In yet another NBC/MSNBC appearance, Smerconish trivialized "naked pyramid pictures" at Abu Ghraib and "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud" at Guantánamo Bay
SUMMARY: Guest-hosting MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Michael Smerconish trivialized reports of detainee abuse as "naked pyramid pictures" and "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud." Smerconish claimed to be criticizing "the people who worked themselves into a lather" over reports of detainee mistreatment while ignoring the "dirtbags" who are "thinking about whose head they want to chop off next."
Guest-hosting the June 20 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish trivialized reports of detainee abuse as "naked pyramid pictures" at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud" at the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay. Smerconish claimed to be criticizing "the people who worked themselves into a lather" over reports of detainee mistreatment while ignoring the "dirtbags" who are "thinking about whose head they want to chop off next." Despite these and other controversial comments that Media Matters for America has documented, Smerconish has continued to appear on -- and even guest-host -- MSNBC and NBC programs with increasing frequency. His June 20 appearance marked the ninth time he has substituted for host Joe Scarborough on Scarborough Country -- he subsequently guest-hosted a 10th time on June 21. Smerconish has appeared as a guest on Scarborough Country 17 times in 2005 and 2006. In 2006, Smerconish has also made four appearances on NBC's Today, as well as nine appearances on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews; he has also been a guest host for Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on Westwood One's The Radio Factor and appeared on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Media Matters has documented other instances in which Smerconish has minimized detainee abuse. On the May 30 edition of Today, Smerconish falsely claimed that "no one died at Abu Ghraib" and that the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib was merely "a lot of ridiculous actions ... carried out by nine knuckleheads." In fact, detainee Manadel al-Jamadi reportedly died at Abu Ghraib during an interrogation by CIA personnel on November 24, 2003; the Pentagon has labeled Jamadi's death a "homicide." Further, Pentagon investigations have found that military intelligence personnel helped establish the conditions leading to the abuse at Abu Ghraib, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) described the abuse as "systematic."
In addition, on the June 15, 2005, edition of Hardball, Smerconish stated of a Time magazine article detailing the interrogation of the so-called "20th hijacker" -- Al Qaeda operative Mohammed al-Qahtani -- at Guantánamo Bay: "I've read the Time magazine piece. Where is the abuse? We shaved the guy's beard. We played Christina Aguilera music and we pinned 9-11 victim photos to his lapel. That's abuse?"
Some of Smerconish's other controversial comments documented by Media Matters:
- Guest-hosting the April 4 edition of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Smerconish repeatedly discussed "the sissification of America," claiming that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies." Smerconish also claimed, several times, that this "sissification" and "limp-wristedness" is "compromising our ability to win the war on terror."
- On the May 3 edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish again lamented the "sissification of America," this time in reference to the May 3 verdict in which Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison instead of death for his role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
- Discussing the allegations of rape against members of Duke University's lacrosse team while guest-hosting the April 11 edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish characterized as "goofy" an e-mail sent by team member Ryan McFadyen hours after the alleged rape about exotic dancers he planned to host that read: "[I] plan on killing the bitches as soon as the [sic] walk in and proceding [sic] to cut their skin off."
- Substituting for Scarborough on the April 10 edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations -- such as those that took place in Washington, D.C., and other U.S. cities on April 10 -- and consider "gathering ... up" illegal immigrants.
- Guest-hosting the November 23, 2005, edition of The Radio Factor, Smerconish interviewed Dr. Soo Kim Abboud, author of Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers -- and How You Can Too (Berkley, 2005). Smerconish asserted that "if everyone follows Dr. Abboud's prescription ... you're going to have women who will leave the home and now get a great-paying job, because you will have gotten them well educated." He continued, "But then they're not going to be around to instill these lessons in their kids."
- On the November 23, 2005, edition of The Radio Factor, Smerconish took issue with Muslim men who were observed praying near Giants Stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game. Smerconish stated: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11."
Today guest appearances for 2006:
June 16
May 30
April 11
March 31
Scarborough Country guest-host appearances in 2006:
June 21
June 20
June 19
April 13
April 12
April 11
April 10
March 23
March 2
February 2
Scarborough Country guest appearances for 2005-2006:
June 14, 2006
May 3, 2006
April 3, 2006
February 22, 2006
February 9, 2006
January 26, 2006
January 25, 2006
January 24, 2006
January 12, 2006
December 29, 2005
December 7, 2005
April 21, 2005
March 18, 2005
March 7, 2005
February 4, 2005
January 26, 2005
January 3, 2005
Hardball with Chris Matthews guest appearances for 2006:
May 31
May 23
May 4
May 3
April 20
March 8
March 6
February 27
February 21
From the June 20 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SMERCONISH: Right now in Scarborough Country: Two U.S. soldiers brutally tortured and murdered in Iraq. How should America respond? And I want to know why are all those critics of so-called American torture not speaking out about the torture of our guys today?
[...]
SMERCONISH: A militant Islamic website claims the new leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq personally carried out the killings of two soldiers found dead in Baghdad last night. Those bodies showed signs of torture. They were killed in a, quote, "barbaric way," and American troops had to literally fight their way to the bodies, which were booby-trapped with explosives.
It's a horrific story, and as I watch it unfold, I have to ask myself, where are all the people who worked themselves into a lather about the naked pyramid pictures at Abu Ghraib or those who wanted [war-crimes] trials at the Hague [in the Netherlands] because we played Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud for the detainees down at Gitmo [Guantánamo Bay]. Tonight in America, some are no doubt sitting in Barcaloungers kvetching over which American soldiers will next be put on trial for alleged war atrocities, and meanwhile, these dirtbags -- they're thinking about whose head they want to chop off next.
When our soldiers abuse foreigners who have been imprisoned, its just "harmless fun," and nothing more than "frat party tricks" {Rush.} In other words, nothing to get upset about - in fact Bush thought so little about this, he made sure to have US troops exempt from Geneva Conventions rules banning torture . . .
Yet, the MOMENT we hear of our troops being tortured, its like throwing raw meat to rabid dogs: they INSTANTLY take to the mike to yell and say its time to "drop daisy cutters all over the Mideast" {crazy Annie.}
Why is it SmearConMan, Rush, O'Really, crazy Annie, Savage Weiner, and the rest of the rightwingnut whack jobs that pollute the airwaves can't seem to grasp one SIMPLE fact: That if you feel justified torturing foreign POW's, the forces you fight against will feel justified torturing you?
Maybe if those nut cases ever spent any time in uniform, instead of doing their endless lapdog cheerleading for the war, they would comprehend this.
And before any resident trolls say anything, no, I'm NOT endorsing the position that its "all right" for the insurgents/AQ to torture our troops or that they're "freedom fighters," who are somehow heroes . . . I believe that detainees under our control should be tried; if guilty, convicted and sentenced, if not, released . . . opposing forces on the field of combat should be dealt with ON THE FIELD OF COMBAT, not in a backroom torture chamber.
" can't seem to grasp one SIMPLE fact: That if you feel justified torturing foreign POW's, the forces you fight against will feel justified torturing you? "
So, your position is that if we treat captured terrorists "correctly" while in our prisons, then they will treat ours captured soldiers "correctly"? It's a noble idea, but somehow I don't think they HAVE any of our captured soldiers! They keep poking their eyes out and killing them before they have a chance to stack them into pyramids.
" . . opposing forces on the field of combat should be dealt with ON THE FIELD OF COMBAT, not in a backroom torture chamber. "
Now, that's a better way to do it. Kill them while on the battle field....don't take any prisoners. I'm sure all the left leaners on this forum will love the stance that you take on that subject! I commend you for your honesty and integrity. I didn't think any liberal had it in them to be able to say...'send more terrorists on their way to meet allah'. I was under the impression that liberals (in general) want the US to leave Iraq in the control of terrorists, so that we can watch daily beheadings on al jazeera.
Just the fact we captured them fighting OUR invasion makes them a terrorist? Or do they glow in the dark so we will know those who are terrorists from those who are fighting a foriegn invasion which is legal by international law. Isnt that what trials are for, establishing guilt? We know you have NO sense of decency and would kill innocents along with guilty. Kill em all let God sort em out. Why not just nuke Iraq, or like Savage says just kill 100 million of them or like Coulter drop daisy cutters randomly. YOU want so much to become a terrorist yourself I would think you would identify with them. I mean you make no distinction between those caught up in the war and those committing terrorist acts. You dream about torturing people. Man Dr Mengele missed the boat when you werent around to help him.
Hey, I'm not the one who calls for 'take no prisoners'. I'm not the one calling for us to kill everyone on the battle field. I said we should cordon off the area and give fair warning. Then, yes, capture all those that want to leave and ask them (politely) if they are a terrorist. Of course, if they say "no" then we will let them on their merry way. After no self respecting terrorist would ever lie. Besides, telling a terrorist from a civilian is easy, the terrorist is the one to scared to face you head on, he (she) would rather run away and place a bomb another day.
"Then, yes, capture all those that want to leave and ask them (politely) if they are a terrorist. Of course, if they say "no" then we will let them on their merry way. After no self respecting terrorist would ever lie."
Exactly, we don't know who's a terrorist and who's an insurgent on the battlefield. You highlight perfectly why the war is such a stupid plan to begin with, since we've put ourselves in that position.
" You highlight perfectly why the war is such a stupid plan to begin with, since we've put ourselves in that position. "
Are you saying that the war in Afghanistan is "stupid" too? Since it is the same kind of battle. What exactly should we do with the terrorists? Give them a country and let them do as they wish? Isreal gave land away trying to appease the palestinians and look what that got them....more bombings. Terrorists don't WANT peace in the world, they want to control the world by ANY means.
Israel has NEVER given up any of THEIR land to Palestinians. They DID give BACK some of the Palestinians land. While contiuing to annex more Palestinian land on the West Bank. This is a good example though. After 40 years of occupying anothers land and being as brutal and oppressive as a civilized country can stomach. Israel has not managed to oppress their way out of terrorism. IF it could be done they would be living in peace right now. They also gave back Egytian land in the Siani and have had peace with Egypt ever since. You really know your propaganda points. History, not so much.
"Are you saying that the war in Afghanistan is "stupid" too?"
No, because we were going after Osama, which was worthwhile. Iraq is a different story. Even if the two wars are identical in that we have trouble determining who the enemy is, you take on that kind of situation you have to or when it's worth it (Afghanistan) not by choice for some neocon social experiment (Iraq).
So, the moment we capture/kill OBL then the war in Afghanistan must immediately cease? Since the only reason that one is "ok" is because we are after OBL and once he is caught/killed then we no longer need to fight the terrorists?
"So, the moment we capture/kill OBL then the war in Afghanistan must immediately cease?"
Not immediately, but as soon as possible. Unless there are other notable targets that Afghanistan will not cooperate in handing over. Isn't he why we went in there? If he's dead, what more do we have to do there?
"Since the only reason that one is "ok" is because we are after OBL and once he is caught/killed then we no longer need to fight the terrorists?"
We would still have to fight the terrorists, but invading sovereign countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 is not a good way to go about it. The rationale seems to be "we'll go over there and find out which ones are violent against us", without comprehending that invading is going to make many more of them violent to begin with. It's like if a few bees were bothering you on your way out to your car, you wouldn't go out to the huge beehive in the yard and hit it with a stick to find out which ones don't like you. Very soon they're ALL not going to like you, including many that weren't bothering you at all. You can rationalize it by figuring you're fighting them in the backyard so that you don't have to fight them in the driveway, but that's obviously stupid.
The distinction you failed to grasp earlier is very obvious; in Afghanistan we were going after Osama, in Iraq we were going after...whom that was involved with 9/11 exactly? We just wanted to overthrow the government to try to change the nature of the Middle East, and there's no indication that it's going to work. If we're going to stir up a hornet's nest by getting involved in a ground battle where distinguishing who's your enemy is difficult, that battle should be worth it. While going after Osama, it is. For a socio-political experiment, it is NOT. Does that clarify it at all for you?
I swear, this elementary school "but they do it, too!" logic that these idiots use is starting to wear thin.
What Smerconish and others who use this line of argumentation don't get is this: The critics of "so-called American torture" don't "work themselves into a lather" over the actions of terrorists, however brutal or disgusting, because THEY ARE TERRORISTS. We're supposed to be better than them, remember?
"And I want to know why are all those critics of so-called American torture not speaking out about the torture of our guys today?"
Partly because it's supposed to go without saying, you schmuck. That's what the bad guys do, that's why they're the bad guys! All the people who are already on record as being against torture are not quiet because they're FOR it when the terrorists do it...it's because speaking out about it is supposed to accomplish what? As if the terrorists won't do it anymore if we complain? We decry it when WE do it because it's wrong, and we hope to make people realize we shouldn't be doing it. With the terrorists, it's no surprise;we know they do that, and speaking out about it adds neither adds anything to the discussion nor has a prayer of changing their ways.
The implication that liberals either don't care about torture when it's done to our troops or celebrate it because it helps us politically is completely ridiculous. We know it's wrong, we hate the entire concept, and that's why we don't want the USA doing it!
I always shake my head in amazement that some fail to grasp this simple concept. You are 100% correct...we just assume it is understood that the terrorist are the "bad guys" and what they do is...bad. I never heard a more ridiculous rationalization of "he did it too" then when some on the right want to use it to justify torture.
Thanks! I was really taken aback at the idea that Smerconish was serious with that question, because it's such a simple, obvious answer. Either he's being disingenuous or he's just that lost in binary thinking. Either way it's sadly typical of right-wing pundits it seems.
John Gibson of FOX News' "The Big Story" joined in the trivilization in his "My Word" segment yesterday. He went so far as to refer to water boarding as "dunking their heads under water for a few moments".
According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed. Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. But, apparently, Gibson thinks it is no big deal.
...if what we're doing is "no big deal", then why are we doing it? What results could we expect from such trivial exercises? Sounds like a fat waste of time. And if we are really doing these fraternity pranks (as I believe Limbaugh calls them) on terrorists and they crack, then they must be the biggest wussies on earth, and all our rhetoric about how bad and how serious they are is all hot air.
" And if we are really doing these fraternity pranks on terrorists and they crack, then they must be the biggest wussies on earth, and all our rhetoric about how bad and how serious they are is all hot air. "
Well, DUHHH. Why do you think they use the media to complain so much about the way we treat them? They know that through the American media they can destroy our will to fight. If they can't beat us on the battle field, they'll beat us in the press. And from what I read in many of these posts, I have the opinion that it is working on a lot of people.
...on so many levels. First off, do you really believe religious fanatics are not determined? That they'll break and reveal important information over a prank? Yes, they're willing to die for their cause, but you say "boo" to them and they'll give you Osama's cell phone number. Sure.
Secondly, I don't accept that the terrorists are manipulating the media the way you suggest. "They're reporting the bad news about the war we started? Those fools, they're playing right into the terr'rists hands!" Please.
Finally, of course, nobody's lost the will to fight against terrorism. Some of us just recognize that invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 is one of the dumbest ways we could have gone about it.
... that George "BRING IT ON" Bush and Michael "TORTURE IS NO BIG DEAL" Smerconish (along with all the Bush apologist administration AND media mouthpieces) ...
are RESPONSIBLE for the kidnapping and torture of our soldiers?
Do these soulless people take an INSTANT to realize that THEY are setting the "rules" for the world to follow, and so have no standing to complain when their spoken attitudes are taken at face value?
It's now OK to torture, because WE do.
It's now OK to invade another nation for no reason. WE did.
It's OK to kill civilians, WE do (mostly, we call it "collateral damage").
I believe it was the Bible which warned, "WHAT YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP."
Wise words. If only some of these so-called "Christian" rightwingers would read these words, and realize that by supporting all Bush's actions, they are green-lighting horrors for others to visit on our people.
We are supposed to be BETTER than this. More MORAL, decent and humanitarian. Not under Bush.
Do you really think the terrorist (the terrorists and not the insurgents) terrorize and torture because the US condones it? I am not for torturing but not because I think it gives the TERRORIST a green light to do so. They will anyway…they are TERRORISTS. I do not think the terrorist will change their “evil ways” based on anything the US does or doesn’t do. Now, the Iraqi insurgency IS a different story. I do think we are contributing to that problem and we obviously created it because of our invasion. As for the civilian deaths, I do not think we TARGET civilians as terrorists do. But it is indisputable that they are getting caught in the “crossfire”. I think the bitterness that will remain due to the civilian death will continue to escalate anti-US sentiment and prevent us from ever achieving peace and stability in the region. We need to pull back and start addressing the concerns of the insurgency and why they are fighting the establishment of the new government. I believe this is key to winning the peace and stability for the Iraqis. Until the warring factions think they will not be discriminated against and harmed by the new formation they will continue to resist. I do not and never have agreed with this invasion but it has happened and now we must deal with it and try and salvage something from the ruins.
"Do you really think the terrorist (the terrorists and not the insurgents) terrorize and torture because the US condones it?"
RESPONSE: Yes, in some instances. Several movies illustrate what I'm talking about here ("Gladiator", "Punisher", "the Patriot", others), featuring a man driven to violence and actions not ordinarily in his nature due to the killing of his family. When you take away a man's family, you leave him with nothing to lose, the deepest possible anger, and a lust for revenge. We have created many thousands of perfect recruits for terrorist cells. There is no denying this reality.
Second, when WE engage in any practice, we lose the moral standing to criticize that behavior in others. It doesn't matter if we CAUSE people to behave badly. We just lose the ability to criticize with credibility. This is a HUUUUGE loss, for a nation that has prided itself on being the role model for goodness and morality in the world. It makes us illegitimate as a "force for GOOD."
LostLogic says, "As for the civilian deaths, I do not think we TARGET civilians as terrorists do."
RESPONSE: This is not a valid distinction to an Iraqi who has lost his family in a WAR that WE started. Bush supporters will say, "Stuff happens in a War", which is very true, but which only EMPHASIZES that we must be certain of our motivations, our reasoning, and our FACTS before we set out to make war. "Stuff happens" on our roadways every day, resulting in many deaths, but those deaths are CLEARLY seen individually different, based on whether it was an accident, or whether instead someone was negligent, impaired, or reckless. Participants in an "accident" are treated wildly differently based on these factors. America fails the test for calling this war justified, and thus able to justify collateral damage as "accidental". A drunk cannot have an automobile "accident".
Lost Logic says, "I think the bitterness that will remain due to the civilian death will continue to escalate anti-US sentiment and prevent us from ever achieving peace and stability in the region."
RESPONSE: You're probably right.
I agree the distinction between targeting and not targeting is lost on the victim…I believe I alluded to that in my last comment you cited. However, as an American and an outside observer of the situation I do recognize the distinction. You and I and many others may think this war was wrong from the beginning; but there are just as many who don’t agree and think we had the right to strike. I think a case can be made that we were within international rights to strike but I also think it was an ill-conceived and illogical move to make. Just because we had the right and could do it ; didn’t mean we should have. Perhaps the fact that you don’t think we had the RIGHT makes it impossible for you to see the distinction. You have a passion and an absoluteness in your position that I lack. I'm very torn on these issues as you can see. I understand your position (thanks for clarifying it for me)even if I do not agree in total with it.
When we drop an MOAB bomb on a civilian neighborhood like we did because we thought Saddam MIGHT be in a restaurant there we KNOW that civilians will be killed. Any distinction about them not being targeted is one without a difference.
Smerconish has polluted the Philadelphia airwaves for years and then got TV face time on CNN a few years back. However, CNN's not-far-right-enough slant obviously didn't appeal to him, or he to them. Now he has a real chance to shine in the place of Scarborough occasionally. Not one to lose the spotlight again, he senses that stupidity sells and seems intent on following the lead of the other WH shills; Limpballs, Rannity, O'Lielly, et al. As with all of them, he's in it for himself. If the political winds change, they'll all change with it. Complete assholes who should just be ignored.
..This is how guys like Smerconish have fun. They get a bunch of guy friends together and make naked man pyramids while listneing to Christina Aguilera.
As liberals, we shouldn't judge him so harshly.
Anyone who listens to Christine Aguilara music deserves no quarter
Very good, Solon, you referenced a Led Zeppelin tune to criticize Cristina listeners. However, nobody "listens" to her...lol...if you know what I mean.
that Smearconish's head actualy Does look like a dick.
He's a second string right wing blowhard who can't even get his own show so he fills in for the regulars like O'Reilly and Scarborough. You know you're pathetic when you're just a substitute teacher at The School of Bush is God.
White guys shouldn't shave their heads. They look like thumbs.
Does ANYBODY see ..... that George "BRING IT ON" Bush and Michael "TORTURE IS NO BIG DEAL" Smerconish (along with all the Bush apologist administration AND media mouthpieces) ... are RESPONSIBLE for the kidnapping and torture of our soldiers?
I think only you do. I don't think that either one has the stomach for torture, but perhaps if we gave all the detainees hugs and posted it on NBC they would stop torturing and beheading our guys. Is that how you see it? Being nice to them will somehow make the insurgency come around ? They are still terrorists....that's what they do.
If your point is that they incite the terrorists, then fine, I'm sure they do. Pissing off an enemy that wants to kill you anyway? Nice leap of logic there. Somehow, they will do it more humanely?
It is OK to upset your enemy during a war. F-16's are a wonderful thing.
...before you guys jump all over me for advocating that the US should torture detainees, I never said that and I am completely against it. I'm compairing naked pyramids to beheadings. Hardly seems like a comparison.
If you mean one directly causes death and the other does not then I guess you can’t argue with that comparison. But if you are comparing the sociology between the two, murder and sexual assault, they are both based on a lack of humanity and a sociopath mind set. I don’t agree with lumping all of the techniques the US is using as torture but the one you cited is not something done to get information it is a sexual assault, done to strip the humanity from an individual—and that is something that will not benefit the US or what they claim to be trying to achieve.
" but the one you cited is not something done to get information it is a sexual assault, done to strip the humanity from an individual "
What HUMANITY do these terrorists have?? How can we strip something from them that they don't have? I have not seen ONE example of humanity from ONE single terrorist. IMHO...a terrorist gets what he deserves. Someone quoted this earlier..." you reap what you sow ". And how true that is with the terrorists.
You are looking in the wrong direction. The problem is not always what it does to the terrorist but what does it do to the person you are giving a green light to committ sexual assault on another. Would you want it to be your kid that learns to strip someones humanity (whether you think it exist or not) by sexualy assaulting them. And what happens when these soldiers who have now been immersed in this type of behaviour are sent back into our society? Do you want your family exposed to someone who can committ sexual assault? The problem may not be with the terrorist humanity but with ours.
" Do you want your family exposed to someone who can committ sexual assault? The problem may not be with the terrorist humanity but with ours. "
Can you name someone (anyone) who "cannot" committ sexual assault? There isn't any Joe/Joanne who is walking down the street this very moment who cannot committ sexual assault. How can the returning military be expected to be any different? Consider that sexual immorality is being taught to elementary school aged children. The line between "immoral" and "moral" is becoming more and more clouded. There are those who say "what is moral?" when making an arguement to support immoral behavior, then will yell the loudest when immoral behavior is acted out on others. What's the message there? "Be immoral until your immorality disagrees with my immorality?"
Yes, you are very right that the problem is within our own society. But, how do you fix the problem when the problem keeps demanding and receiving more rights?
I agree that naked pyramids and such don't compare to murder, but the term "naked pyramid" doesn't truly describe the "tecnique." After all, how do you make a person get into the pyramid? Or stand on a box with his hands in the air? You don't do it by simply demanding it (that's a frat prank). You do it by hitting them with a stick, or shocking them, or whatever until they do. The only way to make somebody stand at parade rest for ten hours is the threat of severe pain if they don't.
People who say that these things are anything other than full-on torture just haven't thought it through enough.
I cannot imagine any news (or entertainment) organization making business decisions based upon Media Matters' documentation of comments that give "progressives" the vapors. As always liberal cry babies have dumbed down a serious concept (torture) to mean just about anything "not nice." I'm not surprised, of course, that liberals, as always, want to put a damper on free speach.
"... liberals, as always, want to put a damper on free speach."
Cerberus, you're so divorced from reality that you're actually somewhat fun to read. If you ever have a legitimate complaint about liberals, it would be nice if you could at least not tag us with your own faults.
Liberals have always loved free speech. And look, we can even spell it correctly.
" If you ever have a legitimate complaint about liberals, it would be nice if you could at least not tag us with your own faults. Liberals have always loved free speech. And look, we can even spell it correctly. "
Well, you do a good job of proving his point. If your statement isn't "putting a damper" on free speech then I don't know what is. You virtually told him to stop posting until he starts spelling correctly. At least brabantio called him stupid in a polite way.
Who's putting a damper on free speech? He can say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize him for his stupidity. It works the same way here - you're free to say stupid things, but we have the right to point them out when you do.
And free speech does not mean that a network is obligated to put anyone on the air. That's their choice who they give a microphone to, and if that person is a moron/bombthrower/liar, then they should exercise better decision making. They have a responsibility to the community, and putting people like this on the air is not living up to it.