Arkansas Blog

That's more a symptom of the fact that no one wants to liberal talk radio. If they did, Air America would have been a commercial success.

I think that is one of the problems.

You don't know how to brand yourselves.

No one knows what "progressive" means.

Additionally, I find suspect your citation of a study from the Center for American Progress. It surely isn't "news analysis."

Hell, I don't even need the Heritage Foundation to tell me the Arbitron ratings for "libergressive" talk radio are in the toilet.

In NYC (hardly a bastion of conservatism), WLIB (LIB = liberal; did they not get the "progressive" memo?) scored a 0.8 rating in Winter '06.

Meanwhile, WABC (home of Rush, Hannity) scored 3.5.

If people wanted to listen to liberal radio, they would.

Prouster would have you believe that the failure of Air America was a free market problem of nobody wanting to listen to it. In reality the aforementioned network was a failure because its business model was ill conceived and the talent line-up lacked much to be desired. One only has to point out that where solid progressive radio with good talent exists, they own the market. I'm sure Prouster has done the research and knows that Ed Schultz and Thom Hartman own just about every market that they are played in.

What is evident here is that most radio stations are owned by a handful of faithful conservatives who will never give progressive radio a chance in their markets. Instead they force feed their audience everyday with a healthy dose of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill-O who collectively have the I.Q. of a bag of hammers. But you know what Goering used to say, if you repeat a lie enough times it eventually becomes the truth. So Prouster, just keep hammering away with the RNC talking points and keep the truthiness flowing.

It's a direct indicator of the right-wing ownership of our media.

From the persecution of Dixie Chicks to the runup to the Iraq war to the current free pass Bush is getting, we don't have a free press.

What we have is a press that is bought and paid for by so-called conservatives, who then screetch longly, loudly (and lyingly) about the 'liberal media."

For example, if Rush were my kid, I'd be washing his mouth out (or worse) for telling lies. Not stroking and praising him for his ability to convince the other 5 year olds that he's right.

After five years of opposing most assertions of government power to fight terrorism, liberals are ready to wield it to fight conservative talk radio. After maintaining that the First Amendment protects nude dancing, they are ready to argue that it doesn't quite apply to people broadcasting conservative views over the airwaves.

I have an idea: why don't we regulate the Internet?

After all, conservatives don't have near the amount of successful blogs as compared "libergressives."

There is no conservative complement to this blog in Arkansas. I think Max should take the lead to rectify this situation by including blog posts written from a conservative perspective.

Fair is fair.

Arkstar: are you telling me that a bad business model plus crappy on-air talent DOES NOT equal a "free-market" failure of the network? If nobody wants to listen to Randi Rhodes, I'd say that's as free as the market gets.

Crazy Horse, meanwhile, just goes with the "conservatives own the media" angle. Because Hollywood is SOOOOO conservative. WABC is owned by ABC, which, last I checked, was owned by Walt Disney, the Hollywood monolith that Southern Baptists love to hate because it's so dang progressive.

And 91 percent of alternative weekly newspapers lean left. So what? It's not a conspiracy, Max.

Logic 101, Prouster. You asserted that nobody wants to listen to progressive or liberal radio because Air America failed. This is a logical fallacy, not to mention just plain old stupid. Using your same logic: Ann Coulter is a conservative cunt. Prouster is a conservative so he must also be a cunt.

I disagree with most of the posts above.

Ratings is the driver.

The greedy capitalists that own the stations would pimp out their mothers if it raised ratings.

The ratings encourage more similar programs and discourage programs similar to low ratings ones.

There is no big conspiracy. Greed chases ratings (ad revenue).

If detailing economic policy gets horrible ratings and Paris Hilton updates causes ratings spikes, then we will see few economic policy shows and a glut of Paris alerts.

Now anyone that thinks Rush, Hannity, and O'reilly are idiots is letting emotions cloud reality. I think they are extremely bright but I don't believe they are sincere.

They (RH&O) know how to get ratings and money and they do it.

It is my belief that the rightwingers deep down know that they are hateful and need to hear someone such as RH&O sing to the choir so they can delude them selves that their gay-hating, mexican-hating ideas are mainstream.

Inteligent Liberals and Progressives know that their views are not hateful and thus do not need RH&O to assauge their guilt.

That is my belief of why Conservative programing outnumbers Liberal programing.

It's so much sour grapes. "Conservatives own the media! WHAA!"

I maintain that if there were a market for liberal talk radio outside of a handful of enclaves like Berkeley and Seattle, then maybe Air America could have recruited some decent talent. That's the market at work. But when you can't even pay your existing talent, why would anyone go there?

And come to think of it, why weren't there more investors for this idea? There are plenty of wealthy liberals. I guess there aren't many who got wealthy by throwing good money after bad, however.

Realists understand how the market works. Idealogues blame a vast right-wing conspiracy.

We can speculate about the reasons all we want -- there's nothing more tiresome than defensive right-wing screetching -- you'd think demi-God Rush were posting on here -- but the bottom line is that the conservative share of the media is approximately equal to the anti-Republican share of popular opinion.

Make of that what you will, but the right-wing bias of the media is overwhelming. And, therefore, those who screetch about the 'liberal media' are basically lying.

It seems like the VRWC got a hold of Markie Mark...

MP one of the 53 voting against cloture on the immigration bill.

With great on-air hosts like Al Franken, Jeanine Garafalo, Alex Baldwin...it's just amazing that no one listened. Lack of substance would be the answer.

It's all about ownership of the radio stations...which are owned by the likes of clear channel and the greedy share holders at the top who also own major holdings in companies which profit off of things like the military industrial complex.. If these owners agree to compete only in conservative dominated talk formats (as well as news) then they all win due to a consensus of views and information that leads the american public down a misinformed path.

Shultz said it best recently to Bill Oreilly... he has the best ratings and yet many stations will not even consider placing him on the air? Why...when they could profit on the radio bottom line... because they make far more in other endeavors by maintaining this skewed perspective overall.

The fix is in... big money controls the message on radio and television.

Blogs are a much more open market where people and ideas are truly equal access from both sides...and progressive win the ratings hands down..

During the run up to the War Phil Donahue and Bill Maher (among others) were fired for speaking against it in a factual manner... both were money makers for their bosses.... but larger money could be made by stifling their message...

Free market, my arse... Rupert Murdoch's empire reaches thirty nine percent of the US market alone.... Where is diversity of facts, investigative reporting, opinion or much of an ability to finance competition against that?

And State and local news has suffered most of all, imo.

Looks like you're gearing up for the lib offensive to stop freedom of speech because you can't compete on the radio, see Air America.

All this 91% stuff is laughable though. Why do you care. Repeated surveys and studies have shown that 90% of print and television media "journalists" consider themselves to be liberal democrats. Funny that you never mention that.

Good point, Anon.

When will Max hire a "Red" reporter/columnist/blogger in order to be fair?

I doubt that will happen. I'm sure he thinks he can turn on and off his objectivity.

Excuse me? Do you read the Arkansas Times? If you think folks like John Brummett and other old men in the line up are liberals... you all are once again sadly mistaken...

And you anons also turn around in a defensive manner and attack the writer here (Max) instead of addressing the facts in the article itself...

time to leave you trolls to talk amongst yourselves again.

ARK. BLOG: Old men? Oh, the humanity.

Now, that's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

You've got to be kidding me. If you don't think that John Brummett and probably all of the writing staff of the Times aren't libs, then you don't know what a liberal is.

I didn't attack Max. All we did was point out the irony that Max is happy to say talk radio is conservative, while ignoring the overwhelming fact that the rest of the media is overwhelmingly populated by admitted liberal democrats.

I did address the facts of his article. I didn't disagree with them. I did point out that it is a function of the market. Liberal talk radio can't compete, which is why it pretty much doesn't exist.

I know Max is a liberal, and this blog under the guise of the Arkansas Times is hardly "fair and balanced."

I don't think Max really intends to appear fair and balanced. I doubt that he'll come to eureka's defense about the suggestion that the Times isn't a liberal paper.

"Logic 101, Prouster. You asserted that nobody wants to listen to progressive or liberal radio because Air America failed. This is a logical fallacy, not to mention just plain old stupid. Using your same logic: Ann Coulter is a conservative c*%#. Prouster is a conservative so he must also be a c*%#."

Talk about logical fallacies.

You mentioned some guy named Ed Schulz and Thom Hartman like anybody knows who they are. This Ed Schulz guy comes in behind Jim Bohannon and this Thom Hartman guy didn't even show up. See the link on my name.

Other than some guy named Clark Howard, whose show doesn't appear to be political, there's not one liberal listed in the the top 12 talk radio hosts.

Talk about grasping at straws.

The Arkansas Times isn't liberal. It's moderate, if anything.

The problem is that the far-right-wingers see anything that isn't far-right-wing as 'liberal'.

If it doesn't regurgitate the Republican party line, then it's liberal.

If it doesn't damn the Clintons, then it's liberal.

If it doesn't stand firmly behind our current occupation of Iraq, it's liberal.

If it doesn't see the Constitution as just another piece of paper to be followed or ignored by the president at his pleasure, it's liberal.

And so on.

What's amusing is the rush to defend the myth of the liberal media. It's almost as if we pointed out that gay people can make good parents, or that the death penalty kills innocent people, or that the oil companies are redistributing our wealth straight to their senior management and stockholders.

Newsflash: Democracy, the free market and the concept of freedom are all liberal ideas.

The next time you vote, thank a liberal.

Wait up. I'm confused.

Are you liberal, or progressive?

"The Arkansas Times isn't liberal. It's moderate, if anything.

The problem is that the far-right-wingers see anything that isn't far-right-wing as 'liberal'.

If it doesn't regurgitate the Republican party line, then it's liberal.

If it doesn't damn the Clintons, then it's liberal.

If it doesn't stand firmly behind our current occupation of Iraq, it's liberal.

If it doesn't see the Constitution as just another piece of paper to be followed or ignored by the president at his pleasure, it's liberal.

And so on.

What's amusing is the rush to defend the myth of the liberal media. It's almost as if we pointed out that gay people can make good parents, or that the death penalty kills innocent people, or that the oil companies are redistributing our wealth straight to their senior management and stockholders.

Newsflash: Democracy, the free market and the concept of freedom are all liberal ideas.

The next time you vote, thank a liberal.

Posted by: Crazy Horse [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 28, 2007 02:46 PM"

HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess I have to spell it out for the mentally challenged among us. Ed Schultz only gets a three share in the link that was so dutifully provided by a cowardly anonymous poster is because he is shut out of most markets. Each market his show is on in, he owns Hannity and Bill-O. You have to dig a little deeper than the first page, anon. I know research and knowledege aren't the strong suit of Bob Jones crowd but anyone can dig a little deeper than that.

As for Hartman, check the satellite.

One more time, INDIVIDUAL markets. Here is a link for you, asshole.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Liberal_talk_radio_trends_ahead_of_Limbaugh_among_2554_i_0711.html

Hey goober. I am no more cowardly anonymous than deathbyinches or any of the other people on this blog who do not choose to use their real names.

I really appreciate the kind words, though. I looked at your link. It misrepresents the facts, though. This Schulz guy only has higher ratings in the Miami market in the 25-54 age range. I found it remarkable that the story didn't say that he had overall higher ratings, probably because he doesn't.

As for your claim that he and the other nobody are "shut out" of other markets, prove it. Show me internal documents demonstrating a conspiracy to keep them out of markets. The fact is that you, yourself, are free to start your own radio station right now and put both of these nobodies on the air right here in Little Rock or anywhere else in the country and let them compete with everybody else. That's the free market. It's remarkable that it wasn't just one host who failed on Air America. It was a whole pack of people who couldn't bring in ratings on the radio.

Liberal talk radio may sell in certain markets in certain age ranges, but it cannot compete or else you and democrats in congress wouldn't have to change the law in order for them to succeed.

AM right-wing hate radio uses the pulic airwaves, which belong to all of the people. The right-wing owners of radio stations have hijacked to public airwaves. Since most right-wingers are not all that intelligent, they get their news by radio instead of by reading.

i heard a great comment about this today on air america. the result of some of this has been renewed discussion of the fairness doctrine and limbaugh and hannity have been going nuts. air america was talking about how they have been making a living for years telling people about the control of liberal media therefore they should welcome the concept. i would think red, nony and prouster would also welcome this loosening of the hands of the liberals from the radio airways.

Blog-based left-wing hate speech use the public's airwaves, phone lines, and coaxial cables. The left-wing owners of blogs have hijacked the blogosphere. Since most left-wingers are not all that intelligent, they get their news from blogs instead.

"Liberal media" (there is that word again, I thought you were all "progressives"), in the context cited, is much larger than radio, and you know it.

It encompasses the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times. I don't see a "Fairness Doctrine" in that industry.

"Liberal media" also includes TV network news divisions. If you could guarantee equal time during the next 60 Minutes hit-piece, then we can talk.

explain that red. at least the internet is interactive. the radio only requires one way communication.

It is interactive, but it is delivered through means that are in the public domain.

I'm not saying it should be regulated anymore than it already is (which isn't much), but if you are going after radio (and not TV) under the guise of the public interest, then the Internet should be fair game for regulation and censorship.

I don't think anyone here wants that.

As I said earlier. You are free to buy your own radio stations and then lose money by running only liberal talk show hosts. The reason that isn't happening is the same reason why Air America can't get any more "investors" and in fact had to steal 600 grand from a boys and girls club in NYC. People who actually want to make a return on their investments won't do that, though.

Half the posters in this thread are moonbats who are probably sitting at home in tinfoil hats, waiting for Dick Cheney's stormtroopers to bust in and try to mind-erase them.

Hey, I volunteer to be the "balanced" blogger for the Times. If you're looking for a conservative voice, I'm available cheap!

Hah! Moonbats!

The R-nut comments on this topic are the saddest I have ever read...GOD ALL MIGHTY you people SUCK!!!

The issue here is ownership front and center. Why has KARN been off the air on its FM side for a couple of weeks, huh?

Look what happened to BET. Before it was sold to Viacom, they eliminated all of the black news talk shows that spoke to the black community about its issues. Bev Smith is still around but in limited markets. Al Sharpton even has a strong show.
After you buy up some many stations in a market, you are the gatekeeper. With your ad revenue, you can choke out any competitor. It bothers me that there is no black talk radio in Little Rock. Oops, I shouldn't have said that. Scott Wallace considers that racist talk and probably has a microphone attached to my computer to hear me say, "Piss off!". I wonder why he doesn't have a problem with El Latino and other media outlets that have a "latino" perspective. Surely they are racist "perspectives" in his mind, but I digress.
It does not take a genius to understand how these people control such a wide variety of influence. When someone enters the market that they don't like or someone does anything that might not get their stamp of approval, there is always the "meeting" before the "meeting. When certain events come to town, they can simply publish, say , an email. You know like the one that went out before the Omega Psi Phi Conclave warning business about the dangers of black men in fraternities. I found it so hypocritical of Citadel during the Don Imus issue to have caller after caller on their talk shows talking about the evils of rap and hip hop, and they own the most powerful rap and hip hop station probably in the region.
This is the basis of the argument of most of the black radio host. You know, the ones that don't come on in Little Rock. Rap has to have an outlet. It is someone high up on the corporate food chain that has to green-light and sign off for the funding of those CD's videos like the one of Nelly sliding a credit card through the crack of a women's tush.
"Its a shame what those "knee-grows" do, shooting up each other, flunking and dropping out of school, making babies, selling drugs", they say, but they don't offer any other perspectives that speak to those issues because no one wants to hear it, and their hiphop station makes them too much money. Holla!!

This has been a really fun thread today almost, but not quite, as much fun as the other day when anonypuss and others were defending the Shrub's war for oil. You guys really need to get a life, you would be so much happier. Thanks for all the good laughs today. OH, by the way anonypuss, been to the recruitment office yet?

charliewimp, I am not the one who is unhappy. I have a great life. Every conservative I know is happy. You and your lib pals are the most unhappy people i've ever met.

And, no, i haven't been to the recruitment office. You don't go to recruiters to apply for OCS. Thanks for asking, though.

Glad to hear from you. It's been a while. Guess that's why it's been so sunny lately.

Also, I noticed that Max never said anything about my first comment that 9 out of 10 members of the print and broadcast media consider themselves to be democrats. I bet that applies to small weekly newspapers, too.

I wonder if he wants a fairness doctrine for weekly newspapers, too.

Hmmmm...

The comments regarding "equal time" on the Arkansas Times (print or blog) are too funny!

First of all, alternative newspapers are by their very nature more progressive/liberal/left-leaning. They exist to fill the tiny spaces not occupied (read: bought up) by outfits like WEHCO.

No matter where the reader stands, he or she goes to the Arkansas Times NOT for a conservative angle. (There's plenty of that everywhere else).

As for the blog, opposing viewpoints show up all the time, which cannot be said of other local conservative blogs who will boot posts that argue against their viewpoints.

Hugh, not one of us is actually suggesting that papers like the Times or its blog should be forced to allow equal time.

Thanks for the website on the Movies in the Park. That looks awesome. Have a good evening.

>"No matter where the reader stands, he or she goes to the Arkansas Times NOT for a conservative angle."<

That logic dictates that less than 1% of the radio listeners in New York City listen to liberal radio because less than 1% of the radio listening audience goes there for the liberal angle.

Therefore it is not a question of station ownership, but a lack of interest in the liberal message.

Red, I don't remember seeing you 'round here before. Good to see a friendly face. Good points, too.

All of that, of course, begs the question of why liberals don't just buy there own radio stations. It's also ridiculous to suggest that the owners of stations carrying conservative shows are doing so for ideological reasons and not for business reasons.

"Hugh, not one of us is actually suggesting that papers like the Times or its blog should be forced to allow equal time."

Fair enough. That was mostly directed at the comment, "The left-wing owners of blogs have hijacked the blogosphere," which is just absurd. The blogosphere is not hijackable. It's equally accessible to everyone with a computer. Unlike the TV and radio airwaves and print media, which are for sale to the highest bidder.

I tried listening to Air America because I like Al Franken and some of the others.
It was too noisy. It sounded too much like what it was trying to compete against, which I can't stand for many reasons, secondary of which is the noise level.

In very general terms, conservatives go about things differently than liberals. The former are much better organized, they seem more motivated by wealth, and they were the trailblazers of fake news geared to be sincerely swallowed by the masses. It worked brilliantly.

Now that the conservative trolls have chimed in there are a few observations about talk radio, the "lib'rul" media, etc.

There is no "free market" for broadcasting. The FCC licenses all radio and television broadcasting (OTA), one does not need a FCC license to setup a blog, website, and so forth. Big Radio (NAB) squashed the original low power broadcasting proposal, and allowed only non-profits (mainly religious groups) to do so. Big Television (also the NAB) supports a 1950's business model (called the Nielson Dominant Market Area--DMA--system) which effectivly censors newsbroadcasts from certain areas of the state for those living in "out of state markets".

It is true that the conservative noise shows make money, and given the older audience for them (what person under 30 actually *listens* to AM Radio?) its no suprise that most are right-wing, or right of center. There is also the world of Religious Broadcasting which isn't so much about the Gospel, but "standing in the gap" against same sex marriage, reproductive rights, accountablity of charter schools while maintaining a status on paper the same as a public broadcaster.

Air America was a great idea, but poorly executed. Too much money was spent on "name" talent that didn't translate to radio. There were some good hosts: Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy (now with Nova M Radio online), and Sam Seeder, but there was also the Jerry Springers (yes, that one) that IMHO held back the network. Also the stations were relegated to the scaps for affiliates---Little Rock's short lived AAR station is a prime example. There is also evidence that the management of AAR weren't dedicated to the on-air product and it was basicly a paycheck to them.

Thus proving the marketplace shakes out what succeeds on the air.

"Thus proving the marketplace shakes out what succeeds on the air."

What a load of bollacks Red.

"Unlike the TV and radio airwaves and print media, which are for sale to the highest bidder."

Which gets back to my point that it is market driven... People want to listen to conservative talk radio far more than they want to listen to liberal talk radio, which is why it's virtually non-existent. In a crazy scheme to make a profit the radio stations put on stuff that generates ratings.

"what person under 30 actually *listens* to AM Radio?"

Including myself, I know lots of them.

"'Thus proving the marketplace shakes out what succeeds on the air.'

What a load of bollacks Red."

Nice argument.

Also, I note that Max has no comment on the political bias of small newspapers, print news in general, and television journalism.
Also, I note that Max has no comment on the political bias of small newspapers, print news in general, and television journalism.

Anonymous,

Duly noted.
Duly noted.

Help me think of any newspaper which is without political bias, influence, or leanings.

"Help me think of any newspaper which is without political bias, influence, or leanings."

Can't think of one. That was my point. That's the nature of free speech. Free people have to be free to debate others. The market reflects that marketplace of ideas. To the victor goes the spoils.

Also, regarding the insulting comments that people like me who listen to conservative, evil talk radio are obviously stupid, I suggest you read the Pew Research Center's recent study that demonstrates that people who listen to conservative talk radio are among the most highly informed consumers of news.

"are among the most highly informed consumers of news."

Honest answer here, please. Do you consider Fox real news?

"Repeated surveys and studies have shown that 90% of print and television media "journalists" consider themselves to be liberal democrats."

Ah, but THEY don't make the DECISIONS as to what goes on the air or in print, the conservative editors and owners do.

To really get a grasp as to the difference, look at Free Speech TV or Link TV. Watch Democracy Now! occasionally. You will get a completely different perspective from the non-corporate owned.

"Honest answer here, please. Do you consider Fox real news?"

Yes. I appreciate you asking that in a nice way because the fact that you even ask it is a little insulting. You consider it biased, I'm sure. The fact is that it's far less biased than all of the other networks combined. It may lean slightly to the right, but the other networks, cable and broadcast, lean heavily to the left, compared to Fox. I'm sure you think that's crazy, but I'd bet a significant majority of the country agrees with me.

"Ah, but THEY don't make the DECISIONS as to what goes on the air or in print, the conservative editors and owners do."

That's total bs. That number includes producers.

"To really get a grasp as to the difference, look at Free Speech TV or Link TV. Watch Democracy Now! occasionally. You will get a completely different perspective from the non-corporate owned."

I've watched that. In fact, I've been interviewed for one of their "documentaries". What ended up on the air was significantly different from what I said thanks to the power of editing. The whole notion that media which isn't corporate owned isn't biased is absurd. Both of those are rabidly liberal, which is probably why you like them. They're not that different from PBS, only more strident. I'm sure you think PBS is perfectly objective, though.

This has been a very interesting thread.

"The fact is that it's far less biased than all of the other networks combined. It may lean slightly to the right ...."

Good one.

You're right. It was a good one.

I have yet to see anyone offer any proof that the news reporting on Fox is biased. I can show you all day long that the other networks, cable and broadcast are biased to the left.

[http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm]...bartcop.com

"Note: This was written before September 11th, so don't
write to explain that Barbara Olson is dead, OK?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth of the "liberal" media

Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.

What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?

I'll tell you what would happen:

The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.

Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Still with me? We're close to the end...

BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.

John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?

Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.

Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.

OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."

Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.

My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"

When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?

Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.

There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.

I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer."

click Blue Name for LINK.

Wow, that's stupid. I hope you didn't spend too much time on that. It looks like you probably just copied and pasted some stupid lib forward you thought was really clever.

You know you can't fool Anonymous...maybe you can use that in your next-- "documentaries".

Do you not realize that comment wasn't clever to anyone but a liberal kook?

Probably not.

Damn,
I'm beginning to connect-the-dots...chasv...Anonymous...Red...B.J. connect-the-dots?!?!
...beginning to connect???

Bejeesus, Barbara Olsen is dead. She was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

"Damn,
I'm beginning to connect-the-dots...chasv...Anonymous...Red...B.J. connect-the-dots?!?!
...beginning to connect???

Posted by: bejeeus [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 30, 2007 12:30 PM"

Wow, you do think you're clever.

Now, let me play too:

I bet you're really the same guy who plays dbi and lweird and rablib.

---What an idiot.

"Bejeesus, Barbara Olsen is dead. She was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11." by: Pr ouster

Well DUH..."Note: This was written before September 11th, so don't
write to explain that Barbara Olson is dead, OK? "

"---What an idiot."

Posted by: Anonymous

Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle --!!!!

"Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle --!!!!

Posted by: bejeeus [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 30, 2007 01:08 PM"

Do you understand that adage?

I offered documented and reasoned arguments that aren't that hard to grasp and you copied and pasted a brainless left-wing e-mail as if it's clever. Yeah, I'm the idiot...

"I offered documented and reasoned arguments ...

"Yeah, I'm the idiot..." by: Anonymous

LOL

Yeah, LOL.

What a joke. At least you're laughing. I have a feeling you're used to that.