It will be interesting to see who gets the boot or shuffled when Hannity comes to KTLK this fall.

Meanwhile at Air America, they've got a concert planned in NYC on 3/20, "Bring 'Em Home Now" - with an impressive lineup: Michael Stipe, Rufus Wainwright, Bright Eyes, Fischerspooner, Peaches, and (capped for emphasis at Ticketmaster):

"(...STEVE EARLE, CHUCK D, DEVENDRA BANHART AND MARGARET CHO WITH GUEST CINDY SHEEHAN A BENEFIT FOR VETERAN'S FOR PEACE AND IRAQ VETERAN'S AGAINST THE WAR. VIP IS GENERAL ADMISSION SEATING, OPEN VODKA BAR & MEET & GREET WITH PEACHES & CINDY SHEEHAN - MEET AND GREET BEGINS AT 7:30PM. *ARTIST LINE UP SUBJECT TO CHANGE*)"

"Air America Radio will be running a live FREE webcam from the VIP room inside the Hammerstein Ballroom from 6:30-11:30pm EST on Monday, March 20th.

Try and catch a glimpse on the camera from the long list of celebs playing the show that include Michael Stipe, Rufus Wainwright and Bright Eyes.

Also appearing are Air America Radio hosts Chuck D, Steve Earle and more. For those in the New York area, tickets are still available for the show."

*Yawn*

I've never heard of any of those performers other than Michael Stipe and Margaret Cho.

I've heard of Cindy Sheehan, but she's not a performer. She's just a whore.

Look, I have no appreciation for Cindy Sheehan in the least. Calling her a whore, though, is way over the line. A misguided opportunist, yes.

Calling someone who would use her dead Volunteer (re-upped, wanted to go) son's memory to advance a political agenda, make lots of money, and turn 15 minutes into hours in the process a whore is over the line?
I think it fits quite snugly.

They are all whores, Observer....

....and KSTP's am radio line-up was dead on arrival last Jan. 1 and still is.

....If the Patriot had a little more wattage and local talk programming to the right of the dial, they might have a stab at getting some of the local talk market.

Calling Cindy Sheehan a whore is unfair to whores. She's more like a pimp--pimping herself and her dead son to eager johns in the press.

Yes, and as we all now know... It's hard out here for a pimp.

By the logic used, that makes any mom of a dead soldier who speaks more than briefly, a whore.

That's a nice sentiment.

The vulgarity of your blog's principal respondants never fails to achieve new heights.

If you had a child, and you saw the nation led to war on intelligence specifically culled to achieve an end, while other, more credible (and correct) intelligence was ignored, into a place where our occupation was going to be resented, amongst a people unlikely as hell to live together peacably, and then you saw that child die, how would you feel? How could you even know how YOU'D feel?

Before condemning someone, walk a mile in their shoes.

And I guess, whore sums up your non-hate ideology very well.. yep, you don't hate at all.

So Mitch, where is your "incorrect and irrelevant" andmonition of this kind of vulgar speech? Or is that you agree with calling Cindy Sheehan a whore?

As for talk radio, right-wing talk radio is, in fact, probably on the decline with the clear and present reality that right-wing no longer means conservatism, but rather, FOR SALE. It's the major reason the majority of the country thinks the Pres is FOS, and thinks the Congress is immensely corrupt.

Howl at the moon if you like, it's still going to set.

If you disagree with that "prediction" (more like observation of the obvious) - fine, but let's keep a score on the veracity of predictions made here sometime. I wonder how the author would pan out?

PB

Speaking of predictions, here's one to mull over.

Mitch said CBS's poll was based on flawed sampling, and would soon be shown to be biased and unrepresentative.

Yep.. since then..
Newsweek -22
NBC and the infamously liberal WSJ - 24
CNN USA Today/Gallup -24
Pew -23
AP/IPsos -23
CNN again -22
La Times -20
Quinnipac -22

Sure am glad Mitch makes predictions.

I contrast that with this.. said by folks (Doug, AC, Me) about 6 months ago after Mitch's most infamous prediction..

Iraq will at best devolve into loose federation of semi-autonomous states with a weak central government..

at worst, into civil war with a dominant Shiite theocracy as the principal power broker, most likely in either case.

That, and the wonderfully inaccurate positions you all have taken on Iraq in general, the legality of the NSA wire-taps (so legal they are now planning to pass a law to make them legal--hmmm..), your positions on whether Libby, Rove, or Cheney were involved in outing Plame, whether it was done for partisan reasons, your positions on Dubai Ports World regarding it's net risk to security..

You all pretty much have a completely inept track record on how things will work out..you might want to stay out of the prediction business, as being decent at it requires READING OTHER POINTS OF VIEW.

PB

pb spewed: By the logic used, that makes any mom of a dead soldier who speaks more than briefly, a whore.

Well according to Mr. Melendez your top dog DFL guy more than one mom of a dead soldier is un-American.
And she didn't get paid to be photographed laying on her son's grave.
Glass houses, Peeb.

Well actually, NO Kerm

See, I didn't call any of them whores, I think such comments are pretty much crap.

Each person reacts the way they think is best to that sort of grief. I don't condemn someone saying "My son believed in our Mission", if she truly feels that way and that it's best, then I support her in her actions.

So, no, no glass house, I don't believe in saying the heartfelt beliefs of people should be piloried unless they preach hate, and then, what should be addressed is the hate, rather than seeking to point fingers at the person themselves.

As it is written, thatsoever which you do unto the least of you, you did unto me, and any sin which is held over by any two of you, so it will be held over in heaven.

The point being, I certainly think there are a few people who are pretty corrupt, even evil if you like the word, but mostly I don't try to set myself up as better than other folks, because it's entirely against the teachings of Christ to believe in such - and - I think Christ was pretty well right, it is from believing you are better that hatred and justification for violence, grows.

So, again, no Kerm, I don't live in a house that calls the grieving moms of dead sons, whores.

PB

BTW Kerm,

If Melendez or anyone else calls some mom a whore for speaking their heartfelt opinion, then they are dead wrong and vulgar.

I believe the Un-American comment was a reaction to a mom saying that speaking out was unpatriotic, and improper - although I frankly don't remember very well any longer, I read the transcript of the advertisement, I don't watch enough local tv to have seen the commercial - and frankly, I think condemning free speech as traitorous, or describing it as unpatriotic, is not understanding what America was founded on, and it is, therefore, un-American to blithely follow along, to not speak out.

Calling conduct un-American would be a little different than suggesting someone is a prostitute (literally or figuratively -since both were suggested) - having said that, anyone can call Cindy Sheehan whatever they like, and reasonable, rational people can think they are odious and putrid for doing so, just as you think Melendez is odious for affirming that dissent is entirely American, and blind obediance is entirely not.

PB

The Gold Star famlies WERE dissenting, in that they were countering the media paradigm being promulgated on a daily basis. So Melendez was in fact condemming free speech. As for Cindy Sheehan being a "whore", her anti-war position predated her son Corey's death. So did her anti-Isreal politics. She has made lots of money off her son's death that she would never have seen had he not been killed. Can I see her as altruistic? I think not. Opportunistic? Absolutely. At the expense of her dead son. What does that make her?

Now I'm sorry I insulted pimps.

--------
Cindy Sheehan at a Pro-Lynne-Stewart Rally, April 27, 2005, San Francisco State University:

excerpts:

We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush. {applause} How many more people are we going to let him kill before we stop him?

[...]

Too many people in our country that don't even really know we have a war going on. You know, they never have to think of the war, and I'll never, ever forget this war. I can never forget it, even when I'm sleeping {tears} I know that we're in a war and I know that George Bush and his band of neo-cons and their neo-con agenda killed my son. And I'll never, ever, ever forget. I take responsibility partly for my son's death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bulls**t to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for. If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}
Please - teach your babies, teach your babies better than I taught my babies.

[...]

What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's - yeah - and it's okay for Iraq to occupy - I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution and make it be peaceful and make it be loving and let's just show them all the love we have for humanity because we want to stop the inhumane slaughter. {wild applause}

(from: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm )

Mitch: Thanks again for keeping on top of Talk Radio. These guy's do not look at the fact that all the top ratings in radio are conservative or lean that way. Talk radio is a place for conservatives to balance the liberal media. Liberals in radio are boring,negative and void of facts. They only attack and do not bring anything to the table of ideas. Conservatives are happy and debate issues. Sure we attack, but on issues even against our side when they are wrong.

Brian,

If balance means out and out lies, ignoring all facets of facts that might lend credence to your point of view because they have dealt with the gaping holes in your point of view, then talk radio is balance.

Considering the Right Wing leadership of the 70's and 80's derided a well-informed debate, I wonder how sincerely they consider your "balance" to be, in fact, balancing. I wonder how much they appreciate it's visciating effects on attention to their assault upon the treasury?

The thing that convinces me so often, beyond the mountains and mountains of facts piled up against the Bush Administration, is simply this, I hear hatred from both sides, in nearly equal measure, but I almost never hear, almost never see, poignancy, truth, or kindness. You know, the bare naked undeniable foundations of truth and love, from your balanced right. Their speeches preach division, thier commentary preaches contempt, just as here. I'm sure you'll find a speech and post it, and yet, I doubt it will be anything more than vaneered supra-patriotism with a smattering of parachial xenophobia. Feel free to prove me wrong. Find a speech that actually offers up genuine concern and ideas for the balance of humanity that doesn't, in the next breath talk about killing, or rant against the "evil" it perceives.

Further, I see no one on this blog from the right EVER speak about understanding, compassion, concern, for anything other than maybe, the unborn (I suppose) and every once in a while, soldiers - which is such pablum and counter to the actions you take they seem false.

Here again, you focus on Sheehan, but where is your contempt for Robertson, or, for that matter, the cabal that actually IS in power, actually IS making choices that have condemned our country to DECADES of war, DECADES of hatred - not from pre-9/11 terrorists, but from a post Iraq-war world?

You focus on nonsense, you preach hate, and you ignore your own collosally overriding hand in it all, and for you, this is balance.

Perhaps, but when you considere nearly every major news source is owned by the hegemony of multinational corps, perhaps you might consider that it ceased being balanced about 18 or 19 years ago. Perhaps more, you might consider that despite all of your protestations about bias, you have had the power to make things better, and your accomplishments are there, obvious in their monstrous failure.

When we determine that the welfare of workers equals the welfare of ownership, when we determine that free-speech is bound up in the idea of free access to information (something this administration actively opposes), and most of all, when we determine that we ARE in fact, all on this planet, with a bound destiny, together, and consider compassion for the common man more compelling than stock value, then perhaps we'll become what we strut around claiming we already are.. Christian.

PB

Being on the same side of an issue -- 'whore' being inappropriate -- with PB makes me feel dirty. I need to go kick a homeless person to get straight again.

Does 'PB' stand for 'Pissant Bloviator'?

pb bemoaned: Further, I see no one on this blog from the right EVER speak about understanding, compassion, concern, for anything other than maybe, the unborn (I suppose) and every once in a while, soldiers - which is such pablum and counter to the actions you take they seem false.

I have understanding of you peebs. And I have the utmost compassion and concern for you. You seem to be a very miserable human being. That is, sadly, a trait shared by most of your fellow travellers on the left. It's very sad.

Kermit,

I'm actually a very content and pretty happy person. I don't seek to hate everything which I think is "holding me down" like taxes, or public education or (the list is endless on the right).

Further, your compassion is clearly insincere, meaning your hatred continues to dominate your voice - is this the principled person you sought to be? That you strive to be envisioned as?

The meme that conservatives are happy, well I think ignorance can be bliss is part of that, but equally, most conservatives I know are in fact FAR FAR from happy, they are terribly unhappy. I have my opinion about the author, which would be improper to share.

I hardly think my life is worth your time, nor is it the purpose or focus of this blog.. why all on the right seem so bound up in personal attacks I cannot understand, but please, move on. I am neither perfect nor utterly flawed, I am neither always happy nor resolutely sad, I am far more often happy than sad, and you of course wouldn't know if any of this were true, or not, so why not stay on topic rather than, just like all your peers, delve off into foolish personal attack?

But, lest we forget, the point of this post by Mitch, was the prediction of the downfall of left radio and the ascendence of right-wing radio (as well as the mistakes of executives). Mitch, apparently believes he is shrewder than most national marketing chains. Perhaps he is, time will tell.. but,

Mitch predicts the downfall of left-wing radio about every other month..It may die, it may live, but Mitch's powers of prescience are certainly questionable - given past performance.

For example, has WLIB in fact communicated they will not renew the contract with Air America, we don't know, and the source was the ever respectable New York Post (as I recall) regurgitated by the rightly blogs, like this one. Perhaps they won't renew, if so, Air America probably finds another outlet, after all their ratings in NYC are pretty darned good. The other thing to remember; Right-wing radio was a net looser for nearly a decade before becoming a viable commercial concern, and WWTC is, despite having been on the air twice as (three times?) long(er), and advertised FAR more locally, only a .3 share better, meaning they are just about as invisible as in 950.

PB

"Kermit,

I'm actually a very content and pretty happy person. I don't seek to hate everything which I think is "holding me down" like taxes, or public education or (the list is endless on the right).

Further, your compassion is clearly insincere, meaning your hatred continues to dominate your voice - is this the principled person you sought to be? That you strive to be envisioned as?"

ROTFLMAO. Which doesn't happen often. I don't seek to hate everything that's "holding you down" either. I just oppose stupidity as I percieve it. And you are correct, the list is endless.
But for you to say my compassion is insincere is rather presumptuous. I was most sincere in my sympathy for your constant state of mind. You forget one salient point: I have read your lengthy and revealing posts. I poke fun at people I feel are grandiose (that means you, Doug), and seldom take myself too seriously. I don't ever hate people, Peeb. Just ideologies. Some of them disgust me to the core.

"Further, your compassion is clearly insincere, meaning your hatred continues to dominate your voice - is this the principled person you sought to be?"

That, PB, is a grotesque bunch of assumptions, based on what is on online persona. It is (I'll be charitable) overreaching.

"The meme that conservatives are happy, well I think ignorance can be bliss is part of that, but equally, most conservatives I know are in fact FAR FAR from happy, they are terribly unhappy."

Well, you are obviously a much greater authority than any number of national behavioral surveys that show just the opposite; that conservatives are happier, better-educated, more advanced in their careers, have better sex lives, etc, etc.

" I have my opinion about the author, which would be improper to share."

Good God, PB; did you ever graduate, maturity-wise, from the fourth grade? "I have a secret! I think mitch is an ickypoopyhead, but I"m not going to tell you!" Grow up. You've written a lot of grossly dumb things in this space, but that was your furthest crossing into gross cretinism. Please rethink the apparently tragedy that your intellectual life must be if you're writing bilge like the above, day in, day out, at work AND in your free time.

The fact that you'd write it says a LOT more about you than about me.

"I hardly think my life is worth your time, nor is it the purpose or focus of this blog.. why all on the right seem so bound up in personal attacks I cannot understand,"

PB: You have more - MUCH more - than held your own in the personal attack department. You have, in point of fact, basically turned this comment section - once a fairly pleasant diversion and a useful barometer - into a one-note chorus of ugliness over the past few months, leading with a TON of irrelevant, unwarranted, personal attacks, the above being merely the most offensive.

Just stop.

"I am far more often happy than sad, and you of course wouldn't know if any of this were true,"

Truer words were rarely spoken - but then, you make precisely the same sort of gross stereotype judgements all the time (see the first paragraph of this comment).

"or not, so why not stay on topic rather than, just like all your peers, delve off into foolish personal attack?"

The irony no longer amuses. It merely begets a dull throbbing feeling in the back of my head.

"But, lest we forget, the point of this post by Mitch, was the prediction of the downfall of left radio"

Actually, the downfall of Air America. I have little doubt - as will be clarified in an upcoming post - that SOME liberal network can thrive out there. Just that AA - victim, as it is, of a lot of lousy business and programming decisions - is not it.

" and the ascendence of right-wing radio (as well as the mistakes of executives). Mitch, apparently believes he is shrewder than most national marketing chains."

Shrewder? Maybe, maybe not. I'm giving an opinion. One that I am marginally qualified to hold, unlike all you chickenjocks (people who never worked in radio, but are still experts).

"Mitch predicts the downfall of left-wing radio about every other month..It may die, it may live, but Mitch's powers of prescience are certainly questionable - given past performance."

Actually, if you look back to March of '04, I made a series of predictions re Air America that, so far, are doing pretty darn well.

"For example, has WLIB in fact communicated they will not renew the contract with Air America, we don't know, and the source was the ever respectable New York Post (as I recall) regurgitated by the rightly blogs, like this one."

Actually, Brian Maloney of "Radio Equalizer" and Michelle Malkin have been doing a lot of research and investigation - they've led the dead-tree media, with the Sun close behind - in exposing the malfeasance of Air America's management.

" Perhaps they won't renew, if so, Air America probably finds another outlet, after all their ratings in NYC are pretty darned good."

As Nancy showed, no. They're not. After an *exceedingly* short honeymoon, the numbers are *lower* than when WLIB was broadcasting Afro-Caribbean music. The only thing that's kept AA on the air so far is the fact that they're *renting the time* from WLIB. It says a lot that WLIB's numbers are bad enough that they're considering dumping a *paying customer*.

"The other thing to remember; Right-wing radio was a net looser for nearly a decade before becoming a viable commercial concern,"

WRONG!

ABSOLUTELY dead wrong, PB, and wrong yet again (you said that in an earlier comment thread, and you were wrong then, too!). Please substantiate this claim IMMEDIATELY.

(I'll give you a hint; you can not. There are no numbers to support that assertion. Please back it up, NOW, or never make it again).

"and WWTC is, despite having been on the air twice as (three times?) long(er), and advertised FAR more locally,"

Incorrect. 950's promo budget is at least equal to AM1280's.

" only a .3 share better, meaning they are just about as invisible as in 950."

Wrong, again. As noted in this space before (during an earlier instance of you spouting unsubstantiable, wrong "facts" about the local industry", despite the fact that the conservative talk market is split in this town (WWTC and parts of KSTP and KTLK) and that over half of Minnesota votes left of center, WWTC continues to beat KTNF - not merely in arbitrons (which lose their meaning when you get below two points anyway) but especially in demographics. The *average* WWTC listener earns a six figure income, listens to the radio *hours* per day, and has frighteningly high loyalty to companies that treat them well - making a dollar spent at WWTC worth a HELL of a lot more than a dollar at almost any other radio station. That's why WWTC - which has always been profitable as "The Patriot" - attracts a caliber of advertisers that are the envy of any other sub-two-point station in town (RF Moeller and White Bear Lake Pontiac/GMC/Hyundai and Three Sons being great examples - all places that continually renew big-buck ad contracts with WWTC, even though it's the only sub-two-point buy they have).

Do you see anything parallel to that on KTNF? Hell, no.

WWTC earns *several times* as much money per arb point as KTNF. The "mere" .3 difference is a yawning gap that KTNF can never hope to match, financially.

I don't expect you to know that. I WOULD expect a smart person like yourself to quit trying to portray himself as knowledgeable in the least about it, though; you evince as much knowledge in this area as I do, say, about firing a mortar or managing a project; I get around on the overall theories, sure, but the technical details, I know better than to babble on, lest I be embarassed.

Certainly better than to *repeat* it.

"chickenjocks". Heh heh. Would that be sardonic?

kermit said,

I poke fun at people I feel are grandiose (that means you, Doug)

You need to qualify that statement Kerm... You poke fun at liberals you feel are grandious. If you were an equal oportunity poker you could do entire stand ups on Eracusus Shakespearean influenced rants.

Mitch,

You deludedly believe I will somehow give a crap about your barked out orders.

I say the rest not to substantiate anything, but rather to hopefully, piss you off..

The republican powers that be sunk millions of dollars into right wing stations carrying folks like limbaugh for years. (it's a pretty common practice to do - and Air America does it now)

I'll say it again a thousand times if I feel like it, considering your COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM THAT WOMEN DON'T SUFFER NEGATIVELY WHEN DIVORCING - or what LESS NEGATIVELY?

You make unsubstantiated comment after unsubstantiated comment. Considering I actually happen to know a little (though not a lot, but a LOT more than you) about firing mortars, the irony is pretty funny here.

Regarding your claims about the WWTC listenership, please provide the source of such comments IMMEDIATELY, in a place they can be studied, ascertained/evaluated. See, you have a VAST penchant for lying, so I just can't really buy a lot of what you say.

As for the pleasant blog- hmmm, calling folks whores, advocating for shooting liberals, denegrating the service of decorated veterans.. I suppose that constitutes pleasant somewhere.

You've said "oh that's enough" and "just stop" so many times, and yet never actually stopped yourself, so why should I, or anyone, listen or take you seriously? You've lied over and over again - about your work, about your past, about your words, you are not credible, not at all.

We can agree that neither of us thinks the opinion of the other is well founded, I'm fine with that - I actually look at facts from both sides, and find both sides wanting. You regurgitate the facts of a morally bankrupt administration and act as a screen for thier failures.

Regarding the rest, as I said, physician, heal thyself.

PB

kermit said

ROTFLMAO. Which doesn't happen often. I don't seek to hate everything that's "holding you down" either. I just oppose stupidity as I percieve it. And you are correct, the list is endless.
But for you to say my compassion is insincere is rather presumptuous. I was most sincere in my sympathy for your constant state of mind.

You don't have the first clue what my state of mind is.. and so, the concern was either a gross, and mistaken assumption, or insincere, take your pick.

You forget one salient point: I have read your lengthy and revealing posts. I poke fun at people I feel are grandiose (that means you, Doug), and seldom take myself too seriously.

Well, I have done the same with Mitch - and he denies my evaluations of his insecurity - so considering neither of us are qualified psychologists, I'm sure my observations are likely as right as yours. But if you think I'm somehow unhappy, you're wrong. I'm concerned about a world which may tear itself apart once the middle class in the US and Europe figure out they've been sold down the river. I'd rather my kids not have to live through a civil war, but my life itself is happy. I want to point out the "grandiose" people, like Mitch, because they ar frauds, and full of it, when they can't find a way to actually answer for the vast holes in the logic they spout, and further, can't hold accountable the leaders they support.

BTW Kerm, I don't perceive ANYONE holding me down. I'm responsible for my own life/plight. I recognize my race/sex/and economic strata gave me a leg up, but I've done pretty well with it. I make no claim to having "earned my way" as I recognize other folks work very hard (in other parts of the world), but I'm pleased enough with where I am. Your evaluation is off-base, at best.

I don't ever hate people, Peeb. Just ideologies. Some of them disgust me to the core.

That's a fair sentiment, and I concur. The difference here, I don't hate yours. I don't think you are in lock-step with Mitch, certainly not President Bush - who is out to funnel money to corporations as the primary goal of his Presidency. I'm hardly a liberal, but I don't vent my spleen on them much, for two reasons, first, they are pretty much toothless, they have no power, and second, they are about as likely as old Eracus to listen.

I write here because I hope a few folks, you sometimes, though not always, and frankly NEVER Mitch, but a few folks, might get past the vitriole to actually discuss a point. Maybe, just maybe, then we can reach some understanding, and the hatred can be replaced with progress.

It's a thought, an unlikely one, but I'm an optimist.

PB

Every time I read a PB post, a vision and voice of the smarmy, earnest teacher from 'Beavis & Butthead' leaps to mind.

I have a question: has anyone, absent Mitch or perhaps Flash, met PB? Am I being a cynical Hallibushton to suspect that this sniveling little blob of humorless, earnest, I-know-better-than-you-knuckle-dragger-conservatives condescending protoplasm might well be a figment of Herr Berg's imagination?

Either that or someone stuck a keyboard between Doug Grow's goat teeth and the cord up Lori Sturdivant's overtightened sanctimoneous Sunday column ass, and PB is the end result.

Ob,

"Am I being a cynical Hallibushton to suspect that this sniveling little blob of humorless, earnest, I-know-better-than-you-knuckle-dragger-conservatives condescending protoplasm might well be a figment of Herr Berg's imagination?"

I'm flattered that anyone would think I could write a character like PB.

P starts with:

"I write here because I hope a few folks, you sometimes, though not always, and frankly NEVER Mitch, but a few folks, might get past the vitriole [sic] to actually discuss a point."

PB, I have yet to see you "discuss" anything. You flatter yourself - or, to put it in your terms, you have built an edifice to your ego.

"See, you have a VAST penchant for lying, so I just can't really buy a lot of what you say....You've lied over and over again - about your work, about your past, about your words, you are not credible, not at all."

Um, that's utter bullshit, P. No basis in truth. You are ranting and raving now. You have departed controlled flight. Nothing you say has any bearing on reality from this point on. Saying that, you forfeit any right to be considered on any level. Your opinion is dead to me.

"You deludedly believe I will somehow give a crap about your barked out orders."

Again, untrue. I doubt you'd have the common sense to know what I was talking about anyway.

"I say the rest not to substantiate anything, but rather to hopefully, piss you off.."

Pretty mature, that.

"The republican powers that be sunk millions of dollars into right wing stations carrying folks like limbaugh for years. (it's a pretty common practice to do - and Air America does it now)"

As usual, untrue. I'd ask you to substantiate that claim - knowing full well that you NEVER substantiate ANYTHING where your "facts" are in question. But I won't. Because you can't. There IS no substantiation for this. You are regurgitating a trope that the opponents of conservative talk circulated to try to discredit it, denying that it *could* have grown organically, from popular dissatisfaction with the media. But that's the facts.

"I'll say it again a thousand times if I feel like it, considering your COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM THAT WOMEN DON'T SUFFER NEGATIVELY WHEN DIVORCING - or what LESS NEGATIVELY?"

As usual, PB, your reading comprehension fails you. I never said any such thing. Nothing close. Go back and re-read, and try to get *the basic facts* straight next time.

" Considering I actually happen to know a little (though not a lot, but a LOT more than you) about firing mortars, the irony is pretty funny here."

Yes, but you didn't get it.

"Regarding your claims about the WWTC listenership, please provide the source of such comments IMMEDIATELY, in a place they can be studied, ascertained/evaluated. "

Sorry, PB. It's from WWTC's market research; not something we circulate freely. I'm sure you understand; that's how business is done. It's information the sales staff takes out on sales calls. More importantly, it's what drives advertiser decisions to buy time. It's why large, big-spending, *smart* clients like Moeller, Evergreen, Miller Chev and White Bear Lake spend as much money as they do (and they spend LOTS, and not a nickel of it with Air America), for YEARS at a time - because it's money well spent.

In ad buying, results talk. BS walks. Compare the ad books at WWTC and AM950. Well, try - there really is no comparison.

"As for the pleasant blog- hmmm, calling folks whores, advocating for shooting liberals, denegrating the service of decorated veterans.. I suppose that constitutes pleasant somewhere."

Like I said - used to be.

"You've said "oh that's enough" and "just stop" so many times..."

And you've said "Regarding the rest, as I said, physician, heal thyself" often enough that I doubt you know what IT means, or catch the supreme irony of it.

Here's the deal, PB. I don't lie. Oh, I've told the odd lie in my life, but no, as a rule, I don't, and on this blog I have never done any such thing.

I can joke about a lot of things, and mix it up about a lot more. Arguing politics is second nature; it's nothing personal, only business.

But you can apologize immediately for calling me a liar - which'd be a neat trick, since it's not happened on this blog, period - or I will ban you from the blog permanently.

Argue politics all you want. I don't care. But NOBODY slanders my integrity, especially not in service of the childish, ranting, raving bilge you write. Period. This is not negotiable.

The choice is yours. For now.

_encrypt_and_hide_post_
Mitch,

This week I would like you to give PB a redeeming characteristic. Nothing earthshattering, but maybe something like 'produce some small shred of support for his excruciatingly long and pointless posts' or something, just to shake things up. Thanks for all of your help,

Your Alien Overlords

Mitch said to pb:

"But you can apologize immediately for calling me a liar - which'd be a neat trick, since it's not happened on this blog, period - or I will ban you from the blog permanently."

We'll miss ya, Peeb.

Back to radio. Listen to the NARN or any other 1280 host and you will get more info in 1 hour then 1 week of Air America types. I know it makes liberals brains hurt to have to think rather than base everything on feelings. Sooner then later they will call us fat or stupid or corrupt. As for compassion Bono and Geffin both said Bush has done more for Aids then any other President. Conservatives do more for minorities and the poor by giving them self-respect by getting them off government and on to the private sector. Liberals use them Conservatives try to help them.

Hey Mitch..

Maybe your vaunted Right-wing station or blog will have the guts to discuss this, but I doubt it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/18/national/main1419391.shtml

So Mitch doesn't lie on this blog..

First things First, Mitch, your threats are assinine, if I threatened you, what would YOU do?

Second, you said you worked constantly with Doctors and Clinicians, which I knew pretty well was a lie, and then you changed the game to administrators, which I never included in my list.

You said John Kerry called our troops terrorists.

Those two things were both lies.

You said you never insulted me (purposefully), and as we can't know what's in your head, I guess that's not a lie, well except the things you said were so vile that NO ONE could construe them as anything but insults.

You said you NEVER LIE, and yet now say you tell the odd lie, hmm... that then would have been a lie told here on this blog.

You've accused ME of lying, but have the audacity to be upset when you get it thrown back at you, complaining about integrity.

Tough crap brudda, grow up, you made this mess, live with it.

PB

Mitch opines, "I've never seen you discuss anything"

Really Mitch? Then explain the question about where life begins? Your dead-assed stupid response - when you start earning a living - or some other such crappolla.

Or how about, the discussion about chemical weapons, or about your combat dodging little friend...

See, again Mitch, it's lie or dissemble, which one you want, you take your pick.

PB

Sorry, PB. It's from WWTC's market research; not something we circulate freely. I'm sure you understand; that's how business is done. It's information the sales staff takes out on sales calls. More importantly, it's what drives advertiser decisions to buy time.

Mitch, you claimed WWTC's AVERAGE income was six figures.. sure, that would mean it has the highest average income of listeners anywhere. I think you are lying through your teeth, and just like when you demanded of me, and I demand of you, you won't substantiate such a horses assed claim because you know you lied to make it.

PB

Want another Mitch lie..

"I don't post during the day, except during some hurried rush (my best recollection of the caveat)"

Followed by..

I only post while on the phone in meetings (a few months later).

Mitch you post rather continuously when no one is monitoring you. The first comment above, was a lie.

As for my time on blogs, Mitch, I'm not the one making false claims. That would be you.

Regarding your comment about losing money, my source was the book Right Wing Noise Machine. Perhaps it's mistaken, but there is your source, that and comments regarding folks like Savage, Medved, Ingram, that have reported radio stations are paid to air them. Are you saying they aren't?

I fully intended to give you an answer, I'm just not going to cow to stupid little demands, thus, not immediately. You need to grow up A LOT.

PB

"Maybe your vaunted Right-wing station or blog will have the guts to discuss this, but I doubt it."

QUICK! HIDE IT!

puhleeze. Another massively funded government agency fails at its mission. Hardly anathema to conservatives. I opposed the creation of DHS in the first place - it was responding to a crisis with another politicized bureaucracy.

I'm about three years ahead of you on that one. Too.

"So Mitch doesn't lie on this blog.."

That is an irrefutable fact.

"First things First, Mitch, your threats are assinine, if I threatened you, what would YOU do?"

It wasn't a threat. It was a statement. Do not slander me, or I will cut off your commenting privileges. The offer is still valid.

"Second, you said you worked constantly with Doctors and Clinicians, which I knew pretty well was a lie, and then you changed the game to administrators, which I never included in my list."

PB, you are without a doubt the densest person I have ever encountered on a blog - maddening, given that I know you are not dense in real life.

I work with doctors, clinicians, nurses, administrators, patients, policyholders...everyone that touches the website. I watch them do their jobs, analyze their workflow, and try to make our upcoming software work with them, rather than against them. That has been the story all along - no changes whatsoever.

Mitch 1, PB 0

"You said John Kerry called our troops terrorists."

He said they were acting like the terrorists.

Mitch 2, PB 0

"Those two things were both lies."

Both are mistakes on your count.

Mitch 3, PB 0.

"You said you never insulted me (purposefully), and as we can't know what's in your head, I guess that's not a lie,"

Then why bring it up?

Mitch 3, PB -1.

"You said you NEVER LIE, and yet now say you tell the odd lie, hmm... that then would have been a lie told here on this blog."

Untrue. I never pee on lampposts. I may have at one point my life, but it's neither something I advertise nor something I aspire to. The fact that it may have happened in my life, like any sin, is between God (or the department of public works) and me. Not you.

Mitch 4, PB -1.

"You've accused ME of lying, but have the audacity to be upset when you get it thrown back at you, complaining about integrity."

OK, PB. You don't lie. You hurl accusations that are untrue.

Mitch 5, PB -1.

"Really Mitch? Then explain the question about where life begins? Your dead-assed stupid response - when you start earning a living - or some other such crappolla."

It was all the answer the question deserved. I, not being a deity, have no idea when life begins. Given that a conceived fetus is INTENDED, by God or Evolution or whatever you believe in, to become human, I personal believe in erring on the side of life.

"See, again Mitch, it's lie or dissemble, which one you want, you take your pick."

Oh, it's my pick? I'll take "ignore red-faced baiting questions".

"Mitch, you claimed WWTC's AVERAGE income was six figures.. sure, that would mean it has the highest average income of listeners anywhere."

Not sure about "anywhere". It is an excellent set of demographics. Which is why - are you paying attention - a station that averages 1.6-1.8 in 12+ arbitrons lands the huge ad clients it does.

"I think you are lying through your teeth,"

And as usual, you slander my integrity with no basis in fact. You think I'm lying? Then you should take it up with the clients that spend WADS of money at WWTC. Take it up with RF Moeller, which spends millions a year at KSTP, KQRS and...WWTC. Which of the three doesn't fit in the picture?

You keep saying "I don't believe you!". Er, OK. So what? It is a fact, one passed on to me by people in the sales business, people who do this for al iving.. The fact is borne out by the station's sales performance. I am not at liberty to pass on market research - but you have no ability to attack the simple *fact* of the station's sales performance.

So like a yapping puppy, you keep up your dim little refrain - "I think you're lying, I think you're lying, I think you're lying, I think you're lying, I think you're lying, I think you're lying, I think you're lying...". Who cares what you think? You know nothing about the subject. You are speaking ad rectum. Everyone but you knows it.

"and just like when you demanded of me, and I demand of you, you won't substantiate such a horses assed claim because you know you lied to make it."

Wow. Sure showed me.

Well, except that you're wrong. It's the truth. Even though I can't provide the market research (I mean, getting tossed off my show isn't worth it, even to watch you eat vats of crow), the station's performance bears me out. Not that you'd know the difference.

Ah, well. What to do? I did say I'd ban you if I didn't get an apology for your slander. And if I did, the gross domestic product would rise - you might work during the day - which would be a good thing. And I shouldn't say things that I don't do, certainly.

And on the other hand, it can be a mild diversion, beating down these feeble attempts to attack my integrity. But the amusement is wearing perilously thin.

What to do?

If you were an equal oportunity poker you could do entire stand ups on Eracusus Shakespearean influenced rants.
Posted by Doug at March 19, 2006 07:18 PM

Big difference: Eracasus (SIC) has a sense of humor.

"Regarding your comment about losing money, my source was the book Right Wing Noise Machine."

Ah.

If I were to cite a source named "Whiny Left Wing Morons", how credible would that be?

"Perhaps it's mistaken, but there is your source, that and comments regarding folks like Savage, Medved, Ingram, that have reported radio stations are paid to air them. Are you saying they aren't?"

I've never read the book and am not sure what they're talking about, but I have a hunch I know. And you are mixing up your payments here. Pay attention, if you could, please:

The vast majority of conservative talk - of ALL talk radio, these days - follows the Limbaugh model; the host/production company puts out a show; stations can air it for free, with the caveat that they must air the network's spots. Limbaugh's sales people (nowadays it's Clear Channel, but back in the day he had his own crew) sells the ads, Limbaugh gets his cut; given his ratings and number of stations, it can be a huge amount of money. That's how Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, and every other show I'm aware of works in almost every case.

Now, I'm not sure that this has ever happened with Savage, Ingraham or Medved (I'm fairly sure it has NEVER happened with Medved, in fact) - but some stations rent out their airtime. WLIB is a good example, as is WOR. The highest bidder (or any bidder at all) gets the airtime.

It is possible that some entrepreneur or another picked up the rights to a talk show in a given market, rented the time on a station, and took whatever profits were left over after the rent was paid. It happens, but it's *exceedingly* rare with shows that can pay their own freight in the first place. Again, I haven't read the book (and I doubt I will), and can neither vouch for their accuracy - but the scenario I spelled out is MUCH more likely than the "REpublican sugardaddies kept conservative radio on the air" scenario you posit...

...which, by the way, you haven't even begun to support.

Here's your challenge, PB; show me actual evidence of Republican benefactors renting airtime *at a loss* for Limbaugh (or any other conservative syndie) in any of the top 30 markets between 1987 and 1995. Or of any other direct, at-a-loss subsidies from GOP benefactors to the broadcasters involved.

Show us those, and you *might* have a point.

I won't hold my breath, though - because Limbaugh, Medved, Savage and the rest pretty much paid their freight in spades from the word go.

Mitch said:

What to do?<<

Ban him. End thread hijacking and excessive bloviating now.

pb claimed "You don't have the first clue what my state of mind is.. and so, the concern was either a gross, and mistaken assumption, or insincere, take your pick."

Stop it! Your killing me! This is such unintended comedy. You roll your state of mind out in long, somewhat overwrought screed on a regular basis.
I am concerned about you Peeb. My wife has read your (ahem) work, and is of the opinion that you're pathological. I don't know that I share her view, but you most certainly are OCD.

BTW Mitch,

The reason I said you had said women don't suffer economically, is that you said Men don't favor divorce, in part, because they DO suffer.

When you say A affects B as contrasted with C, you are implying/saying that C is NOT affected by A.

If you can't follow that sort of simple logic, sorry for you, but you made the comment, not me.

PB

Once again, you move the goal posts. You asked me for my "evidence", I gave you it. That I choose to believe it, is all that is required. Now, unlike you, I will actually go and spend MORE time looking for such evidence.

Considering you won't validate your lie about average income, it's not like you'll live in the house you built.

As for hijacking, let's see, Mitch, (and his buddies) tear at minute points made in responses, rather than address the overall post, rather than relate it to the overall topic, rather than address the overall holes, so who exactly is hijacking?

PB

Mitch said..

"He said they were acting like the terrorists. "

No, he said they were TERRORIZING FAMILIES, and you KNOW he said that, because you were called on it at the time.

Mitch -10, and I don't keep score, it's juvenile and stupid. I could make up exactly such a list about your incipid predictions and you look like the fool you are.

Apparently calling someone a liar is not an insult, but you never insulted me.

Ban me all you like, considering it's behavioor you evidence toward me, then BAN YOURSELF. Since you started the whole thing, BAN YOURSELF FIRST.

I'd be happy to not have you speak your filth, can you self censor?

Or is it part of your "all points of view are welcome".. you can call me a liar, you can lie, but you can't be called a liar...

Grow up, sticks and stones.

PB

BTW Mitch,

I don't generally read your responses with much attention to detail because they are so full of pompousosity and bloviation, they don't warrant the time.

Consequently, I didn't see your demand for an apology "or I'd be banned", until just a moment ago.

You want me to apologize for something I not only believe, but believe whole-heartedly, and pointed out... well, I don't succumb to threats, and you can do whatever in the hell you like. I believe you intentionally mislead your readers, I believe you've done so repeatedly, intentional deception is lying.

As you say, in real life, I'm hardly dense, which means, I'm probably NOT dense here, just you perceive it as such. Consequently, evaluate for yourself, when you make outlandish claims like "I've never lied", what would you have me do? Agree?

I censor a LOT of stuff I COULD say about you, consider my admonitions regarding your falsehoods a kindness.

Whatever, you want to ban me for pointing out your falacies, your deceptions.. go for it.

PB

" I believe you intentionally mislead your readers,"

And you are, objectively and completely, wrong.

PB: "You asked me for my "evidence", I gave you it. That I choose to believe it, is all that is required."

CHESHIRE CAT: "Words mean what *I* think they mean..."

It's true. I've fallen into Wonderland.

"When you say A affects B as contrasted with C, you are implying/saying that C is NOT affected by A."

Assuming "cause and effect" in a thing like divorce were a matter of filling in a binary truth table.

"If you can't follow that sort of simple logic..."

...then I have probably gone through the real thing, and regard any facile attempts to reduce things to specious blacks and whites to be misguided at best, rhetorical abuse at worst.

"I have probably gone through the real thing..."

Which makes you a "chickendivorcedguy", I guess.

Oh for eff's sake.

This one was almost funny:

"I don't post during the day, except during some hurried rush (my best recollection of the caveat)"

Followed by..

"I only post while on the phone in meetings (a few months later)."

Yep. Both are true. I post comments when I'm in phone meetings (like, now). I occasionally write the odd blog posting over a break, like lunch. Picking selective nits neither makes me a liar nor you cogent.

PB is wrong. Like always.

As to the average income of WWTC listeners - the fact that I am not going to post intra-station market research doesn't make me a "liar", as much as you in your obsessive little state of mind would wish it so. Give it up. You have no clue.

Mritch.

First, your point when you made that comment a few months ago was to try to cast yourself as better than me in your conduct. You overreached, just as when you said you NEVER lie.

I don't hold either against you, it's just exageration, but not nits, not when you are trying to strumpet yourself, but they were lies.

Cogent is something you've only brushed against, normally you struggle to follow the conversation, agreeing after the fact to points made which refute your general tenor, so complaints from you about cogency are laughable.

As for your spending your time only rarely (which btw is actually what you said) you said you posted RARELY during the day in a follow up comment... rarely.. hmmm, ok. sure.

You lied about Kerry, and you know it - you admitted to it then, because while you can attempt to twist words around regarding what he said, when you said he said our troops were terrorists, you KNOW that was not true. Whether he said they were acting like terrorists, which he didn't, isn't the same as saying they ARE terrorist, and you know it.

As for your divorce comments.. accept for the moment that you may be biased, and your comments regarding a cheshire cat, apply to you, you BELIEVE it to be so, so apparently it must be so.

The cause and effect argument was the one YOU made, regarding negative consequences, you said that men much more substantially disfavor divorce because they suffer the negative consequences of it economically, ergo, women, who favor it far more often, by your logic, must not be suffering as much. A TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED, and frankly, false, assertion. The idea is that since men suffer, they disfavor, to say you are implying women don't suffer is hardly illogical or a stretch.

BTW Mitch, only nitwits make threats.

as for this tripe..

" I believe you intentionally mislead your readers,"

And you are, objectively and completely, wrong.

Really, objectively, how would you be a judge of that?

Completely, you mean like deceiving them about what Kerry said?

Apparently objectively and completely mean something completely different in your world from the rest of the world.

PB

(reads yet another long, numbingly-schizoid set of paragraphs).

If I agree to grunt "yeah, whatever" in a bored tone of voice, will you find another blog to nag? There are like ten million of them out there.

Re-read your post. You just moved every goalpost at which you've been shown to have been, er, wrong.

It's like arguing with a greased pig.

I'll await the invitable "I know YOU are, but what am *I*?" response.

No Mitch, there are differences, I recognize that I'm both fallible, and probably more importantly, I don't have the need to thump my chest every other post bout my balls, my integrity, or whatever.

You read something from Fratters, and believe it, yet I read David Brock, and believe it, but that's not sufficient for you.

You and I are markedly different, but unlike you, I don't consider myself better than you because, unlike you, apparently, I recognize that my faith teaches me precisely the opposite. You have your warts, as do I, the real difference I guess is, I'm honest about mine, which is the fundamental reason I consider you dishonest. Does that make me a better person on an aggregate scale, I don't think so. Would you say the same about yourself?

Doubtful.

You have repeatedly made boastful statements which were beyond impossible to believe, if you believe that it's moving the goalposts when you were held accountable for trying to squirm out from under your comments, ah well...that's something I can live with.

One other comment, considering you've been shown to be wrong or mistating just about every point you've put forward here, and considering your unending penchant for snipping/cutting and rambling through responses.schiziod,hmmm.

Pot, meet Kettle.

PB

"No Mitch, there are differences, I recognize that I'm both fallible, and probably more importantly, I don't have the need to thump my chest every other post bout my balls, my integrity, or whatever."

Um, you were the one who brought up "cajones".

You were the one who called me a "liar" - and then has failed to show a single lie.

Pat yourself on the back a little harder.

"You read something from Fratters, and believe it, yet I read David Brock, and believe it, but that's not sufficient for you."

If you tried, I suspect you could make this statement a little more hopelessly general.

"You and I are markedly different, but unlike you, I don't consider myself better than you because, unlike you, apparently, I recognize that my faith teaches me precisely the opposite."

Oh, now I've really had enough.

I don't get into slagging on other peoples' faith. I've talked with you, so I know you do. It's low, and drearily tiresome.

Your faith has taught you, apparently, to defame people without any grounds whatsoever, to skitter away from accountabilitiy for it.

If this is your "faith", then screw it, and you.

" Does that make me a better person on an aggregate scale, I don't think so. Would you say the same about yourself? Doubtful."

I've said as much, many times. Your self-righteousness is misplaced.

"You have repeatedly made boastful statements which were beyond impossible to believe"

Well, duh.

"One other comment, considering you've been shown to be wrong or mistating just about every point you've put forward here"

You have "Shown" now such thing, unless it's another example of your "i consider it evidence" standard from above.

As usual.

Y'know what, PB?

Forget it. Don't bother responding.

For the record: I have never lied on this blog. Not once. I may have made a mistake, and I may have indulged in hyperbole, but there has never, ever been a single lie in four years on this blog. None.

Your attempts to show them merely show you to be a shallow, shrill little person who apparently just loves to argue.

You - YOU, PB - have turned this commment section from a fairly interesting, very diverse group of people with a wide range of opinions (which it's been for four years) to a shrill, dull, one-note screedfest that - here's the funny, ironic part - entirely focuses on you. In other words, you have turned my comment section into an "edifice for your ego", as you'd put it.

I'm tired of it. I'm tired of your mindless recitation of half-witted talking points. I'm tired of your defamation, of your relentless, pointless, mindless anger. I'm tired of you attacking me, personally, my integrity, my faith - all, ironically, things you know even less about than politics, since it's not something I let strangers into. Ever.

Don't bother posting here again.

[Note from Mitch]: PB didn't think I meant it. I did.

Don't post here any more.

That is all.

Make all the niggling little points you want. That's what the comment section is here for.

But if you call me a liar, and take shots at my faith, you can find some other place to act out your little drama. Not here.

I asked for one thing; a simple apology for the unfounded, defamatory accusation that I lie, ever, on this blog. That was all.

You chose not to do it. So I'm done putting up with it. Noplace does it say I have to put up with personal abuse to run a blog.

Nobody - NOBODY - calls me a liar.

Earlier this morning PB let the veil slip with this gem:

"I say the rest not to substantiate anything, but rather to hopefully, piss you off.."

If you can find of better definition of a Troll, I'd like to see it.

Good riddance.

Damn, lookee what I started.

"Damn, lookee what I started."

The "whore" comment was still out of line.

Hallelujah. Reading this thread was like watching a tennis match-back and forth, back and forth...hoping for a win at the end for SANITY. My main thought was an echo of (I think) badda..."oh, for eff's sake"...

The only unsatisfying part of all this is that he's probably off feeling all aggrieved and hard-used and telling friends how UNFAIR conservatives are and how they want to "silence" and "chill" their opponents. Tough shit. Wait, on second thought, the friends are probably pretty scarce...

You could've silenced that inane babble long ago and been cheered to the rafters. I think you were a very patient man, Mitch.

no mitch. I fully thought you were serious. I just wasnt going to apologize for saying what I beleive.

btw mike. I think
you and your faith." is pretty much as offensive and tollesqeu as you could ever hope for.

The "whore" comment was still out of line.

Posted by mike at March 20, 2006 12:43 PM

Since they've just announced a Major Motion Picture based on Mother Sheehan, in which she will no doubt be the recipient of much income I'd have to say no, Mike. It was dead on target.

"btw mike. I think
you and your faith." is pretty much as offensive and tollesqeu as you could ever hope for. "

(God help me...)

Care to try that again?

sure...the comment "screw you and your faith" [MITCH ADDS: Which was made in response to your self-righteous claim "I don't consider myself better than you because, unlike you, apparently, I recognize that my faith teaches me precisely the opposite". You not only have no idea what my faith teaches me, but with statements like that, not much idea of what your faith teaches you, either.]

[And no, you can't post here, either]

[Mitch notes: Nope. Can't get in here, either.]

[You called me a liar. I gave you chance, you chose not to take it. I'm not going to listen to your crap anymore].

gambling http://gambling.tevonad.be/

pharmacy http://pharmacy.ugjilic.be/

pharmacy http://pharmacy.ugjilic.be/

pharmacy http://pharmacy.ugjilic.be/