Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Saturday, May 21, 2005 09:18
VIEWED: 10998
PAGE 7 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, May 2, 2005 4:24 PM

It must be a great frustration to Joss to have his characters and message so thoroughly misunderstood by a bunch of psuedo-libertarians.

VITO

Monday, May 2, 2005 4:50 PM

Oh man, I got a sweet tooth for this crap.

A wise man once said that," the two greatest threats to democracy in this country are:
The illusion among the poor that they actually have one
and

The fear among the rich that they may someday get one."

I have spent some time driving long haul truck here in the U.S. and I have listened to both sides on the AM radio war. I am neither Left nor Right, not that it really makes a difference, but you can all go on thinking it does, I know most of you do.

As far as the the back and forth on the AM talk shows goes, its just that, Americas favorite sport is running off at the mouth. If you want a clear picture of whats going on in this country, try reading the news from another country.

I love that fact that people in my country still think that the presedent is really running the show. The man needs help tying his shoe. He spent most of his adult life as a bar hopping power drinking coke-head and has had the world handed to him on a silver plate. You may have voted for G.W. but he rode into office on the shoulders of some of the most evil men to hold power since the axis of WWII.

People in this country still think 9-11 was an unprovoked attack. And they think this because thay are to stupid or scared to go looking for the facts. They would rather sit at home in their comfy chair and be spoon fed thier point of view by a government controlled media.

A government, of the people, by the people and for the people is indeed parishing from the earth.....if, in point of fact it was ever here at all.

And befor you write me off as Bush hater, let me just say, even if I had thought Kerry was running to win and not just there to put a face behind the other podium at the debate. I still would have voted for Jon Stewart.

Divided We Fall, my friends......think about it.

"People are stupid, they will beleve in somthing for one of two reasons. Either they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it might be true."

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 2, 2005 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigmanunki"I feel at this point, after some of your comments, that I must point out that no country has a pure implementation of any political system. There will be elements of many in any government. Countries only call themselves something b/c there particular hybrid contains a majority of that something (to one degree or another)."

Hello,

I have been reviewing your post, and I must say I agree with this. There are no governments to my knowledge that follow a pure model. That is perhaps one of the things that made Star Trek fun to watch but at the same time unrealistic. You had imaginary pure governments. Bajor is, I think, what we would call a Theocracy. Ferenginar a true Capitalist state. Etc.

But then, perhaps it is a good thing that we have these absolutes to draw upon, in order to form a combination government. If any of the absolutes are diluted, then it changes the meaning of the combination.

Maybe, instead of evolving the word Socialism to mean something new, maybe it would be wiser to create a new term to represent the new ideal.

One thing I notice in the new Socialist definition is that you are automatically dumped into a democratic society. This makes it impossible to include socialism in a dictatorship or whatnot.

It made more sense (to me) that Socialism as a government that owns/distributes production be seperate from Socialism as a democratic welfare state. One includes the effect of government, the other includes the leadership type and effect.

Please don't take this as a jab, but I wonder if this re-definition of socialism hasn't come about because Socialists wish to distance themselves from the tyrannical so-called Socialists of the past. By inserting 'democracy' into the Soclialist definition, they cleverly avoid comparisons to any of the evil red states of the past.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

VITO

Monday, May 2, 2005 5:10 PM

Next election I'm gonna vote for Anthony.

"People are stupid, they will beleve in somthing for one of two reasons. Either they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it might be true."

DAL

Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 PM

I only heard of this station through that joke which went around a while ago:
"Tuesday was Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address. As Air America Radio pointed out, it was an ironic juxtaposition: one involved a meaningless ritual in which we looked to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication and the other involved a groundhog."
I had visions of a thousand socializing champaign socialists all around America sheepishly laughing amongst their circles; making a mental note to consult a dictionary a while later to try and figure out half of what it meant.
Maybe big words from faux-intellectual Marxist judeo-atheists straying from their trained field of linguistics doesn't necessarily make big entertainment.

Fox news is bombastic in its news reporting because it values entertainment as much as information. If people enjoy something they're more likely to come back! That's the idea which has made Murdoch the most sucessful media baron in the world, and the only leftists I know who do the same well are Tony Blair and Michael Moore.

It takes millions of pounds extorted from taxpayers under fear of pain to keep that boring communist condescendista machine called BBC News working. Socialism does work providing there's enough money left in the victims' bank accounts: 59 million of 60 million (not counting any Islamist morons prepared to blow themselves up after hearing the world service) would like to kill G.W. Bush.

DAL

Monday, May 2, 2005 7:42 PM

Quote:
...Please don't take this as a jab, but I wonder if this re-definition of socialism hasn't come about because Socialists wish to distance themselves from the tyrannical so-called Socialists of the past. By inserting 'democracy' into the Soclialist definition, they cleverly avoid comparisons to any of the evil red states of the past.

Some European social democrat parties follow a doctrine called the "third way", sort of a balance between market-friendliness (ie. their knowledge of economics stems from economists and not a work-shy 19thC German) and society taking care of its members, which is the original definition of socialism. Along with Christian democrats and neo-cons, the only real difference I see between them is their rhetoric.

I actually vote for them, but I'd never vote "real" socialists. "real" socialists are a mixture of the power-hungry and feel-fuzzy who latch onto any idea that'll further that power or make them feel more moral than the existing regime. Engels supported Germany conquering the lesser-race French, Marx supported south USA slavery, "international" Marxists oppose globalization, Trots complain about an evil called monopoly, the modern Socialist Worker's Party of the UK is in bed with the Islamists while the French Communist Party is happy to move homeless shelters from black areas to white in order to grab a few votes from the Le Pen fascist party. It's scary when you realise these people can actually influence more than their wardrobe arrangements.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
- Winston Churchill

VITO

Monday, May 2, 2005 7:42 PM

Nobody is going to kill bush, because if they did Dick Chaney would be running the country....

.....Oh wait, Dick Chaney already IS running the country. I almost forgot.

"People are stupid, they will beleve in somthing for one of two reasons. Either they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it might be true."

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, May 2, 2005 11:32 PM

@Hero:
I will not take your troll bait.

@Vito:
I agree with just about everything you said.

@SignyM:
Agreed!

@AnthonyT:
I agree with your evaluation of Star Trek, but I really don't think that it is possible to stop the evolution of any theory. It is the natural course of things.

A theory is just some idealized case of society working in a theoretical way. Clearly, in practice things must be changed, because as a people, we are rather more irrational than some imaginary idealized society, which is where the mixture comes in.

Also, any theory that tries to create something practical, would become so convoluted that it wouldn't be able to be implemented. It'd be to confusing.

Best to stick to ideal models and let the real world figure out a proper mixture for that particular country.

This gives a nice play between theory and practice. They can and do learn from eachother, which is where the refining of theory comes from. Look to any feild of science for any number of examples.

I did cite Canada as creating a mixture of (mainly) two different political systems and instead of stating that we are one or the other, a new term was created. I think it really depends on the mixture (or percentages therein) whether a new term is created or an old one is used. Where this line is drawn is too fuzzy to speculate.

But, I would assume that democracy was put into the definition of Socialism because the world has come to the conclusion that no-one can hold dictorial powers and still keep the best interests of the people in mind (basically the whole point of Socialism). This has been proven time and time again.

And this is all I have time for right now.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 8:03 AM

Quote:
It's not a grassroots movement. It's a propaganda outlet. None of the people involved in this have any real interest in being radio talk show hosts

how do you know this , have you talked to any of the host on that show, have you asked them...

HERO

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:
It's not a grassroots movement. It's a propaganda outlet. None of the people involved in this have any real interest in being radio talk show hosts

how do you know this , have you talked to any of the host on that show, have you asked them...

I agree (GASP!). I watched the 'Air America' documentary on HBO. I found those people, both in front of the microphones and behind the scenes to be quite sincere. (Although I found their treatment of the one "real" radio person on their staff to be insulting, after all she HAD a successful liberal radio show but seemed to be ignored in favor of the celebraties.)

All politics aside, they demonstrated the drive, creativity, and work ethic that make America a great place. Every year similar Americans of all political flavors start businesses and face many of the same hardships. They carried on and did great service to themselves if not their cause. I applaud their effort and encourage them to carry on.

That said, if they want their business to succeed, eventually they're going to need ratings. I suggest they seek to end NPR, thats their greatest competitor for the liberal radio market share.

Or they can hire conservative hosts and really make some money.

Locally (in Ohio) we now have Jerry Springer trying to pretend that he didn't make millions exploiting the poor so he can legitimately run for governor in a couple years. His show sucks, but its early and I don't think he's hit his stride yet. I don't like him, but Springer usually talks a pretty good game. Interesting trivia: Ken Blackwell (OH Sec of State who garnered so much attention by scandal-mongering Democrats in the days following the election) was Deputy Mayor of Cinncinnati under Springer all those years back.

H

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE