The far left has a new enemy. Her name is Randi Rhodes

[wyldwolf]

Well, not really. But to some of you, she is Satan.

Shaking my head in wonder. It is so sad how some on the far left LOOK for things to piss them off. Amazing how knocking Ralph Nader down a notch or two inspires such vitriol.

Randhi Rhodes is the thing that pulls this station down. She is absurdly rude to many people. She shouted down Ralph Nader to the point where he hung up. Before that she sarcastically replied to dozens of callers. It's just generally mean. -- Alexa Review


First let me say my politics are left of most points made by Randi Rhodes. I find Randi to be SO OFFENSIVE. She is precisely
what gives Liberalism its BAD name... I must say I was hoping
for something other than the FLIP side of Micheal Savage... I hope TALK LEFT RADIO can do one thing TALK RIGHT has yet to do. CHANGE someones OPINION. Randi Rhodes is a HUGE LIABILITY. -- GJEMD, Air America forum.

Randis got what I call radio bitch fever, I'm on the radio, I have power, I can yell and treat people like dirt, Hey Randi, cool it your acting no better then the Republican scum we are trying to change. Hey Al you would have done way better to have gotten Ed Schultz on your show!!!!! -- Democratic Kid, Air America forum.

More like those in the Alexa reviews, Air America forums, and DU's own discussions.

I'm so glad I'm a democrat. I'm so glad my beliefs finally have a presence on the air - being led by a strong liberal with a proven record in garnering huge ratings in radio.

[Rick Myers]

1. I have to admit, Randi is REALLY full of herself

But, she's been fighting the fight for a long time and has finally broken out... Years ago when she was just into talk on WIOD, Miami, I was on the show with her and she was pretty quick to jump even back then...

I don't think she's a liability to AA, but she IS an aquired taste...

[DAGDA56]

2. I've listened to her before the AA gig...

...she's a smart woman, with a great sense of humor...but she doesn't suffer fools gladly. Unless I'm mistaken, her Florida station continues to carry her AA program...I didn't know stations could pick and choose from AA like that. Can anybody clarify?

[wyldwolf]

4. yes...

... her Florida station still carries the show. It is in her contract. She worked it out so that if she ever got a national syndication deal she could leave or the station would carry the show.

[bandy]

11. Well her station in Fla.

just happens to be Clear Channel (Go figure). They carry her cause she brings in (or did) the big sponsors. Not to mention, she was #1 in ratings far beyond Rush. Say what you like about her, but she is GREAT! Even Rupert (sp) realizes that.

[formernaderite]

She's smart but probably too abrasive for most....

...I can only listen to anger for just so long, plus the whole New York twang kills it for me. I'd tune her in while visiting relatives, I'm assuming she's still the same on AA.

[ithacan]

3. you have to admit

she IS rude to callers who are on our side, whose only sin is that they aren't talking about what she wants to talk about.

I've heard this a bunch of times and am not sure why she does this.

overall I like what she's doing, and I loved her bust up with Nader, but I cringe when she's rude to sympathetic callers.

I'm not saying she should mellow out, but she should not be rude to callers unless they're obnoxious freepers.

[wyldwolf]

7. I won't admit that. I've listened forever and have never heard that..

...maybe people used to listening to Pacifica or NPR just aren't used to her style.

[ithacan]

28. it's not her style...

I like her overall style, I like the combative NYC/Brooklyn attitude and approach, and as I said, I loved her battle with Nader.

But every time I've listened to her she has been rude to a caller who was not a freeper, who was not a conservative, but who was maybe talking a little slow, or whose idea she seemed to be bored with. Her rudeness is just not necessary...

She was out and out rude, no question about it. And there's no need for that.

[wyldwolf]

35. your opinion.

..and what seems to be ticking you off IS her style.

[ithacan]

47. why are you doing this?

I have said I like her style. Why are you telling me I'm lying?

What I have a problem with is one aspect of what I've heard. It's not "my opinion."

You seem to be blind or something, and unwilling to recognize any problems at all.

You're not doing her any favors.

[wyldwolf]

54. demonstrate to the fine people of DU where I've said you're lying...

I've stated that your opinion is just that - your opinion!

[ithacan]

55. quote

Here are your words

" ..and what seems to be ticking you off IS her style."

I said very clearly I do not have a problem with her style and actually do like it.

The statement I've quoted above is basically you saying that I'm lying.

[wyldwolf]

58. You'll have to do better than that

You said: But every time I've listened to her she has been rude to a caller who was not a freeper, who was not a conservative, but who was maybe talking a little slow, or whose idea she seemed to be bored with. Her rudeness is just not necessary...

She was out and out rude, no question about it. And there's no need for that.

What you percieve as "rude" is her STYLE. It is your opinion that she is rude. Her style is what you have a problem with.

No lie there.

[ithacan]

62. no

You are purposefully twisting my words and distorting what I've said.

I did not say she does this to every caller. Note that I said "a" caller, not "every caller."

Most of the time she is fine.

But she has done that to at least one caller every time I've listened to her.

As I said I do like her style, so please do not put words into my mouth. I said it quite clearly. Can you understand that? Having been a New Yorker for a good number of years I like it. I think it's one of her strengths and the strength of the new AA lineup.

Please reread my above paragraph before you proceed.

But she has been out and out rude to some callers who did nothing to provoke it. Rude is not style, it's rude. Even New Yorkers know the difference between style and rude (maybe you're from the midwest somewhere and can't tell the difference?)

Are you incapable of understanding plain English? You're not doing her any favors by taking such a ridiculous line.

Man, you're as bad as the far leftists you seem to dislike, you can't accept any criticism of your "dear leader" who must be faultless...

[w4rma]

65. In my humble opinion,

Your opinion is that her style is sometimes rude, ithacan.

[wyldwolf]

70. oh really?

You are purposefully twisting my words and distorting what I've said. I did not say she does this to every caller. Note that I said "a" caller, not "every caller."

In post #3, you plainly stated "she IS rude to callers who are on our side, whose only sin is that they aren't talking about what she wants to talk about.

I've heard this a bunch of times and am not sure why she does this."

That certainly sounds like more than "a" caller, doesn't it?

In post #28, you said: But every time I've listened to her she has been rude to a caller who was not a freeper,

Are you saying she was rude to the same caller on multiple days?

No, you have stated several times you think she is rude. But the trait you have a problem with, which you BELIEVE is rude, is the STYLE she is known for. So it is obvious that you have a problem with her style.

[mhr]

82. Exactly, I think The Thin Skinned Progressives At DU Need A Trip To NY

Randi is pretty tame as New Yorkers go.

New York is almost a nation apart from the US.

Something to consider, Randi is probably popular in Florida because of all the east coast retirees there.

[bearfartinthewoods]

116. bingo.......NYC is not the country and NYC style will not appeal

in central PA the way it might in NYC. i'm glad there are other hosts.

maybe it's my computer link but her voice is like fingernails on the blackboard to me. and she does come off very rude. no randi for me.

[americanstranger]

124. On the other hand,

Hannity's a New Yorker, as is O'Reilly.

They're on all over this country, no?

Maybe the New york attitude travels a bit better than you might think. As I remember it, 'Seinfeld' was a show full of pushy New yorkers, and that was #1 for how many years?

-as

[mouse7]

67. Then don't call.

It's not like Rhodes is the one dialing the phone initiating the conversation.

I have no pity for people who call radio stations. They're grown. They know what they are getting into when they dial.

And rude? Randi Rhodes is nothing. Ever listened to The Jim Rome Show? (it's a sporttalk show, for those out of the sporttalk loop). That guy has become a media star entirely because he took rude to new levels. He became a media star because he kept calling Rams QB Jim Everett "Chris(Evert)." Everett got sick of the little punk and chased Rome around a set, and "a star was born." Have you listened to the sick and sad things that most of the morning shows in this country do to callers?

Here's another case where progressives are gathering for a circular firing squad because a progressive isn't perfect, pure, and doing everything exactly the way they want to script things for them.

So spare me a faux outrage. Rhodes is mild compared to the rest of the broadcast industry. Pay attention to what's happening in the rest of the broadcast industry. Stop trying to impose Pacifica/NPR broadcast standards on progressives. Last time I checked, Rhodes wasn't working for Pacifica, and wasn't trying to.

[ithacan]

74. man, are you LOOKING for a fight?

I did not express outrage, faux or otherwise.

I did not say I want Pacifica/NPR (and for the record I don't)

I did not say she should be removed from AA

I did not say she should be pure.

I'm not sure why all these people are putting words in my mouth.

I just expressed my own experience, that sometimes she is rude to some callers, and as I've explained this is not a question of style.

Overall, as I said above I think she's a great addition to AA and is very much needed.

It seems to me that YOU'RE the ones who are demanding purity, the only acceptable answer is, "she's perfect." ... :eyes:

[mouse7]

92. If it's not socially unacceptable, it's not rude.

Here's what you said...

"she IS rude to callers who are on our side, whose only sin is that they aren't talking about what she wants to talk about.

I've heard this a bunch of times and am not sure why she does this."

It is not socially unacceptable for radio personalities to yell at and make fun of callers any more. The VAST majority of radio air personalities do it. If the vast majority of a group are conducting some kind of behavior and not being sanctioned by the society for it, then that behavior is socially acceptable. That means the behavior is the norm. Randi Rhodes is only doing what is the new norm in broadcasting.

I don't expect anyone to say she's perfect. I do expect people to say say what is accurate. Randi Rhodes treatment of callers is industry standard across the bredth of all formats. You refered to her behavior as if it was far outside accepted bounds. It's not.

[Ardee]

142. fact based response

Actually Everett reached across the table and punched Rome....

As or Rhodes, she is simply the liberal Sean Hannity or Bill O"Reilly, as disturbed and anti social as are they...I fo one will never listen to one word she utters again.

[w13rd0]

5. I'm not a fan...

...but I'm glad she's on the lineup. Hell, I'm just thrilled there IS a lineup...

[Darth_Kitten]

6. Why alienate the "far" left?

There is no far left in american politics. I'm so tired of this divisiveness......

I guess the "left" or the "centrists", whatever, wish to make themselves more important in the democratic party, they aren't like those flaming far lefties.

[w13rd0]

8. That's the posters "shtick"...

...some, like Al From, seem to want to crush the "far left" under bootheel far more than they wish to defeat Bush. It certainly seems higher on their list of priorities...

[wyldwolf]

16. and some on the far left would rather Bush win than compromise their...

...faux ideology.

[noiretextatique]

64. tell that to the "bush democrats"

just like "reagan democrats"...the do more damage to democrats by voting for republians than your mythical "far left" could ever do by voting for someone like nader. and i challenge you or anyone else to prove me wrong.

[wyldwolf]

75. That very well may be the case, but...

..we're not discussing them, are we?

We're discussing the far left's faux outrage over a talk radio personality's treatment of one of their heroes and their continuous "threats" to vote 3rd party if the don't get their way.

P.S. - Since you issued the challenge, the burden of proof is on you as to whether the "bush democrats" have done more damage than the naderites. But I put them all in the same boat anyway. They did what the naderites did - just more directly.

[noiretextatique]

96. 300k democrats for bush in florida 2000

90k total votes for nader. 3x the number of direct votes for bush...and yes, that reality is far more damaging than nader could ever be...something some of you convienently dismiss in this "far left" demonization campaign. i am not outraged over randi...i doubt many are. perhaps you just using this opportunity to start some more shit? nah...i'm sure your motvations are far more noble :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

97. may be true... I haven't seen the sources...

... You do have sources, right?

Regardless, the fact remains that Nader himself siphoned votes away --- and he wants to do it again.

...your ad hominems notwithstanding :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

107. funny,,,you seem to know a lot about the "far left"

yet you haven't provided a single source for any of your assertions. just look at the florida election results...you can find them many places on the 'net...like the state of floria webste.
i see you aren't up to my challenge...as i suspected. since when did and accurate assessment = "ad hominem?"
surely, your thread wasn't meant to be inflammatory :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

108. you're the one who made an assertion - and instead of providing sources...

...you're trying to turn it around.

[bushclipper]

109. gotta agree - you challenged him/her to prove his/her point...

...and asked for sources. Instead, the request was avoided.

[noiretextatique]

121. the challenge was to prove me wrong

and while we're talking about sources, perhaps you can provide one for the poster's claim below:

'We're discussing the far left's faux outrage over a talk radio personality's treatment of one of their heroes and their continuous "threats" to vote 3rd party if the don't get their way'

[wyldwolf]

122. Everyone on DU knows of the threats to vote third party...

...by certain elements here.

But you came in making all these claims about "Bush democrats" and quoting numbers and such but still duck the requests to provide sources.

We can only assume you made them up.

First rule of debate is when one makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them.

[noiretextatique]

125. where are YOUR sources for your assertions?

hint: "everyone knows" is not a term that is likely to win "debates." i think you need to look at those debate rules again :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

126. I asked you first

You can't duck a request for sources by making one of your own.

You have to show that 300,000 democrats voted for Bush in Florida.

I also went back over our exchange and noticed you haven't denied that Nader's 97,000 votes affected the outcome.

[noiretextatique]

129. i see...your source is "everybody knows"...meanwhile

you ignore the link and the source i gave you...and you still ask for a source :eyes: do you have a link or a source for any of your assertions...like the title of the post that started this thread? right..."everybody knows" :eyes:

i do not deny that nader's 97k voted affected the outcome, i stated that 3x the number of democrats who voted for bush than total nader votes was more of a factor on the outcome than nader.
it's simple math :shrug:

end of debate...continue with your "everybody knows"
wisdom :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

131. post 123

I ignored nothing.

And the subtitle read: ...But to some of you...

I then gave sources.

Prove the 300,000 figure.

[noiretextatique]

119. where is YOUR source for the assertion that is the title of this thread?

hmmm...is that NOT an assertion? WHERE is your source?

my assertion: prove to me that democrats voting for bush were not more a factor than total nader votes. as i already mentioned (ahem) the florida elections site has the information that proves my assertion, unfortunately it requires some digging and analysis to get the answers. since you ignored that source here is another that requires less work to grasp.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

scroll down a bit, to see that 11% of of self-indentified registered democrats voted for bush. of course, this number also requires a little effort to understand as well...again, the source i already provided has the necessary information.

in rough numbers, 6 million total votes were cast, 3.8 million voters were registered as democrats, and there was a 70% turnout. multiply 3.8 million by 70% and the result of that by 11%...and you get approxiamtely 296,000 bush democrats.

now...where is your SOURCE?

[wyldwolf]

123. I asked you first...

..you can't make allegations, and then when asked to prove them, turn around and say, "No, YOU prove them,"

Now I see your CNN source, but you say I ignored another source. Where?

Now, to address your CNN source. All this shows is that 11% of democrats that participated in an exit poll voted for Bush (never mind that 8% of republicans voted for Gore - making Bush's net vote gain from dems just 3%)

But where are the big numbers you claimed? You said 300,000 democrats voted for Bush in Florida. Proof?

[noiretextatique]

127. do you know how to navigate on the internet?

the state of floria keeps statistics on elections on its official elections website...it is on the internet. you can find it by doing a search using google or any other search engine. that IS a source for my rough analysis: 296,000 bush democrats, as provided in my previous post.
and your source...for any of your assertions this thread...besides that debate-winning "everybody knows" claim? and since i know the difference between a link and a source...i'll settle for a source.

[wyldwolf]

132. Yes, but I'm not doing your work for you

The burden of proof is on you.

Your previous post DID NOT list any source for the "rough analysis."

[noiretextatique]

135. florida, like many states, has elections statistics on its "website"

1 entry found for website.
web·site or Web site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wbst)
n.
A set of interconnected webpages, usually including a homepage, generally located on the same server, and prepared and maintained as a collection of information by a person, group, or organization.
Usage Note: The transition from World Wide Web site to Web site to website seems to have progressed as rapidly as the technology itself. The development of website as a single uncapitalized word mirrors the development of other technological expressions which have tended to evolve into unhyphenated forms as they become more familiar. Thus email has recently been gaining ground over the forms E-mail and e-mail, especially in texts that are more technologically oriented. Similarly, there has been an increasing preference for closed forms like homepage, online, and printout.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=website

[wyldwolf]

136. yes, but I'm not doing your work for you...

[noiretextatique]

137. *sigh*...clearly, you aren't doing your work...for YOU

since "everybody knows" how to reach a "website." :eyes:

ok...now im done with this, but it's been a real blast :D

[bushclipper]

139. you can't throw out an allegation...

..then tell people to search the internet if they want proof.

:eyes:

THAT is YOUR job.

[wyldwolf]

140. I didn't think that was so hard to understand...

but he/she's through with it. And it was a blast.

[noiretextatique]

143. the state of florida elections WEBSITE has statistics

on voting and voting results...surely this can't be NEWS to you or the other one?! :shrug:
you don't need to "search the web" to find those statistics...you need only go to the official state website:wtf: i.e., the SOURCE, i've provided several times now. btw, some of the data has to be downloaded to Excel to read, since it's formatted as a .dat file.
if he needs a LINK to a state elections website...then clearly he refuses to do his own work...i believe that's called: LAZY.
meanwhile...the poster's source is: "everybody knows" for his NUMEROUS and UNSUBSTANTIATED assertions, and not a single SOURCE to dispute the SOURCE (the florida elections website, which has elections statistics) or the LINK (CNN exit-polling) i provided to SUBSTANTIATE my claims.
the challenge stands...and i backed up my claim. so...will he accept the challenge...or continue to nitpick about the difference between a SOURCE and a LINK? perhaps you can help him with that distinction :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

145. well SHOW us

If it is so easy to find, and you have insisted it is there... it is YOUR responsibility.

And I thought you said you were through with this.

[Tinoire]

151. WTF. The losing side of an argument...

always looking for the gray missing "link" because they can't think.

Must be something in the human genome :shrug:

[bushclipper]

154. more like...

...ducking when someone can't produce proof they say exists.

[noiretextatique]

177. did you see charlie's post providing the LINK

to the state of florida's website...the one you and the others couldn't manage to find? did you see him verify my numbers? oh well...since he did it, i will too
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/

this is a "link" to my "source"...which as i mentioned several times, is the state of florida, a government entity. i don't know if you know this...but most states have "websites" where they publish "election results." one could say: "everybody knows" this :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

181. Yes. Did you not see that I responded to it yesterday?

[noiretextatique]

184. i saw your response

and i responded. wonder how charlie found the state of florida website when you and two others couldn't seem to do so? :shrug: perhaps because: he wanted to.

[wyldwolf]

186. It isn't that we couldn't... and we never said we couldn't... we said...

..the burden of proof was on you. You threw out the stats. To be credible, you must provide the source to back them.

[noiretextatique]

188. that'a copout...eom

[wyldwolf]

190. when it comes to having a debate/discussion...

...just like in a law case, when one side makes an allegation, the burden of proof is on them. To refuse to do so makes them (you) not credible.

The copout is yours.

[noiretextatique]

191. this is INSANE

i provided the numbers and the source. that you couldn't prove me wrong is your problem.

[wyldwolf]

193. no you didn't. You NEVER provided the source for your 300,000 figure...

Charlie did.

[noiretextatique]

196. he gave you the link to the source previously provided

as i told your other friend...no matter how many times you try to say that i didn't give you a source, it will never be true.

[wyldwolf]

198. no, HE gave the source. you did not.

[noiretextatique]

200. he gave you the LINK to the SOURCE i already provided

clearly...even you can see the difference.

[wyldwolf]

201. no... he provided the source that you claimed existed

..no matter how you try to wiggle out of it, you did not provide the source for your claim.

[noiretextatique]

206. wiggle out? fuck...i really thought you folks

were smart enough to find you way to a state website :shrug: i gave you the formula and i told you which information i used in post 119. all you had to do was go there and verify...which, as i keep saying, you would have to do. why? because the numbers aren't just sitting there waiting for you...you have to do some work to see them, as i mentioned in post 119.
and since charlie's numbers match mine...what's there to wiggle out from? he was smart enuf to allow for a margin of error, but the bottom line is the same.

2 (using charlie's numbers) - 3 (using my numbers) times the number of registered democrats voted for bush than did total nader votes.

is all this LINK bullshit about your inability to:

1) dispute those numbers
2) provide any SOURCES or LINKS for all you bullshit claims...like the one in the title?

[wyldwolf]

208. that's not the point. The burden of proof is on you

You make an allegation, you must provide the proof.

You can't pawn it off on someone else to do.

It really is that simple.

[noiretextatique]

209. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

:dunce:

[wyldwolf]

213. sleep tight.

[noiretextatique]

215. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

:dunce:

[wyldwolf]

217. sleep tight

[charlie]

141. How about something fresher (and scarier)?

December 21-22, 2003

q10 If the 2004 Presidential election were being held today, do you think you would probably vote for George W. Bush or probably vote for the Democratic candidate?

Total Rep Dem Ind Dec03b
George W. Bush 49 88 11 51 44
Democratic candidate 40 6 79 31 40
Can't say until chosen (Vol.) 6 2 7 8 8
None, won't vote (Vol.) 1 0 0 1 1
DK/NA 4 4 3 9 7

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/bush_iraq.pdf

[bushclipper]

138. noiretblu, do YOU know how to navigate the internet?

Anyone who has been on DU any reasonable amount of time knows of the littany of spoiled loser posts from people who's candidate did not cut it in the primaries.

Using your standard, I can say this:

Since you're already on DU, use the search function.

[noiretextatique]

148. WTF are you talking about?

saying "the election statistics from a particular state are on the state's official website" is not the same as saying "use the DU search function". you folks have an agenda that seems to be clouding your common sense...why am i not surprised? :eyes:
i provided numbers from the florida elections website...numbers you and the other ones apparently dispute. as i mentioned, some of those numbers require a little work to see, because they are not in html format....so a giving you a LINK will not help you find the numbers. i have provided the SOURCE, so if you or the other one dispute those numbers...you know where to look to see if they are in fact accurate. what is the problem with that as a SOURCE? i assumed you and the poster are sophistocated enough to find a state website without a link.
try as you might...it's not unreasonable to assume you or the poster can find you way to any state elections website. what's unreasonable is to claim that not providing a link = not providing a source. seems like an avoidance tactic to me, a transparent one at that.
if the poster had better debating skills, he might mention that the florida democrats in question are likely DINOS, as other nader-obsessed types have in the past when this very same debate occurred here. if you use the DU search function, you will see what i mean :eyes:

[bushclipper]

153. WTF are YOU talking about?

You say something is on a Florida website. You say "go find it for yourself" when someone asks for a link.

You then ask for proof of something else. You're told to search for it on DU in response to your copout answer.

Sounds like the same thing to me - in principle.

[noiretextatique]

175. i'll say it again...though it seems my friend charlie has provided it

asking you to find your way to a state website, which i provided as the source (convienently this has morphed into requests for a link)
is not unreasonable...no matter who many times you say it.

it's not a "copout" to assume you "everybody knows" folk can find a state website :eyes:

charlie managed to find the state of florida's website without my assistance...perhaps you all should ask him about how he did that. :shrug: i guess he's more proficient in using google than the "everybody knows" debate team.

[Tinoire]

160. You're talking to deliberately uninformed people

Be kind. Give them a link. Throw the damn dogs a bone.

Naw. On the other hand... WTF for? :shrug: Rah rah Kerry, Soros, SOA, NED and all that crap.

These "New" Democrats need to be have their noses shoved into the river but then they'll tell you they wanted purified spring water as they refuse to drink.

Why are you wasting your time with DLC supporters who want to convince us that Harold Ford is a progressive? You'll die blue in the face before they ever give an inch.

[wyldwolf]

161. surely even you see the utter lack of credibillty one has...

..when they throw up some numbers, first refuse to give a source for them, then name a source but refuse to give a link, then demand people find the link for themselves, then demand others give links to their claims.

Irresponsible.

No one disputed her numbers, we just asked for proof. Instead, we get lectures, rants, ravings, blah blah blah.

And your DLC slams... funny. The bones of your kind are already buried.

[Tinoire]

163. Sorry my fine-feathered DLC whatever

There are certain grounds no progressive or liberal should have to revisit on a progressive web-site.

Proof, proof, proof.. You only demand that to weaken the progressive cause.

If you need proof of something as elementary as that, you may be on the wrong board.

Let me guess. Voted for Reagan and still see no evil in that :shrug:
Or better yet even... voted for Bush but were "lied to" :eyes: Were "mislead" :eyes:

Sure. Hit alert. Who give a WTF. Your bones are rattling in the progressive incinerator :). :puke: on the "irresponsible" DLC that needs "proof" at every fucking corner because it's been asleep for years and is only now waking up to tell people the house is on fire. Of course it's on fuckng fire- DLC Dems were asleep at the wheel.

On edit: Where the hell are you sources? www.ndol.org? Please, give us a effing break. :puke: And after you've googled, try "THINKING". You have the numbers, you have the source, you even have a link to the CNN exit poll. Try thinking for a change.

Whine about links when you have nothing else to stand on.

"You know how to whistle don't you, Steve?" Well GOOGLE YOUR EFFING ASS OFF!

[wyldwolf]

166. I demand proof to weaken the progressive cause? bwahahahaha!

Probably the funniest thing I've ever seen you post - and you've posted some knee slappers.

So, "progressive" causes are to be accepted on blind faith? Yep! Don't need proof! We'll just take your word for it!

DU is hardly a "progressive" web-site in the manner in which YOU define progressive.

It is a "democratic" website. Hence the name...

No, if I need proof of something - no matter how elementary YOU may find it to be - DU has always been an excellent source for documentation.

If you feel that statements can be thrown around without proof, then perhaps YOU are on the wrong board.

Let me guess. Voted for Nader and still see no evil in that :shrug:
Or better yet even... gonna vote for Nader again :eyes:

Sure. Hit alert. Who give a WTF. Your bones are rattling in the democratic party incinerator :) :puke: on the "irresponsible" far left conspiracy mongerers that refuses to give "proof" of their claims. That is how the far right fundies do it, too.

[Tinoire]

167. Yeah yeah rah rah Go DLC. Re-elect Bush

because better Bush than a real progressive. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

170. Yeah yeah rah rah Go NADER. Re-elect Bush.

..because better Bush than a real democrat.

[Tinoire]

171. You're way off.

I'm not a Nader supporter. Of course anyone not swallowing the DLC line must seem like a Nader supporter to you. The paranoia is hilarious!

[wyldwolf]

173. sure, Tinoire

[charlie]

162. Hell, I'll do it

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/2000voterreg/2000genptyrace.pdf

3,803,081 registered Dems, 3,430,238 Repubs, 1,353,431 Indies, 8,752,717 total.

And to further stir the stew, noiretblu's CNN link was to a national exit poll. An ABCNews poll in Florida puts the number of Bush-voting Democrats at a higher figure -- 13%.

Using noreitblu's 70% turnout figure leaves 2,662,156 registered Dems. Using her CNN cite of 11% would be 292,837, roughly 300,000.

For yucks, let's do it with a generous margin of error. A 50% turnout rate would leave 1,901,540 registered Democrats. 5% of that number voting for Bush would be 95,077, roughly equal to Nader's numbers.

In any case, it's just plain willfull obtuseness to deny that Bush-voting wayward Dems isn't a problem. There's long been enough of them that they have a cute name -- Reagan Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

164. Finally, someone produces the numbers

But no one has denied anywhere in this exchange that "Bush-voting wayward Dems" isn't a problem.

What we have contended is that a third party candidate that draws dem voters away is a bigger problem.

As in 2000, we already see Nader siphoning votes. (Before Nader entered, Kerry led Bush. After Nader entered, Bush led Kerry by roughly the same percentage Nader was polling with.

So, to coin your phrase, it's just plain willfull obtuseness to deny Nader has had a big effect on the 2000 outcome in Florida and in the current national polls.

Diverting to republican voting dems in defense of the Nader effect is a sideshow.

Now, to address the idiotic refusal by someone to refuse to give sources when asked.

When I was a part of my high school and college debate teams, we were required to show proof of our points for them to count. If we quoted a document, for example, we were required to produce a copy of that document if the opposing team asked for it.

On the internet, I have always believed it to be proper etiquette to give links to sources to back up one's claims when a discussion is being had.

Do you not agree that it is proper etiquette to do so? Do you not agree that making claims without producing a link upon request to prove them weakens your argument? Do you not agree that demanding your opponant find the link themselves is a complete and total cop-out?

[charlie]

169. No, can't say that I agree

Even after whittling down the turnout and poll figures drastically, the number of Democratic Bush voters still equals the number of Nader voters in Florida. Dem turncoats are a worse problem.

Now, I know that they're a bunch of conservative peckerwoods and I certainly don't want the party to tack rightward enough to woo them back, though it can be argued (and I'm sure you've heard it enough times) that that's the direction the likes of the New Dems are heading, with their soft-on-corporatism, "muscular foreign policy", don't rile the "family values" contingent style of politics. I think a good bit of what sticks in peoples' craws is the rank derision reserved for those who appreciate Nader speaking to issues that the Dem leadership tend to finesse, while the proven traitors are given cutesy names like Reagan Democrats.

[noiretextatique]

178. in post 119, i provided you with numbers, a link, and a source

119. where is YOUR source for the assertion that is the title of this thread?



here is my original post.
hmmm...is that NOT an assertion? WHERE is your source?

my assertion: prove to me that democrats voting for bush were not more a factor than total nader votes. as i already mentioned (ahem) the florida elections site has the information that proves my assertion, unfortunately it requires some digging and analysis to get the answers. since you ignored that source here is another that requires less work to grasp.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

scroll down a bit, to see that 11% of of self-indentified registered democrats voted for bush. of course, this number also requires a little effort to understand as well...again, the source i already provided has the necessary information.

in rough numbers, 6 million total votes were cast, 3.8 million voters were registered as democrats, and there was a 70% turnout. multiply 3.8 million by 70% and the result of that by 11%...and you get approxiamtely 296,000 bush democrats.

[wyldwolf]

183. I asked for a source showing your 300,000 number...

You did not provide that

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

192. No, you did not provide the source, Charlie did

You just said it was on the florida site and expected someone else to do your research work for you.

[noiretextatique]

203. did you look at the site, yet?

:dunce: NO...because IF you did, you would know that the 300k figure is no where to be found on that site. you have to download and add the data in order to find the totals. of course...you would know that if you bothered to LOOK at the link you've been whining about for two days now.
charlie gave you the link to the same source i used...that's why our numbers are the same...DUH!!!
he bothered to do what you and the other whiners will not...look at the numbers, do the math, and figure it out for yourselves. that's what charlie did...that's what you HAVE TO DO.

[noiretextatique]

180. no...acting as if you can't find a state website

without a link pointing you there is not just a copout...it's an admission that you don't really want to verify the numbers i provided in post 119.

[wyldwolf]

185. No, throwing out numbers and refusing to source them is a copout and lazy

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

194. no, you did not. You gave a CNN site that DID NOT contain...

...the 300,000 figure you threw out.

[noiretextatique]

199. you are confusing "link" with "source"

and they are not the same thing. here is my post...again. i clearly tell you where i got the numbers...the state of florida elections results website (please see bolded information below). you and the others wanted a link...i thought you could find it on your own, as charlie was able to do, since it's a no-brainer. please stop fabricating this story about not having a source.

19. where is YOUR source for the assertion that is the title of this thread?



hmmm...is that NOT an assertion? WHERE is your source?

my assertion: prove to me that democrats voting for bush were not more a factor than total nader votes. as i already mentioned (ahem) the florida elections site has the information that proves my assertion, unfortunately it requires some digging and analysis to get the answers. since you ignored that source here is another that requires less work to grasp.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

scroll down a bit, to see that 11% of of self-indentified registered democrats voted for bush. of course, this number also requires a little effort to understand as well...again, the source i already provided has the necessary information.

in rough numbers, 6 million total votes were cast, 3.8 million voters were registered as democrats, and there was a 70% turnout. multiply 3.8 million by 70% and the result of that by 11%...and you get approxiamtely 296,000 bush democrats.

now...where is your SOURCE?

[wyldwolf]

202. no, you want to dictate the rules. When someone asks for source..

online, that means a link. Offline, it means any number of physical documentation.

[noiretextatique]

204. you are still confusing "link" with "source"

bull...if i tell you to look on the irs website...would you need a link?

[wyldwolf]

205. No. I am not. And if you said there was a specific piece of info on the..

...IRS site, yes I would expect a direct URL to it.

[noiretextatique]

207. if you bothered to use the LINK to the SOURCE in question

you will NOT see...as i have explained several times now...those numbers.
you will have to search for them...i gave you the formula to do so way back in post 119.

[wyldwolf]

210. No one will do your work for you...

..you make a claim, we're not going to dig to confirm your claim or add up numbers in some formula. That is YOUR job.

[noiretextatique]

214. have you bothered to look at the site yet?

that's about doing YOUR WORK. if so...please tell me when you find charlie's numbers...or mine. thanks.

[wyldwolf]

216. Charlie and I discussed the figures yesterday

... had a nice nap?

[noiretextatique]

218. did you go to the site and see those numbers?

and of course...charlie disagreed with your conclusion. the answer: no you cannot click on a link and find any of those numbers on that website...as i told you back in 119, you need to download some data.
so...have you done that yet? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :dunce:

[wyldwolf]

220. yes. Thanks to Charlie who did your work for you

[noiretextatique]

221. bottom line

as my post #119 with the source, and charlie's with the link proves...you can't keep saying the "far-left" is more of a problem than your very own democrats. that, of course was the challenge, until you attempted to deflect with this nonsense about needing a LINK to find the state of florida's website :eyes: how did charlie find it without a link? :eyes:

and...you did NOT see those numbers on that site...not without downloading the information first, as i told you back in post 119...it requires some work to see calculate the 300K figure.

so...can you prove charlie wrong since he provided a link?
i didn't think so...case closed...my challenge stands unanswered by you and the others who can't find a government source without a LINK :eyes:

noiretblu: 1
the "everybody knows" debate team: 0

[wyldwolf]

222. where did I say the "far-left" is more of a problem than democrats?

[noiretextatique]

223. that is completely DISHONEST

charlie's link, a pdf document, only gives you the total of registered democrats, it does not give you the voter turn-out percentage (he's relying on my percentage) because i found that data elsewhere on the site.
you can't call someone a liar here, even if they are lying, so i will just say you are being dishonest.

[wyldwolf]

225. wow! look who's talking about dishonesty!

charlie's like gave the info that was required to make a point.

If you found other pertinent info on the site, you should have linked it. But you don't see the need to show evidence of the claims you make.

And you ignored my question in post 222. Dishonest are you?

[noiretextatique]

226. FOR THE LAST TIME...A LINK DOES NO GOOD

if the data is not readily accesible by that link. i gave you the formula and the source for the data. like charlie did, you could have found the data if you wanted to do more than whine.

and...you never bothered to check if charlie's or my information was accurate...even with the link...which indicates all the whining was a tactic. first...you can't prove me wrong (mainly because it requires some work to do so) which was the challenge, and secondly even with a LINK you still didn't bother to confirm ALL the numbers, which means all the whining for links when you had the source already was just BULLSHIT.


if i was dishonest...PROVE IT, or put a sock in it. PROVE that any of the numbers i provided from the source i mentioned to you a zillion times were incorrect...or eat those words.

[wyldwolf]

227. Yell all you want. A link provides credibility. And you wouldn't give it.

That says something.

[noiretextatique]

176. thanks, charile...i did mention my numbers were rough

and i didn't realize i was using a national exit poll...thanks for correcting that.
and thanks for proving that my source could be found without me providing you a link :eyes:
i've actually seen the 300k florida number before...perhaps it was in an article, but i couldn't track down any articles that specifically mention it.

bush-voting dems are a problem for democratic candidates...at least
2 to 3 times the problem of nader voters

[charlie]

179. That's right

Anyone who doubts it, look at post #141. After experiencing 3 years of Bush cratering the country, that CBS poll has a dependable 11% of Dems still preferring him to the Democrat. Nationwide. There's no fucking excuse for that. Nader voters are trying to turn the country 180 degrees away from neocon conservatism, Reagan Dems WANT BUSH. Now, which group is more worthy of scorn?

[noiretextatique]

182. reagan dems deserve scorn...and they are a much larger number

than nader voters. i saw your other post...those numbers are frightening. and it's time these folks stop getting overlooked and excused, while left-leaning voters are vilified.

[wyldwolf]

12. I think they're doing a pretty fair job in alienating themselves

On DU, we suffer through the constanty littany of "I won't vote for_________if he gets the nomination because he isn't_______ and he did________" And then they don't understand that a vote for third party is a vote for Bush.

Now, their panties are in a wad because she put Ralph Nader in his place and he deserved it.

[JanMichael]

17. "he"? I was under the impression that Randi was a "she"?

Sure she's abrasive, not so that I'd consider her a he, but that's ok by me:-)

[sangha]

73. "he" is Nader, not Randi....nt

.

[JanMichael]

120. Wrong. It was a typo. Sorry for busting your "I gots to be right all the..

...time bubble".

The referance was to Randi not Ralphie.

:-)

[sangha]

149. "she put Ralph Nader in his place and he deserved it."

"She" didn't deserve it because "She" didn't get put in her place. Nader did. Nader is "he". Nader was put in his place and he deserved it.

BTW, being right is a whole lot better than being wrong. You should try it sometime

[JanMichael]

152. You're so wrong. Sorry but blowing smoke won't change that.

Before the edit, which you apparently missed, the line went like:

"Now, their panties are in a wad because he put Ralph Nader in his place and he deserved it."

Now it says:

"Now, their panties are in a wad because she put Ralph Nader in his place and he deserved it."

It was a simple TYPO. You missed it.

Thanks for playing.

[sendero]

23. The truly "far left"

... are every bit as loony as the far right. They just have a better justification for the control they would impose.

But what really astounds me is how many people here have absolutely no grasp of what a radio show is supposed to do. If it does not entertain, it will have no audience, no ratings and eventually it will not exist.

ANY well-run call-in show makes the callers stay on-topic. It really cannot work any other way if you want to do an informative show that is focused. Have you people never listened to and studied how a radio show works?

For those (and I know you are out there) who think, "well if we have to be rude (deflate some stuffed shirts) to guests and callers then we're just like the Reps blah blah freaking blah"... I say if you want an engaged audience you will have to do more than recite your factoids and your indignation. It takes a LOT more than that to engage an audience and that is one reason why "liberal" talk shows have had such a tough time getting anywhere - people are not interested in listening to that, period. No matter how much you don't like it, no matter how un-citizen it is - people listen to the radio for entertainment. If you can get your message in with the entertainment, you can have the best of both worlds. Otherwise, you are nowhere.

Thank god Ms. Rhodes is astute enough to understand that.

[sleipnir]

9. Her arrogance knows no bounds.

I listened to her show once and I refuse to ever tune in again. It was like trying to listing to three hours of Howard Stern, but at least Stern occasionally makes good points and is often funny. Rhodes is exactly what the right wing wants to belittle Dem positions. She is so full of herself I might have to start putting her in the "windbag" category. I was hoping for great things from Ms. Rhodes, but she has failed to deliver so far. Perhaps I'll listen in one more time in a week or two and see if she's changed a bit.

It's not the "Far left" that hates her, it decent, discussion-minded individuals who would like to have honest conversation, not arrogant, self-inflating talk.

[americanstranger]

71. If you spent 9 years at #1 in your market,

would you have a little pride in it, or would you change what kept you #1 for 9 years?

There isn't a single person at AA that can make that claim, except one.

The arrogant one.

-as

[sangha]

76. That only proves

that you CAN argue with success. It also proves that the War on Stupidity will never end. :-)

[mouse7]

95. No... looks like you guys are ones guilty of arrogant behavior

Rhodes on air "behavior" is industry standard across all formats. Callers do not have "honest conversations" with radio hosts anymore. That is not the norm in broadcasting now.

For you guys to indict Rhodes for behavior that is, in reality, standard across the industry means you expect a far different standard from Rhodes. That means you are imposing your standards on Rhodes, and that is the very definition of arrogant behavior.

[ulysses]

10. like I said last night,

I'm glad she's out there. I'm just not impressed with the Nader thing.

[KG]

24. wow! she slagged ralph on the radio!

hark, a mighty warrior for the status quo! all hail!

lefties give it up! you are owned!

[ulysses]

41. LOL! Hark!

:D

[mmm]

13. She's a fighter and we need fighters, more than ever.

And she ain't stupid. I like her.

[Raenelle]

57. I like her too . . . a lot.

[americanstranger]

14. Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Randi's too 'shrill' or 'rude,' Franken's too 'scripted' or 'quiet,' Jeanane's this, Chuck is that.

I said it on her show yesterday, and I'll say it again. We've all longed for liberal radio, and now that we have it all we can do is point out what's wrong with it. No Malloy! No James! No Hartmann! Too stiff! Too noisy! Too many commercials, and they run ads from the military!!!

Goddam it. We get a new toy and we try our best to break it. Go figure...

To be fair, I think that a lot of critics of AA are freeper plants or RNC drones who want to make it sound bad for those who haven't listened yet, trying to nip any success in the bud.

Back to Randi -

I noticed that there wasn't a single winger who called in to Randi's show in the first week.

They should set up 'Democrat,' 'Republican' and 'Other' lines for Randi like they do on C-SPAN. The best part of her Florida show was the evisceration of wingnuts dumb enough to actually try to discredit her.

Everybody chill out and go food shopping when (insert the AA host that you think is lame/rude/shrill/scripted/imperfect) is on. simple as that, right?

-as

[wyldwolf]

20. You speak the truth

[libbygurl]

26. My thoughts exactly. (Does that make me a dittohead?) I wish

some of us would stop sounding like spoiled brats after finally being handed our new, squeaky, liberal radio 'toy'. Must admit, it took a couple of shows for me to warm up to Randi's style, but we DO need fighters like her out there, just as we need cooler but no less biting hosts like Janeane G. I rather like the diversity in tone of AAR's hosts.

Which isn't to say there's room for improvement. AAR is open to suggestions, y'know.

Right now, I just LOVE 'EM ALL!

[never cry wolf]

38. You are all over it!

Randi Rocks, she knows the facts hands down and she also knows the RW talking points and how to knock em down with those facts. She is very much in the Malloy vein in that manner, except with more ammunition, IMHO. I hope her new call screeners aren't screening out the wingnuts, she absolutely annihilates them.

She can be gruff and quick with callers, even peeps on our side, but all in all I love her. I'd love to see her on some panel jousting with man coulter, o'lielly or some of these other stiffs. She'd have em for lunch!

[ithacan]

68. you're right

she SHOULD be rude to freepers and wingers.

But she shouldn't be needlessly rude to sympathetic callers who want to talk about something she's not interested in on that day. There are ways to end calls from sympathetic people without being rude.

(Note to wyldwolf: please reread my earlier responses to you before you start distoring my words again)

I love hearing her give as good as she takes from the wingers (I've been listening to her for a while, via streaming when she was in Florida).

[americanstranger]

78. I noticed a little more patience with callers yesterday.

I'm thinking that maybe Randi knows that the criticism has some validity, and is taking steps to change a bit.

Three days in a brand-new national venue must not be easy. There are rough edges to be sanded off.

Randi is a pro, and I have faith that she'll adapt.

-as

[ithacan]

89. you're probably right

I hope so.

She's exactly what AA needs to be successful.

[wyldwolf]

86. Note to ithacan: read my last response...

I've quoted you verbatim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1338082&mesg_id=1338384&page=

[Doomsayer13]

130. welcome to the left wing circular firing squad

.

[mistertrickster]

15. I'm of two minds about her--she does shout people down like the

right-wingers, but usually they totally have it coming like Ollie North. I love when he is cowed into submission by her.

Also, the fact that we don't just line up behind someone who is
"on our side" shows that we're way different from the wing nuts. They embrace P.J. O'Rourke (who endorses drug use as a personal right) to Ann Coulter (just plain wack-o) to Pat Robertson (God will smite you for what ever it is you want to do).

Their side is all over the map position-wise, but they stand as one big fascist monolith.

We can think; ergo, we disagree at times.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I wasn't offended at the conversation between her and Ralph

Actually, I got a sense that she really likes a lot of the things he stands for.

As for her style, I don't mind it. Since I am listening to AA for hours on end it's great that I can tell when one show changes over to another. Variety is key to AA's success, I think, and they have done very well putting together a smorgasbord of personalities.

If I have any quibble with AA, aside from the tech glitch issues, it's that I wish there were some non-Dem hosts. But, as it is an election year and the Dems are our one chance to dethrone King George, I can get past this. :)

[libbygurl]

34. When I finally heard delayed excerpts of the exchange,

I was surprised to find it much less vitriolic and nasty than I was led to believe.

Hey, Randi's NOT PERFECT, but she does have a lot to offer to AAR audiences. We all need to support AAR right now as it gets its legs. This is a freaking first in mainstream radio, for freaking heaven's sake! Let's not tear it to pieces at this time - the RW don't need help from us to do that!

[nostamj]

19. if liberal talk radio is going to work

it's going to be because of personalities like Randi, Malloy, Guy James, and others who have a strong, informed personality and ENGAGE directly with the listeners through spontaneous, unpredictablle CONVERSATION

don't get me wrong, I enjoy ALL of Air America's broadcast right now, if for no other reason than the fact that I haven't heard anything like it before.

I don't think Franken has 'it' yet and didn't expect him to. it's a new thing.

the other shows will all be defined and redefined by their audiences.

I also hope they soon replace Saturday reruns with a live three hours of Guy James followed by three hours of Mike Malloy!

[Neecy]

21. I think it might be a regional thing as well

I've had a lot of friends from New York and most have had a slightly abrasive edge (okay, some more than 'slightly'). Personally, I like that, but NY'ers aren't everyone's cup of tea. I wonder if that doesn't account for the of the distaste - personally, I think she's great.

[DAGDA56]

36. Exactly!

As a transplanted Yankee in Orlando, I see it all the time...the tourist walks into the fast food place, rattles off a long order and the local behind the counter says, "You--want--what?" Tourist thinks they're all dim and local thinks they're all rude, when actually neither is true...or maybe both are.

[americanstranger]

61. Not true! New Yorkers are not rude!!

Only people from Jersey and Long Island are!

I read that here the other day, so it must be true. ;)

-as

[kentuck]

22. She is controversial.....

like Alan Berg was controversial. That, in itself, spells success in talk radio. It may not be what you want to hear but people listen to controversial talk show hosts.

[movonne]

25. We need her and Mike Malloy!!!! This election is not the time to

be nice but to say what has to be said. I like Ralph Nader and Randi does too, it is just that we cannot afford him this time around.

[WillyBrandt]

27. Randi is a goddess! I'm with you Wyldwolf!

Finally a liberal with some cojones--a woman to boot!--and all we see our side's wingnuts bitching and moaning.

Nader is a Republican shill, an egomaniac, and a quisling enabler. She called out that crook on national radio, and thank heavens for it.

Keep going Randi! Don't let the nuts hold you back!

[tedzbear]

29. She is Ann Coulter in sheep's clothing.

She is a loud mouthed shrew whose ravings are like chalk on a blackboard.

You guys go ahead and listen to her. I pass.

:kick:

[WillyBrandt]

33. When did she call for death?

I remember Ann Coulter calling for that, but not RR.

Maybe she should talk about quiche recipes, lest she offend the tender souls on DU.

[slinkerwink]

37. whoooooo----what a sexist post!

[mot78]

102. Enjoy milquetoast radio!

[NightTrain]

113. Say what?!

Whatever Randi Rhodes' imperfections, she bases all of her statements on meticulous research and verifiable facts. To compare her to a lying, racist sack of shit like Ann Coulter is both unfair and ignorant.

[slinkerwink]

30. How dare a WOMAN do the smackdown on Nader?!?!?!?

[messiah]

40. Woman? that has nothing to do with it!.

Some people just don't like moderate conservatives.

[slinkerwink]

42. oh, it does! people here aren't used to her AGGRESSIVE behavior

and they're shocked a WOMAN can exhibit that.

[NightTrain]

51. Randi Rhodes didn't shock me at all.

I think she's fuckin' great!

Rock on, Randi! :yourock: :bounce: :party: :toast:

[messiah]

52. I'm used to it, my mother yelled at me and whipped me with belts

when I was a kid how's that for aggressive?. I've been around around aggressive women my entire life.

[wyldwolf]

60. I'm used to it, my WIFE yells at me and whips me with belts...

..oops! More info than you need! :evilgrin:

[kiahzero]

85. I really don't see how her being a woman ties into this at all

Who made the argument that women shoudn't be aggressive?

[wyldwolf]

93. the rightwing....

...and it is also something that is sort of bred into our society. Some have seen way beyond it, though. (I LOVE aggressive, independent women!)

[ulysses]

43. erm, no.

Her gender has nothing to do with it. I still freely slag Eric Alterman for much the same reason. :)

[slinkerwink]

45. erm, yes, it does.

[ulysses]

48. did you even read what I wrote?

Come to Atlanta some time and hang out with Ms Uly if you think I'm offended by aggressive women.

[bobbyboucher]

80. It was no smackdown, unless you think

O'reilly regularly smacks down his guests. It was very reminiscent of that. Really ridiculous, and she didn't really have her facts all that straight either. She just sounded whiny as fuck to me. Screaming "We can't afford you" over and over was like fingernails on a chalkboard, or worse.

Don't let your irrational hate for Nader get in the way of the fact that she is turning greens and progressives against voting Dem. But that won't matter to you fence sitters, you seem to think that people on the left will vote the way you want just because Bush is Bush. You are sadly mistaken. This whole "gang up on Nader" stunt the Dems are pulling is the wrong tack, it will drive them to Ralph, not toward the Dems.

[NightTrain]

31. You said it, man!

Jesus Christ himself could come back tomorrow, clean up the air and water, replenish all the forests, resurrect all the endangered species that have died off, and go on every TV and radio station in the world to denounce imperialism and greed, and some DUers would still find an excuse to bitch and moan.

When the conservatives accuse the left of only being happy when we have something to complain about, they're not entirely wrong!

[Tim4319]

32. I guess these critics never listen to Rush,

I guess they never listened to Hannity, O'Reilly, and Neal Boortz. These people never let anyone get a word in, unless they agree with what they have to say.

I am glad there is a Randi Rhodes on our side! Plus, that just proves my point that conservatives hate to see a strong woman express her views, i.e. Hillary Clinton and Randi Rhodes.

[Must_B_Free]

155. our side doesn't need a Rush Limbaugh

you know why? Because Rush Limbaugh is an embarassment to conservatives. So are Hannity, O'Reilly, and Neal Boortz.

[BeHereNow]

156. Actually they do- and that is the sad reality.

Americans, left, right, gay, straight what ever have
all sucumbed to the the infectious and perpetuated
inclination to act from their lower selves-
WHY do they hate us?
Cause bascially, we have become the ugliest humans
on the planet.
Civilized people turn away from the things we value.
Rightfully so.
BHN

[vi5]

39. I find Randi to be o.k., but in the same respect...

...The vitriol directed at people who may not 100% enjoy everything about Air America or feel that it has some room for improvement, is so over the top on here as to be ridiculous.

[libbygurl]

50. Hey, that's free speech for ya. Love it.

And, like AAR, there are both cool as well as fiery voices on all sides of this issue. Comes with the territory.

[vi5]

56. I agree....except when it becomes attacks....

This week I made some ridiculously innocuous constructive criticisms of AAR and got sworn at, insulted, mocked and the like. It was so over the top as to almost be comical if the person weren't serious.

[libbygurl]

59. Sorry to hear that. I guess

some people are just so damn thankful for AAR and feel very protective of "our" fragile, infant radio network that any kind of criticism upsets them. I love AAR, but I also realize it needs time to mature, and it can only get better from here, no?

Can you show me the thread for that "discussion"? (Okay, I am a nosyparker.) The DUers are a "lively" bunch, and some can have attitude.

[RebelOne]

44. Well, in my opinion

Randi is the liberal version of Sean Hannity. But don't get me wrong, we need someone like her to outshout Hannity.

[WillyBrandt]

49. But Hannity is a liar

I mean, that kinda matters you know

[sangha]

53. Hannity is also a conservative

not that it matters on a political board. Two arms, two legs....OMG!!!


THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE!!!

[Zomby Woof]

46. Randi kicks ass

Taking down an egomaniac like Nader is NOT a strike against the "far left". I am far left, and Nader does not represent anyone but himself. Randi is not a centrist, a squishy sell-out, or any other epithet of the sanctimonious me-me-me wing of the left. She is one of us, and if she takes on a dickhead like Nader, more power to her.

I want more kick-ass liberals on the radio, and Randi fits the bill. She rocks!

[vetwife]

63. Well lets help Guy James out

His thread is up and he is on in a few minutes !

[WarNoMore]

66. Randi has her facts down and she doesn't take crap from anyone.

Personally, she's not *my* style, but I'll be tuned in every day.

[bobbyboucher]

84. Her facts aren't all that tight,

IMO, sorry.

[NightTrain]

114. Example, please?

In fact, more than one would be nice.

[onecitizen]

69. I'm gonna say it again.........

who has gotten the most ink since the show started? Randi. Why? Because she's controversial. She gets you talking. Good or bad, it means you're listening. It probably means repukes will listen just to hate her. That's good for the station. They don't care WHY you listen, just that you DO listen.

If you don't like her style, don't listen. But please don't spoil this for the rest of us!

[GreenPartyVoter]

72. Exactly

She's got people talking. The humor bits inserted into each of the shows have people talking. We need to get people's attention, but we also have to give facts along with the opinions and humor. So far as I can tell, AA is delivering that pretty well.

[Dr Fate]

77. I heard it- and it was GREAT. Nader refused to answer her question...

"If you win, who will you caucus with?"

He knows the answer would be "Uh- Democrats"- so he refused to answer, even after she asked him 3 times.

I thought Ralph was a staight shooter- so why did he refuse to answer the question??...

[wyldwolf]

79. Right! He wouldn't answer, and Randi's point was...

..that Nader would get absolutely NOTHING done as president. The GOP would never go along with him. The democrats would resent him to high heaven.

There would be NO ONE for Nader to caucus with.

[Dr Fate]

88. That's why the "honest" Nader refused to answer, 3 times in a row.

When someone refuseds to answer a simple question 3 times in a row, somthing is up...

[sangha]

81. Nader's stupid answer to Randi's question

Randi: Who will you caucus with?

Nader: All kinds of people!

"All kinds of people"???


:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

83. bwahahahahaha!

[Dr Fate]

91. what a dishonest, Orwellian answer- "All kinds of people"

There are not "all kinds of people to caucus with"- there are either Democrats and Republicans.

Rhandi asked for a truthful answer, Ralph refused.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. He's so used to lying to himself he can't tell when he's lying to others

>

[sangha]

150. Maybe he thought he'd caucus with Jeffords

Him and Jeffords. That's "all kinds of people", right? And I'm sure the two of them would be able to pass all sorts of laws. They are both so principled, their votes will overide the rest of Congress.

[libbygurl]

87. RANDI ON NOW on AAR (replay, of course)! Also,

Interesting, sarcastic bit on the Nader candidacy in 2000 right now.

[Daisey Mae]

90. Randi gave Nader the smack down

Nader really had it coming....She was not personal in her attack she simply told him just how deluded he is..... or else he is on the GOP payroll....Randi tells it like it is....in plain language ...LOUD AND CLEAR.....

[LeftwingPitbull]

100. She has no right to diss Nader

He has done great things for the progressive left. Much more then some dumb talk show host. Jim Hightower she aint.

Sure, be mean to conservatives, but not other liberals.

I'd take Randi apart. She is a mild centrist at best. Nothing worse then a fake progressive.

[LeftwingPitbull]

101. Anybody ever listen to Lionel?

He is a funny guy, very smart. Much better then dreary Randi.

[wyldwolf]

105. Where's his national syndication deal?

[wyldwolf]

104. She has no "right" to dis Nader?

You're joking, right?

I get it! You're a parody.

You had me going there a moment.

Thought you were serious!

Good one!

[hiphopnation]

106. Blah blah balh

Who, sir, does have the right to "diss" Nader? Anyone? You? Me? No "fake progressives" can diss Nader, so only the real ones can. Please provide a list of the real progressives that have an active and current "Diss Ralph Nader" pass.

What Nader apologists refuse to see is that, by enabling BFEE, he efectivley un-does the decades of work he's done for the progressive cause. Oh, wait, I'm not allowed to diss him. Sorry.

:thumbsdown:

[JanMichael]

147. Can't agree there. It's an aggresive format and things like that can occur

I see it this way, if you call into a show that you know is loud and pushy don't be shocked if you get pushed.

[hiphopnation]

98. Randi? Thumbs way, way UP

Another marginalized lefty (moderate, far lefty, c'mon with Rush, Hannity and Savage, are you really going to split hairs?) happy to hear ANY PERSON (woman, man, sheep, insect) get on the air and shout any opinions that are from the general direction of the left.

And flogging Nader goes over well in my book, given the current situation. Randi? You go girl. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

103. Then this liberal says, "I'm honored to be on your ignore list."

But, youll never see this, so...

:nopity:

[bushclipper]

110. I wish we'd had people like this on our side all along

She is very special.

[FDRrocks]

111. Hooray for blanket statements! n/t

[bushclipper]

112. how was that a blanket statement?

115. We can flame at each other forever

& it accomplishes zilch.
On both sides.

All this dividing into liberal,far left etc. is just another form of nationalism, jingoism.

Does anyone know about conflict resolution?
Does anyone practice it?

At the risk of falling into the same trap I'm critiquing here, we can all get up on our soapboxes until we die and it's not going to advance us very much.

[Q]

117. This is getting out of hand...

- I was among those who made negative comments about Rhodes and her first show...but this moaning about her is going too far.

- She seems to have a following and that's good enough for me. I wouldn't want to see her replaced simply because a few people don't like her.The so-called left needs to get a life and allow Air America to work out their own problems over time.

[americanstranger]

118. Q, I agree with you.

I saw a comment by Atrios the other day - something along the lines of 'Well, we should all just kill ourselves right now because Air America is not catering to my slightest whim.'

I see the point he's making.

Hell, I don't like Ed Schultz all that much. But he's on XM's Left lineup for the time being, and I wish him the best. Even a liberal voice I don't care for is better than no liberal voice at all.

I see the same thing happening with AA as Limbaugh started after his show was successful - there will be a ripple effect, with more (and different) liberal voices getting radio shows all over the country due to the success of AA and outlets not being able to get AA in their particular markets.

It won't happen overnight, and not every voice will be universally loved. We should all rest easy knowing they're all working on the same side and let it be.

My 2 cents.

-as

[WillyBrandt]

133. I agree Q. It's impossible to appeal to all of the left

from centrist Democrats to far-left revolutionaries. And AA shouldn't be attacked because it can't do the impossible.

What it does do is provide entertaining, informative progressive radio in a variety of formats. I haven't heard anyone say they dislike ALL of the shows; listen to what you like, tune out what you don't.

I'm still shaky on O'Fraken but I deeply hope it improves...

[camero]

128. hehe

This from the people who think anyone to the left of Leiberman is "far left". Time to put this flamebait where it belongs.

[spaniard]

134. heehee

That about sums it up.

Whiners.

[MoonRiver]

144. Anyone who goes after Traitor Nader is OK in my book!!

Keep it up Randi!!

[Zinfandel]

146. It's call entrainment, keep 'em laughing, angry, mad and aware.

Get real...it's a way to make a splash in the Big Apple...to be noticed...have people talking about you...it's about ratings, entertaining people making them laugh making them pissed off, fired up is what scores high ratings...that's why Michael Medved keeps losing stations faster than Bush changes his stories, because the little weasel Medved is BORING proped up by some right-wing stations.

Shit, Limbaugh was doing Mike Tyson impressions on his show to keep his audience laughing...and the asshole he is, can keep an audience entertained for three hours.

It's all about keeping the listeners laughing, angry and entertained while your ideology slips right into the their sub-conscious.

I'll say it again and again, Mike Malloy is a master at it. I'd love to have dinner with him sometime, he'd having me laughing and entertained all evening I'm sure.

Like him or hate him, Howard Stern has a loyal and huge audience, he keeps his audience laughing, enterained and now Stern is even slippling his anti-Bush messages in as well..but you got to keep them laughing and entertained.

No one wants to feel they are being preached to...and if people just wanted straight facts and interviews, (no laughing) C-Span and public radio, would be huge hits and they are not.

[rocktop15]

157. I dont like Randi.

She is not intellectual. Actually, shes in the same boat as Savage. Hate breeds hate.

[onecitizen]

211. Oh please.........

then DON'T LISTEN!

[FlaGranny]

158. I've read through most of this thread and I have two things to

say.

First, the whole thread is getting ridiculous.

Second, I love Randi and her "style." She reminds me of my youth. I was friends with a couple of girls and used to have sleepovers at their homes. They were Italian. They yelled, they screamed at each other, they were rude, and they were obnoxious. They loved each other and there was a feeling of freedom and warmth in that house. I loved it there. Additionally, one of my best friends growing up was from NYC. I used to visit and met her other friends. They were all like Randi. Loud, brash, rude, and loads of fun.

People like this might take you aback a bit at first, but when you learn what makes them tick, you start to love them.

Edit: WHY THE HECK is everyone getting so worked up about Randi - is she running for president or something? I thought DUers only hated other liberals and progressives who were not their own personal candidates.

[kaitykaity]

159. Randi Rhodes is a goddess.

If this network succeeds, it will be because of her. She's the radio professional, the anchor of their programming. Now if AA would just hire some other real radio professionals, like Mike Malloy, Guy James, Peter Werbe . . . . . . .

[buddhamama]

165. Randi rocks !

a breath of fresh air; witty and intelligent.

[mzmolly]

168. Welp, I haven't heard the show, but after reviewing this thread...

I CAN'T WAIT!! :toast:

[Cascadian]

172. I am left leaning and I don't think she is Satan.

In fact I like Randi. I do not blame her for going after Nader. I find myself doing that too. To my fellow lefties who want Nader to run this time. PLEASE THINK! Please think about what your doing! This election is too damn important for us to be divisive. If you think supporting Nader is going make positive changes to this country then you are on another planet! John Kerry is not my first choice but I will vote for him in November in hopes that Bush II does not get another four years. I supported Nader in 96 but I cannot support this man now and to be honest, I am turned off at the fact that he is running again. It seems more ego driven than anything else. So Randi, if you are reading this, keep giving him Hell!

John

[mountainvue]

174. I LOVE RANDI RHODES!

eom

[Freeforever]

195. I'm Crying

She's brilliant and perfect for people like me who think Franken is a little slow on the pace. If this Air America business goes under and "The Daily Show" needs a new host, I know someone funny and smart enough to replace him; Randi Rhodes.

[0007]

197. Go go go Randi piss 'em off - I love ya

"It puts the lotion in the basket"

[AirAmFan]

212. Since when is Nader "far left"? He's more self-centered ...

... opportunism than left or right ideology.

[ButterflyBlood]

219. he's not on any wing

he just cares about himself and his ego, and absolutely nothing else.

[KoKo]

224. Well, don't get "knickers in knot" about this. The Dem/Left will reign

Supreme once all the dirt is out and known. I'm not upset at Randi for her great appearance on "Air America."

But, then I believe in "many voices" on the Left and am not looking for Rhodes to "deliver us to some promised land."

Sorry...:shrug: