not agree with their opinions (and I often
don't), I don't hear them reporting lies and misrepresentation the way the
crew at AAR does.

>> Actually it was created because most media is controlled by a few
>> large corporations. While it is ridiculous on it's face to suggest
>> that these corporations interests lie with democrats, some still
>> believe in the liberal media myth. Just check the facts. Public
>> election finance records prove that they give far more to republicans
>> than democrats.

Oh, crap. You need to do some homework. AAR was created solely in an
effort by the Left to have some representation on the radio, since every
liberal radio show has been canned for a lack of ratings in short order.


> If Newscorp is so conservative then why is Rupert Murdock hosting a
> fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and why is Hillary attending a FOX NEWS
> anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch?

Exactly.

>> Have you actually ever listened to Al Franken. Somewhat boring yes,
>> but an attack dog, hardly.

Attack dog. Yes, I've listened to him and he is a freaking idiot with a
microphone. And boring to boot.

But more than anything he is an out-and-out liar. There are excellent
representatives for the Left who could attract people to the Leftist cause.
But when you have the Left being run, literally, by the likes of Howard Dean
and Nancy Pelosi, nobody is going to take them seriously.


>>> The only ones who call him an attack dog
>> are right wing pundits because he points out their lies and backs it
>> up with facts. Actually he mixes intelligent and reasoned talk with
>> really bad, boring humor.

Give me a break. "Intelligent and reasoned"? The guy is a total idiot.
Clueless.

>> Listen to it for one week and then tell me
>> if you still consider him an attack dog

I've tried to listen to him on and off. He's has only gotten worse over
time.

>> That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
>> One of the best liberal radio shows, IMHO, is Stephanie Miller of The
>> Jones Radio Network and Sirius (one of the few reasons I considered
>> Sirius over XM). She starts her show with "Right Wing World" in which
>> she plays clips of Hannity, Rush and their ilk while pointing out
>> their lies. She almost always has enough of their lies to fill the
>> first hour and sometimes more.

Liberals have a way of calling anything they disagree with "lies". Sarcasm
is okay for Franken but not Limbaugh. I've listened to Hannity a lot, and
while he is far too conservative for my views, but the man is not a liar.

[GS]

I always wondered why neither XM or Sirius offer the excellent, hour
long, investigative news program "Democracy Now!". It is on DISH ch
9415 and DIRECT TV ch 375. I watch it daily and it is very good... but
when I am not near the TV, it'd be nice to have it on satellite radio.

GS


On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:51:15 GMT, Leigh <sleighpatrick@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:58:09 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The reality is there is very little liberal radio programming that people
>>will listen to. For whatever reason, there has never been a liberal Rush
>>Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, someone who really can create an entertaining show
>>with a Leftist attitude.
>>
>Unfortunately for most of the mindless public, lies are much more
>entertaining than truth.
>
>>That's why AAR was created in the first place; because every major liberal
>>talk show had failed miserably to hold any audience whatsoever (Jim
>>Hightower was their best shot I think, and it was an abysmal failure).
>>
>Actually it was created because most media is controlled by a few
>large corporations. While it is ridiculous on it's face to suggest
>that these corporations interests lie with democrats, some still
>believe in the liberal media myth. Just check the facts. Public
>election finance records prove that they give far more to republicans
>than democrats.
>
>>For
>>whatever reason, liberals have been unable to put together any compelling
>>talk radio. Instead, them come up with an Al Franken who, rather than
>>making reasonable cases for his position, just comes across like a lying
>>attack dog who will say anything to bash the Republicans.
>>
>Have you actually ever listened to Al Franken. Somewhat boring yes,
>but an attack dog, hardly. The only ones who call him an attack dog
>are right wing pundits because he points out their lies and backs it
>up with facts. Actually he mixes intelligent and reasoned talk with
>really bad, boring humor. Listen to it for one week and then tell me
>if you still consider him an attack dog, assuming you can tolerate his
>humor for that long. (BTW, don't bother next week. He will be on
>vacation.)
>
>> Limbaugh and
>>Hannity have audiences because they, while being extremely conservative,
>>make good arguments for their positions.
>>
>That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
>One of the best liberal radio shows, IMHO, is Stephanie Miller of The
>Jones Radio Network and Sirius (one of the few reasons I considered
>Sirius over XM). She starts her show with "Right Wing World" in which
>she plays clips of Hannity, Rush and their ilk while pointing out
>their lies. She almost always has enough of their lies to fill the
>first hour and sometimes more.
>I highly recommend her show. It's intelligent but absolutely hilarious
>(as she describes it, a mensa meeting with fart jokes).
>Another recommendation is Rachel Maddow on AAR. Also funny although
>more serious than Stephanie Miller. Also more straight news oriented.
>
>remove 1st letter of e-mail address when replying
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work
> without any intention of paying for it.
> I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
> I'm talking about major-label recording contracts."
>
> Courtney Love
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GS]

I'd like to see the return of the fairness doctrine.

GS

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 05:19:12 GMT, "Von Fourche"
<Khonakong@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>news:qvape252o5k4f1fhesdn9pveg5i5ggicq3@4ax.com...
>> Schultz gets one hour a day on Extreme. Schultz is #1 talker in his
>> time period (3-6P Eastern).
>
>
> I've finally realized they are cutting Schultz's time. Many are
>predicting Democrats have a great chance to win back the House of Senate.
>This is big businesses attempt to fight the tide buy axing a popular liberal
>talk show host. Well, screw Clear Channel. After the Democrats regain
>control I hope they gut the hell out of "anti-free speech" Clear Channel.
>

[Dr. Droo]

Lowdown in Lodi wrote:
> ROTFLMAO.
>
> Sounds like the brainwashing worked well on you. Some people are really
> susceptable to it.

Now now, we know extreme leftists aren't brainwashed, only extreme
right folks are. The extreme left individuals are 'very informed'
instead.

Sorry, was laughing too hard while typing that. Extremists are largely
uninformed in general, thats why they're extremists..

--D

[John Smith]

"Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156529261.703750.205750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Lowdown in Lodi wrote:
>> ROTFLMAO.
>>
>> Sounds like the brainwashing worked well on you. Some people are really
>> susceptable to it.
>
> Now now, we know extreme leftists aren't brainwashed, only extreme
> right folks are. The extreme left individuals are 'very informed'
> instead.
>
> Sorry, was laughing too hard while typing that. Extremists are largely
> uninformed in general, thats why they're extremists..
>
> --D
>

Exactly, doesn't matter which side, right or left, the zelots are just
mirror images.

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:15:48 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:


>Oh, crap. You need to do some homework. AAR was created solely in an
>effort by the Left to have some representation on the radio, since every
>liberal radio show has been canned for a lack of ratings in short order.
>
Ed Schultz (the subject of this thread) is not affiliated with Air
America. In fact, he was already up and running before they started
and has as many listeners as all of Air America put together.

I just find it odd that XM would dis him, considering the fact they
put crap like Rolleye James on 3 hours a day.

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:08 -0700, GS <GS@nospam.net> wrote:

>I always wondered why neither XM or Sirius offer the excellent, hour
>long, investigative news program "Democracy Now!". It is on DISH ch
>9415 and DIRECT TV ch 375. I watch it daily and it is very good... but
>when I am not near the TV, it'd be nice to have it on satellite radio.
>
Sirius used to carry it.

[John Smith]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:beiue29c1b5omjr56art37voh2rvgdjcs0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:15:48 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, crap. You need to do some homework. AAR was created solely in an
>>effort by the Left to have some representation on the radio, since every
>>liberal radio show has been canned for a lack of ratings in short order.
>>
> Ed Schultz (the subject of this thread) is not affiliated with Air
> America. In fact, he was already up and running before they started
> and has as many listeners as all of Air America put together.
>
> I just find it odd that XM would dis him, considering the fact they
> put crap like Rolleye James on 3 hours a day.

You got that right!

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bonehenge]

>> I just find it odd that XM would dis him, considering the fact they
>> put crap like Rolleye James on 3 hours a day.

I have a funny feeling she's cheap. Don't forget, providers have to
pay per hour to air talk shows. Prices vary widely based on the
talker.

[John Smith]

"Bonehenge" <DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> wrote in message
news:vique2dg0tdf963bq3d2llkrr70981h730@4ax.com...
>>> I just find it odd that XM would dis him, considering the fact they
>>> put crap like Rolleye James on 3 hours a day.
>
> I have a funny feeling she's cheap. Don't forget, providers have to
> pay per hour to air talk shows. Prices vary widely based on the
> talker.

Could be, but the truckers really love her. She probably has really good
ratings. I just don't find her very interesting.

She sure doesn't look like her voice.

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:25:03 GMT, Bonehenge
<DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> wrote:

>>> I just find it odd that XM would dis him, considering the fact they
>>> put crap like Rolleye James on 3 hours a day.
>
>I have a funny feeling she's cheap. Don't forget, providers have to
>pay per hour to air talk shows. Prices vary widely based on the
>talker.
Not necessarily. Many shows are provided free as long as the national
spots run. Some shows pay their air time (like Bill O'Reilly).

[denis]

In article <8fGHg.11395$1f6.6388@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, Lowdown
in Lodi <Lodi@lowdown.com> wrote:

> At least Limbaugh and Hannity, while entertaining, do not misrepresent the
> facts. While a person may not agree with their opinions (and I often
> don't), I don't hear them reporting lies and misrepresentation the way the
> crew at AAR does.

You don't???
Rush still thinks that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed...
And the two face bastard wants all drung uses in jail, until he's the
one and we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he hs an
illness...

They don't have to check their facts because the "ditto heads" don't
challenge them...

We you listen to Rush and his ilk, don't forget to leave your brains at
the door, and pick up your crayons!!!

[GS]

Here is the real reason... fucking clear channel!

GS

Thank you for contacting XM Satellite Radio.

In response to your email we do apologize for the inconvenience that
this change in our regular line up may cause; Ed Schultz will now be
heard from 4pm-5pm ET Weekdays.

This show is going from 3 hours to 1 hour.

Ask/Talk Radio 165 and Extreme 152 are being programmed by Clear
Channel

Communications. If you have questions or comments about either of
these channels may send them directly to the programmers at
SunnyXM@clearchannel.com


On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:08:04 GMT, David <rickets@knac.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:15:48 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, crap. You need to do some homework. AAR was created solely in an
>>effort by the Left to have some representation on the radio, since every
>>liberal radio show has been canned for a lack of ratings in short order.
>>
>Ed Schultz (the subject of this thread) is not affiliated with Air
>America. In fact, he was already up and running before they started
>and has as many listeners as all of Air America put together.
>
>I just find it odd that XM would dis him, considering the fact they
>put crap like Rolleye James on 3 hours a day.

[GS]

Yeah, I know that. It used to be on a spanish language channel... then
they dropped it regardless of the complaints and continuing requests.

GS


On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:08:48 GMT, David <rickets@knac.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:08 -0700, GS <GS@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I always wondered why neither XM or Sirius offer the excellent, hour
>>long, investigative news program "Democracy Now!". It is on DISH ch
>>9415 and DIRECT TV ch 375. I watch it daily and it is very good... but
>>when I am not near the TV, it'd be nice to have it on satellite radio.
>>
>Sirius used to carry it.

[Bonehenge]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>Could be, but the truckers really love her.

I noticed that the few times I've listened to her. I'll bet there's
a lot of satellite radio in the big rigs.

[Leigh]

An excellent show which would be a great addition to satellite radio.
We get Democracy Now on FM in the Boston area.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:08 -0700, GS <GS@nospam.net> wrote:

>I always wondered why neither XM or Sirius offer the excellent, hour
>long, investigative news program "Democracy Now!". It is on DISH ch
>9415 and DIRECT TV ch 375. I watch it daily and it is very good... but
>when I am not near the TV, it'd be nice to have it on satellite radio.
>
>GS
>
>
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:51:15 GMT, Leigh <sleighpatrick@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:58:09 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The reality is there is very little liberal radio programming that people
>>>will listen to. For whatever reason, there has never been a liberal Rush
>>>Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, someone who really can create an entertaining show
>>>with a Leftist attitude.
>>>
>>Unfortunately for most of the mindless public, lies are much more
>>entertaining than truth.
>>
>>>That's why AAR was created in the first place; because every major liberal
>>>talk show had failed miserably to hold any audience whatsoever (Jim
>>>Hightower was their best shot I think, and it was an abysmal failure).
>>>
>>Actually it was created because most media is controlled by a few
>>large corporations. While it is ridiculous on it's face to suggest
>>that these corporations interests lie with democrats, some still
>>believe in the liberal media myth. Just check the facts. Public
>>election finance records prove that they give far more to republicans
>>than democrats.
>>
>>>For
>>>whatever reason, liberals have been unable to put together any compelling
>>>talk radio. Instead, them come up with an Al Franken who, rather than
>>>making reasonable cases for his position, just comes across like a lying
>>>attack dog who will say anything to bash the Republicans.
>>>
>>Have you actually ever listened to Al Franken. Somewhat boring yes,
>>but an attack dog, hardly. The only ones who call him an attack dog
>>are right wing pundits because he points out their lies and backs it
>>up with facts. Actually he mixes intelligent and reasoned talk with
>>really bad, boring humor. Listen to it for one week and then tell me
>>if you still consider him an attack dog, assuming you can tolerate his
>>humor for that long. (BTW, don't bother next week. He will be on
>>vacation.)
>>
>>> Limbaugh and
>>>Hannity have audiences because they, while being extremely conservative,
>>>make good arguments for their positions.
>>>
>>That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
>>One of the best liberal radio shows, IMHO, is Stephanie Miller of The
>>Jones Radio Network and Sirius (one of the few reasons I considered
>>Sirius over XM). She starts her show with "Right Wing World" in which
>>she plays clips of Hannity, Rush and their ilk while pointing out
>>their lies. She almost always has enough of their lies to fill the
>>first hour and sometimes more.
>>I highly recommend her show. It's intelligent but absolutely hilarious
>>(as she describes it, a mensa meeting with fart jokes).
>>Another recommendation is Rachel Maddow on AAR. Also funny although
>>more serious than Stephanie Miller. Also more straight news oriented.
>>
>>remove 1st letter of e-mail address when replying
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work
>> without any intention of paying for it.
>> I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
>> I'm talking about major-label recording contracts."
>>
>> Courtney Love
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

remove 1st letter of e-mail address when replying

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work
without any intention of paying for it.
I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major-label recording contracts."

Courtney Love
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:08:25 -0700, GS <GS@nospam.net> wrote:

>Here is the real reason... fucking clear channel!
>
>GS
>
>Thank you for contacting XM Satellite Radio.
>
>In response to your email we do apologize for the inconvenience that
>this change in our regular line up may cause; Ed Schultz will now be
>heard from 4pm-5pm ET Weekdays.
>
>This show is going from 3 hours to 1 hour.
>
>Ask/Talk Radio 165 and Extreme 152 are being programmed by Clear
>Channel
>
>Communications. If you have questions or comments about either of
>these channels may send them directly to the programmers at
>SunnyXM@clearchannel.com
>
>
That's a lame-ass cop-out on XM's part.

Who is Todd Schnitt and why is he on 3 hours a day on 152?

[John Smith]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:5rl0f25h98allihgb6bop6bs93dmgvl83k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:08:25 -0700, GS <GS@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Here is the real reason... fucking clear channel!
>>
>>GS
>>
>>Thank you for contacting XM Satellite Radio.
>>
>>In response to your email we do apologize for the inconvenience that
>>this change in our regular line up may cause; Ed Schultz will now be
>>heard from 4pm-5pm ET Weekdays.
>>
>>This show is going from 3 hours to 1 hour.
>>
>>Ask/Talk Radio 165 and Extreme 152 are being programmed by Clear
>>Channel
>>
>>Communications. If you have questions or comments about either of
>>these channels may send them directly to the programmers at
>>SunnyXM@clearchannel.com
>>
>>
> That's a lame-ass cop-out on XM's part.
>
> Who is Todd Schnitt and why is he on 3 hours a day on 152?

If you google him he goes by "MJ Kelli" and likes to bash Opie and Anthony
push left wing politics. Looks like XM is trying to be fair. Take off Ed
put on MJ.

--
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices.
William James



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[GS]

I hope you call and write both networks and request it.

XMPRAD@xmradio.com

GS


On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:26:14 GMT, Leigh <sleighpatrick@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>An excellent show which would be a great addition to satellite radio.
>We get Democracy Now on FM in the Boston area.
>
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:08 -0700, GS <GS@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I always wondered why neither XM or Sirius offer the excellent, hour
>>long, investigative news program "Democracy Now!". It is on DISH ch
>>9415 and DIRECT TV ch 375. I watch it daily and it is very good... but
>>when I am not near the TV, it'd be nice to have it on satellite radio.
>>
>>GS
>