Political leanings on the USMB Board

You are correct. A stations success is not measured in number of viewers but in the advertising dollars it is able to attract. Of course the more viewers, the more advertising dollars it generally gets.

Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Well I was not addressing a non-profit concept, but even a non-profit entity has to be able to generate income somehow or it cannot operate either.

I know. The thread you were replying to was kinda circling around the non-profit issue though, so I had to throw it in.

Air America was run as a for profit entity, but was being sustained like a non profit. It sucked so badly, that it could not attract much in advertising dollars and, as I mentioned, the last year even its wealthy benefactors were abandoning it. George Soros' Moveon.org for instance was expending a lot of money with Air America, but even they eventually could not justify how little bang they were getting for their buck.

Absolutely. Their business model sucked bad, and predictably failed.

A better move, and one that still might happen, is to start a liberal syndication network. This means that, like Dial-Global, Jones Radio, Premiere Radio and USRN, they offer radio programs on an a-la carte basis to already established stations. Basically following an already proven successful business model. Just focus on liberal programming.

Air America failed partially because it was sort of like an all-or-nothing kind of thing. They did offer some a-la-carte choices to other stations, but they focused all their energy into getting stations to carry their whole line-up.

A liberal syndication network would have to be done right though. As of right now, they probably have an opportunity to do something like that, considering liberal talk is still relatively in its infancy compared to conservative talk. If too many of the hosts get too well known though, they will be offered syndication deals by already established syndication networks, and thus dooming a concept like that to failure also. This is also the reason why there is no "conservative" syndication network. The hosts are already locked in with one of the established networks already. And while they may dump one for another, they're not going to dump one for an unproven conceptual conservative syndication network as of right now. No reason to.
 
Last edited:
Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Well I was not addressing a non-profit concept, but even a non-profit entity has to be able to generate income somehow or it cannot operate either.

I know. The thread you were replying to was kinda circling around the non-profit issue though, so I had to throw it in.

Air America was run as a for profit entity, but was being sustained like a non profit. It sucked so badly, that it could not attract much in advertising dollars and, as I mentioned, the last year even its wealthy benefactors were abandoning it. George Soros' Moveon.org for instance was expending a lot of money with Air America, but even they eventually could not justify how little bang they were getting for their buck.

Absolutely. Their business model sucked bad, and predictably failed.

A better move, and one that still might happen, is to start a liberal syndication network. This means that, like Dial-Global, Jones Radio, Premiere Radio and USRN, they offer radio programs on an a-la carte basis to already established stations. Basically following an already proven successful business model. Just focus on liberal programming.

Air America failed partially because it was sort of like an all-or-nothing kind of thing. They did offer some a-la-carte choices to other stations, but they focused all their energy into getting stations to carry their whole line-up.

A liberal syndication network would have to be done right though. As of right now, they probably have an opportunity to do something like that, considering liberal talk is still relatively in its infancy compared to conservative talk. If too many of the hosts get too well known though, they will be offered syndication deals by already established syndication networks, and thus dooming a concept like that to failure also. This is also the reason why there is no "conservative" syndication network. The hosts are already locked in with one of the established networks already. And while they may dump one for another, they're not going to dump one for an unproven conceptual conservative syndication network as of right now. No reason to.

Of course no station or network, or any other business, is going to dump a profitable enterprise for an unknown. But they will dump an unprofitable enterprise and gamble on something new that looks promising.

I disagree that liberal talk radio is in its infancy. Alan Colmes, for instance, was well established in the talk radio business at the time that Rush was syndicated. And the two frequently ran on the same stations for some time. But Rush pulled the greater audiences, and the more popular he became, the less popular Colmes became and the advertisers were less and less willing to advertise with Colmes.

It was the same with Larry King and Sally Jesse Rafael and others outside the conservative radio mode. Once popular with respectable audiences, they could not compete against the upstart unproven conservative talk radio that took the nation by storm in the mid 1980's. It was the first time EVER that modern American conservatives had their own voice on the radio and they loved it. Ditto for television when Fox News invaded the liberal monopoly on television.

Rush was the first and many others have followed suit.

Air America would have succeeded nicely providing an alternate voice had they done that. If they had been able to truly dissect the issues and presented a coherent argument for their point of view as conservative talk radio does, they could have attracted and held an audience. I would have been among it. But they didn't do that. Their schtick was that liberals are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than conservatives. And that was it.

Boooooooring.
 
Well I was not addressing a non-profit concept, but even a non-profit entity has to be able to generate income somehow or it cannot operate either.

I know. The thread you were replying to was kinda circling around the non-profit issue though, so I had to throw it in.

Air America was run as a for profit entity, but was being sustained like a non profit. It sucked so badly, that it could not attract much in advertising dollars and, as I mentioned, the last year even its wealthy benefactors were abandoning it. George Soros' Moveon.org for instance was expending a lot of money with Air America, but even they eventually could not justify how little bang they were getting for their buck.

Absolutely. Their business model sucked bad, and predictably failed.

A better move, and one that still might happen, is to start a liberal syndication network. This means that, like Dial-Global, Jones Radio, Premiere Radio and USRN, they offer radio programs on an a-la carte basis to already established stations. Basically following an already proven successful business model. Just focus on liberal programming.

Air America failed partially because it was sort of like an all-or-nothing kind of thing. They did offer some a-la-carte choices to other stations, but they focused all their energy into getting stations to carry their whole line-up.

A liberal syndication network would have to be done right though. As of right now, they probably have an opportunity to do something like that, considering liberal talk is still relatively in its infancy compared to conservative talk. If too many of the hosts get too well known though, they will be offered syndication deals by already established syndication networks, and thus dooming a concept like that to failure also. This is also the reason why there is no "conservative" syndication network. The hosts are already locked in with one of the established networks already. And while they may dump one for another, they're not going to dump one for an unproven conceptual conservative syndication network as of right now. No reason to.

Of course no station or network, or any other business, is going to dump a profitable enterprise for an unknown. But they will dump an unprofitable enterprise and gamble on something new that looks promising.

I disagree that liberal talk radio is in its infancy. Alan Colmes, for instance, was well established in the talk radio business at the time that Rush was syndicated. And the two frequently ran on the same stations for some time. But Rush pulled the greater audiences, and the more popular he became, the less popular Colmes became and the advertisers were less and less willing to advertise with Colmes.

It's in its infancy because, prior to the success of conservative radio, they pretty much just billed themselves as talk show hosts talking about the topics of the day. Pure vanilla. They had a liberal slant, but no push was made to promote exclusively the liberal point of view. Their shows were not entertaining, and didn't really get controversial. This is partly because AM was pretty much a wasteland and no one wanted to really invest in it. Then conservative radio came on the scene and did bill themselves as promoting conservatism AND they were entertaining AND controversial. Bringing the AM dial back to life.


Air America would have succeeded nicely providing an alternate voice had they done that. If they had been able to truly dissect the issues and presented a coherent argument for their point of view as conservative talk radio does, they could have attracted and held an audience. I would have been among it. But they didn't do that. Their schtick was that liberals are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than conservatives. And that was it.

Boooooooring.

I think you got it flipped there. Air America, at least on their leading show (Franken), tried to be too intellectual. Dissecting and attempting to be too logical and laying out 5 point arguments and such. That is what was boring. As much as everyone wants to bash on it, there's a reason why Rush, Hannity and others are successful. Quick, in and & out soundbites that are entertaining and sometimes controversial. Meaning, they promote that conservatives are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than liberals (to steal your phrase). But they also do it quickly, using 10 words instead of the 10,000 that Franken used.
 
Last edited:
The difference between liberals and conservatives:

Liberals:

White, black, brown, Asian, gay, straight, old, young, women, feminists, conservatives, liberals, educated, uneducated, southerners, northerners, Jews, Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, middle class

Conservatives:
White


That is one of the most disgustingly racist comments I have seen in quite awhile.

You are absolutely loathesome.

The Walker Report: The GOP Demographics Problem: Whiter Than Maine

For the Republican party, the numbers are damning. Congressional Republican membership is 96.33% non-Hispanic white. That is very white. To give you an idea of how white that is, if the congressional Republicans were a state, they would be the whitest state in the union. In contrast, Maine, the whitest state in the country, is only 95.5% non-Hispanic white.

race%2Bchart.jpg


Don't get mad at me for telling the truth. Besides, for a political party that is more than 90% white, I would think you would be proud that you managed to keep your party so "clean". I bet a lot of your members feel that way.
 
I know. The thread you were replying to was kinda circling around the non-profit issue though, so I had to throw it in.



Absolutely. Their business model sucked bad, and predictably failed.

A better move, and one that still might happen, is to start a liberal syndication network. This means that, like Dial-Global, Jones Radio, Premiere Radio and USRN, they offer radio programs on an a-la carte basis to already established stations. Basically following an already proven successful business model. Just focus on liberal programming.

Air America failed partially because it was sort of like an all-or-nothing kind of thing. They did offer some a-la-carte choices to other stations, but they focused all their energy into getting stations to carry their whole line-up.

A liberal syndication network would have to be done right though. As of right now, they probably have an opportunity to do something like that, considering liberal talk is still relatively in its infancy compared to conservative talk. If too many of the hosts get too well known though, they will be offered syndication deals by already established syndication networks, and thus dooming a concept like that to failure also. This is also the reason why there is no "conservative" syndication network. The hosts are already locked in with one of the established networks already. And while they may dump one for another, they're not going to dump one for an unproven conceptual conservative syndication network as of right now. No reason to.

Of course no station or network, or any other business, is going to dump a profitable enterprise for an unknown. But they will dump an unprofitable enterprise and gamble on something new that looks promising.

I disagree that liberal talk radio is in its infancy. Alan Colmes, for instance, was well established in the talk radio business at the time that Rush was syndicated. And the two frequently ran on the same stations for some time. But Rush pulled the greater audiences, and the more popular he became, the less popular Colmes became and the advertisers were less and less willing to advertise with Colmes.

It's in its infancy because, prior to the success of conservative radio, they pretty much just billed themselves as talk show hosts talking about the topics of the day. Pure vanilla. They had a liberal slant, but no push was made to promote exclusively the liberal point of view. Their shows were not entertaining, and didn't really get controversial. This is partly because AM was pretty much a wasteland and no one wanted to really invest in it. Then conservative radio came on the scene and did bill themselves as promoting conservatism AND they were entertaining AND controversial. Bringing the AM dial back to life.


Air America would have succeeded nicely providing an alternate voice had they done that. If they had been able to truly dissect the issues and presented a coherent argument for their point of view as conservative talk radio does, they could have attracted and held an audience. I would have been among it. But they didn't do that. Their schtick was that liberals are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than conservatives. And that was it.

Boooooooring.

I think you got it flipped there. Air America, at least on their leading show (Franken), tried to be too intellectual. Dissecting and attempting to be too logical and laying out 5 point arguments and such. That is what was boring. As much as everyone wants to bash on it, there's a reason why Rush, Hannity and others are successful. Quick, in and & out soundbites that are entertaining and sometimes controversial. Meaning, they promote that conservatives are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than liberals (to steal your phrase). But they also do it quickly, using 10 words instead of the 10,000 that Franken used.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I listened in on Franken a few times and heard nothing but monotonous and detailed screeds on how terrible this person was or that person was but very little researched information on why they were terrible or why those supporting Franken's view were right. In other words, there was little to learn listening to Air America.

And I have heard Rush spend a solid 20 minutes fully analyzing a particular issue complete with background information, quotations, literary references, and detailed professional analysis and this would be without bashing anybody. He would then have to go short on his next two or three segments in order to give his advertisers their time. Sound bites? Nope. Not on his show or on any of the conservative shows.

Any show dealing in mostly sound bites is not going to attract a substantial audience. And THAT is why conservative talk radio has been more successful than liberal talk radio.

Now they will use catch words or phrases that have already been discussed in detail and at length in order to save time. The term "ditto" used by Rush listeners for instance, is simply a time saving mechanism that allows them to get past the niceties quickly and to the point they called to make. Hannity's "You're a great American" phrase also has a substantial background behind it.

That is my perception and I can look at the ratings and believe I am mostly right about that. But you no doubt have your reasons why I am wrong too, and that's kewl.
 
So Democrats are 80% white, and Republicans are 96% white.

Minorities are in the minority? Shocker.

The percentage of whites and the percentage of minorities in the Democratic party is much closer to the racial make up of the nation than the Republican Party, the party of "white".
 
Of course no station or network, or any other business, is going to dump a profitable enterprise for an unknown. But they will dump an unprofitable enterprise and gamble on something new that looks promising.

I disagree that liberal talk radio is in its infancy. Alan Colmes, for instance, was well established in the talk radio business at the time that Rush was syndicated. And the two frequently ran on the same stations for some time. But Rush pulled the greater audiences, and the more popular he became, the less popular Colmes became and the advertisers were less and less willing to advertise with Colmes.

It's in its infancy because, prior to the success of conservative radio, they pretty much just billed themselves as talk show hosts talking about the topics of the day. Pure vanilla. They had a liberal slant, but no push was made to promote exclusively the liberal point of view. Their shows were not entertaining, and didn't really get controversial. This is partly because AM was pretty much a wasteland and no one wanted to really invest in it. Then conservative radio came on the scene and did bill themselves as promoting conservatism AND they were entertaining AND controversial. Bringing the AM dial back to life.


Air America would have succeeded nicely providing an alternate voice had they done that. If they had been able to truly dissect the issues and presented a coherent argument for their point of view as conservative talk radio does, they could have attracted and held an audience. I would have been among it. But they didn't do that. Their schtick was that liberals are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than conservatives. And that was it.

Boooooooring.

I think you got it flipped there. Air America, at least on their leading show (Franken), tried to be too intellectual. Dissecting and attempting to be too logical and laying out 5 point arguments and such. That is what was boring. As much as everyone wants to bash on it, there's a reason why Rush, Hannity and others are successful. Quick, in and & out soundbites that are entertaining and sometimes controversial. Meaning, they promote that conservatives are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than liberals (to steal your phrase). But they also do it quickly, using 10 words instead of the 10,000 that Franken used.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I listened in on Franken a few times and heard nothing but monotonous and detailed screeds on how terrible this person was or that person was but very little researched information on why they were terrible or why those supporting Franken's view were right. In other words, there was little to learn listening to Air America.

And I have heard Rush spend a solid 20 minutes fully analyzing a particular issue complete with background information, quotations, literary references, and detailed professional analysis and this would be without bashing anybody. He would then have to go short on his next two or three segments in order to give his advertisers their time. Sound bites? Nope. Not on his show or on any of the conservative shows.

Any show dealing in mostly sound bites is not going to attract a substantial audience. And THAT is why conservative talk radio has been more successful than liberal talk radio.

Now they will use catch words or phrases that have already been discussed in detail and at length in order to save time. The term "ditto" used by Rush listeners for instance, is simply a time saving mechanism that allows them to get past the niceties quickly and to the point they called to make. Hannity's "You're a great American" phrase also has a substantial background behind it.

That is my perception and I can look at the ratings and believe I am mostly right about that. But you no doubt have your reasons why I am wrong too, and that's kewl.

I think we're agreeing on the same thing, just using different definitions. Franken would use an hour, or sometimes his whole show, droning on and on on the same thing, breaking it down into multipoint auditory powerpoint presentations on why he was right.

By comparison, 20 minutes IS the soundbite kind of talk radio that I am referring to. 'Cuz lets face it, you can't get in depth and explore all the nuances of a particular issue in only 20 minutes. But you can hit the highlites, and be entertaining and sometimes controversial. Which is what successful, commercial, talk show hosts like Rush and Hannity do. And it's also something that the execs at Air America just couldn't comprehend.
 
I know. The thread you were replying to was kinda circling around the non-profit issue though, so I had to throw it in.



Absolutely. Their business model sucked bad, and predictably failed.

A better move, and one that still might happen, is to start a liberal syndication network. This means that, like Dial-Global, Jones Radio, Premiere Radio and USRN, they offer radio programs on an a-la carte basis to already established stations. Basically following an already proven successful business model. Just focus on liberal programming.

Air America failed partially because it was sort of like an all-or-nothing kind of thing. They did offer some a-la-carte choices to other stations, but they focused all their energy into getting stations to carry their whole line-up.

A liberal syndication network would have to be done right though. As of right now, they probably have an opportunity to do something like that, considering liberal talk is still relatively in its infancy compared to conservative talk. If too many of the hosts get too well known though, they will be offered syndication deals by already established syndication networks, and thus dooming a concept like that to failure also. This is also the reason why there is no "conservative" syndication network. The hosts are already locked in with one of the established networks already. And while they may dump one for another, they're not going to dump one for an unproven conceptual conservative syndication network as of right now. No reason to.

Of course no station or network, or any other business, is going to dump a profitable enterprise for an unknown. But they will dump an unprofitable enterprise and gamble on something new that looks promising.

I disagree that liberal talk radio is in its infancy. Alan Colmes, for instance, was well established in the talk radio business at the time that Rush was syndicated. And the two frequently ran on the same stations for some time. But Rush pulled the greater audiences, and the more popular he became, the less popular Colmes became and the advertisers were less and less willing to advertise with Colmes.

It's in its infancy because, prior to the success of conservative radio, they pretty much just billed themselves as talk show hosts talking about the topics of the day. Pure vanilla. They had a liberal slant, but no push was made to promote exclusively the liberal point of view. Their shows were not entertaining, and didn't really get controversial. This is partly because AM was pretty much a wasteland and no one wanted to really invest in it. Then conservative radio came on the scene and did bill themselves as promoting conservatism AND they were entertaining AND controversial. Bringing the AM dial back to life.


Air America would have succeeded nicely providing an alternate voice had they done that. If they had been able to truly dissect the issues and presented a coherent argument for their point of view as conservative talk radio does, they could have attracted and held an audience. I would have been among it. But they didn't do that. Their schtick was that liberals are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than conservatives. And that was it.

Boooooooring.

I think you got it flipped there. Air America, at least on their leading show (Franken), tried to be too intellectual. Dissecting and attempting to be too logical and laying out 5 point arguments and such. That is what was boring. As much as everyone wants to bash on it, there's a reason why Rush, Hannity and others are successful. Quick, in and & out soundbites that are entertaining and sometimes controversial. Meaning, they promote that conservatives are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than liberals (to steal your phrase). But they also do it quickly, using 10 words instead of the 10,000 that Franken used.

So you are saying that Republicans speak more "simply". To be interesting, it has to be "simple". Could you say they are "simpletons"? Because it sounds like you are putting down Republicans. Calling them "simple".
 
So Democrats are 80% white, and Republicans are 96% white.

Minorities are in the minority? Shocker.

The percentage of whites and the percentage of minorities in the Democratic party is much closer to the racial make up of the nation than the Republican Party, the party of "white".

Whites make up about 68% of the population. Blacks 13%. Hispanics around 15%. Asians around 5%.

So your argument basically is "Democrats aren't as racist as the other guys".
 
Of course no station or network, or any other business, is going to dump a profitable enterprise for an unknown. But they will dump an unprofitable enterprise and gamble on something new that looks promising.

I disagree that liberal talk radio is in its infancy. Alan Colmes, for instance, was well established in the talk radio business at the time that Rush was syndicated. And the two frequently ran on the same stations for some time. But Rush pulled the greater audiences, and the more popular he became, the less popular Colmes became and the advertisers were less and less willing to advertise with Colmes.

It's in its infancy because, prior to the success of conservative radio, they pretty much just billed themselves as talk show hosts talking about the topics of the day. Pure vanilla. They had a liberal slant, but no push was made to promote exclusively the liberal point of view. Their shows were not entertaining, and didn't really get controversial. This is partly because AM was pretty much a wasteland and no one wanted to really invest in it. Then conservative radio came on the scene and did bill themselves as promoting conservatism AND they were entertaining AND controversial. Bringing the AM dial back to life.


Air America would have succeeded nicely providing an alternate voice had they done that. If they had been able to truly dissect the issues and presented a coherent argument for their point of view as conservative talk radio does, they could have attracted and held an audience. I would have been among it. But they didn't do that. Their schtick was that liberals are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than conservatives. And that was it.

Boooooooring.

I think you got it flipped there. Air America, at least on their leading show (Franken), tried to be too intellectual. Dissecting and attempting to be too logical and laying out 5 point arguments and such. That is what was boring. As much as everyone wants to bash on it, there's a reason why Rush, Hannity and others are successful. Quick, in and & out soundbites that are entertaining and sometimes controversial. Meaning, they promote that conservatives are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than liberals (to steal your phrase). But they also do it quickly, using 10 words instead of the 10,000 that Franken used.

So you are saying that Republicans speak more "simply". To be interesting, it has to be "simple". Could you say they are "simpletons"? Because it sounds like you are putting down Republicans. Calling them "simple".

I'm saying that conservative radio is more entertaining. Air America was not. Therefore, conservative radio is flourishing, and Air America failed.

BUT liberals can be just as entertaining on the radio, they just are lagging behind.




Or, in rdean speak, liberals have been too stupid to keep it simple to succeed.
 
Bullshit.

Me: There is not conservative national radio station either.

You: Oh yeah, well successful XXXX station broadcasts over the internet, so they're national!

Me: Well, if thats your definition, then station XXXX is a successful national station too.

You: No they're not, they are non-profit!

Me: Doesn't matter, they have listeners.

You: Well AA sucked!


THAT'S not redefining? You either a) play a very good idiot, or b) really are an idiot.


It's pretty funny to see you defending your position because you defend success along the narrow criteria of audience when the preceding discussion was about financial viability.

Existing on hand-outs is not a viable business model unless one's goal is to be a charity case.
 
Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Now look who is trying to change the definition.

:eusa_whistle:

Air America was a for profit station - and you try to supply a not for profit model which depends on charity as the definition of success.
 
The Walker Report: The GOP Demographics Problem: Whiter Than Maine

For the Republican party, the numbers are damning. Congressional Republican membership is 96.33% non-Hispanic white. That is very white. To give you an idea of how white that is, if the congressional Republicans were a state, they would be the whitest state in the union. In contrast, Maine, the whitest state in the country, is only 95.5% non-Hispanic white.

race%2Bchart.jpg


Don't get mad at me for telling the truth. Besides, for a political party that is more than 90% white, I would think you would be proud that you managed to keep your party so "clean". I bet a lot of your members feel that way.

I'm a registered Democrat, but vote as an independent. The only reason I am so registered is because CA does not have open primaries.

But thanks for playing the Race Card - it's an indicator of your true nature.
 
Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Now look who is trying to change the definition.

:eusa_whistle:

Air America was a for profit station - and you try to supply a not for profit model which depends on charity as the definition of success.

:lol:

You'll have to admit that one is a pretty good touche', Radioman. :)
 
Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Now look who is trying to change the definition.

Nobody. You don't play this game well, do you?

Air America was a for profit station - and you try to supply a not for profit model which depends on charity as the definition of success.

I wasn't comparing the two, brainiac. I was simply repeating clarifying that the two are by necessity different business models.

It must suck going through life making an idiot of yourself.
 
Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Now look who is trying to change the definition.

:eusa_whistle:

Air America was a for profit station - and you try to supply a not for profit model which depends on charity as the definition of success.

:lol:

You'll have to admit that one is a pretty good touche', Radioman. :)

No, it wasn't.

I was pointing out that a non-profit has a different business model. And at no point did I say that Air America was successful based on a non-profit model.
 
Except in the case of non-profits. Which is what I was referring to. Then it is strictly audience size and the size of the donations that the the station can attract.

Now look who is trying to change the definition.

Nobody. You don't play this game well, do you?

Read again for comprehension, bub. I suggest you start on page 15 or so of this thread.


It must suck going through life making an idiot of yourself.


Looks to me like you've learned how to cope with your condition. Good for you!
 
Bullshit.

Me: There is not conservative national radio station either.

You: Oh yeah, well successful XXXX station broadcasts over the internet, so they're national!

Me: Well, if thats your definition, then station XXXX is a successful national station too.

You: No they're not, they are non-profit!

Me: Doesn't matter, they have listeners.

You: Well AA sucked!


THAT'S not redefining? You either a) play a very good idiot, or b) really are an idiot.


It's pretty funny to see you defending your position because you defend success along the narrow criteria of audience when the preceding discussion was about financial viability.

Existing on hand-outs is not a viable business model unless one's goal is to be a charity case.

I did no such thing. I said that it doesn't matter where the money comes from (commercials or donations), but that there must be an audience for 1) advertisers to advertise on or 2)enough of an audience to generate direct donations from the audience.

Must suck for you, being functionally illiterate and all.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top