Blogcritics: Comments on Air Radio America

Comment by bhw

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:38:42 EST

I'd like to buy a vowell, Pat. E?

Comment by Shark

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:09:42 EST

; - )

Comment by Shark

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:08:48 EST

I would just like to add ___ ___ ___ ___ ___!

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:49:20 EST

Yup, bhw-:). The only people who seem very concerned that I don't have comments on my blog are persons who would love to trash those comments if they existed. My email mailbox is chronically over its limit because people have things to to say about what I've written. I respond either by posting the message or writing an entry that answers it. I modeled Mac-a-ro-nies partly on the blog of one of my blog fathers, Kevin Drum, the Calpundit. Kevin never had comments for the years he was on Blogger. It did not hurt his blog at all.

Comment by bhw

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:35:24 EST

Plus I do believe Blogcritics has comments. I've heard they're the most professional, courteous comments threads on the 'net.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:20:33 EST

Thank you, Tom Bux. You do my light work for me. Considering your reasoning level, I had better break that down for you. Your comments, like the hatefulness you have displayed here, reveal what you are like. I barely need to. Mark, sometimes I think Bux is so-o-o-o hopelessly clueless, he needs a guardian. The blog entries I've written about Bux focus on his wrongheadedness about electoral politics, the role of big business in schools and a campaign by R.J. Reynolds to present itself as charitable. On the other hand, he has posted several hate threads attacking me that have nothing to do with substance. But, alas, poor Bux is not capable of anything else. Blogger and comments have never gotten along. Nor, do I feel the need to have them. Email and cross-posting some entries to group blogs with comments works for me.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:49:28 EST

yep, got it. i've only heard a bit of the afternoon show...though yesterday i did listen to quite a bit of the franken thing and it was pretty funny.

Comment by Tom

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:44:57 EST

Also, I hope you realize my article was supposed to be satire. I hope they do well. I really do, though I heard the morning show with Chuck D, and it was pretty boring.

Comment by Tom

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:38:25 EST

Well that's all fine and good, but people like Mac, in the past, have made snide comments in the comments, or even made remarks about the number of visitors to their site they get. But alas, Mac has her sitemeter data locked so WE can't see how many people she has visiting her.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:34:11 EST

hey, i don't have comments on my blog! (mostly because a. the site is hosted by my company and b. pure laziness on my part)

Comment by Tom

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:31:26 EST

And if you think it's right to have a picture of Bush made out to look like Hitler I would probaly punch you in the throat. It is offensive to only to me as a Bush supporter but to all the countless people brutally butchered, tortured, raped, and burned under the real Adolf Hitler.

Comment by Tom

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:28:45 EST

Oh that, I was just in a bad mood. I was ranting. Mac likes to personally attack someone with hateful personal attacks with no justification. Just like when she accuses everyone of being a racist and posting racist things on thier blog but runs away when you press her for specifics. Also I don't trust someone who doesn't have comments on their own blog. I guess from that she can dish it out but not take it.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:23:45 EST

"These asshole liberals jumping on the Richard Clark Bandwagon blaming Bush for 9/11 in a totally transparent election year ploy." "If I see a fucking hippy fuckface protesting somewhere about "No war for Oil" or see someone with a picture of George Bush looking like Hitler I think I will seriously hurt them." mac's hateful, eh? what about this crap? signed, fucking hippy fuckface

Comment by Tom

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:14:36 EST

RJ, Mac doesn't care what anyone says nice about her. She is a hateful person. But I did double check my source for the story, and they spelled it wrong (later corrected), and I corrected the name spelling.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 01:27:49 EST

Mac, did you know I actually wrote something nice about you recently? You should check it out: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/02/002338.php

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 01:15:30 EST

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. (To everyone but the insufferable little pipsqueak.) But, I don't expect Tom Bux to analyze politics remotely well. My complaint is that he could at least spell J.G.'s name right. It is JANEANE GAROFALO.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 00:51:42 EST

There is an important difference, of course, between, say, Dan Rather and Rush Limbaugh. With Rush, you know you are listening to a partisan, with zero objectivity. He does not try to hide it; in fact, he has made himself quite wealthy by being openly partisan. Dan Rather, on the other hand, is a liberal, and a supporter of Democrats, yet claims to be fair and non-partisan. Which is not true. But the masses don't know this because he doesn't explicitly tell them. I have no problem with a liberal radio network, because they are being honest and labeling themselves as liberal. But I have a problem with those attempting to pass themselves off as "moderate" and "independent" while they actually support liberal Democrats and slant their coverage that way.

Comment by Shark

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:33:26 EST

re: "There are two types of liberals..." Tom, seriously, you need to get out more often. xxoo Shark (behind the un-pigeonholeable door #3)

Comment by Jeff

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:20:08 EST

As a "liberal" (yes, please pigeon-hole me) I am not excited about any of this. It's just going to be another bunch of partisans extolling the party line and attacking people's character instead of the issues. So what if it's on the other side. Can we get someone out there who can think for him/herself? If I was a conservative I would be embarassed by Rush and his "ditto heads". I never heard one original thought out of that guy or any dissent. And can we all agree that Sean Hannity is the dumbest person ever to be allowed to have a show on TV or radio. Oh well, I don't need talk radio, I get my news analysis from BLOGCRITICS BABY!

Comment by Mark

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:11:44 EST

Sure. Take a little time to do your own research on the web, rather than relying on fox news as the only and ultimate news source. Joe Scarborough says: SCARBOROUGH (11/18/02): I think, in the 2000 election, I think [the media] were fairly brutal to Al Gore. I think they hit him hard on a lot of things like inventing the Internet and some of those other things, and I think there was a generalization they bought into that, if they had done that to a Republican candidate, I'd be going on your show saying, you know, that they were being biased. source: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121902.shtml GOPositive Shelve those 1992 "Annoy the media: Elect Bush" hats handed out by the former president; his son is getting the Clinton treatment from the media. The independent Center for Media and Public Affairs tells Whispers that Vice President Al Gore should be the one whining about the press. "This is a man-bites-dog story for Republicans," says center President Robert Lichter. Just consider TV coverage of the GOP convention: Sixty percent of the coverage was positive for George W. Bush, while 80 percent was negative for Gore. source: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/dem/whispers1.htm The Hess Report on Campaign Coverage in Nightly News: 40% positive for Gore 60% negative 37% positive for Bush 63% negative source: http://www.brookings.edu/GS/Projects/HessReport/week10.htm (and now I suppose we finish that by saying since that report shows Gore got 3 percentage points more positive reviews than Bush, they are clearly pushing their liberal agenda).

Comment by Tom

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:24:52 EST

Ok Mark Which studies? Specifics please.

Comment by Mark

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:22:19 EST

studies show that during the 2000 election, the 'liberal' news companies you listed actually ran more negative stories of Gore than Bush. Also during the election, the 'liberal' news did not look at Bush's military record, something that America is paying dearly for now. As a liberal, I look forward to a liberal talk radio station and hope that it gets enough listeners motivated to stop another 4 more years of an unelected Rove Administration.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:21:17 EST

al franken is always funny. i hate to tell ya tom, but there are way more than two categories of liberal. as i'm sure there are more than one kind of conservative.

Comment by Tom

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:15:16 EST

Actually I'm listening to "Unfiltered" right now with Lizz Winstead, Chuck D, and Rachel Maddow. From the 30 minutes or so I've heard, they aren't that funny, it just sounds like a bunch of liberals bitching. Granted, Al Franken is funny, but this Unfilterd show is not.

Comment by Tom

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:12:05 EST

There are two types of liberals. 1. The typical blue collar, middle American whose parents voted for FDR or Kennedy and think that today's liberals are the same as today's liberals. 2. The hard core, socialist types who believe in the redistrubution of wealth, for a strong UN, and against 'big business', for higher taxes and such.