Home > Uncategorized > Here Comes El Dorado

Here Comes El Dorado

First, I hope everyone had a safe and happy Thanksgiving. We had a nice time in Nipomo and were pleased to open our house to several friends who joined us for dinner. Otherwise, we didn’t do much over the extended weekend and Matt and I are both gearing up to be back on the radio Monday as we begin the short march to our 16th anniversary broadcast in January.

This is an important week for us. If all goes as planned, this will be the last week for KVEC to be under Clear Channel ownership. Starting Friday, we officially switch over to El Dorado Broadcasting as a result of last summer’s sale.

You won’t be hearing any programming changes (at least not that we’ve been told), but you will hear more references to El Dorado in our spots and I want you to understand the reference. There will also be new email addresses for us and I’ll post those once we have switched over. Please be patient with us this next week, or so. There are bound to be glitches any time there’s a changeover like this.

We’ve been Clear Channel for seven years and I know they remain controversial across the country, but I will be forever grateful to have worked for this company. They saved my job and if it wasn’t for Clear Channel, I would not have been able to stay in radio. I do think kthey’ve done a good job with KVEC. They boosted our ratings and revenues and professionalized the station. Conservatives get to enjoy Rush and Sean, the #1 and #2 hosts in the country. Open-minded people get to tune in to Hometown Radio and the record remains: In seven years, I’ve never, ever been censored by Clear Channel.

We’ll talk about this more at 5:05 tonight. Also, tonight, Lani Silver explains why hate crimes are up 8% in this country and Brad Schramm explains why that cruise ship sunk in Antarctica. Hope you can hoin us on Hometown Radio.

  1. Anonymous
    November 27, 2007 at 12:33 am

    Conservatives get to enjoy Rush and Sean, the #1 and #2 hosts in the country. “Open-minded” people get to tune in to Hometown Radio.

    Low brow cheap shot Dave! Were it not for Rush & Sean you’d be out running the streets looking for your next meal.

    Will you radical lefties ever get over all your hate? Trust me…we all hope so.

    Maybe El Dorado can fix that.

  2. Downtown Bob
    November 27, 2007 at 6:23 am

    anonymouse: Your comment revels your fear of being discovered as perhaps being “less than open-minded” ? And you accuse Dave of a “low brow cheap shot”? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. As for El Dorado “fixing that”; remember, these are businessmen and they will (if they are good businessmen) make their operating decisions based on smart business practices. Dave’s show brings in good advertising revenue; why would they change that? Simply for spite as you might if you were in their shoes? Think like someone who makes money by being smart, you don’t mess up a good thing just for ideological motivations. If you’re smart.

  3. Anonymous
    November 27, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    Maybe he used the wrong wording but I’m sure Dave meant nothing by that comment. Why don’t you quit “looking” for stuff to be mad about.

  4. Justin Pheley
    November 27, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    To the person who calls Dave a radical leftie I’d call you out by name but it doesn’t appear that you have the courage to leave it after making an attack on Dave’s ability to feed himself. On second thought after reading it maybe its not courage perhaps youre just not smart enough to spell it. The real outcome to the scenario of Hannity or Limbaugh being absent from the airwaves is that you would be lost without someone there to tell you what to think or who to hate.

    Justin Pheley

  5. Rich from Paso
    November 28, 2007 at 8:57 am

    Typical liberal smear the critic tactics. So anonymous is a mindless drone wanting to be given a target to hate because he enjoys listening to Hannity and Rush? Who is drinking the Hater-ade here? It is you, Jeff.

    I do have to agree that the “open minded” comment was either a snuck in cheap shot or a subconscious bias by Dave, but that’s just my opinion.

  6. Dave Congalton
    November 28, 2007 at 11:36 am

    The simple fact of the matter is that Rush and Sean do not represent the mainstream media. They are partisan talk show hosts, just like Al Franken was and Ed Schultz and Glenn Beck and Bernie Ward, etc.

    Liberals by and large do not listen to Rush and Sean, at least not for very long. Their listeners are conservatives who tune in day in, day out, to hear the conservative paradigm on the world reinforced.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, guys, but let’s not pretend Rush and Sean are something they’re not. They espouse the conservative point of view to conservatives.

    My show, in contrast, has no specific paradigm. I don’t frame the guests or topics or callers from a specific point of view. I don’t do liberal talk radio or conservative talk radio. Instead I try to embrace multiple points of view over time. And, as underscored by my callers, we get liberal and conservatives participating because our listeners are more open-minded than those who listen to Rush and Sean.

    It ain’t a smear if it’s the truth.

  7. Rich from Paso
    November 28, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Dave, the fact is that there is a great number of liberals that listen to all three hours of Rush because he is 1) kind of funny, and 2) they want to hear what he has to say. It is a lberal myth that only conservatives listen to Rush so as to bolster the other myth that Rush listeners are mind-numbed robots. You denigrate 20 million a day listeners of all political persuasions to say that they are just there to receive their marching orders. I’ve listened to Air America and the times I listened were something right out of the “two minute hate” from Orwell’s “1984”. There was nothing positive or uplifting or inspiring. It is what Jerry and I have been saying, liberal political talk radio is good if you want to be depressed and morrose about just how rotten things are. On Air America it was always finding the black cloud on beneath every silver lining. Iraq sucks; Bush sucks; global warming sucks; the rich suck; corporations suck; republicans suck; the economy sucks. There was more hatred, bigotry, bias and venom in one twenty minute segment of AA than there is in a week of Rush Limbaugh. If Rush was so bad, Media Matters would have their national Rush scandal of the day. Instead they get to gin up one every four months or so. And you’re right, Dave, Rush is not a member of the mainstream media, any more than you are. Rush is an entertainer with a political format. He has become a movement conservative because his listeners have elevated him to that position. But first and foremost, he entertains, and obviously he is doing it well or he would never have survived nationally for 19 years and four presidents.

    As for El Dorado; I have no fears that Rush and Sean will be replaced. ED knows what side their bread is buttered on. That is why Dave’s show isn’t going anywhere. I would like to see some better weekend and evening programming. It is a little too dry for me.

    Have a wonderful SLO day, y’all.

  8. Anonymous
    November 29, 2007 at 3:00 am

    Great post Rich!
    Well written, great thoughts it’s just that it’s wasted on the radical leftist socialists that defines itself by it’s hate for:
    1) America
    2) The military
    3) Winning in Iraq
    4) Their pathalogical obsessive hatred of Presiden Bush

    Interesting at best that they describe themselves as “open minded”. Talk about an oximoron!

    This will all play out in time. They will not win this battle of changing the America we all know and love. That will never happen.

    The next generation won’t have all these post “stuck in the 60’s” radical, drug using, war hating, establishment bashing wackos and we can get back to the business of being a great & noble country.

    But know that your thoughts here are rare and poignantly well thought out and factually based.

  9. Downtown Bob
    November 29, 2007 at 4:20 am

    Rich: I will agree with you that there are a great number of liberals who listen to Rush; I will disagree with you as to why. 1) Rush is not funny; he is mean spirited. 2) They have to listen to him for any talk radio programing because that is all that is available in many many areas. 3) Some do listen to hear what he has to say, because maybe that don’t believe that he can spew out what he does so they have to hear it for themselves. Rush listeners may not be mind-numbed robots, but some certainly do lap up every word he says as gospel truth, and those individuals do take their marching orders from his viewpoint. As for your two different times you listened to Air America, was that very recently? Have you ever listened to Thom Hartman? You would have to sacrifice listening to dear Rush because they are on at the same time, but you will not find a more educated, literate, patient radio personality than Thom Hartman. Do yourself a favor and listen to him for one segment (that’s at least the time between two commercials) and see if you think he is spewing the Orwellian “two minute hate”. Randi Rhodes on the other hand is an “acquired taste” that is not for the faint of heart. If you were to compare all radio talk-show hosts with a category of music, Randi would be like straight up jazz; complex, brash and loud at times, subtle and smooth occasionally, but definitely something you have to listen to for awhile to really understand. I listen almost every day to Thom, Randi, and Dave, and I really don’t feel the need to try and understand Rush or Sean.
    As for Air America “finding the black cloud beneath every sliver lining”; quite a bit of time you find Thom or Randi lamenting how far the current administration has strayed not just from the ideals of the founding fathers (violations of the Constitution, partnering up government with religious leaders, promoting big business), but also how far the administration has strayed from the very ideals of the Republican Party (smaller government, fiscal responsibility, states’ rights, etc.). I don’t find it particularly funny when media personalities attempt to demonize or diminish a political figure by purposefully mis-speaking or mis-spelling their name, and I have fully given up that practice with the President and Republicans in general (Yes, Dave’s very first blog post was an email I sent him talking about Rethuglicans), but I don’t do that any more. When I listen to Air America, I hear people who genuinely love America and want to see America act like America should(no torture, no rendition, equal rights for all), and be that “shining beacon on the hill” that the rest of the world would strive to be like. Or you can listen to Rush berating “the Breck girl, Hiltary, and Hussein Obama, or how great a job President Bush is doing. It is a free country (for now).
    anonymouse: You state that the left “hates America, the military, winning in Iraq,” and has a “pathological obsessive hatred of President Bush”. What would you present for proof of your viewpoint? I for one do not “hate” America; I am proud to be an American, does that mean that I should not speak up when our government does something I am not comfortable with? Like torture, rendition etc.? Please furnish some evidence that the left “hates the military”. Please define what you mean by “winning in Iraq”. I don’t hate President Bush; I do want to see impeachment proceedings start though because I believe that he has violated the Constitution numerous times and should be removed from office. Until that happens though, he is the President and should be addressed as such, IMO.

  10. Rich from Paso
    November 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Bob, if you agree with premise that Rush Limbaugh is wildly popular with Liberals, then your reasons why are irrelevant (you’re wrong, btw). Your opinions on why don’t matter any more than mine. The fact that you agree with me that tons of liberals listen to Rush is stunnig in and of itself.

    First of all on the subject of AA, I have listened to the that bilge-ridden ‘network’ more than twice. I am not going to dignify your gross understatement of my listenership with a specific number. That said: Never heard of Thom Hartman. This is the first I have ever seen his name in print. If he is an intelligent, articulate person that can explain the liberal point of view in clear, concise terms that doesn’t involve the destruction of anyone else’s character as a part of distinguishing between Conservative and Liberal, then he might be worth listening to. Now Rhandie Rhoades has no redeemable qualities. She is the very definition of mean-spirited, vitrolic, hateful, bigoted, ignorant shit flinging liberal. Liberals like her because she excites the blood-lust against the Bush Administration with her assertion that Cheney should die and whatnot. She is the David Duke or the Fred Phelps of liberal talk radio.

    Now if Rhandi or Thom (what’s with the unusual spellings of AA talent names anyway?) would offer something beyond “bush is a bastard” on the topics of the day, I might give them a listen. Truth is they don’t offer any solutions that are pragmatic and useful in the real world. The liberal mantras about soaking the rich and taxing our way to prosperity or even acknowledging that there is a conflict between Western societies and the most radical elements of Islam, commonly refered to as the “War on Terror” hold my attention for about 1/100th of a second. Their ravings are not useful at all to forwarding finding any solutions to the problems this nation faces.

    Back to Rush… You say “some” as if that number is somehow significant. I think it isn’t. Three people is ‘some’. Nine people is ‘some’. Provide a number of the Rush listeners (which you can’t) that actual get some sort of marching orders from Rush and I will concede part of that point. You bring up things like “the Breck girl” as if that is somehow “mean-spirited”. You have to admit that Edwards is obsessed with his hair. You have to admit that feminist groups have stated that Edwards is a better advocate for women’s rights than Hillary Clinton, a woman. Rush is poking fun (or ‘mean-spirited’ to humorless liberals) at the slightly affeminate way Edwards conducts himself. “Real men” don’t pay $400 for a hair cut; they go down to Nick’s in Paso (or a place like it) and pay $12 for a trim. As for Barak Hussein Obama (his real name), Rush does not make fun of his name, only when Obama shys away from acknowledging it. An on the subject of Obama and Rush, what do you think of Rush getting more scorn for the “Barak the Magic Negro” spoof than the LA Times columnist, a fellow balck man, that actually wrote that Obama was “the magic negro” because he is not perceived as a threat to whites!?!? What most liberals can’t stand is that Rush takes the insane and idiotic and hypocritical statements promenant liberals make and then beats the ever living crap out them with their own statements.

    Rush does not trumpet Bush as the greatest president ever or even close to that. He praises Bush for his tough and agressive combating of the War on Terror (a fight Clinton refused to make) but kicks Bush in his teeth over his amnesty plan for illegal immigration. He kicked Bush in the teeth over the wishy-washy way he fought the war in Iraq for two years and then praised him for getting involved, starting The Surge, and defending the war that Bush started. You would know all of this if you just would listen tentatively once and a while.

    Winning in Iraq? You can’t see that when ABCNews is forced to concede that no one died in Iraq that day and that conditions are improving. And that thousands of Iraqis are coming back to Iraq because of the stability that our soldiers are bringing to Iraq. If you can’t see that conditions are improving, no one will be able to explain it. Of course, you will move the goal posts and say that because there are no political improvements, then there are no improvements. On the subjec of Iraq: how loving of the soldiers is it when the Harry Reid led Congress prevents funding for continuing operations in Iraq against a Commander-in-Cheif that is staunchly set on continuing the fight in Iraq? You know that the Army only has operating funds to continue to February before the Army is broke and the soldiers that are in Iraq are stuck there with no food, no water, no ammo and no support from Congress. That is not “love” for the soldiers. It is using the soldiers on the ground there as political pawns against the Bush Administration. The Democrats in Congress may not “hate” the soldiers, but they sure don’t honestly care about soldiers’ welfare there or else the would confront Bush with the merits of their ideas instead of trying to blackmail Bush with an open ultimatum (pull the troops out of Iraq or we’ll cut funding stranding them there).

    That’s enough for now.

  11. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    OK Bob,
    here ya go. Even though I think even this information will somehow be pooh-pooh’s by you and your ilk.

    But in the spirit of the debate I provide this tiny set of examples for your consideration.

    1)The San Francisco Board of Education’s 4-2 vote last week to abolish the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program, which has been active in the city’s high schools for 90 years. More than 1,600 San Francisco students had taken part in the JROTC voluntary activities. “We don’t want the military ruining our civilian institutions,” said Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, a far-left pacifist organization that routinely condemns American foreign policy and opposes JROTC nationwide.
    “In a healthy democracy, you contain the military.”

    2)In 1995, San Francisco’s board of supervisors wiped the city’s famous Army Street from the map, renaming it Cesar Chavez Street. Last year, city supervisors refused to allow the retired USS Iowa, a historic World War II battleship, to be docked in the Port of San Francisco. Like the school board vote, the spurning of the Iowa was intended as a slap at the US military and the foreign policy it supports. Supervisor Chris Daly explained his vote against accepting the battleship by announcing: “I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s.”

    3)In 2005, San Francisco voters handily approved Measure I, a nonbinding ballot question dubbed “College Not Combat,” which called for the exclusion of military recruiters from public high schools and colleges. The prevailing political attitude was summed up in a Weekly Standard headline: “San Francisco to Army: Drop Dead.”

    4)“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” John Kerry

    5)MoveOn.org’s Sept. 10 advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus was so toxic – you just don’t trash the military in wartime. Clinton had a golden opportunity to undo some of the damage done to the Democrats by the MoveOn ad. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced a “sense of the Senate” resolution deploring attacks on Petraeus; yet Clinton still couldn’t bring herself to vote for it, even as it passed the Senate 72-25. Clinton does not seem to understand that being commander-in-chief means sticking up for the troops first – and left-wing bloggers and billionaires second.

    6)”You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement,”
    Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

    7)“There is a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous.” ABC reporter: Terry Moran

    8)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, “incompetent” during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported. Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. This is but the latest example of how Reid, is under pressure from liberal activists

    9)”If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings” Sen. Dick Durbin

    10)Texas billionaire Mark Cuban, who owns the Dallas Mavericks, has financed a movie that portrays American soldiers in Iraq as murderers and rapists. There is no question this film will incite anti-American hatred around the world, but Cuban doesn’t care. Only elements at NBC News have supported the film so far. As you may know, NBC is the most anti-military TV news operation in the country. You’ll remember NBC News analyst William Arkin calling U.S. troops in Iraq “mercenaries” and writing that they receive “obscene amenities”.

    11)More Hollywood starts have been to visit Higo Chavez than have visited the troops with the USO organization! That in itself speaks volumes!

    12)The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

    These are but a few of the many facts that some polititions anradical left hate the military, and thus America! But then, facts tend not to matter to smug ideologues who are free to parade their contempt for the military because they live in a nation that affords such freedom even to idiots and ingrates.
    It never seems to occur to them that the liberties and security they take for granted would vanish in a heartbeat if it weren’t for the young men and women in uniform.

    A win in Iraq means that their “war-solves-nothing” ideology becomes virtually worthless; a remnant of a bygone era; and the thought terrifies them.

    Iraq must be a loss at all costs. The future of left-wing political activism is at stake!

  12. Nipomo Bill
    December 1, 2007 at 3:24 am

    Well Dave,

    So much for “no program changes”. Just read the Trib article about Ben and King being let go. Criminy sakes!, I hope they don’t let you and Matt go also. Good luck sir.

  13. Rich from Paso
    December 1, 2007 at 4:39 am

    This is big news! Dave’s VP candidate for the Hillary Clinton campaign, Jack Murtha, said that the Surge is working! See it here. Well, what do you know? Here we have the most vocal of opponents to all phases of this war now saying that the Surge is working. Of course, he couldn’t say that without echoing the Bush Administration and military leaders by saying that the Surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqis to make political progress. But for Murtha to go from “the surge is an illusion” to “I think the Surge is working” is monumental indeed.

    Another article I saw said that Pelosi was going to be furious with Murtha. Well yeah. Murtha has been Pelosi’s pointman on the “Defeat the US in Iraq” strategy that she and Harry Reid have been pushing sinc May 2003.

  14. Chuck from Atascadero
    December 1, 2007 at 6:33 am

    In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations this week, Hagel told the crowd of foreign-policy wonks that he would give the Bush-Cheney administration “the lowest grade of any I’ve known.”

    “I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I’ve ever seen or ever read about,” said Hagel, according to a report on the meeting that appeared in the Washington Post.

    Speaking of Bush, Cheney and those around them, Hagel said: “They have failed the country.”

  15. Dave Congalton
    December 1, 2007 at 6:38 am


    Sorry for the delay in responding to your post on Rush, but this has been quite the week for me on any number of levels.

    There is no doubt that a small portion of liberals listen to Rush from time to time, but your assertion is hardly research. We’re pretty precise with broadcasting research. We’ve got a pretty good idea of the demographic listening to any national talk show host.

    Rush preaches to the choir, as does Sean, as does Randi Rhodes, etc. The hardcore liberal is not going to be hooked on Rush. No way. They’ll go to AA or Media Matters or NPR or any number of liberal blogs.

    So it is crazy to suggest that Rush and his ilk attract open-minded audiences. They don’t. Rush espouses a certain viewpoint and he attracts those listeners who want his take, his spin, on the issues of the day.

    But he’;s not mainstream. He never will be. And that frustrates him no end. He wants to be Tim Russert.

  16. Downtown Bob
    December 1, 2007 at 8:10 am

    Rich, Rich, Rich: I misread you comments about the number of times you have listened to Air America, my apologies. By the way, it’s Randi Rhodes, not Rhandie, and she spells it with an “i” because she is female. As for her being “mean-spirited, vitriolic, hateful, bigoted, ignorant, shit flinging liberal”; wow, I haven’t even gone that far with Rush or Sean, O’Reilly or even Michael Weiner (Savage). In my perception she does get angry when she talks to conservatives and they won’t allow her to explain to them her point or they try to talk over her. She is passionate about our country maintaining our liberties, rooting out corruption in government (she is equally pissed when it is a Democrat, not just Republicans), she is absolutely not bigoted, and she is very well read as well as aware of Congress as she is a C-SPAN junkie. As far as I know, she maybe the only national radio talk show host who ever served in the military (six years in the Air Force). Denigrate her all you want, but given a real listening she is trying to educate Americans, not just entertain.
    Thom Hartman spells his name the way his parents gave it to him. He has written some 18 or so books, has run a couple of different corporations and is a passionate follower of Jeffersonian Democracy. Link here to his wikipedia biography if you wish to learn a little bit about him. Tune into his program some time, I know you will be impressed.
    As for “admitting that Rush is wildly popular with Liberals”, no, that is not what I admitted. I said that there are liberals who listen, some because they don’t have any other choice for talk radio in their area, and some listen to hear what he has to say; that does not mean that he is “wildly popular”.
    As for his (Rush’s) commentary about the Democratic Presidential front runners, like any other radio personality, making fun of their name, their grooming habits, their speech habits is juvenile (yes, even when liberals do it). If Rush were to present his arguments using facts and evidence instead of innuendo and attempted “humor”, perhaps he would have more impact with those (like me) who discount him because he comes off as so arrogant.
    “Winning in Iraq”: Yes Rich, I do understand that the situation has and is improving, and I have said for some time now that the political situation is the real area where stabilization has to show progress before the situation can be viewed as “improvement”, and that is not moving the goal posts, because the ultimate solution in Iraq is political, not military. I have always said that the military has done everything they have been tasked with doing, and for almost every job, they have done it very well. The military leadership however is another story, and the fact is there have been some troops that have done some terrible things. Some were simply bad people, some were forced into doing bad things by circumstances that could have been averted if their bosses had done their jobs correctly.
    As for Congress “loving the soldiers”, how many troop funding measures have Republicans voted against? Here is a link that points how hypocritical it is that the Democrats are being chastised for their stand on troop funding. Rich, please read the linked article and respond.

    Anonymouse: Wow! Your examples offer unquestionable proof that absolutely everyone on the left hates the military, NOT. Pretty lame attempt, actually. The first three examples were from one location, San Francisco, and one of those was twelve years old. Addressing the first example directly, don’t forget that our founding fathers didn’t want our country to have a standing army unless we were at war. For number four you have repeated a quote from Senator John Kerry that he admitted was a lame attempt at telling a joke that was told without one word, “us”, which was supposed to be “you get us stuck in Iraq”- but go ahead, use the quote without the correction added, it makes your point so well. Point five, you say the MoveOn ad was toxic, not everyone agrees. The main point of the ad was the fact that General Petraeus was not following his own manual of fighting insurgencies because he was not even close to the numbers of troops his own formula called for, but was convinced he was right. The beginning of the surge made things worse for a short time, but I don’t think there is anyone who can’t see that the violence has diminished in Iraq, at least what is being directed against our troops. As for Senator Clinton not voting for the “sense of the Senate”, that means she doesn’t support the troops? I have written here about Rep. Stark’s comment before, and as crudely as it was spoken, it is an “inconvenient truth”, at least the part about how the spigot of money going to Iraq has had no trouble flowing while many government programs have been cut or eliminated. Number seven; one reporter’s opinion, so what? Number eight; If General Pace was not incompetent, why was he not appointed for an additional term as Joint Chiefs Chairman? Number nine; We (America) tried and convicted Japanese military officers after WWII for “waterboarding”; how is it that we allowed that to be performed by our troops? Number ten; A wealthy businessman funds a documentary film about some of the troops who committed rape and murder in Iraq- are you saying that none of that never happened? We have had troops admitting that it did; to acknowledge that it did happen does equate into a broad statement indicating that all US troops committed atrocities. Number eleven; do you even know how many “Hollywood types” have been to Iraq to entertain the troops? Not many of us do, because most of them don’t make a big deal of going, they just go and perform without a political agenda. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please. Number twelve; Iraq is not a “war”, it is an occupation, now. How do you “win” an occupation? And I disagree that Iraq is “lost” as a war; who did we surrender to?
    The military has done their job; it is time for a political solution so that Iraqis can govern themselves, protect themselves, and rebuild themselves. That is “victory” in Iraq. Period.

  17. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Well Bob, you may not be a lost cause yet! Now you can listen to Laura in the morning and join the rest of the world that has and uses it’s brain!

    I think you just may like her.

  18. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    Dave Congalton said…
    “The simple fact of the matter is that Rush and Sean do not represent the mainstream media.”

    C’mon Dave! Denile is NOT a river in Egypt!

    Rush & Sean are both on over 600+ stations nation wide!

    Oreilly has over 450+ stations.

    All ove them are making in the 100’s of millions of dollars per year and represent a huge amount of revenues for the stations that are lucky enough to carry the programming.

    It don’t get any more mainstream than that my friend!

    If you don’t agree then post your proof here!

    All the radical left liberal rag newspapes are down in subscriptions by as much as 50% and they lose more every day.

    Liberal talk radio will soon be in a museum as another exinct species.

    Liberal cable news is barely in business thanks to Fox and the listeners that are dying for a decent peice of news not spun by the hateful left!

    It’s plain and simple Dave. Your argument just won’t hold water…and no matter how much you and Bob deny the truth that doesn’t change it!

    Local news being dumped for Laura Ingram should be a clue enough. really? Just how much more evidence do you need to see the light.

    The hateful radical left is dead.

    America is ready to move on! (no pun intended!)

    Lose the hate and share in the wealth. Plain and simple.

    I told your hate would be the end of you all…and it is now quite evident I was right!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: