Mood:  silly

Madonna's dating ban for daughter

Madonna has banned her daughter from dating until she is 18.

The singer got worried when ten-year-old Lourdes attracted a lot of attention at the premiere of new animated film 'Arthur and the Invisibles' - in which Madonna voices a character - and has warned her to stay away from men until she is an adult.

A source told the National Enquirer magazine: "It must come from her strict Catholic upbringing.

"Everyone told Lourdes how gorgeous she is at the 'Arthur and the Invisibles' premiere, which sent a red alert to Madonna!

"It made her nervous to think that in just a few years guys would be hitting on her only girl."

Madonna has previously admitted to being a strict parent.

The 48-year-old singer has banned Lourdes and her younger brother Rocco from watching TV and eating junk food, makes them earn their treats, and if they leave clothes on the floor they end up in the trash.

Madonna - who is married to British film director Guy Ritchie - said: "My kids don't watch TV. We have televisions but they're not hooked up to anything but movies. TV is trash. I was raised without it. We don't have magazines or newspapers in the house either.

"My daughter has a problem picking things up in her room. So if you leave your clothes on the floor, we put them in a trash bag. She has to earn them back by being tidy. I'm a disciplinarian. Guy's the spoiler."

AZ Central.com ~ BANG Showbiz ** Madonna's dating ban for daughter

While I applaud any parent who tries to set guidlines for thier kids, isn't it just a little bit hypocritical and ironic for Madonna, pinup girl of corruption and decadence, to be trying to protect her daughter from corruption?

I loved this quote, "TV is trash. I was raised without it." ...And we all know how well she turned out! She was perfectly okay with parading her own sexual deviancy and perversions and promoting them all upon everyone else's youth but forbids the very same for her own child. It was okay to see mommy make out with that ho-bag Britney Spears on TV, wasnt it?

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 26 February 2007 11:58 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Harry Reid would have a shit-fit...

Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch

By: Carrie Budoff

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."

Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a “remote” chance Lieberman would join the GOP.

(Read comments)
The Politico ~ Carrie Budoff ** Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch

Remember when the lamestream media was cheerleading for Senator Jim Jeffords a few years back when he said that he may leave the Republican majority? Think they'll egg on Senator Joe... and push him to defy the Dems?

Don't get me wrong, I admire Lieberman for taking a stand against Demented-crat Party lunacy, but he is libtard through and through. But Lieberman wouldn't be any worse than Fucktard McCain, would he?

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

British Airways chooses Boeing 777s over Airbus

LONDON -- British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday it was choosing four Boeing 777 aircraft, with options for four more, ahead of Airbus A330s as it starts expanding its longhaul fleet.

"It was a very close decision between the Boeing 777s and Airbus A330s," said British Airways Commercial Director Robert Boyle.

"However, the ease of assimilating up to eight aircraft into our existing 777 fleet, rather than having a small number of A330s, swung the balance in Boeing's favor," he added.

"We already have 43 of the 777 aircraft, and that was the tipping factor."

The Boeing 777-200ER is a long-range, twin-engined plane that typically seats 301 passengers.

High oil prices have helped its sales as airlines look to replace older, less efficient older models. The airlines have shunned the nearest Airbus equivalent, the fuel-thirsty, four-engined A340.

The deal is further bad news for Airbus, which postponed a major announcement on job cuts this week, saying European nations could not agree how to share the work on the planemaker's next aircraft, the wide-body A350.

The surprise statement followed a stormy board meeting at parent EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) on Sunday evening, at which the group failed to sign off on management's Power8 restructuring plans, seen as crucial to the future of Airbus, a source close to the matter said.

EADS shares were down 0.8 percent at 25.73 euros by 1230 GMT, while BA shares eased 0.5 percent to 570 pence.

FLEET RENEWAL
British Airways is starting a major program of fleet renewal and expansion, with 20 of its older 747s and 14 of its 767s due to be replaced.

Analyst Andrew Fitchie at Collins Stewart said Wednesday's deal signaled confidence at BA, as it had pledged to get on track to achieving a 10 percent margin target before placing any order.

Boyle told reporters the next big order would be made in the second half of 2007, at which point the ease of assimilating the planes would be less of an issue.

"The competition is still wide open," he said.

The four Boeing 777-200 ERs, worth about $800 million in total, are scheduled for delivery in early 2009, and options have been taken out for a further four to be delivered in 2010.

Industry sources said Airbus had faced a tough time trying to win the order as BA had excluded from its list of candidate aircraft the four-engined Airbus A340, a plane which competes directly with the twin-engined 777 but is more expensive to operate.

Airbus said on Wednesday it had sold four smaller single-aisle A320s to British Airways, worth about $270 million at list prices.

Airbus' problems this week also exposed continued tensions between the four countries where its plants are based -- Britain, France, Germany and Spain -- as the planemaker's chief Louis Gallois prepares to axe up to 10,000 jobs or a fifth of its workforce.

Airbus has been roiled by almost two years of management and shareholder disputes, changes in ownership and political tensions as the A380 superjumbo project turned sour.

British Airways said it was still negotiating with General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Rolls Royce (RR.L: Quote, Profile, Research) about which engines will be used for the new Boeing 777 aircraft.

Airbus (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) lost the annual battle for plane orders to Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) for the first time in six years in 2006, posting 790 net orders versus Boeing's 1,044.

(Additional reporting by Jason Neely)
Reuters ~ Pete Harrison ** British Airways chooses Boeing 777s over Airbus

I wonder how the socialist libtard left in the EU and here will manage to Blame President Bush for this???

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  party time!

The spin on this news is stong, attempting to downplay economic news that would be shouted from the rooftops if there was a Dem in the White House, I bet the writer was naseous...

US deficit is shrinking, for now

With the robust economy, tax revenues are pouring in. But rising costs lie ahead.

By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury's progress could help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation's fiscal position.

Although it is a welcome change, the improvement does little to stave off the long-run challenges to the nation's financial health, many economists say. Baby boomers are starting to retire, placing new demands on government. Costs for healthcare programs like Medicare are still projected to rise faster than overall inflation.

"The picture is getting brighter," and if there's no recession over the next several years "there are going to continue to be some good strides made," says Mark McMullen, a senior economist at Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa. But "it's unlikely that we're going to see a balanced budget anytime in the near or long term."

Some experts say the budget could achieve balance in the short run of the next few years. In unveiling its proposed budget this month, the Bush administration forecast black ink on the federal ledger in 2012. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its recent annual outlook, also shows a surplus for that year.

A year ago, the CBO's forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.

"Right now, we're in some sense in a relatively good spot," says Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington. "We're in the sixth year of an economic expansion," a time when federal revenues often rise along with a growing economy.

But both the CBO and the White House make important assumptions that are far from assured.

The CBO's annual outlook assumes that President Bush's tax cuts phase out in 2010 as scheduled, thus adding new tax revenues.

Mr. Bush's budget calls for the tax cuts to be made permanent, but foresees a surplus in 2012 thanks to a sharp fall in Iraq spending and robust productivity growth in the economy.

But several issues are unsettled. Among them: How much will military operations in Iraq and elsewhere cost? Will Congress make some of the Bush tax cuts permanent? Will Congress scale back the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which is poised to take a rising tax toll on middle-class Americans in the years ahead?

The answers will have a big impact on the budget, and may not be resolved before a new president takes office in 2009.

The long-term outlook remains sobering, all sides agree. The cost of Medicare, in particular, is slated to soar due to healthcare inflation and an aging population.

Even the near-term outlook comes with an asterisk. When Bush took office in 2001, the CBO was forecasting a decade of budget surpluses totaling more than $5 trillion. Then came a recession, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and enormous wartime spending. The Bush tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy, but at the cost of lower tax revenue.

"We had three years where revenues went down," says Mr. Horney. "All that has happened is that we have ... caught up from the really bad decline that we had."

Still, analysts say the recent budget gains are good news for the government and the economy.

The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970, according to economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners in Greenwich, Conn. "At the current pace, the budget could move back into surplus as early as May 2008," Mr. Darda wrote in a report to clients last week.

That isn't a forecast, but it shows how the nation's fiscal health is closely related to that of the overall economy.

A more stable budget outlook, in turn, has benefits for the economy.

The less money the government has to borrow to pay its bills, the more is left for investment in new goods and services. Alternatively, the nation will be less reliant on foreign lenders to fund that investment – debt that siphons away a portion of national wealth.

"Unexpectedly strong revenue growth" has improved the outlook quite a bit, says Mr. McMullen.

In the CBO projections, for example, the nation's public debt is forecast to fall from 37 percent of GDP in 2006 to 30.5 percent of GDP in 2012.

In the longer run, the rise of entitlements such as Medicare could force difficult choices to keep that debt from rising again.

Conservatives say it will be vital to contain costs. "If nothing changes in Washington then both revenues and spending will be higher," says Chris Edwards, a tax expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. "It'll hammer the economy," he says, as government takes a larger share of GDP.

Others say the answer will probably involve tax hikes as well as some reductions in promised entitlement benefits – and that a modest increase in taxes need not damage economic growth.

Both sides agree on the need to tame medical inflation, if not on how to do it.

"If we were able to reduce the growth of the cost of healthcare," says Horney, "that would definitely be good for the economy."

Christian Science Monitor ~ Mark Trumbull ** US deficit is shrinking, for now

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Hey Demented-crats! Take notice of what is happening in your beloved Europe...

One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study

One in six Europeans is living below national poverty thresholds, with children particularly vulnerable, according to the results of an official study.

The European Commission's annual report on "social protection and social inclusion" also found 10 percent of people living in households without anybody working as well as wide discrepancies between life expectancies between EU member states.

"Recent reforms to make national systems more fiscally and socially sustainable are encouraging, but there are still big challenges ahead," said EU Social Affairs Commissioner Vladimir Spidla.

"The facts are clear, 16 percent of Europeans remain at risk of poverty and 10 percent live in jobless households," he said of the data which will be formally presented to EU leaders at a summit in Brussels next month.

The study shows a 13-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies for men, and spending on health and long-term care in the EU ranging from five percent of GDP to 11 percent.

"But through mutual learning and by stimulating countries to set common goals, Europe can bring a real added value to national efforts to reinforce social cohesion," said Spidla.

In 2004, 16 percent of EU citizens lived under the poverty threshold defined as 60 percent of their country's median income, "a situation likely to hamper their capacity to fully participate in society."

The rate ranged from 9-10 percent in Sweden and the Czech Republic to 21 percent in Lithuania and Poland.

The figures, most from 2004, do not include Romania and Bulgaria which joined the EU last month.

Children are often at greater risk-of-poverty than the rest of the population, with 19 percent below the poverty threshold, according to the study results.

The share of children living in jobless households varies greatly across member states, ranging from less than three percent in Luxembourg to 14 percent or more in Britain and Bulgaria.

"Living in a household where no one works affects both children's current living conditions, and the conditions in which they develop by lack of an appropriate role model," according to the study.

Neither does having a job always protect people from the risk of poverty. In 2004 eight percent of EU workers lived under the poverty threshold, "thereby facing difficulties in participating fully in society."

European life expectancy levels have "increased spectacularly in the last half century," according to the report.

However, there are currently wide disparities, with men's life expectancies ranging from 65.4 (Lithuania) to 78.4 years (Sweden) and those of women from 75.4 (Romania) to 83.9 (Spain).

Breitbart ~ Agence France-Presse ** One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study

I thought socialism was supposed to end poverty as we know it. I guess they just haven't found the right "labour" leader in order to MAKE it work. Here's the socialist solution: RAISE MORE TAXES TO HELP THE POOR. Eurotards.

Posted by yaahoo_ at 4:00 AM EST

Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 4:22 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Religious Argument Leaves One Hospitalized

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A local cab driver allegedly tried to run over two customers after a fight over religion became heated.

The incident happened early Sunday morning on the Vanderbilt campus and left one man hospitalized and a cab driver arrested, said police.

Two students visiting from Ohio were coming from a bar downtown when they got into an argument with their driver over religion, said police. After they paid the driver he allegedly ran them down in a parking lot.

Ibrihim Ahmned, of United Cab, was arrested and charged with assault, attempted homicide and theft. One of the passengers, Andrew Nelson, managed to outrun the cab but Jeremy Invus was taken to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center with serious injuries, said police.

Ahmed has been convicted of misdemeanors including evading arrest in a motor vehicle and driving on a suspended license, said police.

Ahmed was charged with theft because police said the license plate on his cab was listed as stolen. His bond is set at $300,000.

WSMV.com ~ NBC4 News - Nashville, TN ** Cabbie Runs Down Students

*GASP* Surely it wasn't the Religion of Peace ® again having violent tendencies. Who'da thunk that?

Posted by yaahoo_ at 6:55 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007 7:12 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton

By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON -- If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term.

“As a senator, he’d be a knockout,” said Harold Ickes, who was once a top White House aide to Bill Clinton and now gives behind-the-scenes advice to Hillary. “He knows issues, he loves public policy and he’s a good politician.”

Some Democrats and political analysts say Bill Clinton would thrive in the world’s greatest deliberative body, much like Lyndon Johnson did before he became president.

“President Clinton would excel in the Senate,” said Paul Begala, who helped Bill Clinton get elected and served in the White House as a top aide.

“Why not?” Begala added. “He excelled as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, he excelled as president and he’s been a model of the modern Senate spouse.”

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agreed.

“Clinton is a natural for the Senate,” Sabato said. “He loves to talk and schmooze. He could be a great vote-organizer. Majority Leader Clinton?”

Such a scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility now that the governor’s mansion in New York is occupied by a Democrat, Eliot Spitzer, who succeeded Republican Gov. George Pataki last month. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, Spitzer would likely appoint a fellow Democrat to take over her Senate seat.

So far, speculation about potential successors has focused on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father once held the same Senate seat.

But Spitzer could just as easily appoint Bill Clinton, who, under New York law, would fill his wife’s Senate seat through 2010. A special election would then be held, and the winner would serve the final two years of her term, which expires in 2012.

Although Ickes would love to see Bill Clinton in the Senate, he considers the scenario a long shot.

“I think there’d be a real call on [Spitzer] to appoint a black senator,” Ickes said. “I think there’d be a real call on him to appoint a Hispanic senator.”

Bill Clinton, who was once dubbed America’s “first black president” by author Toni Morrison, would not be the first former president to serve in Congress. John Quincy Adams had a long career in the House after his presidency, and Andrew Johnson served briefly in the Senate after a stint in the White House. Johnson and Clinton are the only two presidents in history to have been impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Political analysts say a Senate seat for Bill would go a long way toward solving a potentially nettlesome problem for Hillary -- what to do with her husband if they return to the White House. The former president currently maintains an office in Harlem and a home with his wife in Chappaqua, N.Y.

“Nothing will solve the Bill problem entirely,” Sabato said. “He will be restless and underfoot for Hillary, in part because he is the more talented pol.”

There would also be financial ramifications.

“It would certainly lower the family income because there are restrictions on how much a senator can bring in on speeches and so forth,” said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of George Washington University. “Of course he’d have housing, because she’d put him up in the Lincoln Bedroom or something.”

bsammon@dcexaminer.com
The Examiner ~ Bill Sammon ** Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton

Posted by yaahoo_ at 2:47 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007 3:03 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  special

ARKANSAS RAZORBACKS

Last Tuesday, as President Bush got out of his helicopter, Marine One, on the back White House lawn, he was carrying a tiny piglet under each arm.

The squared away Marine guard at the foot of the gangway snaps to attention, salutes, and says: "Nice pigs, sir."

The President replies, "Marine, these aren't pigs! These are genuine Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Senator Hillary Clinton, and I got one for Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi."

The squared away Marine clicks his heels, salutes again, and says, "Excellent trade, sir."

Posted by yaahoo_ at 2:17 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  spacey

Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

In October 2002, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to take military action in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

Republicans blocked the Senate on Saturday from considering a nonbinding measure, adopted on Friday by the House of Representatives, denouncing Bush's decision to send another 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq.

In offering what she called a roadmap out of Iraq, Clinton said a visit there last month had made her more determined to start what she called a long overdue withdrawal.

Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at the January 1 level, prior to Bush's decision to add 21,500 to the approximately 130,000 soldiers already there.

The buildup is part of a push to quell growing sectarian violence but comes as opinion polls show the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's decision to send more troops.

Clinton's bill would require congressional authorization to exceed her proposed cap on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Bush, announcing the troop increase on January 11, said stepping back prematurely would collapse the Iraqi government, tear the country apart "and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

"If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said in the video.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic presidential hopeful, said last week it was unclear how Clinton planned to end the conflict. Obama has called for a phased withdrawal to be wrapped up by the end of March 2008.

At a January 17 news conference after visiting Iraq, Clinton repeated her call for a phased redeployment as a way of pressing the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for security. But she stopped short then of proposing a deadline for doing so.

Reuters Photos of Hillary ~ by Katie McMahon 1 - 2 - 3 - 4
Reuters ~ Jim Wolf ** Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days

Not only do Demented-crats like Shrillary want to "protect the troops"... they want to protect our enemies, and lose the central battle in the war on terror.

Posted by yaahoo_ at 3:45 PM EST

Updated: Sunday, 18 February 2007 4:06 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

Ed Schultz, Air America, Liberal Talk Radio Hosts

LIBTALKER VS LIBTALKER

In Weird Dispute, Hosts Turn Against Each Other

After so many recent affiliate losses for liberal talk radio, was it inevitable that so- called "progressive" hosts would eventually turn against one another?

Considering that Air America Radio's slow and painful disintegration has also damaged the careers of unaffiliated lefty talkers, it was probably only a matter of time before tensions reached the boiling point.

Though the mainstream media still refuses to admit to the accelerating loss of stations carrying liberal talk (Reuters still falsely claims Air America has 81), with new format changes in both Sacramento and Fresno, among other locales, it's been a tough week.

Because non- AAR talkers Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have had moderately more successful results to date, it's hard not to have a bit of sympathy for them, given station losses that were caused by Franken & Co's failure to generate a substantial audience. Both are syndicated by JonesMediaAmerica of Denver.

Oddly, however, Schultz and Miller get little credit from the left for their better performance, with the former actually the target of Internet conspiracy theories about his backers and real political leanings.

In recent days, the sniping between Air America's hosts and Schultz have become especially heated, with the on- air battle generating a great deal of attention on lefty blogs. As far as we're aware, Miller has not joined in on the fun.

From the Daily Kos, here's contributor Diana04:

Jesus H. Crist

I'm getting really sick of the back-and-forth public bickering between and among Air America Radio hosts and progressive hosts on other networks. It's really unprofessional and it's getting WAY out of hand.

My Clear Channel-owned progressive station carries a variety of hosts from different networks. I like and listen to many of them. I like Al Franken, Ed Schultz, Sam Seder and Rachel Maddow.

What these self-centered personalities don't seem to realize is that many of us are fans of BOTH AAR and hosts on other networks. They are all part of the same line-up! It's obvious that they are all battling for power and influence, and it is getting really frustrating as a listener.

I've heard my local (liberal) Clear Channel hosts beat up on Air America, because one of the guys wants his own show and hasn't gotten it. I've heard Randi Rhodes beat up on Al Franken. Mike Malloy (whom I can't stand) beats up on Ed Schultz.

Sam Seder has been publicly attacking Ed Schultz (according to both Ed and his callers), so Ed Schultz finally blew a gasket on his show today and has been railing against Air America for the last hour:

"Air America sucks! Their programs are horrible. Their business practices are an embarrassment. They can't sell a single advertisement! They haven't made a dime! Al Franken leaving is the best thing that could have happened to talk radio."

WAAYY overboard, Ed. Simmer down.

We're all on the same side here. Can't you just get along?

Enough is enough, from all of you. Grow up!

TC of Leather Penguin points to this audio clip of Schultz ripping Air America's hosts to shreds.

For Schultz, Miller and other libtalkers who have never been a part of Air America, the loss of these stations could prove career- ending, as there soon may not be enough outlets remaining to justify the expense of syndication and attract advertisers.

Some Radio Equalizer emailers have speculated that this might be the reason why Schultz recently returned to hosting a local show in Fargo, which he had dropped after taking on the national program.

If any additional stations drop libtalk in the next several weeks, this could get even uglier.

Classic AAR image: David A Lunde
Technorati tags: talk radio liberal talk radio ed schultz al franken stephanie miller air america radio jonesmediaamerica sam seder air america bankruptcy

The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** In Weird Dispute, Hosts Turn Against Each Other
Related: The list of affiliate losses for libtard radio just keeps getting longer...
Air America and other lefty programming canned in Sacramento and Fresno

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink