Page 60 of 197
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:57 am
by Walkinghairball
Xanadu wrote:Soup4Rush wrote:
if an intruder comes into my house, he is gonna get dry humped by a horny poodle..
Ewww...that reminds me of this cocker spaniel my friend was grooming and when she was shaving his belly...
obscene
Cocker Spaniel..........the John Holmes of dogs. LOL
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:12 am
by CygnusX1
Big Blue Owl wrote:The only weapons I have in the house are my looks and the bayonet from my dad's 1958 Marine-issued rifle (not sure of the make/model.)
It looks exactly like this:
Prolly a M1 Garand rifle then, and hey, keep that bayonnet proudly.
You're Dad went through hell to get it.
I thank your Dad for his service to our country. Semper Fi Devil Dog.
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:46 am
by zepboy
Soup4Rush wrote:^^^^LOL^^^^
if an intruder comes into my house, he is gonna get dry humped by a horny poodle..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6
LOL
YIKES!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:37 pm
by Walkinghairball
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:36 am
by ElfDude
From this morning's Drudge report:
LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS
Wed Jul 02 2008 09:02:18 ET
**Exclusive**
The American broadcast industry is rocked, realigned and blasted into a new orbit, yet again, by Rush Limbaugh, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In what is being described as an unprecedented radio contract, Limbaugh will keep his syndicated show on-the-air and e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e through 2016 with CLEAR CHANNEL and PREMIERE RADIO.
Already host of the most lucrative hours since radio's inception, Limbaugh's total package is valued north of $400 million, according to media insiders.
The NEW YORK TIMES will claim this weekend that Limbaugh, marking 20 years this summer as a national host, has secured a 9-figure signing bonus for the new deal, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.
MORE
In its controversial profile, the TIMES reports that Limbaugh is buying a new G550 jet and is making an estimated $38 million a year.
[The cover photo of the TIMES Sunday magazine depicts Limbaugh 'dark and sinister' in a theme of THE GODFATHER.]
While newspapers and traditional broadcast media are experiencing declining revenues, Limbaugh's golden microphone has turned diamond-laced. Earnings now pace him ahead of the annual salaries for network news anchors: Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer ? combined.
MORE
The deal represents a stunning triumph over the establishment by an outsider who connected with and captured the spirit of the nations heartland.
I find this intriguing for a couple of reasons. But the biggest is that Clear Channel does not seem to be concerned that the next administration will reinstate the old "Fairness Doctrine" (something that Nancy Pelosi has stated she has every intention of doing) which basically makes it impossible for radio stations to carry shows dealing with political commentary and opinion. Unless, of course, they've written it into Rush's contract that if congress were to do such a thing, all would be null and void...
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:58 am
by awip2062
*grumbles* Fairness doctrine...my butt! It is NOT fair to tell someone that they can't talk politics just because they are on the radio.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:16 am
by ElfDude
awip2062 wrote:*grumbles* Fairness doctrine...my butt! It is NOT fair to tell someone that they can't talk politics just because they are on the radio.
Well, that's not exactly what it does. We actually had this thing up until the end of the Reagan years when it was done away with. That was why talk radio began to flourish in the late 80's. What it said was that if someone complained that your station wasn't giving equal time to both sides then it had to. In other words, if you were a radio station you couldn't pick the format you wanted... it would get picked for you. The bureaucratic red tape was such a nightmare that virtually no stations even tried.
What makes me sad is that this is such a blatant attempt from the Pelosi crowd to simply silence any voices of dissent. A lot like Putin recently releasing a list of who may appear on Russian television. If your name is not on the list, you may not appear. And Putin makes the list.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:20 am
by awip2062
This is not free speech. This is just plain wrong.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:16 pm
by Big Blue Owl
You could be right. Although I wonder if it might be an attempt to balance out the airwaves a bit. For example, in my city the talk stations on AM were balanced a few years ago. That is, a few leaning toward the right and a few toward the left. You could flip around, get the stories from both sides, then make up your own mind. Helped me greatly to find the truth in between. Then, about 3 years ago, all of the Leftish stations "lost funding" somehow and there became 4 am Rightish stations and NPR, which is, I have found, non-biased and not opinionated.
So perhaps the goal isn't as communistic as it appears on the surface. Just have a variety of points and opinions from various angles to ingest. After all, who wants to just listen to the same old thing all the time, only get info from one avenue, be spoon-fed the same lines all the time? I think we have become smarter than that.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:23 pm
by ElfDude
It's supposed to be a free market. The stations should be able to play whatever will bring in the advertising dollars. It is NOT the place of the government to try to balance them out. Not in this country.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:26 pm
by Big Blue Owl
Yeah, you're right. I took a shot that even I wasn't sure of. I still have NPR, after all.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:32 pm
by awip2062
I'm sorry, BBO, I am not sure what you mean by saying you took a shot that even you weren't sure of. Please explain to this ignorant one?
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:33 pm
by ElfDude
Big Blue Owl wrote:Yeah, you're right. I took a shot that even I wasn't sure of. I still have NPR, after all.
What I see currently is radio and TV balancing each other. That seems to be the way the market has gone.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:02 pm
by Big Blue Owl
awip2062 wrote:I'm sorry, BBO, I am not sure what you mean by saying you took a shot that even you weren't sure of. Please explain to this ignorant one?
Oh, I just meant that, at the time of my post, it seemed like a valid argument. On further reflection, I don't agree with this kind of censorship either, regardless of the content being fair and balanced or not. It's a free (buyer's) market, like Elf said. And like I kinda said before, we are smart enough to find balance ourselves, to separate the truth from the lies.
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:16 pm
by ElfDude
Hey BBO, did you ever see this study on media bias that UCLA did?
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... elNum=6664
It has some interesting info. They took a unique approach by rating news outlets in contrast to congressmen, senators, and voters to determine which way they leaned.
Just a couple of quotes...
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
...
Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.
...
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.
."
