REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!

POSTED BY: SKYWALKEN
UPDATED: Friday, May 20, 2005 23:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6965
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:37 PM

SKYWALKEN




Quote:

Air America's Year of Decline

The latest radio ratings are in, and they show continued bad news for Air America, the liberal talk radio network featuring Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofolo, and others.

While it is difficult to pinpoint Air America's ratings nationally — it is on the air in about 50 stations across the country, and has been on some of them for just the last few months — it is possible to measure the network's performance in the nation's number one market, New York City. And in the new ratings, Air America hits an all-time low in a key demographic measurement.

The new Arbitron figures for Winter 2005, which covers January, February, and March, show that WLIB, the station which carries Air America in New York, won a 1.2-percent share of all listeners 12 years and older. That is down one tenth of one point from the station's 1.3 rating in Winter 2004, the last period when it aired its old format of Caribbean music and talk.

Air America debuted on March 31, 2004. In the network's first quarter on the air, Spring of 2004, which covered April, May, and June, Air America won a 1.3 percent share of the market audience. That number rose slightly to 1.4 percent in the Summer 2004 July/August/September period, and fell back to 1.2 percent in the Fall 2004 October/November/December period, where it remains today.

Those numbers are, again, for all listeners 12 years and older. Air America executives, however, often point to the network's performance among listeners 25 to 54 years of age, the preferred demographic target for radio advertisers. But in that area, too, Air America is struggling.

Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., for example, the daypart that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In Spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent — Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.

The numbers are just as striking when narrowed to the specific period from noon to 3 P.M., when Franken's program airs on WLIB opposite Rush Limbaugh on WABC. Even though Franken once claimed to be beating the conservative host in New York, in the Winter 2005 figures, his program attracted a 1.9-percent share of the audience to Limbaugh's 3.2 percent in the 25 to 54 age group.

Franken's performance against Limbaugh in the most recent ratings is significantly lower than in Air America's first months. In Spring 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, Franken scored a 2.6-percent share to Limbaugh's 3.2-percent share. In Summer 2004, he scored a 2.8-percent share to Limbaugh's 3.2 percent. But in Fall 2004, Franken dropped to a 1.8 percent share to Limbaugh's 4.1-percent share, all within the 25 to 54 age group.

That last number surprised some observers because it showed Air America faltering in October and November 2004, the period when the presidential election was reaching its finish and political passions were presumably at their highest. But even then, Air America's decline continued.



And now the Secret Service is investigating that silly network for threats one of its hosts made against our President's life.

Air America is worse than Al-Jazeera!

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504261633.asp

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:01 PM

SIGMANUNKI


One word suits you starting this thread:
shaudenfreude

Quote:

Originally posted by Skywalken:

And now the Secret Service is investigating that silly network for threats one of its hosts made against our President's life.

Air America is worse than Al-Jazeera!



Conjecture. You provide an article for something that is just a sniping shot. Yet when you post something like this, nadda. Where's the proof of this? Where's your link to some "accredited" american "news" paper? Better yet, how about the BBC or some such?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:14 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD


Quote:

Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!


Yeah, God forbid there should be anybody on the radio giving their opinion.

------------------
"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:16 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


What? We're surprised?

This whole 'Air America' thing was not created as a vehicle for genuine opinion, but rather as an attack dog for the Left to ridicule the Right. It is intellectually dishonest. It's not a grassroots movement. It's a propaganda outlet. None of the people involved in this have any real interest in being radio talk show hosts. They’re spoiled Lefty celebrities who have used their financial weight to create an outlet for their hatred of other people’s opinions, not to express genuine opinions of their own. Even my more Left-wing friends recognize this as the travesty that it is.

It’s like a rich man opening up a shoe store for no other reason then to put the small guys out of business because he doesn’t like the kind of shoes they sell. For god sakes when will these whinny stuck-up celebrities grow up!

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:58 AM

SIMONWHO


Okay, here's two radio station voices:

a) "We need to be responsible and use our position to further the potential not just of America but the entire world. We must be environmentally conscious. We should not surrender our civil liberties for fear of terrorist attacks. We must help the poor and those in need of medical treatment."

b) "America is the best nation in the world! We are the freest country! The rest of the world suck! Anyone looking for a free handout should be shot! Might is Right! Those not like us are abominations and God tells us to destroy them!"

One of them will be successful, one of them won't because one of them makes good radio, one of them doesn't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:37 AM

IMEARLY


Lets be honest folks, all media is propaganda.
The American propaganda system is not centrally programmed as it is in a totalitarian state. Instead it permeates the culture, the media, and the institutions. Individuals who point out unpleasant realities of current or past American behavior are often subjected to social pressures and treated as pariahs. They are disturbers of the dream.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Lastly, who isn't schadenfreude to the targets of their displeasure.


Go sign my Guest Book,
http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity,
http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:05 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Conjecture. You provide an article for something that is just a sniping shot. Yet when you post something like this, nadda. Where's the proof of this? Where's your link to some "accredited" american "news" paper? Better yet, how about the BBC or some such?



Here's one:

Air America probed
after Bush 'gunshots'
Feds investigating apparent threat
broadcast on new radio network
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Air America's Randi Rhodes
Federal officials are reviewing a skit broadcast on the liberal Air America network that featured an apparent gunshot warning to President Bush.

The audio production came during the opening minutes of "The Randi Rhodes Show" Monday night, according to the Drudge Report.

The announcer said: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of four gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:18 AM

WHOISRIVER


I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal, and Joss Whedon himself is indeed a liberal, Kerry supporter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:58 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Your "secret service" cant be very good if everyone knows who its investigating.
There are aproximately 60 million people in the U.K.
Aproximately 59 million of them would like to kill G.W. Bush.
It will take your "secret service" quite a while to investigate them all but good luck with that anyway.
(Disclaimer: I nor any members of my family in any way intend harm towards the present or future Presidents of the United States of America).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:02 AM

SIGMANUNKI


ImEarly makes a point that I was just about to. Or similar enough at least.

We have a "news" paper on the right citing "statistics" that are cooked that say Air America is falling down. The people on the left have there cooked "statistics" that say that they're doing fine and maybe even better than the right.

So, who's right, who's wrong; who can be trusted? Niether is the answer.

This entire article is BS. All it is doing is putting fuel in the flames of an already polarized situation. So, how is this helping at all?

For christs sake, what ever happened to at least trying to have objective journalism?!?!?!


The fact of the matter is that the right used a massive propaganda machine to "win" over people. Now the left is jumping on that bandwagon and the right is now calling them on it. WTF?!?! They're both starting to use the same techniques and saying the other side is being devious b/c they are using said techniques. Can we say hypocrite!

This whole state of affairs is very sad indeed. What makes it even sadder is that I really don't think that people see it at all. *sigh*


ImEarly wrote:
"""
Lastly, who isn't schadenfreude to the targets of their displeasure.
"""
For the vast majority of the time. Me. Everyone I know.

Also, your description of a "democratic society" is really all that democratic.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


As usual the right wing is full of so much bullsh*t (LIES). Here is the real story:

Quote:

April 13, 2005
Air America Radio, Ratings, and the Explosion of "Progressive Talk"
It's been just more than a year since Air America Radio went on the air. It started with 6 stations and jumped to 11 in a few weeks, and now is broadcasting on 52 stations nationwide. It just signed an exclusive multi-year contract with XM Satellite Radio, which has a listening audience of 3.8 million. According to Arbitron, AAR corrals in excess of 2 million listeners a week. Jerry Springer (switching from circus acts to political issues) has also recently signed on as a new host; whether you see that as good or bad, it will definitely bring in more listeners. And stations who switch to AAR programming find themselves shooting from the bottom of the heap to the top of the list in many markets.

Clear Channel radio is bringing in Air America to pick up listeners to its underperforming stations; in Portland, OR station, AAR brought the Clear Channel station from 26th to 3rd in the ratings. Clear Channel is adding 25 stations to the Air America network, because progressive radio "is the fastest growing format in the country; and that is because Air America has proved it attracts listeners and advertisers," according to TIME magazine. That's not just a single opinion, by the way; a web search shows that it is the prevailing opinion: "The future expansion and viability of AM radio is being driven by liberal talk and it is flourishing." And: "liberal talk is the radio industry’s fastest-growing format." And:

Progressive Talk helped drive the News/Talk format to an all-time audience high and a bigger quarterly gain than any other radio format.... The record increase in News/Talk listenership is being driven by the explosive growth of Progressive Talk nationwide. These studies are only the latest evidence of an unmistakable trend towards this new format. ... In the coming year this format will grow ever larger, as more stations recognize the huge number of Americans longing for this format.


http://www.blogd.com/archives/001229.html

We can toss your LIE (LIE LIE LIE) into the trash bin, along with the LIES about WMD, the cost of Medicare, Social Security, and all the other right-wing lies.

THE RIGHT WING IS A TRUTH-FREE ZONE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:09 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@Hero:
I do not have time to go through some american "news" paper looking for an obscure article. I've already stated that I wanted a link (which you've failed to supply). And I've already stated a preference to a real news paper (ie non-US). This one is in "Grants Pass, OR". I really don't know why you have such trouble with simple instructions.

And if your "quote" is accruate, it hardly constitutes a death threat. Probably just more right wing BS designed as a "weapon of mass distraction."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:06 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


First, you folks are getting a might personal. It IS possible to discuss an issue and even trash an issue without trashing the people raising the issue.

As for Air America and all other radio propaganda shows, left and right...

Radio shows like this (and, it seems, all news media) have a philosophy. They will always present facts to support their philosophy, and ignore facts that fail to support their philosophy.

News media typically get the facts right often enough that people ignore the times they get the wrong facts, or spin the facts wrongly.

I have never seen a time in our nation when news was as editorialized as it is now. It's gotten to the point where you can't trust a story any more. You have to take everything you read and watch with a jar of salt.

It comes down to: What do I believe?

'Truth' is unfortunately the new Faith of the American people. Everyone subscribes to a different Truth, and in the end, it's based more on what their gut tells them than what the unreliable news media has to say.
(I hope.)

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:28 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
They’re spoiled Lefty celebrities who have used their financial weight to create an outlet for their hatred of other people’s opinions, not to express genuine opinions of their own.


I don't even like the station, but I do find it annoying that you are making it sound like something original. Like all propaganda movements in the past few thousand years it was based on other propaganda movements of the past.

This left wing radio station was a carbon copy of a right wing one in all ways other than the views presented. Just like the right wing radio stations that span this country the station was not concerned with other peoples opinions but rather with their own.

The only real difference I see between the right and left propaganda is that the right is more successful.

The media we have in America is conservative, look at the times it has been accused of being liberal, it was telling the truth. Yet the propaganda machine makes it sound as if it is liberal, if it truly were liberal it would spin things to the left, but I have never seen it do that, not even during presidential campaigns.

Now all of a sudden a station comes out that spins things to the left and people like you make it seem so evil, well at least they didn’t lie to the American people to create their propaganda. Look at republican book companies, investigate how the got started, then come back and tell me if you can truly say the station is any worse.

-

Then the media came out against Nixon they called it left wing, but all it told was the truth. When the media came out with the pentagon papers they called it left wing, but all it said was the truth. When the media made errors in favor of Bush they said nothing, yet when a single relatively minor error came out against Bush it was suddenly left wing.

When the media tried to show pictures of the coffins as part of a support our troops campaign (nothing helps people’s desire to support more than showing what is at stake after all) the photographer was called a leftist. Why? The picture was not misleading in any way.

--

I don’t see the problem with one group spin doctoring one way when another has been doing it the other way in a much greater quantity for a much larger time.

I’d prefer people to report the facts though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:42 AM

TALLGRRL


Um, fool---I mean Skywalken--you need to get some facts together before you post and make yourself look like a jackass.
Air America Radio is not a failure by any means.
You're apparently parroting some posting on drama queen Drudge's little website about a suuposed "threat" made to Bush.
There was NO threat. There was a comic bit about Social Security that had nothing to do with, and no mention of Bush.
Apparently neither you...or Drudge...heard that bit.
The Air America Radio Network is NOT failing. It is, in fact, not only kicking ass in ratings in NYC and other places around the country, it is a growing network.
You need to do some simple fact-checking before you make yourself look so stupid.
Why not try this: www.airamericaradio.com
and specifially go to the Randi Rhodes Show.
Do yourself a favour.
And if you don't like Air America Radio, you don't have to listen. We haven't yet gotten to a point in this country where you are required to listen to, believe in, or think along one party's lines. Not yet anyway.

Oh, and here's something for you.
Doesn't this sound like The Alliance?:
"Fascism is described as a system in which 'The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative....'"
check out the rest here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition

The part about Corporations sounds like Blue Sun.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:14 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Your "secret service" cant be very good if everyone knows who its investigating.
There are aproximately 60 million people in the U.K.
Aproximately 59 million of them would like to kill G.W. Bush.
It will take your "secret service" quite a while to investigate them all but good luck with that anyway.
(Disclaimer: I nor any members of my family in any way intend harm towards the present or future Presidents of the United States of America).



Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Conjecture. You provide an article for something that is just a sniping shot. Yet when you post something like this, nadda. Where's the proof of this? Where's your link to some "accredited" american "news" paper? Better yet, how about the BBC or some such?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree Sig, the Brit needs to cite his sources.

H


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:15 PM

HERO


Hey! A double post. Or perhaps an opportunity to expand on my point. Man asks for a newspaper citation, I give a newspaper citation. I didn't take a stand on the underlying issue. So here:

Disagree with the president if you want. Threats are not just inappropriate, they are illegal.

Was this a threat? Probably not. Most likely just poor judgment...much like everything else on Air America (oops, sorry for the cheap shot).

I have a solution for the people at Air America from those of us who disagree with them (sounds of explosions and machingun fire)...or maybe a suggestion for local abortion doctors (shotgun blasts), Mr. Kerry (sound of cattle being slaughtered), Hillary (audio recorded during the rape and murder of innocent victims of African genocide), and Fox TV executives who cancelled Firefly (sound of someone playing the spoons...why spoons? cause they hurt more!). Nope strike all this, its just wrong (although unlike including the President in the above list, its not illegal).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:30 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal, and Joss Whedon himself is indeed a liberal, Kerry supporter.



Lot of good people supported Kerry. Thats what Democracy is all about. Another of Whedon's shows is about a vampire, guess that makes him one too.

Seems Serenity's crew is most likely libertarian. Pro-gun and small govt, but liberal on social issues. I agree with most of that. Actually they'd more likely find a home in the Republican tent then the Democrats. Democrats tend to ban those who disagree with them, thats why pro-life and pro-God Democrats were shut out of last year's Democratic events.

H


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And the Republicans are so much more inclusive! After all, they hammered McCain into jello. (I can't figure out if right-wingers lie deliberately, or if they really are as deluded as they appear.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:47 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Now all of a sudden a station comes out that spins things to the left and people like you make it seem so evil, well at least they didn’t lie to the American people to create their propaganda.

That’s debatable.
Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Look at republican book companies, investigate how the got started, then come back and tell me if you can truly say the station is any worse.

I never said it was “evil”; that’s a superfluous interpretation. And yes, I can truly say they are just as bad. This is a hack job, nothing more. It was created by people who couldn’t care less about being radio talkshow hosts. They used their celebrity clout to create an outlet for their opinion, not because they wanted to be radio talkshow hosts, but because they hated the fact that people they don’t like, purely for ideological reasons, are doing it (and successful at it). It doesn’t make any difference whether the Left or Right is right or wrong, 'Air America' has no sincerity, and I don’t believe a significant portion of the US will listen to them. Recent ratings have demonstrated that very likely is the case.

As far as, whether they have the right to do it, that’s not in dispute. As far as whether they are just as single-minded as Conservative talk radio, that’s also probably not in dispute. As far as whether wholly transparent agenda diminishes their credibility, that’s definitely not in dispute, as far as I’m concerned.

And as far as the media being Conservative, that’s just comedic. The media in the US generally leans to the Left. The New York Times sets the bar for what is newsworthy, and they are unqualifiedly a Postmodern Liberal outlet. The vast majority of journalists are self proclaimed Liberal Democrats. Then there are scientific studies that support the “Liberal Media.” As far as I’m concerned, it’s a fact, and not up for debate. The media in this country is Liberal. The People, however, tend to be more Conservative.

I will say one good thing about 'Air America,' at least I don't have pay for it, like the other Liberal radio talkshow network.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:36 PM

CONSCIENCE


Quote:

Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal...



BULLSHIT. No way in the 'verse would either Mal or Zoe support the fascism that is gun control or the stalinism that is taxation.

Libertarian yes, liberal hell no!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:42 PM

HARDWARE


I think it was James Madison who said; "All that is required for tyrrany to take hold is a standing army an enslaved media and a disarmed population."

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 1:03 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


I am afraid that I cannot cite my sources as this might compromise the security of the United Kingdom (and make the P.M. very cross).
I can say, however that it definately was not the Atorney General (British Browncoats should begin sniggering about now).
Nor was it the "My biggest Book of British Humour" or the T.V. show "Americans do the funniest things".
Disclaimer No.2: The above sources do not actually exist (apart from the Atorney General who still had nothing to do with this, honest) and readers should take the above paragraphs for what they are: a joke.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 8:01 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:
Quote:

Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal...



BULLSHIT. No way in the 'verse would either Mal or Zoe support the fascism that is gun control or the stalinism that is taxation.

Libertarian yes, liberal hell no!



This is a serious question, so please don't take it as a jab. How does a government support itself without taxation? Where does all the money to operate a government come from?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 9:03 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is a serious question, so please don't take it as a jab. How does a government support itself without taxation? Where does all the money to operate a government come from?

One possible alternative to taxation is user fees.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 12:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


How do you charge a "user fee" for military protection?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 2:10 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Don't know.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 3:06 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


I can't really envision a way to field our military without taxes. I mean, you could have a militia, and that could work for the Coast Guard, maybe the National Guard, but I really don't think such a Militia would be as good as our military, and I don't think they'd be able to afford planes, tanks, and other military vehicles without tax money. It'd be a pretty basic force.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 3:29 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


The Greeks and the Romans fielded some of the most advanced and powerful militaries of day with just 'militia.' So it’s certainly possible to do, but it would probably require a different social organization then we have today.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 3:32 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Actually...

I can't speak for the Greeks, but the Romans had some pretty conventional armies, issued standardized equipment by the government, provided rations, weapons, transportation, etc...

All of it supported via taxes.

A government not supported by taxes would be hard-pressed to provide anything for troops, leaving our hypothetical tax-free militia to arm themselves with whatever they could afford.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 3:54 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Actually...

I can't speak for the Greeks, but the Romans had some pretty conventional armies, issued standardized equipment by the government, provided rations, weapons, transportation, etc...

Following the Marius Reform that is true, but not before. Prior to the Marius Reform the Romans fielded their militaries just like the Greeks, with aristocratic militias. And they conquered all of Italy, successfully waged two wars with Carthage, Macedon and conquered Greece - without a standing army.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 5:58 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



I'm not sure that holds to a no-tax militia. Because any aristocrats would have collected taxes within their fiefdoms and used the proceeds to equip the troops.

I don't know where the Greeks got their armor and weapons, but it seems to be pretty likely that if you're going to have an army with standardized training and equipment, taxes are involved somewhere.

The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?

I'd rather have taxes if that's the case.


--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 6:41 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?



That is called totalitarianism. Socialism if very different.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 6:54 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


How does Socialism work?

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 7:09 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure that holds to a no-tax militia. Because any aristocrats would have collected taxes within their fiefdoms and used the proceeds to equip the troops.

Certainly money was involved. The Roman Republic was largely ruled by patrician families who owned land and other resources which they worked in various ways through the employ of slaves. The patricians fielded the armies and they owned the means of production. While patricians did collect taxes for the State it was not to field armies. The Roman military during the Republic was a private military owned by the patrician families and employed by the State. It was a working relationship between private enterprise and the government. So taxes are not necessarily required to field an army. The Romans and the Greeks demonstrate that. Whether or not that is preferable to a standing army supplied through taxes or can even be modified to suit today’s world is debatable.
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?

An extreme form of socialism, yes. But one could argue that the Roman Republic was more similar to an extreme capitalist state. It probably became more of a socialism when it became an Empire. The Marius Reform was a part of that transition from Republic to Empire in which Roman power was centralized on the Senate and later the Emperor. It is not that the military necessarily must be supported through taxes but rather it is a centralizing of power on the state that it is.
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
How does Socialism work?

One truth in the universe is that Lefties will always try to portray Socialism as flawless and incorruptible, despite the large number of totalitarian socialist states. Socialism works as you said, the government owns the means of production. That’s socialism by definition.


-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 9:31 PM

SIGMANUNKI


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


There is a large difference between controling and/or planning the economy (please note the word "often" above, read: not always) and "the government owns the means of production" (quote Finn) or "the government owns all production" (quote AnthonyT).

I have also never seen Socialism portrayed as "flawless and incorruptible" (quote Finn). You'll have to provide quotes with link from somewhere outside the US for me to beleive that. But, if you're right, that should be easy because the "Lefties" "always" (quote Finn) do it.

Actual definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

In modern socialist theory, it is in the pursuit of the goal of creating a democratic society that has a responsible people and a sympathetic government that would form the backbone of an ideal welfare state.

Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state before jumping to conclusions.
There are three main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
* the provision of welfare services by the state.
* an ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough. It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right.
* the provision of welfare in society. In many "welfare states", welfare is not actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:53 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Exactly as AnthonyT said.

Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the government. Try to come to terms with it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:11 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Um, that is the dictionary.com definition which seems to be a dated definition. If you would look at the wikipedia modern definition, you'd see that.

That is something that you need to come to terms with.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:10 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Um, that is the dictionary.com definition which seems to be a dated definition. If you would look at the wikipedia modern definition, you'd see that.

That is something that you need to come to terms with.

Ah, I see. So if the definition in the dictionary doesn’t agree with what you want to be true, then go find some internet site that will tell you what you want to hear. That’s classic, Vizzini. However, you’re full of crap. A definition isn’t “dated” because you don’t like it.

Here’s the definition from my Hardcover Merriam-Webster dictionary (copy write: 1991):

Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Oh, but this can’t be true!!! INCONCEIVABLE!!!!!!!


I guess Wikipedia is the foremost authority on definitions in the English language? Oh, and my dictionary is dated 1991, so if your definition is "modern" I supposed 14 years ago must be archaic! Are you twelve?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:56 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Listen to me you arrogrant peice of shit. Socialism isn't something that can be nailed down in one sentence. It is a broad term that encompases a range.

There is many ways that a government can administer the means of production. The way you are using this term (you stated that AT was right), states that the government would own all production.

So then, the government owns all the facilities in a country that is Socialist?!?!? This is pure crap.

In your definition there is a word "advocating" which means that the government advocats it, but it is not necessary to actually have it.

In my definition posted above, there is the word "often" means not necessarily.

My wiki link provides a much better explination of the term. You should read it, you might learn something.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:58 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Listen to me you arrogrant peice of shit. Socialism isn't something that can be nailed down in one sentence. It is a broad term that encompases a range.


According to the dictionary, you’re wrong. If you have a problem with that, complain to Miriam-Webster.

Also ‘arrogant’ is spelled with only two ‘r,’ not three, and “i before e,” you know, Vizzini. If you’re going to use amateurish insults, try to spell them right.
Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is many ways that a government can administer the means of production. The way you are using this term (you stated that AT was right), states that the government would own all production.

You mean “own and administrate.” Yes, there are many forms of Socialism, such as National Socialism and Communism. There are many ways that the government can own and administrate economic capital, but the fact is that by definition, socialism is government ownership of the means of production. That is a fact, and you are so inculcated with Left-wing nonsense that you will actually attempt to dispute the definition in the dictionary if it doesn't suit your ideological bias. That is arrogance - or stupidity.

Don’t you realize this makes you look dumb? Why do you do this to yourself? It’s one thing to hold an opinion; it’s another entirely to try to argue that accepted definitions are wrong, because they don’t suit your opinion. Maybe if you were twelve I could see it, but I get the feeling, that you’re an adult and there’s just no excuse for you to be calling people an “arrogant(sic) piece(sic) of shit” because they hold to the accepted definitions.
Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So then, the government owns all the facilities in a country that is Socialist?!?!? This is pure crap.

No, it’s not ‘pure crap.’ According to the dictionary, a government that owns all the facilities in a country is probably socialist.




“INCONCEIVABLE!!!!”



-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 2:39 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey, hey, hey, dictionaries are not the final word on language, usage is. Dictionaries simply do their best to record the most common and authoritative meaning of a word. Also, dictionaries are, on the whole, very classist accademic institutions. And beyond denotative meaning there is always connotative meaning. Sure Marx and Engles bring us a socialism where the State owns everything, but what does that have to do with this country?

Lots of folks go on and on about how the left want this country to go socialist, but I think very few people really want the government to own all the means of production. Does having robust social programs make a state socialist? Not according to M-W, not according to Finn Mac Cumhal (at the moment), but that's what most people are talking about when they talk about FDR and socialism rearing its ugly head.

It comes down to a game of bait & switch. The right simply changes the definition to suit its needs.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Edited for clarity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 2:56 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hi all,

I'm not sure what all the hurrah is about. Certainly we don't need to be calling people names.

If we want to remember, this began as a discussion about how a military could possibly be fielded without taxes. More accurately, how a decent military with modern and standardized equipment could be fielded without taxes.

It seemed to me to boil down to three possibilities:

1) Your army units provide their own stuff, which means it will usually be substandard and/or mismatched.

2) You collect money from the citizenry (taxes) and hire solders/buy planes/tanks/ships/etc.

3) You (the government) owns the means of production (which I think we've agreed is socialism?) and so you produce the standard gear your army is to use.

Is that about right?

--Anthony

P.S. Please don't get caught up in the nuances between owning production and controlling production. If you control something, and can do what you want with it, it's yours. You own it.



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It comes down to a game of bate & switch. The right simply changes the definition to suit its needs.

Let’s be honest. The only people in this discussion trying to change the definition of socialism to suit them are on the Left side this debate.
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It seemed to me to boil down to three possibilities:

1) Your army units provide their own stuff, which means it will usually be substandard and/or mismatched.

2) You collect money from the citizenry (taxes) and hire solders/buy planes/tanks/ships/etc.

3) You (the government) owns the means of production (which I think we've agreed is socialism?) and so you produce the standard gear your army is to use.

Is that about right?

Yes, that’s about right.

Although the Early Roman and Greek military equipment was not substandard. In fact, both the Romans and the Greeks generally had much better equipped militaries then their enemies. Even the Persians and Pheonicians, who were major contemporary military powers did not have as good equipment. So you can’t say that a patrician or aristocratic private military would necessarily have substandard equipment.

I’m not sure what you mean by mismatched. The Romans (not sure about the Greeks) had standards of military appearance, the red cloak for instance. The bigger problem was that there was a mismatch perhaps in the quality of equipment. Wealthier families could afforded to equip their sons much better then less wealthy families. This created a gradient of soldiers: light infantry were composed of the sons of the poorer patrician families while the heavier infantry were composed of the sons of wealthier families. And this played a great deal into early Roman military strategy. Unlike today where military units are named with respect to their practice, (i.e Marines, Rangers ect), Greco-Roman military units were named based on the type of equipment they carried. The Greek Hoplite for instance was called so because the shield they carried was called a Hoplon. Basicaly, this means that soldiers whose families could afford to equipe them with Hoplons (and other armour) became Hoplites in a Greek military.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:24 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:



I’m not sure what you mean by mismatched. The Romans (not sure about the Greeks) had standards of military appearance, the red cloak for instance. The bigger problem was that there was a mismatch perhaps in the quality of equipment. Wealthier families could afforded to equip their sons much better then less wealthy families. This created a gradient of soldiers: light infantry were composed of the sons of the poorer patrician families while the heavier infantry were composed of the sons of wealthier families. And this played a great deal into early Roman military strategy. Unlike today where military units are named with respect to their practice, (i.e Marines, Rangers ect), Greco-Roman military units were named based on the type of equipment they carried. The Greek Hoplite for instance was called so because the shield they carried was called a Hoplon. Basicaly, this means that soldiers whose families could afford to equipe them with Hoplons (and other armour) became Hoplites in a Greek military.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.




Hello,

That's about exactly what I mean. A military M-16 with all the bells and whistles might cost you ten grand. Military Body Armor. Boots. Jeeps. Tanks. This stuff is expensive.

So if we had a militia armed with whatever American families could afford... we'd have a pretty sad militia. The guy on your left might be carrying his Dad's 1911 pistol, the guy in front of you might have an AR-15, and the guy to your right might have a Ruger Mini-14. You might all pile into a fifth fellow's Jeep Grand Cherokee and ride into battle.

It doesn't seem like a viable way to operate a modern military. And don't even think about buying a naval warship. Even Bill Gates would feel the pain in his wallet at that one.

It's the cumulative tax base of an entire US Population that allows us to do things like buy an Aircraft carrier... and all the planes on it.

Perhaps if we were a small country with nothing that anybody wanted, a tax-free militia might make more sense. In such a case, it wouldn't be important to be riding into battle in anything more substantial than a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Obviously, it would require a different social structure then we have today. I said this earlier. It’s not something we could necessarily implement without considerable and probably impossible social reorganization. Nor do I think we would necessarily want to. In the Greek and Roman society, wealth was concentrated among a small segment of the population; most people were slaves and those that weren’t lived in grueling poverty. The patricians generally owned vast stretches of land and enormous wealth. Relatively speaking, even Bill Gates would have been a lightweight compared to the wealth of these people.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 5:59 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

No, it’s not ‘pure crap.’ According to the dictionary, a government that owns all the facilities in a country is probably socialist.


well it really depends on what point your trying to make when you bring up socialism!!! I think when many people bring up socialism they think of the soviet Union!!! they think communism..but thats not what socialism is!!

socialism can exist apart from communism and totalitarism..

perfect example is Sweden, and other Norweign countries who have deomcrate socities and a very high standard of living with their social programs

so just because a country engages in socialism doesn't mean its bad and those countries are perfect examples

Quote:




One truth in the universe is that Lefties will always try to portray Socialism as flawless and incorruptible, despite the large number of totalitarian socialist states. Socialism works as you said, the government owns the means of production. That’s socialism by definition.



Thats not true as anyone knows no system is perfect not socialism and certainly not Capitolism, Capitolism can just as easily morph into facist, tolitarism as can socialism. no system is uncorruptable or without flaws the key is to have a balance!!

again I use the Norwiegn countries an example of how they balance both socialism capitolism and a democratic society nicely!!!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:48 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

This entire article is BS. All it is doing is putting fuel in the flames of an already polarized situation. So, how is this helping at all?


Its very Machiavellian, now I haven't really been into Machivelli since high school, but its defintely thrid party manipulation.

Human disunity is a valuable commodity
when you make conflicts an issues so that people will fight among themselves then against the perpetrator...

how is it helping.... its making it that much more easier for those in control to control..we don't see whats really going on. while we are constantly bickering amongst ourselves over left this and right that, their busy doing somethingelse,

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 6:10 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:


well it really depends on what point your trying to make when you bring up socialism!!! I think when many people bring up socialism they think of the soviet Union!!! they think communism..but thats not what socialism is!!

socialism can exist apart from communism and totalitarism..

perfect example is Sweden, and other Norweign countries who have deomcrate socities and a very high standard of living with their social programs

so just because a country engages in socialism doesn't mean its bad and those countries are perfect examples

anyone knows no system is perfect not socialism and certainly not Capitolism, Capitolism can just as easily morph into facist, tolitarism as can socialism. no system is uncorruptable or without flaws the key is to have a balance!!

again I use the Norwiegn countries an example of how they balance both socialism capitolism and a democratic society nicely!!!




Hello, Pirate.

I agree that the key to success is a balance. But it's important to note that Socialism is not balance. Socialism is not Norway's strong social programs floating in a democratic country with capitalist tendencies. Socialism is absolute. The government owns everything, and distributes according to need. (Or, what they perceive the need to be.)

The problem is, as I see it, that if the government owns all production, and the government decides how resources are disbursed, then the government has an awful lot of power. All of it, in fact.

I had a conversation once with a priest regarding socialism. It may seem that church is an odd place to have a political discussion, but politics are strongly alluded to in the bible.

The priest told me that the fallability of human beings is what doomed Communism, and indeed the Socialist concept. In order to have a fully successful Socialist country, you would need it to be enforced by a powerful leader. But, as all humans are corrupt, that leader would invariably abuse his power and distribute resources inequitably. The only hope for Socialism was to have it governed by a magical, incorruptable leader, with perfect Wisdom and Insight.

He explained to me that this perfect leader was God, and that the country would be God's Paradise.

It was an interesting interpretation of things.

I guess if Socialism is the ideal society, it needs ideal people in it... or at the very least, an ideal ruler.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 6:47 AM

HOWDYROCKERBABY1


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:

There are aproximately 60 million people in the U.K.
Aproximately 59 million of them would like to kill G.W. Bush.



God, I need to move to the U.K. or at least to Canada...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MAL: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on and find your own.
SAFFRON: You can't just leave me here, on this
lifeless piece of crap moon...
MAL: Sure I can.
SAFFRON: I'll die.
MAL: Well, as a courtesy, you might start
getting busy on that, cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL