Imus: "Why don't you like Huckabee? Because you're gay, or what?"
On the December 12 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning, while discussing Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee with nationally syndicated radio host Jay Severin, host Don Imus asked, "Why don't you like Huckabee? Because you're gay, or what?" Following Imus' comment, co-host Charles McCord exclaimed, "Oh, come on, what the hell was that?" Sound engineer Lou Rufino added, "Stand by for the drive-by."
From the December 12 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: What do you like on the other side. Well, Huckabee, is he for real?
SEVERIN: I don't think so. First of all, full disclosure, I'm for Mitt Romney, always have been. I believe he'd be a great president of the United States, also a great candidate against the Democrats, and I believe Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. That having been said, certainly Huckabee is making mischief, and he could make serious mischief such that he could throw the Republican thing back out into the, you know, completely up in the air.
The Huckabee surge in Iowa is attributable to a singe factor, and that is Iowa is unique in that the largest group of Republican voters, the largest discernible group of Republican voters in Iowa are self-described evangelical Christians.
IMUS: Why don't you like Huckabee? Because you're gay, or what?
McCORD: Oh, come on, what the hell was that?
RUFINO: What is that?
McCORD: Where did that come from? Jeez.
IMUS: I don't know.
RUFINO: Stand by for the drive-by.
IMUS: Charles made -- Charles made --
McCORD: Oh God.
SEVERIN: I would like to make another admission on the Imus in the Morning program. I am, I am very happy, yes. And no, I would think that would make me -- I would think that would make me like Huckabee, think a little different than what I see of this guy.
IMUS: Here's what you have to wonder, is here I am picking on poor Jay Severin, who couldn't be more loyal to me --
McCORD: No.
IMUS: -- unless he were Sean Hannity, who was magnificent in his support of me, and I don't know why I'm being mean to you. But, so I apologize.
SEVERIN: I knew I wasn't calling into, you know, C-SPAN.
Just a couple of weeks in and already making stupid comments.
Nice one Imus!
Guess he didn't learn anything from last time.
should he be fired? no. is he an idiot? no doubt.
I'm glad I live in a country that has freedom of speech.
Imus is one of the costs - but the benefits are pretty great.
amen to that!
Imus is free to stand on a street corner and rave to his heart's content. That is what the First Amendment guarantees.
However, if he wants to rave on public airwaves, he has to deal with the FCC. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.
You don't even realize how you trashed your own argument.
The public square has limited space for people to speak. It couldn't hold 1000s of people all talking at the same time.
Sometimes, the government licenses people to hold rallies on the street because there can't be 1000s of rallies at once.
Likewise, the Government licenses the public airways because they are limited. They license them because not everyone can speak at once.
There are liberal radio shows that failed because nobody wants to listen to them, while conservative shows always thrive.
To suggest by your own fiat that the FCC can dictate what is said is just false, it is unconstitutional regardless of the license, which is why Reagan removed the fairness doctrine which only serves to stifle debate.
Are you serious? So you're taking literally that thousands of people are going to have simultaneous rallies in the same public square? Yikes.
People, individuals, can go into the public areas, and espouse whatever it is they want. When you have a march, or a protest, or a demonstration of some sort, some places require that you get a permit for the number of folks who might show up, because then you might to shut down roads, get extra police coverage, and things like that.
There are some liberal talk shows that failed, and there have been others that have suceeded, just as there have been conservative shows that have failed, and triumphed as well. The thing of it is though, is sometimes it's not about listenership, sometimes it comes down to who controls the license for broadcast, and how ingrained they are in the conservative movement, or republican party. Sometimes liberal shows fail, because even though they might be doing well, they get pulled off of the air, mostly because the company who broadcasts them don't agree with their liberal content. Just keep thinking that the free market keeps this all in check, it doesn't, mostly because there are a very small number of large corporations, who own a large amount of the broadcast licenses, and can effectively control the market however they want to.
The FCC can, and does limit what can be shown and said across the airwaves that are public. It's law, and not un-Constitutional. Explain to me how it is, because, it's not.
The Fairness Doctrine does not stifle debate, it adds to debate, because then when you have blatant political talk, you have to have both sides of the debate on there. Rush Limbaugh yammering into a microphone for 4 hours a day about how bad the democrats are is not a "debate", it's literally one person's opinion. If you have no opposing viewpoint, it's not a debate, the FD provides for that opposing viewpoint.
That being said, I don't want the FD back in place.
"The FCC can, and does limit what can be shown and said across the airwaves that are public. It's law, and not un-Constitutional. Explain to me how it is, because, it's not."
There is some troubling fact to your statement. How does every internet site available fall within your statement? Do porn sites fall within FCC controlled limits? How about hateful statements made by one poster to another (on this site)? Is that controlled by the FCC limits?
Originally, I thought NO they can not control what is on the internet. However, when cities across the nation started providing free internet through WiFi that all changed. How is or should the FCC start limiting the internet access that is broadcast over OUR airwaves?
I think a lot of the "OUR AIRWAVES" arguements just went out the window. I seriously doubt any of you are going to start demanding that the internet become as censored as radio/TV broadcasts.
No one is saying we tell people WHAT they can say. However there is no question we can demand they tell the other side. Your public square argument is not valid. ANYONE can go to such a rally. The right to assemble is in the first amendment. IF they are handing out permits to speak there isnt any QUESTION they have a right to hand out such permits to BOTH sides of the argument. The Red Lion decision made it absolutly clear there is no first amendment argument in the fairness doctrine. There werent any problems WITH the fairness doctrine Reagan made only free market argument against it not that it was causing any real problems and it is just dumb to say that demanding both sides of an issue be heard is somehow stifling speech
Steve, so if Imus wanted to say those exact same words over free public accessible-government provided WiFi, that would be OK? It sounds like you are saying only the airwaves that reach radios and tv's are OUR AIRWAVES, does that mean you have no problem with him doing his thing over OUR airwaves on the internet? Those airwaves are OURS, too, aren't they?
N.A.C.:
What people say while ON THE RADIO and ON THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES is NOT NOT NOT NOT a "Free Speech" issue.
The airwaves are controlled, and SHOULD be. The airwaves are NOT a "free speech zone" where anyone can say anything they want.
It's generally agreed that LANGUAGE should be controlled (an issue George Carlin has made a great deal of hay protesting).
The airwaves are owned BY THE PEOPLE, not by the on-air personalities like Imus, and not by the mega-owners like Murdoch. THE PEOPLE can dictate how the airwaves are used, and can do so in the good old American way: Through rules written by their representatives (and enforced by the FCC).
Having one ideology dominate and monopolize our airwaves -- by virtue of money alone -- is NOT a proper use of our airwaves. We have the right, and the DUTY, to protect diversity of ideas as they are broadcast to the public.
No idea should be silenced (Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz and Savage would not be cast out, but people would also hear opposing viewpoints ... something that scarcely exists today), and there should be an effort made at balance. That is what the "Fairness Doctrine" was all about, and why it should come back.
The howling of the would-be monopolists (Rightwing propagandists) will be loud and shrill, and that should be evidence enough that such balance is sorely needed.
It is NOT a "Free Speech" issue, no matter how much propagandists like Hannity want to make it about "silencing" and "censoring" THEM. It's about ending their monopoly made possible by elite monied interests of a PUBLIC asset controlling and restricting the messages heard.
For an example of rightwing ownership censoring a "message", one needs only remember MSNBC canceling Phil Donahue's show because his message was not on board with the Iraq War warmongering lockstep desired by pro-Bush ownership. So he was censored and silenced ON THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES at a time when his was the highest ranking viewership show in their lineup. That is tyranny writ large, and it needs to END.
So Tex, I know you live on your soapbox to rant and rave the same speech over and over, but perhaps you can put your money where your considerable mouth is and answer a rather easy question based on your post above regarding your insistence the Fairness Doctrine be reintroduced.
How, specifically, would you, should you be in charge of its implementation, react to this particular statement by Imus? Would you put on someone who gives the "other side" of the gay slur, specifically or what would you do, specifically?
Now here is a chance for you to show us you are more than a leftwing soundbite, something to really sink your teeth into, specifically, and offer up your wisdom, specifically, as to how you would handle this situation, specifically.
Not Tex but I would say he did not say anything that would be subject to the fairness doctrine. However, since you are quite the contrarian, I'll try. He basically asked someone why they didn't like Huckabee, considering Huckabee's Southern Baptist affiliation and their views of homosexuality, Imus put two and two together and said, "what are you gay or something". Meaning, the only reason to not like him is becasue of his views of your sexual lifestyle. A producer could play Imus's comment the next day and then have a discussion of all the reason's a conservative or liberal, may reject Mike Huckabee. Or instead of radio programming consisting of Bennett from 8AM-10AM, Boortz 10AM-12PM, Rush 12PM-3PM and Hannity 3PM-6PM, I would knock an hour off of Bennett and Boortz and have a non-conservative host from 9AM-11AM and all non-conservative from 6PM-12PM. Fair?
The government needn't be involved in programming, period.
And if you are a station owner and your non-conservative talk block sinks in the ratings and advertisers jump your ship, who is responsible for your lost revenue?
Do you think that there should be rules and laws governing what can and can't be shown on TV and broadcast over the airwaves? Because if you think that there should be laws, then in a way, the government is involved in programming to a certain extent, as far as limiting what can and can't be shown. Or should broadcasters be allowed to broadcast unfettered and un-edited items across the airwaves?
Mag,
That is not the context of this discussion whatsoever. Of course there should be standards of decency, you know that is not what I meant.
But if you care to address my question, please do.
I was just curious because you stated that the government shouldn't be involved in programming, and as mentioned, I think that they are in a certain sense.
If a non-conservative radio show tanks, and gets taken off the air because advertisers are bailing out, fine. That's a business decision by whatever radio station/TV station is paying for said show. I don't have a problem with that. It's a private business, and they can put on, or take off whatever will make them money.
No it's not the station's decision at all. Read Seeryer's post above mine saying what the stations would be mandated to program based on the FD. That is the scenario I responded to and laid out what certainly could happen as a result.
See above, Tommy, I helped you out a bit.
Personally, where I differ from you Tommy, is that I think the government has NO role to dictate in content.
The public has the ability to determine what will and will not be shown. If something is obscene, they have the ability to dictate what they watch.
The easiest way to do this is to allow cable providers to bring progammign to people A la carte. That way if people don't want certain shows, they don't have to watch it.
And if YOU dont like the billboard I put up in YOUR front yard you can take it down since its YOUR yard. Since WE own the airwaves WE can decide how they are used. It is THAT simple
A few people who find something to be offensive don't get to tell everybody else what they can and can't watch. Even if it was a majority, a majority can't take away someone's free speech rights. You have no right to tell me what I can and can't watch and listen to.
There is no free speech issue here. We have PROVEN that you are a liar. You dont care about reality and just prefer to spew the hivemind LIE that we have proven to be false. Facts mean nothing to you, reality means nothing. Spewing what you now KNOW to be a lie to further the propaganda assignment given you by the hivemind is all you care about. This is NOT a free speech issue as the Red Lion decision makes absolutly clear this is a resource managment issue and since it is the PUBLICs resource we ABSOLUTLY have every right to decide how it is used. You can enter the debate but its just an ignorant lie to continue to say we have no right to the debate
And yet, shows you enjoy get cancelled all the time, dont they? So SOMEONE has the right to tell you what you can watch and what you can't watch.
If Freedom of Speech requires that Imus have his own syndicated radio show, 99.99% of Americans do not have Freedom of Speech. Get a clue. Nobody is talking about depriving Imus of his right to his own opinions. NO ONE has the "right" to blather hate over the radio.
And yes, they are the PUBLIC airwaves. Because they are a limited commodity- or do you want no federal regulation at all, just stations intruding on eachother's band space? Great, nothing but static- which come to think of it, would be an improvement over most of the right-wing drivel I hear nowadays.
"So SOMEONE has the right to tell you what you can watch and what you can't watch"
The market determines who is on the air and who isn't. That's it.
No that ISNT it. When Bill Mahars show politically incorrect had pretty good ratings it was taken off the air after he said something the white house didnt like. I didnt like it but I wasnt dumb enough to say EITHER that it was a market decision or a violation of his first amendment. Donahue wasnt about bad ratings. And since it is OUR resource WE have a say too. It doesnt matter if you hiveminders like it or not. Enter the dialogue and stick up for your hatemongering propagandists but you telling us we dont have a right to that dialogue is stupid.
Well, I don't agree with what the Fairness Doctrine suggests we should do, or what it did back before it was repealed, but it did work before, and it could work again, but that being said, nobody is pursuing putting it back into place.
All of this fear about the FD bringing down free speech is total BS, but then again, we don't have to worry about it anyway, because, once again, nobody is even remotely talking about re-installing it, and re-implementing it.
At the heart of the 1st Amendment is the protection of political speech, not obscene speech. The FCC has the right to have SOME decency standards on the public airwaves, but they can't censor political points of view, as it's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
At this point you are a LIAR. I have proven, by linking to the Red Lion decision that there is NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED in the fairness doctrine. You dont care because you are a liar. You prefer to continue to spread the hivemind LIE because you prefer it to reality.
Ah, that's right. We can never question the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court that created a non existant Constitutional right to an abortion in 1973. My guess is that the current Supreme Court, which is pro 1st Amendment, would strike down the Fairness Doctrine if it ever gets re-implemented. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are all pro first Amendment and only Suiter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer refuse to acknowledge the 1st Amendment.
You can question whatever you want. Where did you get your degree in Constitutional law again? Until something changes the law is what it is and there IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. That has been proven to you and yet you keep LYING about it.
If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow the police could search my home without a warrant I would say they were WRONG but I would STOP calling it a fourth amendment violation because IT WOULD NO LONGER BE ONE. This is pretty simple stuff, you really ought to STOP LYING ABOUT IT just because you prefer the hivemind lie to reality
Oh and they didnt make UP a right you have been corrected on this one before too. You just love to lie. See Ninth amendment. It really does no good to show you anything. You will just repeat whatever the hivemind told you to believe no matter WHAT reality is.
With your view of the 9th Amendment the government wouldn't have the right to do anything. But of course somehow the 9th Amendment doesn't keep the government from trying to implement unconstitutional social programs like Univeral Health Care and the like in your view. The fact is that the states have the right to make any law they want unless the right is spelled out in the Constitution. Otherwise, they simply have to show that it serves a legitimate state interest. With abortion, that's easy. You could simply say that with more people around you have more taxpayers and more money coming into the government. There's all kinds of reasons why protecting life is a legitimate interest of the state.
So the answer is YES, you just spew whatever floats to the top of your head. The ninth amendment says that because some rights are spelled out that doesnt mean there arent other rights out there. Now I get that in your simplemindedness that means that everything is a right. In the reality based universe where EVERYTHING in the world doesnt fit into the white box or the black box, it wouldnt work that way. What it WOULD do is allow the Supreme Court to recognize other rights not enumerated which is what they did with privacy. THAT doesnt mean that everything in the entire world is now a right. So basically your entire post was based on a false premise and became a non sequitur. You went into a whole new galaxy of delusion saying that universal healthcare is unconstitutional. That is so astonishingly stupid I think I will just let it sit there displaying its idiocy and stinking like the rotting ignorance it is.
But if you're going to say that non enumerated rights can be declared rights as well, then that means that the Supreme Court could declare anything a right. They could declare drug use, prostitution, etc. rights even though they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. After all, aren't these "privacy rights" as well? Why does "privacy" only extend to abortion but not prostitution or drug use?
Perhaps they could. You got YOUR degree in Constitutional law WHERE? Yet we are supposed to take YOUR word about what is constitutional over the Supreme Courts? Why dont we just abolish the SC and ask YOU to make these desicisons for us. I mean other than it would be insanely stupid? They have said the right to privacy is one of those rights. I dont care if you agree or not that IS the law and it DIDNT include making up new rights rather recognizing the right as inherent in the 9th amendment. I hope you dont mind that we find the SC to be a more impressive source on what is and isnt constitutional than a poster on a website who seems to never know what he is talking about do you?
Just like I thought. You've got nothing. You didn't even attempt to answer the question, because you don't have a clue of how to defend your position. You just try to discredit me with your usual ad hominem attacks rather than respond to the substance of what I said.
What SUBSTANCE? That you disagree with the Supreme Court? Take it up with them. Tell me again though where you got YOUR degree in constitional law? Oh you DONT HAVE ONE? Imagine my suprise. The ONLY thing I said is that they didnt make up a NEW RIGHT they decided it based on the ninth amendment. That is simple FACT. I feel no need to follow you in your quest to move the goalposts once you realize you have no hope of arguing the point. As to the scope of the ninth amendment or the right to privacy take your issue up with them. I dont care enough to argue the point with you. I MADE mine.
Again, you didn't answer my question of why prostitution and drug use are not privacy rights while abortion is. You once again just used more ad hominem personal attacks. Try to actually engage in an intelligent debate instead of making everything personal. Thanks.
What personal attacks? Again your question is irrelevant to my point. Whatever you think about the SCOPE of the ninth amendment is irrelevant to my point. So if you have a problem with the scope of the ninth amendment that is a question to take up with the Supreme Court and isnt relevant to the FACT they didnt make UP a new right only interpreted the ninth amendment. Feel free to argue your point with them. I. Dont. Care.
When you asked me where I got my degree in constitutional law that's a logical fallacy. It's called an ad hominem attack. You tried to attack my credibility rather than respond to my question. But whatever, if you can't answer the question, that's fine. At least you admit it.
Why do people like you say you want less government, and smaller government, but then when it comes to a choice of a medical procedure, you want them there in our faces?
So let me get this straight. You want government small enough so that it can fit into our bedrooms and doctor's offices? Is that it?
THAT is EXACTLY it.
I want people to have the freedom to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The unborn are living, breathing beings who have the same right to life as you and me. By protecting their rights we are simply protecting their liberties, not taking anyone's away.
They are breathing BEFORE they are born? Are you trying for a new record in saying something stupid? That is YOUR opinion and nothing more. Excuse us for not following you and demanding YOUR opinion be enshrined in law for EVERYONE.
Yes, babies breathe and have a heart beat before they are born. Otherwise they would die. It's not rocket science. It's not just a mass of jumbled tissue as you pro aborts think.
No they dont. It is stupid. They have a heartbeat, they DONT breathe. At least not as we think of it. They get the oxygen from the mother. They are surrounded by amniotic fluid their lungs couldnt POSSIBLY get oxygen from that fluid. It is becoming more and more apparant that you NEVER know what you are talking about and just say whatever hivemind brainwashed nonsense that floats to the top of your head based on your delusional fantasies.
"No they dont. It is stupid. They have a heartbeat, they DONT breathe. At least not as we think of it."
I think you are wrong. There are many scientists (and others) who think there is LIFE on Mars and other places in outer space. Of all the "life" they have found so far, NONE breathe like we do. Does that mean it really isn't "life" within YOUR parameters? Just because a baby isn't breathing as YOU expect him/her to doesn't mean they aren't breathing.
There are sooo many other, better, arguements that are pro-abortion, I think you should pick an arguement that stands the test of factuality and not make things up based on your personal opinion. We can never win a pro-abortion arguement when you use false knowledge.
Again the abortion argument you try to shoehorn into every thread is YOUR obsession not mine. They are in a SAC filled with FLUID. If YOU want to call it breathing though there IS NO AIR, then whatever.
Did you even notice that a different poster made that statement? So is he obsessed with abortion, or me? I'm confused.
Also, it's nice that you call the horrific procedure of abortion a "medical procedure." It says a lot about you.
You want to turn everything into an abortion debate. This thread is not about abortion that is YOUR obsession. We get that YOU demand EVERYONE be constrained by YOUR opinions. Realistically that is never going to happen
So you consider abortion to be just an ordinary medical procedure? Really?
Your abortion obsession is your own. This topic isnt about abortion, you have derailed the thread long enough.
Actually, I wasn't the one who started talking about the actual issue of abortion. I simply brought it up in the context that the Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, which applies to the Fairness Doctrine decision and this thread in general. I wasn't the one who got into the actual issue of abortion.
So the Supreme Court gets things wrong. Which may be true but not because YOU say so. Where did you get your degree in Constitutional law again? Explain to us how much more YOU know about Constitutional law than the Supreme Court and how much more you know about the Fairness doctrine than the head of the FCC. It is clear there is no first amendment issue here. You just will say anything to hold on to the propagandistic LIE that you prefer. It doesnt make sense, it is refuted directly by every expert in the field but its what the Limborg have been told to believe so you just hold on to your delusional fantasies in the face of all reality and facts. Good luck with that.
Have you ever read the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't recall the FCC ever trying to stifle anyone's political viewpoints, and or political speech. The 1st amendment is not just about political speech, please read above.
If you're going to talk about the 1st amendment, you should at least know what it says.
I didn't say that it was "just" about political speech. It's just the most important part, but it extends to many other areas as well.
It DOESNT extend to the fairness doctrine or the RIGHT to a job or a national audience.
And if you are a station owner and the people decide you are not living up to the public service part of your deal, the one that broadcasters MADE in order to use OUR RESOURCE to make their obscene buttloads of money then you can also LOSE YOUR LICENSE and someone more responsible can be given it. And if you dont LIKE the FACT that we own the airwaves and have every RIGHT to decide how they are used then you can feel free to go into the drycleaning business.
What a completely idiotic argument, and that fact that you absolutey did not address the very real scenario I put forth.
What about the employess of that radio station who work for a company that the government, under the ridiculous FD, has essentially put out of business because they are by law forced to program their content based on what the govt. thinks is fair. You know, the people the Democrats claim to care about, the working families? You know, them people?
Exactly. Taking away a stations license because of Imus asking someone if they are gay in a sophomoric manner is rather extreme. Perhaps it's not a free speech issue but do we want to start penalizing everyone who doesn't tow the liberal political correctness line, with closing them down. Isn't that kind of what Hugo Chavez did to the t.v. station in Argentina? The reality is that the majority of people in this country are moderates and they don't get their panties in a wad anytime some group is condescended by a talk radio jock. If we took everyone off the air who said something offensive to the hard core liberals in this society all we would have would be peace, love, dove environmental radio and television shows. Why don't people with this extra soft skin just say "I don't like what you say, it offends me so therefore you can't say it on a mass media medium". Instead they dance around it. Shouln't they just say what they feel?
You're exactly right. Even Bill Maher called Media Matters a bunch of sissies for trying to censor anybody who says something that they view to be politically incorrect. Media Matters simply keeps proving over and over again that they're not a watchdog group but simply an advocacy group that is attempting to silence non-liberal media people. What Imus said here was simply funny. Only a week kneed politically correct liberal could find what he said to be offensive, or even take it seriously at all. What Imus said made no sense at all and shouldn't be discussed as a political statement. It was simply Imus being Imus. Leave the guy alone.
Nobody is being censored by having what they said criticised. YOU are a liar. Why do you keep lying? Bill Mahar can say whatever he wants its a LIE to say anyone is calling for censorship. That doesnt stop ANYONE for being held accountable for their actions. STOP LYING.
Wrong. Media Matters is actively trying to CENSOR people by calling what they say "hate speech" and saying "it has no place on the airwaves."
http://mediamatters.org/hatefree
Which is NOT censoring them. I can be fired for what I say at work. So can you. Is THAT censorship? MMFA is giving their opinion on what is reasonable to say on OUR AIRWAVES. Did they call for Imus to be ARRESTED if he says these things or for there to be consequences for such outrages? Ya got nothin. You never do.
You know that being censored doesn't necessarily mean that you're arrested. Your argument that people can still stand on the street corner and say stuff doesn't mean anything. If you can't reach a large number of people your opinion doesn't mean anything. That is why the government running the media is unconstitutional. At the heart of the 1st Amendment is the protection of political speech. It wouldn't be much protection if you simply had the right to stand on a street corner and yell. That wouldn't reach anybody. It also protects people who have influence who can reach others. The fact that someone has a microphone in front of them and reaches listeners doesn't mean that their 1st Amendment rights can be taken away.
Actually it goes right to the HEART of it. Since the airwaves belong to US, and since the government is in effect CHOOSING some people to reach that large audience over OTHERS is EXACTLY the reason we have a right to democratically decide whether they are using our resource in a way that fulfills their public service function. Is your argument that MY first amendment rights are being censored by ME not having a national audience? Because if you arent then you have no argument at ALL. No one not Imus or ANYONE ELSE has any first amendment rights that I do not have. So you are simply misunderstanding the issue AGAIN. The first amendment does NOT give you protection from the consequences of your actions. YOU can be fired for what you say at work, so can I, so can Imus. Unless that is a first amendment issue with US then it isnt with Imus. I dont know how much simpler I can make this
"Since the airwaves belong to US, and since the government is in effect CHOOSING some people to reach that large audience over OTHERS"
That makes absolutely no sense at all. The government does not "choose" who gets their own talk radio show. It has absolutely nothing to do with the government. It's a free market. Anybody has the opportunity to pursue a career in broadcasting and become a talk radio host. Limbaugh worked his way up from nothing and became successful. The government did not "give" him free speech rights that you don't have. He earned it through hard work and dedication. But that's a concept that liberals don't seem to understand.
The government CHOOSES who to give the LICENSE and you cant operate without one so yes it does make sense. See just because you arent bright enough to FOLLOW an argument doesnt mean it isnt a good one. There is NO free speech argument here. Never was I PROVED that you just prefer to keep telling the hivemind LIE that you like better and were TOLD to believe even in the face of ALL the evidence of factual reality. Whatever talent he has got him a job there is no free speech argument that demands he keep it anymore than I have a free speech argument that I can say whatever I want to at work without consequences. I just dont know how much simpler I can make this
If you work hard and are talented enough, the government will give you a license. You won't be denied simply because of your political point of view. So you have no point. And of course people can be fired for making stupid remarks. I just think it looks bad for you to attempt to get people off the air simply because you disagree with what they say. You don't see anybody on the right doing that. We want to win the debate in the arena of ideas, not through silencing the opposition.
Again you show how little you know about what you are talking about. There are only SO many frequencies so work as hard as you want it doesnt mean you will get a license. They are scarce. If the right DOESNT get people off the air why did Donohue get fired when he was the highest rated show on his network? Why did Bill Mahar get fired for pissing off the Bush administration when he was getting good ratings? I dont CARE what you like. We have a RIGHT to decide how our resource is used and whether those on the air are keeping up their end of the bargain by providing a public service and I am not trying to get ANYONE off the air. I dont know how often I have to tell you I dont care but its just dumb to pretend that the obvious concept that actions have consequences is somehow a freedom of speech issue. It isnt. I have PROVEN this is not a free speech issue yet you keep LYING and saying it is.
RINO says, "I just think it looks bad for you to attempt to get people off the air simply because you disagree with what they say. You don't see anybody on the right doing that."
RESPONSE: Wow. How about a couple of names of people THE RIGHT wished silenced, and have done everything possible to deny public forums to? Dixie Chicks, Cindy Sheehan. Donahue and Maher have already been discussed.
If RINO is in complete denial about the tactics of the Rightwing against those they wish silenced, there is no point in even responding to him.
And this says NOTHING about all those talented opinion people of the Left who are never given a CHANCE by Westwood One, Clear Channel, or any of the mega-corporation, all-rightwing-propaganda, all the time station owners.
If you're going to argue here, RINO, at LEAST acknowledge the obvious truths that everyone paying attention knows full well about. The Chicks just said they were ashamed Bush was "from Texas", and the rightwing set about nationwide to destroy their careers forever. Sheesh.
I thought that the Dixie Chicks thing was overblown, but they were simply boycotted and not banned from radio. Contrary to the propaganda some on the left put out, they still play Dixie Chicks songs on the radio. They weren't banned. I think that Maher and Donahue should've kept their jobs, but again it was the station owners who decided to fire them. Nobody on the right called for government intervention.
RINO says, "I thought that the Dixie Chicks thing was overblown,..."
RESPONSE: THAT is how you explain away orchestrated RIGHTWING efforts nationwide to put the Dixie Chicks out of business? Cumulus and Clear Channel home office issues memos to all their hundreds of satellite stations to NOT play the Chick's music, to PUNISH them for saying something critical of George Bush?
Overblown, to be sure, but a clear contradiction to your claim that "the right" do not engage in that kind of political censorship. You have been REBUTTED on that claim.
RINO says, " ... but they were simply boycotted and not banned from radio."
RESPONSE: Memos from the owner's home office dictate a BAN. Disc Jockeys were FIRED for playing Chick's music. That is not a "simple boycott." Cumulus organized rallies with steam rollers to crush the Chick's CDs. That is partisan political activism. Your attempt to downplay the rightwing's active efforts to silence critics ignores all known facts, RINO.
RINO says, "Contrary to the propaganda some on the left put out, they still play Dixie Chicks songs on the radio."
RESPONSE: YEARS LATER, the Chick's point of view that Bush is a lousy president is now the MAJORITY view. So, yeah, time has proven them correct, and they're getting airplay after having been banned.
RINO says, "They weren't banned."
RESPONSE: They were by the first and third largest companies owning radio stations. And they were banned across the land by OTHER radio station owners. You are either ignorant of what transpired, or you are lying.
RINO says, "I think that Maher and Donahue should've kept their jobs, but again it was the station owners who decided to fire them."
RESPONSE: Exactly. Rightwing media owners making PARTISAN POLITICAL DECISIONS about their programming.
RINO says, "Nobody on the right called for government intervention."
RESPONSE: Rightwing media owners make CONSTANT demands of government. They want licenses issued, they want relief from FCC regulations (which the Bush Administration approves), they want the ability to own more and more of every market under single ownership. They want, in short, total control with no responsibilities.
The government intervention the stations DO NOT WANT is any effort to hold them responsible for providing balanced programming. They wish to be rightwing propaganda, all the time, and do not want the government to prevent this monopoly ON THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Good lord, just keep digging that hole, Rino Buddy. You are truly the dumbest human being ever to post here. Criticism is NOT CENSORSHIP. Good freaking God, will you EVER get that?
Solon-
This was no outrage. Is the word "gay" offensive to you? This was Imus being a little un-PC, in a way of making a joke about Severin not supporting Huckabee. Imus did nothing to criticize or belittle gay people. It was a little political satire and I am sick of whiny people listening for words instead of context in attempt to promote their own agendum.
Well we are even. I am sick of STUPID people telling us what we ought to criticise. I didnt think it that offensive, I thought it was stupid. The implication was the only reason to not like Huccabee is if you are gay. That is dumb, Imus is dumb. I will decide what I want to criticise and why it really isnt up to you and I am sick of morons trying to tell me what I should and shouldnt criticise.
But Solon, three clueless morons in a row agree that it IS censorship! Doesn't that settle the argument? :>)
Really, Tommy, Rino and AChris would do the world a great favor by just forming a circular firing squad. Of course, they'd have to take a break from saying "right you are," "you're SO right," and "Whiny Leftists hate Free Speech" long enough to pull their triggers.
You mean Venezuala. He took the license away from the people who were involved in the plot to overthrow him which is a bit different. Having said THAT, this is a competely different thing. The Chavez thing didnt sit that well with me. THIS is a democratic decision I am talking about. That is that the PEOPLE own the airwaves thus we collectively have the right to demand the stations keep up THEIR part of the bargain that they serve a public service function and IF they are doing so. So no it really isnt ANYTHING like what you are talking about. I dont care one way or another about the Fairness Doctrine. I DO care that we have a RIGHT to the public dialogue about how OUR RESOURCES are used. You are probably right. Most people are probably against taking people like Imus off the air. It wasnt something I wanted the FIRST TIME. What we will have done however is USE our participatory democracy, excersise THAT very democratic function once that has happened I am happy in whatever shakes out.
"THIS is a democratic decision I am talking about"
So a majority of the American people wanted Imus off the air? How exactly do you know that?
Direct democracy isnt always voting. Protests are also direct democracy in action. I personally didnt care one whit what happened with Imus and assume THAT is how the majority of the people felt. ENOUGH people threw a fit that his SPONSERS felt the game was no longer worth the candle and I KNOW that because HE WAS TAKEN OFF THE AIR. That is STILL direct democracy in action. If enough people had shown support FOR his actions it would have turned out differently. I dont get what is so hard to understand about this.
Fair enough, and thanks for the correction on Venenzuela, can't wait for the wacko's from the Iran NIE report thread to see my mistake on a Latin American country there. Oh well, in any event, I do see a little differently than you here. I think it is quite clear that some hold so much disdain for those who are offensive to the "political correctness" ideology of being non offensive to sub groups in our society that they would have no problem whatsoever in eliminating them from the public airwaves. The Chavez thing was clearly about a television station who didn't tow the party line and despite the surface differences I believe there can be a valid comparison drawn here. It still boils down to to one group or person feeling threatened or offended and attempting to take away the medium for that to occur.
Well there isnt any question that the owners of that station were involved in the COUP that overthrew him temporarily so yeah he felt threatened. I am devils advocate here. Chavez isnt my favorite guy, but if the owners of CBS were involved in a plot to overthrow the President, whoever he was would you think it was WRONG if the government took THEIR license away? At any rate. I am not arguing in favor of taking people off the air because I dont care enough. I think things will work themselves out either way. I am only advocating the DIALOGUE. The direct, participatory democracy because I think it is ALWAYS a good thing when people get involved on a grass roots level with policy. Once that begins, I dont care which decision ultimatly prevails it was OUR decision which is our RIGHT, that is the only thing I am arguing for. Those who think differently really NEED to join the dialogue but shouldnt be telling us we have no right TO the dialogue.
Good point. But, how does it add to the dialogue when ideologues are controlling the debate. You have those on the far left who want nothing offensive aired and those on the far right who want the far left to just hsut up about everything, all the while the moderates who make up most of the ideology of this nation are like you and could care less. They are worrying aobut their kid's christmas and the bills afterward. I really beleive that Mr. And Mrs. America could give a plugged nickel about Imus asking someone if they are gay. If that is true then why would MMFA seem to want to further the partisan divide where it is all or nothing for the vocal element in this nation?
You make a good point. Apathy ALWAYS plays into the hands of the vocal minorities and power. That is the peoples own fault for shirking their responsibility in making THEIR voice heard. Until the dialogue is taking place they dont even KNOW it is happening. Once it begins if they dont take part then its their own fault if the decision doesnt meet their approval.
So true, that is why middle America seems to get the shaft and the ideologues on each side use that to portray the other as ineffective to the countries needs. The country years for a JFK or Truman or even a Reagan with brains. Nevertheless, this thinskinned, take offense to everything, posture is just as bad as trying to sell that tax cuts for the rich are good for America.
It isnt idiotic because YOU are too stupid to understand it. There will be the same amount of radio programs on, whether this or that program is one of them. The fairness doctrine wont tell people what they can or cant say only that the other side be heard. IF someone is forced off the air then the frequency wont go silent, it will be used by someone else who will hire pretty much the same amount of people. It is YOUR argument that is clearly idiotic. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. That gives us the right to make democratic decisions about how they are used. The only free speech issue here is OURS. We have a right to the democratic argument BASED on the fact we own the airwaves. I am not saying YOU shouldnt join that argument but YOU are saying we dont have a right to it. THAT is an attack on Free speech the Fairness doctrine is NOT as I have proven.
What happened when the Fairness Doctrine was in place is that radio station owners simply didn't want to mess with all the red tape and didn't air partisan commentators of either party. The end result was less discussion of the issues and government suppression of ideas and speech. The Fairness Doctrine impedes the open discussion of ideas, it doesn't promote it.
That is baloney. You NEVER know what you are talking about. Outrageous strident talkers were on the radio during the Fairness doctrine from Alan Berg who was MURDERED by rightwingers for his controversial statements and Father Coughlin to Morton Downey Jr. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or do you just spew out whatever floats to the top of your head?
Then how was it that partisan programming like Rush and the like only started to get big and grow rapidly after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed? You only mentioned a few isolated examples. Today we have freedom of choice to listen to whatever we want to. There's nothing keeping anybody from becoming a talk show host and getting their own show. The only thing that could keep that from happenening is if the government gets in the way.
You arent really telling me I need to do hours of research and come up with every partisan, controversial voice in the last 70 years to make the point. YOU said they AVOIDED such controversy. Showing VERY STRIDENT voices like those I mentioned was enough to show that is flat out WRONG. You keep pretending it is all about the market. How many times do I have so remind you of the liberals taken OFF the air when they WERE successful? It ISNT only about audience because the AUDIENCE doesnt pay the bills its about ADVERTISERS, the vast majority of which are Bussiness and the business community is conservative by nature. The reason the bloviating fools like Limbuagh werent big before the fairness doctrine might be for many reasons. Perhaps the tastes of Americans changed. Perhaps their LIES, SMEARS, and Ignorant ranting wouldnt go over as well when the other side is heard. I dont know and I dont care. I am not advocating the Fairness Doctrine. I am pointing out the OUTRIGHT FACT, we have a right to the discussion about it and that it DOESNT violate any free speech right. It is that LIE that I am arguing against.
Your question was based on what to do if the Fairness Doctrine was implemented. I answered. Did you expect me to say "trick question"?
No, you just answered what you wanted and thought would be fair. What about the specific question I asked about the radio station? Do you want it asked again, because it's in my post dated today, 1:32:36.
Is there such a thing as a "non-conservative block" in talk readio. Certainly not here in Jacksonville FL. Its 80 degrees outside right now BTW.
Tommy,
It is true, conservatives bring the worst out of people. If Nazism was well organized today in America the conservatives would embrace it. They believe in aryanism, they hate gays, they are good Christians, oh, and they are WHITE.
I personally dont care one way or another about the fairness doctrine. I DO care that no matter how many times I PROVE there is no first amendment issue with it, no matter how often I link to the Red Lion decision or the FCC head saying it DIRECTLY, still the rightwingers come slinking in, after not even TRYING to refute the earlier evidence, and just repeat their first amendment argument anyway, even though it has been SHOWN to be without merit.
Tommy-
How is what Imus said a "gay slur"? Does Jay Severin jokingly being "outed" as gay offend you? If so, what do you have against Jay Severin personally. This is just an another example of some folks at Media Matters trying to make trouble for Imus.
It is a pity. As a relatively liberal person, I am troubled by the fact that a person who does a lot of good in this world like Imus, gets people who pay lip service to doing good against him.
Very frustrating.
Well there is your mistake. Buying into the rightwing frame that everything is one way. I dont see anyone saying Imus is a horrible human being. He is being criticised for THIS. Even the best of people can do things worth criticising but no matter what good you do those things dont become chits to cash in to make you EXEMPT from criticism when you act like a jerk. If Mother Theresa tossed out a racist joke, I would criticise her, that doesnt mean I would be saying she was evil or a bad person for that one thing.
TOMMY:
I take it you want SPECIFICS. Yet, the specifics you require pertain to a HYPOTHETICAL ... that being the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine.
OK, let's see if we can divine your questions:
You say, "(some blah-blah, then) ... perhaps you can ... answer a rather easy question..."
RESPONSE: Perhaps.
You continue, "How, specifically, would you, should you be in charge of its implementation, react to this particular statement by Imus?"
RESPONSE: ALL content is already monitored to assure compliance with FCC regulations. That will not change, and if Imus violates those regulations, he will be dealt with accordingly. The Fairness Doctrine would not change any of that.
Content that is specifically partisan is easily monitored as well; most hosts are up front about their political standing, and their content blatantly reflects their bias.
So, what Imus, or Limbaugh, or any other host specifically says is not the guideline. If you, as an owner, wish to use the public airwaves, there is a public trust you need to fulfill: that being, the public has a right to hear the variety of viewpoints that are available.
Limbaugh is available, and so is Raechel Maddow. If you have 4 hours of Limbaugh, you must also present 4 hours of Maddow. Hannity/Franken, O'Reilly/a progressive.
There is to be no monopoly of "conservative" propaganda on the PUBLIC airwaves, due to the rightwing's desire to own the message (and the wealth to buy the stations, along with bribing/influencing the licensing agencies). Monopolies are bad, and a monopoly on public communication is a basic tyranny.
You further ask, "Would you put on someone who gives the "other side" of the gay slur, specifically or what would you do, specifically?"
RESPONSE: The specifics would be up to the various show's hosts and producers. I would expect Maddow, following Imus, might comment on how stupid Imus' comments were, and explain WHY that comment was wrong and hurtful. The audience, having the opportunity to hear both sides of that particular topic, could make up their own minds as to whether Imus or Maddow made the better points.
When you have Limbaugh followed by Hannity followed by Levine, there is only ONE MESSAGE being drummed and only reinforced, and the public's right to hear different viewpoints is replaced by nonstop propaganda, ON AIRWAVES THE PEOPLE OWN.
You continue, "Now here is a chance for you to show us you are more than a leftwing soundbite, something to really sink your teeth into, specifically, and offer up your wisdom, specifically, as to how you would handle this situation, specifically."
RESPONSE: Happy to have obliged. Specifically.
I would like to say something on this. On our local radio station we have an guy who keeps shouting misleading statements and sprouts of unsubstained claims all in the safety of a studio. He never has anyone on who would contridict him even though many of us have tried to call in but he is screening his calls because he knows he cannot back up what he says. The only reason he is on the air is his Daddy is a big time country singer.
I don't want him off the air however. I want someone on the air with him to call him on his garbage that way the low educated people in our area who buy this crap hook line and sinker can see for themselves what an idiot and hypocrit he is. The right wing pundants are scared to have the other side front line becasue it would mean they would have to step up to the plate armed with soemthing other than your bogus opinions and misleading "facts." They would also be required to valudate those opinion with some reasonable logic.
It not about free speech. There is such a thing called the free market of ideas. In this system the idea is that everyone ideas compete in the open realm of free speech. As we debate the points of each one, the bad ideas get tossed in the light of public opinion. We reason out the merits of the idea as it is supported and contested in the open. if it were about free speech right ring nuts would not be so afraid of the other side being on the air. This whole liberal bias is only a manufactored ruse because they couldn't get thier opinion on the air without opposition from those who would call them on it. If they believe in free speech and if they are so right then how about they stop hidding from thier opposition and being cowards with thier cheep shots and have the public air waves really open to free debate. Today's seperates the opinion preventing any from honest debate in the public sector because they are not given free debate in the open. Rush's ditto heads will never see the oposing side's view in this system so they are never exposed opposing view. This is what has spilt this country down the middle. Because even ditto heads would have to see that Rush is an idiot if he were to ever be called on in front of them in a real competetion of ideas.
How about having Olberman and Oreily radio show-- I know because big bad Bill could not compete with Olberaman in a face to face debate. He would be shown to be the overbearing idiot that he really is. Face it, the conservative arguements do not hold up in the free market of ideas. So the conservatives had to create a system that shielded them from the competition. If any of these guys were to say this garbage on the public square they would have to back it up because someone will call them on it. In the safety of the studio they do not have to confront them and infact are free to make unsupported cheap shots at thier opponents. The system is rigged to protect the right wing nut who could not compete in the real free market of ideas. When the system work it might have created what you thought was a liberael bias but have you ever thought that maybe the libereal view is better able to compete in the open because most of us are intelligent enough to wiegh the merits and see that the conservative moment for what it really is.
Ah...the "all knowing" tex, carrying the party line...
As posted above tex, tell us how we'll equate the Imus show? Will you put a snarky one-liner type up against the Imus show or will you put someone who does as much charity work as he has with a point of view on? Do you counter anti gay rants with pro gay rants?
Who will get to make the decision on what is appropriate to follow? Do you suggest putting on just a run-o-the-mill left winger to fill up time?
What seems to be lost on you is that by reinstating some sort of fairness doctrine is that it ultimately stifles all discourse. You will end up with what we had on AM radio in the late sixties and seventies...Auntie Bea's knitting hour, followed by the Harlem Tabernacle Choir hour and if we're lucky a ahot of Grand Ol' Opry hour.
We know you know this...just be honest about it. You can't match much less better right wing radio, so it must be silenced. Free speech be damned.
PS
as if we need to belabor this point more, your example of Donahue needs further clarification. He may have been the highest rated person on MSNBC, but he was drawing less than 150k viewers compared to other channels in his same slot.
That is what killed Comrade Donahue's show...not as you suggest his FAR left wing stance.
If I'm wrong about this, I'm sure you'll just LINK us up some facts to back that whopper up.
You didnt really think you made any cogent arguments here did you? Like it actually makes sense that demanding BOTH sides of an argument are heard actually stifles discourses is supposed to make sense in the reality based universe? Or that the HIGHEST rated program on a network is likely to be cancelled for low ratings because...? You arent within MILES of making sense you get that dont you?
Solon I guess I give you too much credit...
It is a BUSINESS. It is there to make money. This seems lost with you on the left.
I'll try and slow it down a tad for you...
If you put a Hannity on and he opines a point that you deem needs to be countered then a producer must come up with someone to counter his opinion (under the Fairness Doc) even if that person doesn't have any broadcast training and speaks in a monotone (think "Bueller, Bueller"). Now said producer is loosing ratings (remember, that's what it's all about) and his show starts to tank.
The argument isn't one of need of balance, it becomes one of ratings. Producers and sponsors of shows will not support failing shows just because of a need for "balance for a few".
Once again, I assert you know this, because I think you are way too smart not to see it...unless I give you too much credit.
I know and you know that the left hasn't been successful in matching or besting the right in this medium so, you hope to silence them through the FD.
Alas it is a moot point as there is no real support in congress for the FD only shrill screams from the blogosphere.
Don't listen to me though...listen to your SD:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&x=200710121145591xeneerg9.791201e-02
I hate to be picky here but Imus on a radio show has noting to do with free speech. Imus being incarcerated in this country based on his speech would be relevant to free speech. If a radio show had to do with free speech, there would be no FCC and there would be no time delays. So, Imus on the Radio is not a byproduct of free speech, it is a byproduct of unfettered, unabashedly white male capitalists.
Does he have Tourettes Syndrome?
lord forbid that a shock-jock says something shocking!!!
he also calls dick cheney a war criminal, but you don't have any problem with that kind of speech, do you?
That's because one of those comments is probably true, while the other is not. Now, which is true and which isn't?
Actually, the latter is political speech. The former is just a slur.
he also calls dick cheney a war criminal, but you don't have any problem with that kind of speech, do you?
Nope......
Why, you ask......
Because Dick Cheney IS a WAR CRIMINAL!!
http://www.commondreams.org/views/090600-105.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1653936,00.html
There are plenty of other links to prove this is TRUE...... Google it, you'll see!
As for Imus....he's just a dunderhead that, like Hannity, allows his lips to move before his brain can catch up!
What a brilliant argument, Foster: if you google something then what ever pops up must be true.
If the Nuremeberg laws were applied, Cheney and Bush would be HUNG. According to the Nuremberg tribunal, that is the trials where WE hung the Nazis the Supreme war crime was starting a war of agression. Its pretty hard to argue Bush and Cheney didnt do that and its the crime we hung many a Nazi for.
Of course. Enforcing the numerous UN violations that were broken was an act of aggression and a crime. Nice one Solon. Welcome to far left Nutsville.
How stupid is it to say we were ENFORCING the UN rulings when the UN OPPOSED the invasion? That is an incredibly dumb argument. Since Israel has violated more than TWICE as many UN resolutions as Iraq ever did are we going to invade Israel? We RATIFIED the UN charter. It says only TWO rationales for a war are NOT agression IMANENT self defense which even Bush didnt claim and a UN security counsel resolution which we did NOT have. The resolution you are talking about did NOT give us any authority to invade but said the UN would remain siezed of the issue and make the decision about when force was necessary. We didnt. This administration started a war of aggression, it certainly wasnt self defense. If the Nuremberg laws were applied Bush and Cheney would be hung
I don't like the idea of us having to give up our sovereignty to an un elected foreign body. If a country is a threat to our national security we should take that country out. We don't have to get approval from the UN. Again, it ended up that Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security, but we shouldn't have to get the UN's approval to defend our national interests.
You do understand that once a treaty like the UN Charter is ratified it becomes the supreme law of the land dont you? That is IN the constitution. We didnt have to ratify it but we DID. So there is no soveriegnity argument. If there were it still wouldnt make a lick of sense that Iraq was in ANY way a threat to us. Zinni said they werent, the CIA said they werent. THEY WERENT. Another dumb and meritless argument from you.
Solon posted:
"...The supreme law of the land"...
_________________________
Really? Can you please show us that in the US Constitution? Remember the UN was a Charter. Link us up please.
I forgot to add this bathhouse reading material. You may find a couple of gems you like:
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Stromberg.pdf
RINO:
We HAVE no sovereignty. WHY? Because George W. Bush has invaded a sovereign nation for no reason at all, deposed its leader, and now occupies that nation. Tens if not thousands of that nation's innocent civilians have been killed. Further, Bush has ignored treaties with the UN and the Geneva Conventions, so we are a nation which does not respect LAWS, either.
Our sovereignty is FORFEIT, because of the actions of our president. You may HOPE that we get to claim things which we do not extend to other nations, but that's a foolish and naive belief (if that's what you think).
Any claim we make to honor, sovereignty, rule of law, or morality is now a huge joke in the world. Sanctity of life? Forget it. Christianity? A shattered dream. We torture, we hold in prison people without charging them with anything, we spy on our own people in violation of our own Constitution.
See, nobody cares a tinker's damn about your or any American's preference as to a noble self-image.
What the world cares about is ACTIONS, and what those actions say about our character. We are a nation that invades OTHER soverign nations "preemptively" ... which means FOR NO REASON. When you do that, your own sovereignty goes out the window. Other nations may feel free to act AS WE DO, which means no respect for sovereignty or anything else.
Happy about all that, Sparky?
But to be clear I think that the Iraq War ended up being a bad idea. I just don't think that it was illegal.
It was CLEARLY illegal by international law even supporter Paul Wolfowitz admitted that. It probably wasnt illegal by OUR laws.
After reading through all your posts, you finally admit you are wrong. The sovereign country of America lives by the rules of the sovereign country of America. Not by the rules of the UN. Why didn't you just admit you were wrong at the beginning instead of dragging this off-topic rant on and on??
Because I am NOT wrong. I made no other claim. Why dont YOU learn to READ. The fact the war MAY have been legal by national law doesnt stop someone from being a war criminal. How dumb do you have to be to think it does? The NAZIS were not doing anything illegal by GERMAN law and yet we still hanged them. DUH, try to keep up.
Uh, hanged, Solon.
I would even hate to think about whether Bush and Cheney were hung. ;)
You are right. I dont know why I keep making that mistake. Thank you.
hmm, very convincing. however a war criminal is someone who has faced the these charges and been convicted in a court of law. perhaps you could say truthfully that 'dick cheney should be charged as a war crininal.' but normally we have the rule 'innocent until proven guilty.' (unless, of course, you are a republican... then you are guilty by association.)
imus in the same breath called hillary clinton "the devil' if you accept the former so quickly, you must be willing to give pause and consider the latter as acceptable.
A reasonable point. It would be more accurate to say apparant war criminal. I would say there is VASTLY more evidence Cheney is a war criminal than that Hillary is the devil.
I hate to disagree with you again, but you would want to use 'assumed'.
Also, the evidence against the assumed war criminal and assumed devil are fairly well known and vastly available.
No I think apparant is correct. I see no such evidence. War of aggression, check. WE decided in the Nuremberg Tribunal that starting wars of aggression are the supreme war crime, check. So its pretty apparant feel free to cough up that evidence when you can.
I am sorry Phil I misread this post. So I still say apparant is correct but the rest of my post was a complete non sequitur. Ignore it. Mornings arent my best time. I have to go to work soon but this point is a good one. The evidence IS there. Raw political power is what is keeping them safe. NO American is going to face war crimes trials the way the Nazis and Japanese did anytime soon.
At least he didn't say "natty dressed hump"!
Ah, the human corpse is back.
Anybody who expects anything more from this walking pile of crap is expecting too much.
SAVE DEMOCRACY!! VOTE INDEPENDENT!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!
Did not take long for MMFA to target Don Imus , I listened to this show today and found it mostly comedy. This is not a news show MMFA, stop acting like it is.
Where does MMFA say that they only comment on news programs?
This is not "NewsMatters" Bob, stop acting like it is.
Radio is a form of media.
Welcome back Don.
I don't think he's happy to be here.
Personally, I think it's a legitmate question that I might ask someone who was gay if I was straight, (And I'm not really sure who is which here) - but not on in front of a national audience.
Hence the term "Shock Jock"? He doesn't bother me. I rarely agree with anything he says -and he's said a few things in his day to really tick me off - but at least he is not completely closed minded like some. He has his audience, so he has a job.
This is definitely a "What is this doing here?" story. Where's the mis-information? Not that MMFA shouldn't be keeping an eye on him, LOL.
Good question. How is it misinformation? Well it is not. Not all MMFA articles are reports on misinformation. Whenever they cite outrageous comments and such, they categorize it under the "CLIPS" tab.
I will never understand why some heterosexuals mock other heterosexuals as if being "gay" is something abnormal. "Man, you sound so GAY; you look so GAY; you act so GAY! Stop being a QUEER!” I guess machismo is so deeply ingrained in American culture, that anything that strays away from that is considered perverted, weak, and sick – something that deserves criticism and ridicule.
It will be interesting to see how Imus’s new show will be since McJerk isn’t there to pull his chain. Gone are the Jim Crowish jokes of blacks being “apes,” gone are the jokes where McJerk mocks Maya Angelou's poems by comparing them to third-rate gangsta rap, gone are playing old minstrel clips of Amos "N" Andy, and gone are the sexist remarks of calling certain female politicians “bitches” and “hos.”
Ah. Those were the good ol’ days of Imus. Freewheeling, unadulterated American bigotry. Gotta love it! ;)
Only hetero men hurl homosexuality at each other as an insult. Women don't do this. Hetero men are SO afraid of being mistaken for gay !! Why is that ? Where does that fear come from ?? I would say most if not all hetero women couldn't care less if anyone mistook us for lesbian.
I would say most if not all hetero women couldn't care less if anyone mistook us for lesbian.
Got any data to back that up? Or did you just pull it out of your behind?
I seriously doubt most or all women wouldn't mind being mistaken for lesbians, no matter how tolerant or accepting they might be of that lifestyle.
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?
I'm a woman, and in 4 decades of conversations with other women and witnessing interactions between women I have never once heard any woman insult another woman by claiming she's homosexual. Never seen it on TV either. And in many personal conversations with women on this very topic, all that I have spoken to say they wouldn't care. We talk about it because we notice how a lot of you hetero guys get all riled up if someone states or even implies that you're gay. And I have heard "gay" used as an insult so many times I couldn't even count.
<>So what evidence do you have that I'm not correct in my assessment ? Do tell.One of the reasons that men use "gay" as an insult is because it attacks a man's masculinity to be called gay (meaning effeminate). About women, I have noticed that women use insults less, period. It is a testosterone impulse to insult someone.
Well, actually... any gay person would have good reason not to like Mike Huckleberry. I doubt seriously if the Baptist preacher turned politician would advance many causes sympathetic to gay people.
This is just Imus being his audacious self. That's what he does. It's all show biz. That's what he'll always do. Except, now he won't be so brazen as to refer to young, black women as nappy-head "hos".
Imus in his own crude way actually raised a question are you gay or what that is legitimate.
Let's not forget the recent disclosure of Huckabee's own words:
“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.”
Yeah the ole aw shucks Huck tried to dance his way around that remark from 1992, but does anyone believe he's sympathetic to Gays?
I figure if your Gay this guy is not someone you'd rally around for President.
Of course Imus is a shock jock & his asking the question this way isn't really unexpected.
WOW. Mediamatters is really getting nit-picky now. If Republican's think we are "all" this nit-picky, no wonder they despise "liberals". Sorry, but this Imus "incident" was not newsworthy.
You're a "liberal" now? Wow, I remember the fights we had about Imus when the whole "nappy-headed ho" story broke, and you said you were a paleo-conservative. So you changed your stripes now, aye? That's cool.
I actually agree with you. I think this is a non-story. He wasn't really targeting any liberals -- notably John Edwards thanks to Ann Coulter -- with his "are you gay or something?" remark. It was really one of those pseudo-manly, throw-away, locker room jokes.
Boy, Tommy, Sue and others are going to have a field day in this thread tomorrow! lol
Sorry to disapoint Preston, the thread is valid, the statement in my view is homophobic and offensive, yet that is what we expect from Imus. Why Citadel brought him back is beyond my scope.
In the future keep your snide remarks about me related to the topic.
Oh, now, Sue, no need to get grumpy with me. After all, you were the one who agreed with ... was it Limbaugh who said it? ... that Imus got "lynched." I figured you would defend him on this one, my bad. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped the gun and accused you of being one of his apologists. But your views are so erratic it's hard to know what you'll say.
Sowwie.
Just because of how I felt his so called "Newsweek and MSNBC " friends supported him does not equal me supporting his racist comments back in April.
My views are consistent. Stick to the topic and stop trying to inject me into your bogus pissy fits with other posters who i have no relation to what so ever.
Okay, okay, I was trying to figure you out so I summoned your name so you could reply to my comment. No biggie. I do it with other posters sometime, ask AnotherAmerican.
Pissy fit? Nah, I'm not having a pissy fit. REAL men such as myself and Imus don't have no stinkin' pissy fits! ;o)
Preston let me apologize for that awful personal attack just launched on you by a poster who never launches personal attacks. I wish people were nicer. Anyway, I vow never to accuse you of having a "pissy" fit. BTW, I never heard that term before, now I have heard of hissy fit. Hopefully the Imus show won't just veer off into attacking and ridiculing targets they think are safe. If it does it hasn't learned a damn thing from the consequence it brought on itself from past bad behavior; but you know Imus is a real real old dog.
SUFELD: Do you listen to IMUS? If you did you know he is no homophobic. He made a subtle point when talking with a good friend who supported him, when people like you trashed him.
Get a life
SueEld-
I find your lack of appreciation for Imus' satire offensive. I find your inability to find the best in people disheartening. I find your attitude unfortunately common in a world where people are too busy looking a ways to criticize that they are unable to see context.
How is what Imus said to Jay Severin offensive? Are you that up tight and unforgiving that you can't see the humor and clever satire in the remark (disguised as a childish lockerroom remark). If you need to explain it to you I will be happy to do so.
WOW. Mediamatters is really getting nit-picky now. If Republican's think we are "all" this nit-picky, no wonder they despise "liberals". Sorry, but this Imus "incident" was not newsworthy. Zamfir
It all depends on if it's you who's insulted. There were some who thought Imus's previous comments about the women's basketball team was "nit-picky" but of course they were not African American women. Enough is enough. Quite frankly I don't give a damn what Republicans think about liberals, THEY have no room to talk. I don't think that lying, racists, sexist, homophobic, hypocritical party has ANY room to say ANYTHING about ANYONE and I don't know why YOU care. Just because YOU don't find it offensive does not mean that it's not offensive to someone else and they have every right to say they are offended!
"I don't think that lying, racists, sexist, homophobic, hypocritical party has ANY room to say ANYTHING about ANYONE"
Yes, let's call half the nation racists without a wink of the eye. Would Imus be allowed to do that? Isn't there an old saying about pots and kettles?
I really think that if we're going to get people like him off the air, it should be done in a more civilized manner. Being just like him doesn't really seem to add to your arguement, don't you think?
Pearl called half of the people of America racist??? OR maybe you think that Imus is representative of half of the people of America. If so God help us!
Even IF it were reasonable to say that if the PARTY is racist that means everyone IN the party is racist, which it isnt, that would be a lot closer to a THIRD than half.
I stand corrected. Pearl called one third of the nation "racists" while Imus called one person gay.
Not exactly. Pearl said the PARTY, that would be the party that ADMITTED and appologized for their racist southern strategy. Melmen was the HEAD of the RNC when he did so. So I would say Pearl has a point. That doesnt mean all Republicans are racist. Or even most of them. I dont think they are. I disagree with Democrats on so many things I am not even a member of the Party but I still vote for them most of the time for the same reason I figure most Republicans vote for THEIR party. They dont think its perfect, maybe not all that good, they just prefer it over the alternative.
Maybe so, but my point is that Imus is being dragged through the mud for calling one person gay, while Pearl is being vindicated after calling thousands of people racist. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the logic of that. How is the average liberal going to advance their beliefs when actions of the few overshadow the desires of the many?
No it all depends if your so sensitive you can't understand the meaning behind what he says.
Watch the QT video again and watch at about the 30 second mark. You will see the set up.
You want to be called a HOMO or a Queer? Those are not politically correct.
Wake UP!
I thought Josef Stalin died many years ago. But no! Here he is in the good old USA running a website! Good to have you watching out for us Big Brother! Don't worry Don Imus ...we got your back this time. These snakes won't get a way with it again.
You do realize that Big Brother was the government, you know, like W running wiretaps without warrants, and things like that on American citizens, whereas this website is a private not for profit venture, and has no relations to a so called Big Brother, or the government. Your assertions are way off base, and hold no basis in what most of us like to call reality.
But that's OK, your entitled to be ignorant.
So reproducing his words on a website is being like Stalin? That is pretty dumb. Did I miss the part where MMFA called for him to be arrested or sent to a Gulag? I hope anyone else that has his back has at least two brain cells to rub together, you are apparantly a lost cause.
Wait a minute, that is a good point. I do not listen to Imus, or any of the other hatemongers, but I am exposed to that hatefulness and vile on this site. I realize I can visit other sites, but I figure a liberal site would be a safe site away from hate and vile. Because, according the Fairness Doctrine, I should be allowed equal information no matter what I listen to or read on OUR airwaves. And, since my internet is not hardwired it travels over OUR airwaves and should be controlled in an equal manner.
Perhaps if this site actually broadcast the shows that they do stories about then there would be equality as demanded within the Fairness Doctrine? But, if they did I would stop visiting this site, because I do NOT want to be exposed to, and do not want my kids exposed to, this kind of hate and vile. I think this site needs to set some rules regarding hateful remarks directed at individuals or towards other posters.
The difference is there is no limit to who can start up their own website. If you for instance dont like the hatefulness on this site you are free to buy your own bandwidth and make your OWN website. THAT is not the case with radio. The FCC does not in any way claim controls over internet content. It gets pretty bad here sometimes. I am one of the ones that is often bad. What you will find is IF you keep to the issues, talk about what and leave off the personal remarks ABOUT liberals or us in particular then it stays pretty calm. IF you decide to insult US then you can expect it back. I get tired of conservatives thinking they have the exclusive franchise on insults and personal attacks so I show them directly they dont. Liberals who want to flame me can also expect it back. I am fine, in fact PREFER dispassionate issues oriented dialogue. The other thing that will bring on rudeness is the constant repitition of talking points that have long been debunked but hiveminded rightwingers just keep repeating anyway. That is pure frustration. You will never know how often I have to dig up the EXACT same evidence to refute the exact same argument to people who just ran away when their claim was refuted last time but want to repeat it again ANWAY because they prefer the delusional lie to reality. As to what you want your kids exposed to. What do I care. They are your kids. Keep them on a strict diet of Shakespear and Spongebob for all I care that is your call.
"As to what you want your kids exposed to. What do I care. They are your kids."
Very nice.
Apparantly, you care enough to call for Imus's removal to prevent further hatespeech from coming over OUR airwaves. But, also apparantly, you don't care very much about pornography traveling over OUR airwaves through the internet. Why is one form of vial allowed and encouraged to be broadcast over OUR airwaves and another is not? Porn cannot be broadcast through "public" television or radio, yet is uncontrolled through "public" internet. Explain, please, your stance that internet porn is ok for children to access, but radio hatespeech is not.
If, in fact, those airwaves are OURS then the FCC has control over them and censorship should promptly be enforced to prevent pornography from reaching our children. If you want free speech controlled over the radio, then it should be controlled over the WiFi internet, also. EXPECIALLY government provided WiFi !! There is no excuse for the government providing free access of porn to children.
Just in case you don't understand that part. Have you noticed how many city buses advertise they are WiFi capable? Those are not private buses. They are government buses that children ride, and many children have laptop computers. Maybe your child (or someone you know) is on one of those buses, right now.
PhilLib,
Firt of all Imus is not a hatemonger. He is a comedian. Furthermore there is no fairness doctrine. It was outlawed in 1987. Get your facts straight and go join the Communist Party.
Get your facts straight and go join the communist party? Is that where all straight thinking people should go?
If this illogic is typical of Imus listeners, I can see why he manages to get on the airwaves...
You are not only correct. But Imus really doesn't care about MMFA or the little people on this site.
Farid Suleman is not a Radio Station Owner. He is the CED of Citadel Broadcast where Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Bob Grant and Laura Ingraham is broadcast on hundreds of radio stations.
The numb nuts replying negatively here do not know "IMUS". And if they do I have a suggestion. Don't listen to him or MMFA. You know what their agenda is. And it isn't what their mission statement says.
Thanks for your most positive comment. Now all of you attack me if you wish. Waste your time and enjoy your afternoon listening to Jay Severin laughing it off on WTKK. He doesn't care either.
And if you can't get the station, bet the stream at www.WTKK.com.
Go away.
If your hero Imus doesn't care, then why do you?
I dont care WHO cares. I will have my say and so will MMFA. Why dont YOU go away moron?
Every now and then I start to wonder if I may be wrong in my beliefs that the idea of a society based on merit and talent is absent in the American psyche. And then there are little things like the continued fame and career of Don Imus to remind me that I haven't been disproven yet.
I just watched this again, did he not learn from April? I guess he thinks its ok to be homophobic.
Sue, look up homophobic in your copy of Webster's and you'll find a picture of the notoriously hateful Michael Savage. I interpreted Don Imus' remark as being facetious but not inherently homophobic. Typically outrageous (for Imus) and envelope pushing, perhaps... but not homophobic. Imus could easliy respond by saying "Are you kidding? Mike Huckabee isn't fond of gay people, so why should gay people not dislike him?" It's all show biz, Sue...
Thank god I wasn't drinking anything Preston. There really should be a warning on this.:-)
Media Matters has hit a all-time low with this. Where to we go as a country from here when groups like this get up in arms about this. Step back and think about what he actually said here. Read the context! Imus was merely referencing Huckabees Strict Christian values. Again, like before, making fun of people who was be so insensitive to to be against gays. He is actually supporting gays in this statement! You guys are such idiots.
Yeah, I am sure Gay people everywhere are ecstatic that Imus is supporting him this way, you moron. Try to keep up.
Hillary's group is at it again. Whoever is monitoring Imus from MMFA should get a real job. If he gets any more politically correct he could run for office.
And those that call him washed up, the corpse, hasbeen better get a grip. If you don't listen to him don't comment. Gay is not a dirty word. He is friends with Jay Severin. And nothing he said was offensive or even close to being controversial.
Then what is your beef? Or did you just want to run the stupidity that this is Hillary's site by us and needed an ignornat excuse? I have watched Imus a few times. He DID manage to be both boring AND stupid at the same time. After 5 minutes my braincells were begging for the sweet release of a coma.
Watch the video tape. And right before the comment watch Imus' mouth move talking to Charles and Lou Ruffino. This was set up. Not a belief. At least MMFA didn't portray it incorrectly.
The more you read comments on paper and see the event, the much more clearer it becomes.
Get with it people.
We dont care WHY he said it, we care what was said. Try to keep up
1) arranged parole for a rapist who went on to murder two women. 2) using religion as part of his campaign.
Good reasons for people of all sexual orientations to hate Huckabee.
One more thing. "What are you, a homo or somethin'?" was Andrew Dice Clay's line. Imus needs to learn to steal from better sources.
I have to admit stealing from the Dice is pretty sad. Did anyone EVER think the guy was funny?
"RUFINO: Stand by for the drive-by."
They're at it again. This time, instead of nappy headed ho's, it's West Hollywood hitmen. Why does Imus surround himself with these victims of foot in mouth dis-ease? Now that they no longer have hapless female African-American student athletes to kick around, do they intend to start picking on gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons?
This sidekick's remark is offensive in the extreme. Why doesn't someone force these creeps into sensitivity training? They've joined the ranks of the Trent Lotts and Dick Armeys who've compared gays to pickpockets and thieves, a kind of sexual orientation equivalent to the "blood libel."
If anything, the sexual minorities have been much too passive to pull off hit jobs on homophobes. In fact, the lack of militancy in the post-Stonewall, post-Act Up era is simply astonishing. It certainly can't be symptomatic of chalking up the kind of gains that the African-American civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's produced.
"They're at it again. This time, instead of nappy headed ho's, it's West Hollywood hitmen. Why does Imus surround himself with these victims of foot in mouth dis-ease? Now that they no longer have hapless female African-American student athletes to kick around, do they intend to start picking on gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons"?
"This sidekick's remark is offensive in the extreme. Why doesn't someone force these creeps into sensitivity training? They've joined the ranks of the Trent Lotts and Dick Armeys who've compared gays to pickpockets and thieves, a kind of sexual orientation equivalent to the "blood libel."
"If anything, the sexual minorities have been much too passive to pull off hit jobs on homophobes. In fact, the lack of militancy in the post-Stonewall, post-Act Up era is simply astonishing. It certainly can't be symptomatic of chalking up the kind of gains that the African-American civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's produced".
You must be kidding me? The Drive-By Media is the main stream media. This includes MMFA. Distortion is the name of game for the Drive-By-Media. They all have an agenda.
Homophobic you say? No a perfectly suitable job of making a satirical comment that is only offensive if you have your head in the ground.
Did you know why they called the 1890's, the "Gay Nineties"? Guess not. Also gay has another meaning, as Jay Severin stated in his funny reply. "Yes I am Happy". Imus was being facetious not insensitive nor was Lou Ruffino.
I will pray for you. You need guidance.
"The Drive-By Media is the main stream media. This includes MMFA."(bcbvd- something)
Huh?
Don't know how the drive by media is MMFA, as they are just reporting on what Imus said and repeating what he said. How is that drive by again?
If he makes stupid comments, then be prepared for him to get called out on it especially after his performance on the "nappy headed hos" thing.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Remember, MMFA is a tax exempt firm. Here are your might tax dollars lost on a left wing nut job site.
Are you really arguing that he was asking if he didnt like Hucabee because he was happy? Are you kidding me? Please tell me that isnt the best you can do. What is your point here besides showing you have no IDEA what mainstream media is, MMFA didnt call for Imust to be arrested nor did they do anything more than show what he said. Either it is offensive in case you really dont have a point or it wasnt in which case what would your point be again?
"a nation of hall monitors"
-jim norton, on the direction this country is going
It's called comedy. You don't have to like it. I just don't understand why these arguments are so often about comedy. Why do people get so upset if I laugh at something that they might not find funny?? Dumb, intolerant, humorless left-wingers are just as bad as right wing loons. So what if Imus uses the so-called public airwaves for this? I like variety on the airwaves. It's so simplistic to wring your hands over stuff like this. It's like chasing your tail to complain about every little thing that's said that offends you. The outrage here is such a joke.
Stop whining and get a life! It is no wonder that liberal democrats keep losing to the right wingers. The courageous liberals who propelled the great civil rights movements of this country – for blacks, women and gays have now been transformed into uptight, humorless and whining victims who are in constant need of protection. Political correctness is to the left what sexual Puritanism is to the right.To those who were so outraged by Imus back in April: are you outraged by rappers and rap moguls such as Russell Simmons, Snoop Dog, etal., BET and music execs who have accumulated billions of dollars by denigrating the women of their own community? Did they apologize to the women of their community, or did I miss something? I’m still waiting for Sharpton to organize a boycott of the advertisers who sponsor misogynistic videos on BET and rap lyrics on the radio’s public airwaves. “Protests” and “marches” now and again will not suffice, nor will “recommendations” by Russell Simmons to refrain from such language. Why didn’t you demand the immediate firing of these rappers and executives? Why didn’t you demand the shut down Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock and other comedians? Your self-righteous holier than thou hypocrisy is staggering! No one should want to live in a sanitized society in which every utterance is scrutinized and is “approved” or “disapproved”. I would rather be offended than have a self-appointed thought police such as Media Matters determine what I can and cannot listen to or what should or should not offend me. Who appointed you as the humor police and arbiters of virtuous radio behavior? This is straight out of the former Soviet Union’s propaganda machine. Or, perhaps you are ignorant of the history of totalitarian governments – so-called “offensive” remarks, and off to the re-education camp you go! If one believes in a free society, no speech should ever be suppressed or “censured” by whatever pressure group of the month — if you don’t like it, turn it off. If you don’t find that Imus has anything of value to offer, that is your prerogative but such an opinion is irrelevant. Yes, you have a right to voice criticism and argue against the show, but you do not have the right not to be offended. You have no right to impose your sensibilities on others. Likewise, others do not have a right to compel you to listen to a broadcast that does not interest or appeal to you. Network television generally insults my intelligence, but I have no right to demand a shutdown of the inane stupidities that are broadcast on a daily basis. I simply choose not to watch.
Sir, you are my idol.
The beauty of America is that you can voice your opinion, which you have. The problem I have with some of the comments you posted is that it appears that your telling people how they should act on or think about an issue. It sounds like if you don't like something then you should shut up and just turn it off. The same freedom that allows Imus to spout off non-sense also allows people to rail against those statements or MMFA to create an item on them. I don't find this statements offensive, just stupid. If anything his statement is more of a commentary on the division that exist in America already IMO anyone that supports true equality in the US should be against Huck, not just gay people. . On another note, being gay, I have other people's belief systems and bigotry forced on my life on a daily basis. You're obviously an American who values freedom, so I would ask how deep your belief in those values run? Do you support the same rights for all American citizens or are you selective in those rights?
<i> "I would rather be offended than have a self-appointed thought police such as Media Matters determine what I can and cannot listen to or what should or should not offend me."</i>
Media Matters is not 'self-appointed thought police'. Nobody said that YOU had to be offended by Imus' remarks. Media Matters also does not determine what you listen to, nor are they in the business of determining what people listen to. Again, I will say that this is their website - and they can post whatever the hell they want. If you don't like it, then do as you suggest others do with regards to people like Imus - don't pay attention to it (i.e. don't watch it, don't read it, etc.). Now who's the hypocrite? You should take your own advice. And by the way, you really shouldn't mischaracterize Media Matters. They aren't here to force anyone to do anything. Media Matters is a monitoring website - and they monitory what THEY feel is conservative misinformation. If you don't like it, tough s&*t. Media Matters has no political clout and is not connected with any political candidate. Those who say otherwise lack sufficient proof - only right-wing talking points from douchebags like Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh.
Wow! Nice tirade, even though the strawmen, and silly arguments abound, I bow to your tirade ability.
Who is in need of protection? Nobody is. Strangely enough, the people who want to protect us from bad words, and maybe an occassional breast seen on television are, yes, wait for it, republicans, and conservatives.
It's not that liberals are humorless, it's just that we actually like things to be funny. Commenting on someone and asking them if they're gay is the equivalent, as others have said, of a 5th grade retort. Maybe Imus could dial up his rhetoric, and actually make it, you know, funny. I am in the camp on this one that what he said was just plain old stupid, and not funny. Not highly offensive at all.
You bring up the old cannard of "what about the rappers?" Would you have a hard time believing that there are lots of people on here, and in this country that don't like what rappers say in their music, and have protested against it over the years, and against the messages in the music? You choose to NOT see that, but being outraged and mad at Imus has absolutely nothing to do with rappers, nothing. Imus uses our airwaves, and can be held accountable, and rappers can as well, and have been in the past. Don't you remember O'Reilly's boycott of Pepsi because they hired Ludacris? That's just one example, but there have been women's groups, and other groups who have protested against rappers since they first started showing up on the music scene. But, the free market in the US, which is probably something that you LOVE, says that rap is big business, and sells records, and makes money. Which incidentally is why Imus got tossed off the air back in April, because his advertisers started pulling out because of HIS stupid comments, not because what anyone else did. It was his own fault.
For your information, Sharpton, and Jackson have both been outspoken critics of the rap industry for a long time, I suggest you take a look at what they've actually done on that front, instead of relying on what talk radio tells you they did, or didn't do.
Again, who on here defends rappers? Who defends Chris Rock? Who defends on here, Dave Chappelle? Last I know, those guys were strictly entertainers, and comedians, and did not have a news talk show.
How is Mediamatters determining what you listen to, or what you don't listen to? Last I knew, they didn't control the airwaves, and or the programming that goes on said airwaves. That would be private businesses who are in the media business such as Clear Channel, and the FCC. MMFA is not a governmental organization, and therefore can't stop anyone from listening or watching anything, but they can post what irresponsible people in the media say, and or do, and bring it to your attention. Comparing MMFA with the former Soviet Union is laughable at best, and it's not even close.
So, in summary your argument is that we're ignorant of totalitarian societies because we choose to call out media personalities on stupid things that they've said? I'd say you were the ignorant one my friend. Why? BEcause in a totalitarian society, you wouldn't have this website. It would be government controlled, again, MMFA is not a government organization, and holds no sway on what can, and can't be shown or heard. You're delusional.
As others have said, if you don't like what MMFA stands for, or posts on their own private website, then maybe you really should take your own advice, and not read this website. Turn it off. If you're so offended by what's on here, maybe you should complain to the people who said the things that are posted on here, and not about the site that just re-posts what has been said.
You actually DO have a right to call for the shutdown of things that you don't agree with that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Because we, the people, own said airwaves. This is what is called writing businesses that support programs you might not agree with. This is called writing your senator, or rep, and asking them to look into something that you find to not be right. It's called, democracy. I know you have a hard time believing it.
Hey MORON, why dont YOU get a life. No one is asking that Imus be arrested. What do you think free speech is about? Imus can be as stupid and offensive as he wants then WE get to have our say ABOUT his stupidity and offensiveness. Of course we dont have a right not to be offended as YOU have no right to tell us WHEN and WHERE we can sound off about HOW OUR AIRWAVES ARE USED. Feel free to join the discussion but in the true FASCIST sense you arent doing that you are telling us we shouldnt be HAVING such a discussion. Did you SEARCH out this website to complain about what WE are doing then stupidly tell US to get a life? Did you STUPIDLY come in here snivelling like a little girl about US doing what even you admit we have every right to do then accuse of of WHINING? In the MIDDLE of your worldclass snivelfest? The airwaves belong to us. When I feel like I dont like how they are used I will say so and you just dont have anything to SAY about that it isnt up to you TODAY, it wont be up to you TOMORROW either. Grow up.
The clever retort of every 14 year old on the playground who has his manhood challenged. He should change his name to Anus.
Ok Imus
Now I was very clear how I felt about him in April and before, I did not like the racist and homophoic overtones. What I got out of that comment was not homophobic but some sort of mock toward Huckabee becuase of his vile statements on AIDS. Maybe I am wrong, but Imus said something before saying it, its obviously part of his act , and is insensitive. Regardless I do not waste my time with Imus, he is off MSNBC which bothered me to no end that a network would allow him for 10 years to be so vile.
For life of me I can't understand why is Imus is so popular or successful. To me, he is just a loud mouth idiot.
I think you answer your own question. Have you seen the state of the "American Public" lately? These are the same people that keep "American Idol" on the air.
O.k., so one of Imus' guests says he's backing Romney because he doesn't care for Huckabee.
Huckabee's a preacher in a faith that doesn't condone or tolerate or make a compassionate attempt to be tolerant of homosexuality and a lot of other things, frankly.
So, Sir Imus asks why he doesn't like Huckabee..."what, are you homosexual?" Could've said communist, could've said aethiest, could've said anything pertaining to the list of lifestyles, cultures or other religions targeted by Christian intolerance. Homosexuality when describing a Republican is just funnier.
And we all know that MMFA has a certain defense mechanism that clicks whenever a member of the media says something negative or "baselessly" humorless about homosexuality.
Why do you guys have an issue anytime someone calls out someone else on something that they said?
At least MMFA provides full context, and basically let's people who read this website make their own decisions on what was said, or shown, and then can make a comment on it.
I also think that one person has been filling up this comment board with a bunch of silly things about negating free speech, and big brother, and so on and so forth. Just save us a lot of time, and post under one name please would you?
Welcome Back, Don Imus...your voice was sorely missed among all of the bland interviews out there....you are a truth sayer. No one is perfect and you have shown us that...we all should know - we have the luxury of making our mistakes in private.
Seriously though, can't they find someone else to pick on instead of Don Imus? The man does a lot of good for people. He is a legend...and he is trying to entertain his morning audience and Media Matters is trying to turn the man and his ensemble cast into a Church Chior! Stop this! Pick on someone else. I'll give you a good tip - check out BET TV after about 10PM on the weekends. You will think you are in heaven with targets to accuse and protest!
Imus is great - I am so glad that he is back. Thank God! Now leave him alone!!! Go look in the mirror - you'll find someone in need of improvement there, I'm sure.
Well, for one thing BET is cable television, and doesn't use the publicly owned airwaves, so that not everybody can get BET, but everyone with a radio and an antenna can get Imus, there is a difference, and the public airwaves are supposed to be used for the good of, the, you know, public.
MMFA is not picking on Imus. If he didn't say such silly things, guess what? They wouldn't be here. Do I think his latest statement was outrageous? Not really. As others have asked; was it stupid? Absolutely.
I hope they dont. I think Imus is a putz. I dont know whether his stupidity or his boring me to death is worse. When I have seen him I would watch a couple of minutes with the fascination most people have with a trainwreck. I always asked myself who in the world could find this guy entertaining. Now I know at least a couple. As for telling us what to do get over yourself. I guess I will decide who I leave alone and who I criticise. You really dont have anything to say in the matter.
Imus is great - I am so glad that he is back. Thank God! Now leave him alone!!! Go look in the mirror - you'll find someone in need of improvement there, I'm sure.
- cyndilu9
Can't wait for the video of this rant on youtube.
Magnolialover I've read many of your post and find them right on the money. I'am a magnolia lover too now.
Good to have at least one sort of fan out there. Thanks!
So the movement to censor Imus begins once again at Media Matters. I wonder how long it will take this time. We can't have anyone on the air who calls Hillary Clinton "Satan," now can we?
So the stupidity from Rino about censorship begins again. I have PROVEN to him by linking directly to the Red Lion decision that there is no free speech issue here. Rino doesnt care he prefers to continue to LIE about this because he prefers the LIE and its propaganda value to reality. Rino is a sad creature. He cannot accept reality. He LOVES to tell the lies his hivemind master has told him to believe instead.
Rino, I do not think the fact that he calls Hillary "Satan" is the issue, afterall, Richardson and Dodd have appeared on his show and Begala and company have also appeared. I think they know its a game with him. The problem is he says offensive things. My point with this man all along is why do they go on his show ? If they really were upset that he calls her satan or Dick Cheney a war criminal noone from either party would go on that show. My hero Bill Maher supported Imus and I was disapointed but I understood. I just wish people would stick up for their beliefs.
I understand your point. Imus is a shock jock and does say some things that are offensive. But my point is simply that, if you don't like Imus, then don't watch his show. It's as simple as that. If enough people don't watch his show he'll eventually get pulled off the air due to poor ratings. From your posts it seems that you agree with that point of view. I'm just all for giving people choices. If you want to watch Imus, watch him. If you don't like him, then change the channel.
And if YOU dont like the leftwing political billboard I put in YOUR frontyard YOU can look in another direction. The point ACTUALLY is we OWN the airwaves. We have a right to a participatory democratic decision about how they are used. Feel free to join IN and tell us why these guys ought to be on the air. Actually I wont argue much about that I. DONT. CARE. When you begin using these STUPID talking points about how we dont have a RIGHT to use OUR airwaves the way WE see fit you are in La La Land. We do, its that simple. Why dont you JOIN the dialogue instead of telling us we have no RIGHT to the dialogue
you have every right to the dialogue and to the caps lock button. however i own abc. they radomly chose my name out of imus' hat and gave me the deed. there's no 'i' in 'we'. eat your heart out suckers. the only power you have over my station is the power button... own it, love it, suckle it.
WRONG oh ignorant one. We have that power of the licence we can also demand if we choose to that you comply to the fairness doctrine or whatever else we decide about how you use OUR RESOURCE. If you dont like it feel free to go into the dry cleaning business suck on THAT
That's a ridiculous argument. So you're saying that your rights are being violated when someone is on TV who you disagree with? That's utterly insane. Just change the channel and quit telling me how to live my life. PRIVATE companies own these stations and can put on whoever they want to. The government merely regulates obscene content. It takes hard work and dedication to become a successful talk radio host. The rewards of that hard work shouldn't be taken away from somebody because an overly serious and politically correct liberal dislikes something somebody says.
I am saying that they use OUR airwaves to make THEIR profits so they have to do so within the rules WE set the deal was they perform a public service function. Their right to make money does NOT trump our right to say how OUR RESOURCE IS USED. This is very simple. I know you wingnuts think money is GOD but they have to keep up THEIR end of our deal and its up to US to say if they are doing so. It is DEFINITLY our right to have a say how our resource is used just like its my right to say how my property is used. You think property has more rights than people. It is dumb. If you WANT these guys on the air fine I dont care enter the dialogue and make your argument. Telling us we have no RIGHT to that dialogue is simply STUPID.
Well, you keep saying that last time he got yanked off the air, it was all about censorship, and some nefarious plot by this site among others to get him off of the air.
Well, he did it to himself actually. The sponsors of his show pulled advertising from him, and hence, they started losing money, and his contract was not worth paying out, because he wasn't pulling in the advertising needed for the company to, you know, make money.
So in the case of Imus getting pulled off the air last time, first it was his own fault. Second, the "free market" decided that he didn't need to be broadcasting any longer because his advertising cache started dropping, and then bottomed out.
And it wasn't about free speech, wasn't about censorship, or any of those other things you thought it was about. It was about a couple of jerks finally saying something that got them canned.
Try walking into wherever you work, and calling all of the black women who work there nappy headed hos. See how long you last at that job. I thought republicans were about personal responsibility. Imus said something stupid, got fired, and now he's back, saying silly stupid things again.
I'm not saying that what happened was illegal. But it's still clear that Media Matters is trying to get certain commentators off the air, even though it may be by legal censorship. But even if it is done through a legal means, the point remains that some on the left can't handle opposing points of view and are attempting to silence those with whom they disagree.
Right. How dumb is it to say WE are trying to stifle dissenting views when its YOU that is demanding the right to stifle the dissenting views by saying we have no right to demand both sides of an argument be heard. Are you EVER going to make an argument that makes even MINIMAL sense?
SOLON:
Rightwingers get "censored".
Left-leaning hosts, well, they don't make it onto the AM dial because they're not popular enough. Why don't they have listeners? Because they aren't on the air! See how neatly that all works for the rightwing owners of Clear Channel and NewsCorp? Brilliant!
Meanwhile, the likes of Beck and Carlson and Savage get hours and hours a week to pontificate to the masses, because they are so "talented". It is to puke.
You have no "right" to get on AM radio and state your political views. That's something that you earn through hard work and dedication. It isn't just handed to you. People like Limbaugh and Hannity worked their way up from nothing to become successful. They shouldn't be forced to share their airtime with people who are amateurs and nobody wants to listen to.
You are EXACTLY right. I have no RIGHT to a national audience. Since it is axiomatic that NO ONE IN AMERICA has any more rights than I have that is a tacit ADMISSION that the Oxymoron and the Weinerdog ALSO HAVE NO RIGHT to a national audience so if they are fired it is not a violation of their rights. It is a privelege that can be taken away for a myriad of reasons when it is no right was violated. Now that is clear will you stop telling the LIE that this is a first amendment issue? The fairness doctrine is not a RIGHT either and I never said it was. If it never comes back it would mean nothing to me. It was a LAW not a right. I never said it WAS a right. What is CLEAR is that there IS a right to have that law, it does NOT violate the first amendment
nice hat. why does he have to tie it to his head while he's indoors?
The funny part of this whole matter is that Imus was actually POINTING OUT hypocracy in this segment. Huckabee is a rigid conservative Christian and Imus knew that by using a phrase that these types judge so harshly....he was making a point. Get it? That is Imus' genius and the people on here calling him "stupid" and "boring" are simply admitting their own lack of insight. This is what Imus does....he reveals the truth about the Politicians and other powerful types. You have to really listen to his interviews and his fund raisers for children, cancer sufferers, etc to know where Imus' truth lies....he has a great heart. I'll bet he does more to help people than all of his brazen critics put together! It's so ridiculous to hear people who do NOT know the brilliance of his show - actually criticize HIM for being STUPID! That is the real joke.....Imus fans get that joke. The other thing that is getting really annoying about this are the critics calling everyone who is PC is a liberal democrat. I'm a democrat and I find the holier than thou republicans offensive. I'm for free speech - I defended Imus - yet they keep saying that "it's these liberals that want to sanitize and PC the whole world!". Not true, my friends. Remember, he without sin or error, cast that first stone.....there should not be one stone cast....because just listening to these comments...there are a lot of people in need of some humility on here...not just Don Imus. I hope he continues giving brillian insight and interviews for many years to come.
Imust is stupid and boring. It isnt our fault he is stupid and boring. When you have to tell your audience that they arent smart enough to get your genius? THAT means there is no genius involved. Communicating is what he is SUPPOSED to do. Chaplin was a genius EVERYONE got him. Some didnt find him funny some didnt like his message but no one was wondering what that meant. Not even a good try Cindylu. How did Chrismas go among the WHO this year anyway?
Solon-
Imus is a lot of things, but he is not stupid. Just because you don't "get him", that's OK, but acting like a spoiled child who calls things dumb the he doesn't understand is not the answer. Imus is a talented satirist and a very clever interviewer who gets public figures to open up in ways that they don't tend to anywhere else. He cuts through the B.S. and yet the people come back over again and appear on his program. It is a pity that you don't appreciate a man who has generously given of his time, money and talents to children's issues.
I'm not sure what motivates you and some of the others on this site. Imus has been non-partisan in his politics and has fans on both sides of the political fence (I am a Democrat and my Grandfather voted for Eugene Debs).
So, please don't spew your cr@p about Imus and not expect to be called out on it. You clearly don't understand the context of what he is saying and I suggest that you pick on a subject that you are a little better acquainted with next time.
Is Imanass trying to "outSavage" Savage?
the main difference between this and the Rutgers remark is that they were not there to defenf themselves. Mr Severin was and did so well. Now lets worry about the idiot president . the congress that seems to have forgotten their jobs . And that we are losing allies.
Imus and Severin are friends and colleagues in radio. Imus is supposed to be entertaining. If he can't joke around with his friend in a light-hearted way, then people should stop watching any number of network and cable sitcoms that use the scenario of sexuality as comedy fodder.
He can DO whatever he wants. We can then criticise him if we dont like it. THAT is how it works. I didnt find this so bad. It was typical Imus dumb. Dont like Huccabee? Are you gay? That anyone could think that was genius or in some way good entertainment has me worried about the state of education in America
Why don't all you Media Matters faggots just get a life and find something worthwhile to whine about for a change?
Wow. The insight and brilliance of your remark will resonate throughout the galaxy, as we Media Matter posters scurry about trying to find a Life.
There are a fair number of people here who are not gay; yet oddly enough, don't like Mike Huckabee.
After his little vacation from the airwaves, Imus is back doing the same old boring shtick he's been doing since forever. I can't imagine anyone being interested in anything he has to say after he has been saying the same thing for about 15 years.
He's even doing the same old tired routine of saying something unbelievably stupid and being chided by his sidekick, Charles McCcord, thus getting the stupidity out on the air while pretending to disavow it.
Imus has been doing the same thing for Bernard McGuirk, his really wacko sidekick who gives the impression that he's going to go postal one of these days. Bernard says something stupid, which gives Imus a chance to say something like, "That's enough of that," again getting the message out to the extra-chromosome Republicans while pretending to disavow it.
It makes one long again for the hard-hitting originality of "Barney and Friends" or even more in the Imus vein: "Howdy Doody."
glennli