CNN allowed Beck to decry "leftist witch hunt" against shock radio, didn't mention his own hate speech
CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck appeared on the May 14 edition of CNN's American Morning to discuss the dismissal of radio host Don Imus and New York shock jocks JV and Elvis and claimed that there is a "leftist witch hunt" against shock jocks. But in discussing the issue with Beck, host Kiran Chetry introduced Beck simply as a "syndicated talk show host," and not as the host of a nightly program on CNN Headline News. Chetry also ignored Beck's own history of inflammatory remarks -- including a remark he made on the May 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show: "I wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman at this time because of the complications it would add in this country or on the planet right now because of the way the Middle East would use it. That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president." On American Morning, Beck attributed the "leftist witch hunt" to the failure to "get the Fairness Doctrine out," saying, "so what they're trying to do is to shut people down."
During the segment, Beck argued that anger over a controversial phone call aired by XM Satellite Radio hosts Opie and Anthony -- in which a homeless man discussed raping first lady Laura Bush, Queen Elizabeth II and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- largely stemmed from "special interest groups," as "the left ... is trying to shut people down":
BECK: This is where we have been so for so long, and this is really -- this is really not about much other than a lot of special interest groups. There is -- there is a real feeling, I think, on the left -- they couldn't get the Fairness Doctrine out, and so what they're trying to do is to shut people down. If you look at the people that are on the shock radio list, you will see that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- and I am on that list. Gee, I don't know the last time that I was doing sex calls. This smacks of a leftist witch hunt in many ways.
But later in the segment, Beck also suggested that "it seems to be OK" for "people [to] market in graphic, graphic sex," but not to make ethnic jokes:
BECK: [W]hy are we discussing ethnic groups as if it's the only thing? Shock jock -- hang on --
CHETRY: Because this is what got two people fired, this is what -- that's why, Glenn, because --
[crosstalk]
BECK: I don't mean to be crass, but we are talking about people who market in graphic, graphic sex, and that seems to be OK.
In fact, Beck himself has a history of controversial comments:
- On the March 15 broadcast of his radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said: "Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because ... there's something about her vocal range." He went on to say, "There's something about her voice that just drives me -- it's not what she says, it's how she says it," adding, "She is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?" Beck subsequently qualified his statement: "I never said that Hillary Clinton was a bitch. I said she sounded like one."
- On the March 21 broadcast of his radio show, Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" On the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" -- then added, "But she's so fat."
- On the February 28 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, while discussing racy photos of American Idol contestant Antonella Barba, Beck asked his female guest: "I've got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by?"
- On the November 14, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck said to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim ever elected to Congress: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "
- On the August 9, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.
- On the January 10, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Beck called anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute," later amending, at the behest of his executive producer, Steve "Stu" Burguiere, that "tragedy pimp" would be "the most accurate description."
To discuss the issue, CNN paired Beck with comedian Paul Rodriguez, who said he didn't think there was "a left or right conspiracy" concerning racism and sexism on radio.
From the May 14 edition of CNN's American Morning:
CHETRY: Well, CBS Radio firing a pair of suspended radio shock jocks for a prank phone call they made making fun of workers at a Chinese restaurant. The New York duo made their comments just a day after Don Imus' meltdown a month ago. The initial airing of the call in "The Doghouse with JV and Elvis" went unnoticed, then a re-airing of the segment after Imus' firing prompted an outcry from Asian-American groups. So, with these latest firings and the Imus fallout, could this actually be the beginning of the end of the shock jocks? Joining us now from here in New York, syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck. Good to see you, Glenn.
BECK: Hi, how are you?
CHETRY: Also Las Vegas comedian, Paul -- in Las Vegas, you're not just a Las Vegas comedian, of course -- Paul Rodriguez. Thanks for being with us.
RODRIGUEZ: Good morning.
CHETRY: So Glenn, let me ask you about this because you've talked about political correctness as the classic great idea gone wrong. But where do we draw the line?
BECK: Well, I think the individual needs to draw the line. This is a capitalist society. Everybody talks about corporate responsibility and CBS, what they are they doing to stop this? What is the average person doing? These companies would not put this kind material on the air if it wasn't selling. This is a -- this is a choice that the American people that are making every single day. It's not just in New York City or Los Angeles, this happens all across the country. You need to take personal responsibility, and if you don't like it, turn it off.
CHETRY: All right, well, here's -- but the question is, in the days of YouTube and in the days of 24-hour cable, all this stuff get talked about again, recycled. For example, The Opie and Anthony Show, this past week -- they apologized for this, but they had a segment where they laughed as a homeless man fantasized of raping our secretary of state and first lady. Is that where we should be when it comes to radio?
BECK: No, but this is where we have gone. This is where we have been so for so long, and this is really -- this is really not about -- much other than a lot of special interest groups. There is -- there is a real feeling, I think, on the left -- they couldn't get the Fairness Doctrine out, and so what they're trying to do is to shut people down. If you look at the people that are on the shock radio list, you will see that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- and I am on that list. Gee, I don't know the last time that I was doing sex calls. This smacks of a leftist witch hunt in many ways.
[...]
RODRIGUEZ: You can't have a shock jock without shock. I mean, this is their trade. I mean, it started with people who aspired to the heights of Imus and of [Howard] Stern. You have to shock -- in a sense, you and I and CNN, we're doing these relatively obscure jocks a favor because we're discussing, we're talking. I think it was all premeditated. I don't know -- more so I don't agree so much. I don't know if there is a left or a right conspiracy. I think that the marketplace -- though I do agree with Beck. The marketplace itself, it has its own repercussions.
CHETRY: So, Paul, are you watching things that you're saying now? Do you change what you're going to be doing in your bits because of the intense scrutiny that seems to be happening lately?
RODRIGUEZ: Not really; it isn't my trade. I mean, I talk about the condition of being Mexican-American. If somebody else talks about that and he could make a -- I believe that the only offensive joke is a joke that's not funny. If you can find a way to say these things --
BECK: Are you telling me that you've never told a joke that wasn't funny? I mean, that's the problem. When you start saying it's not -- if it's funny, it's not offensive --
RODRIGUEZ: In the privacy of our own homes, Mr. Beck. In the privacy of our own homes -- obviously, these ideas and these thoughts don't come out of thin air. They came from somewhere. We can't get like -- you and I, you can't get on the air and be all pious about it and point our fingers and say this. People -- look, America is a society --
BECK: I'm not being pious about this at all --
RODRIGUEZ: Well, you're blaming the left, you're blaming the right.
CHETRY: No, I think you guys are agreeing more than you think. I think Paul is making a joke: The only offensive one is one that is not funny, but Glenn, do you watch what you say?
RODRIGUEZ: And that one wasn't funny.
BECK: I will tell you, do I watch it? No. The line keeps moving. What is politically acceptable today is not tomorrow and, again, this is all about -- this is all about special interest groups.
RODRIGUEZ: The unique thing about this is that America is -- has this problem. You know, other societies that have other groups -- I was reading in an article where Norway had taken in some people from the Sudan, and now they're starting to -- their comedians are starting do jokes like that. No country in the world has the amount of ethnic groups that America does. Now this --
CHETRY: True.
RODRIGUEZ: -- this could be something that's uplifting to us, but there's always going to be -- see, comedy, the very essence of a punch line, has to have a victim.
BECK: Why -- why are we -- why are we discussing ethnic groups as if it's the only thing? Shock jock -- hang on --
CHETRY: Because this is what got two people fired, this is what -- That's why, Glenn, because --
[crosstalk]
BECK: I don't mean to be crass, but we are talking about people who market in graphic, graphic sex, and that seems to be OK. But if you say --
RODRIGUEZ: Also, you know -- a lot of [unintelligible] jokes, I mean, that's not racist.
CHETRY: All right, well, we're out of time, both of you. This is a really interesting discussion, and I'm glad you both joined us today.
RODRIGUEZ: America still needs to have this discussion as a town meeting. This thing is --
CHETRY: We will, but our show ends in eight minutes, so we gotta go.
RODRIGUEZ: I know, I'm sorry.
CHETRY: But thanks to both of you for being with me today.
RODRIGUEZ: I appreciate it.
Real intelligent debate Beck CNN why is he allowed on your once considered respectable news channel? You were never FOX. Now you are the channel of Nancy Grace and Beck and hate.
Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "[link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" On the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little [link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" -- then added, "But she's so fat."
Personally, I find if Rosie wants to get up and say hateful lies and speech about Trump, and that 911 is an inside job, then she is fair game to Beck. I didn't see the View kicking her off the air.
Attack Rosie's views, not her personally.
What does Beck get out of calling her a "fat witch"? Nothing. That's 2nd grade school yard taunting. If he wants to attack her, start with her viewpoints, and not her personally.
She attacked Trump personally.
The send Rosie a nice message asking her to stop. What does that have to do with Beck?
Since you asked for this info continuously throughout this discussion, here it is:
http://www.themediareport.com/sep2005/malloy.htm
looks like liberal hate speech to me.
I suggest, if you are offended, to write the sponsors of the show and tell them that you are going to boycott. Stand up for your beliefs!
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing or debating Rosie, but why resort to calling her "fat" and other childish names?
Because they are unable to debate at a higher level.
I'll remember that on the next Limbaugh thread.
Well there is fat and then there is drug addicted, hate mongering, sexist, racist, lying, piece of crap fat.
Same for Rosie as she attacked Trump personally. In your world lefties could throw around all the hate and personal attacks they want but the right would have to keep silent. Nice Try - not gonna happen.
What does the Rosie / Trump spat have to do with Beck calling her names again?
Rosie and Trump are two peas in a pod if you ask me. No class and they will do anything to be in the spot light.
Hateful lies about Trump are the issue?
Like what?
"Left the first wife, had an affair, left the second wife, had an affair. Had kids both times, but he's the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America," the comedian and actress said to roars of audience laughter. "Donald, sit and spin, my friend."
No lie there. The truth is painful sometimes, but the truth is not a hateful lie. Lies and the truth are two different things. Too bad you and Trump apparently cannot figure that out.
"I think everything that Donald does is a ploy to promote the Trump business. That’s the bottom line. I don’t think he really cares about this young girl.”
No lies there. No name calling.
She continued, “I just think he’s [Trump] a hot bag of wind, frankly, with bad hair.”
Well, he does have bad hair, but it's still name calling to mention it like that.
Reality bites, don't it?
Rosie: “He inherited a lot of money,” she said. “Wait a minute, and he’s been bankrupt so many times where he didn’t have to pay. ... I just think that this man is sort of like one of those, you know, snake oil salesmen in ’Little House on the Prairie.”’
Trump has never been personally bankrupt.
Now what's that you said about reality ??
Have any of Trump's establishment ever been bankrupt?
Not true. Trump is very proud of the fact that he has never been personally bankrupt. His businesses have but that is very different from being personally bankrupt. Personal bankruptcy means creditors can come after your personal assets, with a corporation going bankrupt they can only come after the corporations.
So if Trump never declares personal bankruptcy that is OK? And if a Trump held corporation files for bankruptcy and "sticks" it creditors which ultimately trickles down to the average Joe would you call that a brilliant move by the CEO. NOT IN MY BOOK!!!
He has been bankrupt. He is responsible for the Trump empire, and the Trump empire was bankrupt.
You lose. Trump has no justificatiion fow what he called her, and it's off topic anyway. Did you comment on how inappropriate Beck's comments were - you seem very determined to condemn Rosie when she wasn't very inappropriate, so you must be aghast at what Beck has said in the past, right?????
There is a difference between personal bankruptcy and having a business you own go bankrupt. They are two different things. It is a lie to say "he's been bankrupt". He has not been bankrupt, his businesses have been but not he.
Anyways why I bring up Rosie in the first place, is because if a person goes around calling people names and making outrageous comments , don't be surprised if someone starts calling you names.
Like if I said something outrageous like the white race is genetically superior to all others - I shouldn't be surprised if people call me an idiot and a hate monger rather than point me to some study that goes against my claims.
It's like on this board if I start going around calling people names, then don't feel sorry for me if someone starts calling me names.
Thanks for proving that you are either genetically unable or politically incapable of fairly addressing an issue by refusing to comment on the topic of this posting by Media Matters! When you show your true colors like you did in the post above, it enlightens all who might have doubted your mendacity and sleaziness.
Like I said above "He has been bankrupt. He is responsible for the Trump empire, and the Trump empire was bankrupt."
He is clearly the Trump empire, and the Trump empire did go bankrupt, and so he was bankrupt, and it was not a lie from Rosie or an unfair smear. You cannot keep on topic, and you lie, and that's been proven.
Sorry - being personal bankrupt is different than having a business of yours go bankrupt. You should take business 101.
"Sorry - being personal bankrupt is different than having a business of yours go bankrupt. You should take business 101."
You infer that Rosie O'Donnell said "personally bankrupt", but she didn't. She said "he". And when you say "he" in reference to Trump, of all people, you mean the entire Trump organization. No less a person than Trump himself would wholeheartedly agree with that.
Exactly. He did go bankrupt, since he is the Trump empire.
She wasn't wrong, and it wasn't a lie, and Skettle is incapable of addressing reality.
Trump is no more the Trump corporation than Michael Dell is Dell Computers. Last time I checked my Dell computer didn't look too much like Michael Dell. Like I said please take business 101 before making silly statements.
Technically you are correct. Trump's businesses went into bankruptcy and Trump himself narrowly avoided personal bankruptcy. Rosie should have been more precise.
That said, Trump's splitting hairs about the difference is pretty childish and smacks of his not taking responsibility for what happened to his companies while he was in charge.
Really ? Trump would agree with that. That's pretty funny that you say that considering Trump's very own words:
“You can’t make false statements,” Trump tells PEOPLE exclusively. “Rosie will rue the words she said. I’ll most likely sue her for making those false statements – and it’ll be fun. Rosie’s a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie.”
hmmm... I thought you said Trump would agree with that ?
You guys dig yourself deeper and deeper all the time.
I had to say personal bankrupt because you guys don't seem to know that the word "he" is a personal pronoun.
Those comments about Rosie O'Donnell are mild. She deserves much, much worse. She's a nasty human being.
In your often completely wrong opinion.
Why is she? What has she done that you disagree with that makes her such a bad human being? Or do you just follow the line and not know what you're talking about?
She attacked Trump personally. I guess you are silent about that.
Who cares? Trump and Rosie are big people, when they go after each other they have equal access to media.
What is wrong, and why Imus deserved to be canned, is attacking private citizens. Imus abused his power and vilolated the public trust with his comment.
I don't give a rat's uh, tail about Beck's BS PC argument. When public figures use their media bullhorn to demean private citizens that is wrong and accountability is rightfully brought to bare.
I agree. Rosie,Trump and Beck have access to the media. They are big people. If you use the airways to attack others, don't be surprised if you yourself get attacked. Similarly, if I attack someone on this forum, I should not be surprised if I myself get attacked.
What has she doen that is worse than Back or Hannity or Savage?
Rosie is not the topic, Glenn Beck is and his hate .
You are wrong - Glenn Beck does not hate. I listen everyday and I am always entertained and informed. Why can't you understand that he is expressing HIS views? Views that are shared by millions of people including me. The examples sighted by MMFA above are either taken way out of context (Muslims behind wire fences), are clearly jokes (Hillary Clinton sounds like to bi***) or he's...well...correct (Muslin extremism / global warming / Katrina victims behaving badly).
I 'll repeat this until the keys fall off my computer keyboard: If you don't like it - TURN THE CHANNEL. That is the best way to take someone off the air. If the ratings are low, he's out.
Beck does hate, and his ratings aren't good.
Funny how he's still around, eh?
I listen to Beck and Rush and believe Beck does get a bit of a Bad Rap. Rush usually deserves it but Beck not so much. Like Beck did march at a rally with Sharpton, and has cried for Sharpton on the air. Though Beck is not the poster boy for being nice.
He didn't really cry on the air did he? If so, I wonder was it sincere. Sounds like something out of a movie.
He like paused for 40 seconds on the air and then started crying saying that he is trying to be a better man! And he said he did not want to be hateful towards Sharpton, rather he said he felt sorry for him. He broke his old record of 30 seconds of dead air time. He really gets emotional sometimes. It's just how he is sometimes.
Not trying to be funny, it sounds like maybe he's being abused in a way by his bosses, like a freak at the circus. He shouldn't be allowed to embarrass himself on the air like that IMO. He shouldn't have been hired if this is indicitive of a really disturbed mind.
I would say that if I was his doctor I would consider taking him off the air. He is loaded up on ADD drugs on the weekend so he can actually talk to his family without his mind jumping from subject to subject.
During the week he goes off the drugs because he thinks having ADD makes him better at radio.
Oh sure, there was no hate involved calling former President Carter a waste of skin. Its always just a good joke when a rightwingnut slanders someone or says something outrageous and you guys know it is because of those amazing mind reading powers of yours. Beck is a low class, hatemongering bigot without a shred of human decency. THAT on a good day.
These "shock jocks" have been around for years, this is nothing new. And now it's getting more into the political arena than before, and since the Imus flap, it's getting scrutinzed anew.
And there will always be the finger pointing as to "he's more offensive than him", or "she crossed the line", or whatever........the point is with the freedoms we have this stuff happens. Of course there needs to be some basic standards set, but they need to very broad and liberal as to not allow the government too much control or over-policing.
If you don't like it or it's too offensive, bottom line is turn it off.
the OTHER bottom line is to get these racist, misogynist, bigoted liars OFF the airwaves when their spiel goes from 'shock', which has its own niche, to commentating about politics and denegrating certain individuals and groups of people...
And how are you proposing to "get them off the airwaves"?
by continuing to show and re-air and write down the hateful stuff they are saying so that MORE people will be exposed to their garbage... hopefully, after enough people realize what they are doing, appropiate actions will ensue... such as pulling ads from their shows, public humliation, lawsuits, etc... it boils down to this, for me- anyone has the right to say what they want, but if you are going to disparage people on airwaves, with an audience of millions, you are to be dealt with harshly...
"by continuing to show and re-air and write down the hateful stuff they are saying"
Should we do that with the far left hosts on Air America as well who say hateful things on a regular basis? Should we just make it to where nothing controversial can ever be said on the radio? Should we just create a Stalin like atmosphere where controversial political speech should be censored simply because some are offended?
Show us some proof of the "hateful" things that Air America folks are saying... Please, I dare you. Along the same lines of what Beck and his ilk are saying. I'm betting you don't have anything.
Here you go:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8805
But I guess for liberals personally attacking Rush Limbaugh is the same thing as breathing, and isn't really a personal attack at all.
IF your trying to make a comparison to any of the right's screeching monkeys it's a pretty week at best. Mentioning Rush's drug Problem and calling Bush a spoiled child is the best you got?
Beck has called President Jimmy Carter a "waste of skin," Mexican immigrants "dirt bags" and "lawbreakers," Katrina victims "scumbags," Cindy Sheehan a "prostitute," and suggested using nuclear weapons against parts of the Middle East and Venezuela. (Right from MMFA's archives and that's just a sample)
Just look over on the ride hand side of the home page. THis doesn't even hold up.
Has Beck ever advocated that a major political figure be assassinated?
He did make a joke about choking the life out of Michael Moore with his own hands . hehehehe
If the answer is "yes," do you believe he should be held accountable for it? If the answer is "no" then don't even bother pointing at other people. We can point at each others' crowds all day. Don't excuse bad behavior with others' bad behavior.
I don't think so...what's your point?
That link was really lame, rino. The only example that even approaches hate speech that could be considered on par with Coulter or Savage was the gunshot ad. In fact that particular segment, which the dummy who posted it misattributed to Franken, was apologized for over and over by Randi Rhodes. What's more and the true test of character is that no such similar segments have been aired since.
Anyway, some conservatives have no sense irony as exemplified in the following sentence from your stupid, stupid link: "They (libs) spew hatred for the war effort, anyone who respects the sanctity of innocent life, Christians, and of course President Bush"
How can you take seriously any person who talks about war and the sanctity of life in a single sentence?
"How can you take seriously any person who talks about war and the sanctity of life in a single sentence?"
Because many times war can end up saving more lives than are lost. The Bible makes it clear that war is often times justified. But it also makes it clear that life begins at conception and must be protected.
The Bible also justifies kicking an unfaithful wife in the stomach to abort a fetus. But how do you make the jump that the phrase 'sanctity of life' is constrained only to abortion? I take the phrase to mean that life is sanctified. Period.
Furthermore, the Bible may justify war in some cases, and I would agree that it is at times as the last option; however, I don't believe the current occupation of Iraq is justifable. No doubt, that guy from your link was talking about the current foreign policy debacle in Iraq. What we are doing in Iraq serves no purpose of national security and is as well an immoral imperialist adventure.
Still, your link fell short of its claim to rampant hate speech coming out of lib radio. Sorry, try again.
"The Bible also justifies kicking an unfaithful wife in the stomach to abort a fetus"
What verse is that exactly?
As it turns out I was not completely right, so I can accept that I was wrong. I was remebering this passage:
Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
In this story, Judah mistakes Tamar as a prostitute and orders her to be burned to death, despite the fact she is three months pregnant. If her twin fetuses had been considered persons, the law would have delayed her execution at least until her twins were born. (The execution order was later lifted, not because of this consideration, but because Judah learned Tamar's true identity.)
Anyway, hate speech is the topic we were discussing and you still have failed to make any substantial argument on the topic. You claimed your link proved liberal hate speech, it did no such thing. You have done little more than say it is so because you say so.
If life is so sacred, why is it okay to take it, ever?
And if the Bible is your, well... Bible, do you also believe in slavery?
As I said, war is often justified because going to war can end up saving more lives than are lost in war. Also, where does the Bible condone slavery?
The Bible says to turn the other cheek as well, does it not? The Bible also commands "Thou shalt not kill," and says it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man get to heaven. Later in our discussion, you told me that you would keep your money in things with good ratings even if you didn't believe in them. Why?
You are making another in a long string of strawman arguments. Just because there might be such a thing as a justifyable war in no way means ANY war is justifyable. Most of the liberal arguments against THIS war are against THIS war and the ways IT is unjustifyable. Its like saying because its morally justfyable to kill someone in self defense then obviously all killing is justfied. Your illogic is overwhelming.
Whoa Rino, stop! What about when he breathes life into Adam, was Adam merely conceived? This one is at least debateable....
"But it also makes it clear that life begins at conception and must be protected." --Rino hunter
I want chapter and verse for that one.
The only people in the Bible who specifically and notably received their soul (or the beginning of life) at conception or sometime before birth were prophets and other divinely inspired people (e.g. Jesus, John the Babtist, Jeremiah, etc.). This is part of the Bible's mythology. It is a literary device or indicator that these are indeed special people who receive the life-giving spirit earlier than the rest of us.
The Bible often refers to the body as merely a vessel for the soul or spirit. Considering that the words for soul and spirit come from Ancient Greek words (psuche and pneuma - respectively) both literally meaning "breath", one can easily infer that the spirit does not enter the vessel until birth -- as a fetus obviously doesn't breathe for itself.
Whenever you read "soul" or "spirit" in the Bible, the sentence makes just as much sense (and usually even more) if you substitute "breath" instead. That is because the ancient people of the Bible probably literally meant "breath", but more mystical terms have been preferred in translations over the centuries.
It is also noteworthy that the only significant difference between a fetus and a baby is that a baby breathes.
People have used some Biblical verses that point to the Holy Spirit (Pneumatos) entering the body of special people and prophets before their birth as the rule, when it is in actuality a significant exception.
The sanctity of life argument seems to come out at stange times. RINO could you give an example, from the people your standing up for, where they've effectivly done so? Statements aren't good enough.
That's all you got? An inaccurate obscure opinion piece?
Okay, so the author has a problem with Ed Shultz pointing out Rush Limbaugh's admitted drug addiction 10 times in lieu of an argument (according to the author). That is "hate"? This is no way comparable to the slew of logical fallacies and misinformation that regularly comes from right-wing talk shows.
Secondly, the author misattributes the social security bit to Al Franken. It was on the Randi Rhodes show -- not Al Franken's show. This author doesn't even have his facts straight.
The author also only presents one interpretation of what that bit was about. Rhodes apologized profusely about it, even though it appears she had nothing to do with its production.
That is probably the worst example of "hate" on liberal talk-shows and it is nothing. It simply doesn't compare to the things Ann Coulter says and claims she means with no apologies at all. In fact, it is rare to see a conservative back-track or apologize after making such remarks.
Thank you, rino hunter for demonstrating (albeit unwittingly) the stark difference between right-wing hate and your supposed liberal examples of it.
I have one:
Just after the 2004 Republican Convention, Al Franken and a guest were discussing Tom Delay's plan to rent a cruise ship for conventioneers to stay at a pier in New York Harbor (a plan that never materialized). At one point, Franken said to the guest that if there was such a criuse ship, "One well placed torpedo would have done so much good".
Now THAT's hate speech - wishing the death of thousands of people because you don't agree with their views. I can't think of any legitimate conservative talk show person that has ever advocated that kind of violent death for differing political views.
If Franken said that then that would qualify as hate speech, on that we can agree.
Now, if you don't think that that statement is equaled by Coulter talking about putting rat poison in a liberal Supreme Court Justice's salad or that using baseball bats on liberals to make a point then you're just being insincere.
These incidents are so frequently misrepresented by the right, I won't even consider his anecdote until goodfellas can provide a legitimate link to demonstrate the case.
You're right. And as is indicated below by, notthatgeorge, Franken would make a joke and move on. Limbaugh makes a joke and later reasserts it as a position and restates and reasserts until the lines are blurry between his true intent.
You don't listen to enough right wing radio then. You have to dig to find an off color comment from Al Franken, a well known comedian btw, not a newsman or wanna be journalist.
He didn't wish they were dead.
It was joke. He didn't mean it. He doesn't harbor those feelings.
Rush, however, says something, tries to excuse what he says because he claims it's a joke, then repeats the same political position because he really means it, and that means it's not a joke after all. Beck has clearly exposed himself as a Hillary hater, and he has made personal attacks. That's hate speech. A joke, when there is no hateful feelings behind it, is not hate speech.
"He didn't wish they were dead.
It was joke. He didn't mean it. He doesn't harbor those feelings.
Rush, however, says something, tries to excuse what he says because he claims it's a joke, then repeats the same political position because he really means it, and that means it's not a joke after all. Beck has clearly exposed himself as a Hillary hater, and he has made personal attacks. That's hate speech. A joke, when there is no hateful feelings behind it, is not hate speech" - NotThatGeorge / Tuesday May 15, 2007 06:40:35 PM EST
George, I know Franken didn't really want those people dead, but don't you think you're letting your own politics, or at least your dislike of Beck and others cloud the fact that he was joking, as well? Look, I heard the Hillary comments on Beck's show and I can tell you, he didn't mean her any harm and harbors no 'hatred' toward her. He vehemently disagrees with her politics (as do I) and was pointing out her way of speaking sounded "like a typical bit**" (which it kinda does). Clearly, he was joking.
I would like to take you at your word, but I have been burned so often by trusting conservatives in the past. Could you please provide a legitimate link that quotes Al Franken?
"I would like to take you at your word, but I have been burned so often by trusting conservatives in the past. Could you please provide a legitimate link that quotes Al Franken?"- open_mind / Wednesday May 16, 2007 01:28:31 PM EST
Well, no I don't have a 'legitimate' link. Only that I actually heard it - not "someone told me about it".
After giving it some thought, It wouldn't do much good to have a link because it would be giving legitimacy to the idea that conservative radio hosts engage in hate speech. If I say, "See? Franken does engage in hate speech ", it would infer that I believe that Beck engages in hate speech. I think you call it a "strawman" argument.
And FYI, I realize Franken was joking and I wouldn't advocate he be fired for saying it.
No link then? I realize you heard it with your own ears and you may believe you are providing an adequate representation, but it would be nice to either hear it with my own ears or read it with my own eyes to see if I agree with that representation or not.
I understand your point, but I am disappointed you did not provide a legitimate link so the rest of us could evaluate what was said independent of your observations.
"Should we do that with the far left hosts on Air America as well who say hateful things on a regular basis?"
-----
You wingies have made this type of accusation many times, but when you are asked for specific, concrete examples, all you come up with is someone who disagreed with Bush, or called him a "dry drunk," or some other comment, which isn't hate if it's true.
Please provide examples of this left-wing "hate." If it's done on a "regular basis" you should have hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. Perhaps you can be the first to back up the claim with evidence.
But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
That's strange rino. I'm listening to Thom Hartmann right now and he just a civil discussion with a conservative who wants to bomb Iran back into the stone age. You don't find that on right wing radio. You simply can't back up your charge AirAmerica hosts even come close to the personal attacks Beck and others engage in. It's just nonsense. And incidentally the content on AA is far more accurate too. The facts actually check out.
Hartmann is a gentleman and a scholar.
Air America has really good programs these days, folks should give 'em a listen.
Go for it. If it's out there call them on it too, it's your right to doso if you choose.
Most of what I see on MRC is bunk anyway.
LOL! The answer is quite simple actually. Democrats and Liberals should NEVER advocate the removal of Rush from radio. He actually provides a valuable service in that he reveals which businesses in any town or city in which his show airs to be very hostile to Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Women, African-Americans, Hispanics and practically anyone that isn't white, rich or a brainwashed moron. I believe that if Democrats would simply organize local efforts to inform people of what Rush says about them and which local advertisers support Rush, you would see Rush recede.
Folks, be CAREFUL of the link in the comment by RINO - the link to American Daily :
I keep everything defensive up full, updates and setting; but that one seemed to trigger a drive-by installation of some sort of Trojan, a flurry of complaints by all five of my alway-on status defenders, and required a brief off-line and shut-down for removal. I cannot PROVE that it came from that site, but had only two windows open at the time, the MMFA host window, and a daughter window to the link.
Good lookin' out, Conley. Thanks.
Hey, don't try to pin this on me!
Kidding. Thanks for the warning.
The "trojan" is a garden variety active X internet explorer ad on. If you have your brower security settings set to at least med high you will get a warning asking you if you want to run the active x content. Like all material coming from a way right web site , just say NO!
Feel free to try with Air America but until they call for beating conservative with baseball bats or poisoning a Supreme Court justice or making torture a telivised sport ya got nothin. No one anywhere is trying to censor political speech, that is a strawman argument. Let pundits call for this to become a communist country or coronate GW Mcshortbus king for all I care. However there is nothing wrong with offensive, racist or bigotted attacks having consequences. They are OUR airwaves and we have a right to a say in how they are used.
Tommy - "If you don't like it or it's too offensive, bottom line is turn it off."
Does this apply to you as well? The next time you come to MMFA with a complaint about one of the items you don't like, should we tell you to shut your browser?
You are free to tell me anything you'd like.
Then I'll tell you you're a hypocrite. Heed your advice to yourself sometime.
Just an honest question Tommy. This seems to be another example of a "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy and I wanted to give you an opportunity to expound on that. I'm not sure why your telling people that instead of voicing their opinion the discourse that takes place on a political commentary shows like Beck or Imus they should just shut the offending program off instead.
Please tell me where I have ever said that you, or anyone, should not voice their displeasure? Just yesterday on the Sunday Shoutout thread, I specifically said to you that boycotting those you dislike and their advertisers is your perfect right, and I encourage you to do so, if you choose.
Some may boycott and let certain shows know of their dislike, while others just turn it off - to each his/her own.
It seems to me that people are taking note of what is being said and voicing thier displeasure to the radio stations, advertisers, etc
What's the point of your first post on this topic then amd why did you state your "bottom line" comment?
Because that is the bottom line - if you don't like what's being broadcast, then turn it off, ultimately. There are many options such as boycotting advertisers, or promoting competitor's shows - but again, the bottom line is turn the dial to another station, or flip the on/off button to off.
The point of my first topic is there for anyone to read again. Bottom line, keep the government out of it, for the most part.
But if it's being used to advocate the policies of the government while trying to pretend to be news organization, it opens itself up to be controled by the government.
We, the people, own those airwaves. The FCC, which is paid for by our tax dollars, regulate those airwaves. The government is already involved — it's just too cozy with the corporate media, which does more harm than good at this point.
How is Glenn Beck's tirade against some individual "advocating government policies"? And if that's not what you are referring to, please be specific as to who is advocating these policies and in what context?
If your initial argument in this thread was clear, then you wouldn't need to reference our conversation from yesterday.
I just don't agree with people turning a blind eye to political discourse or hate speech. Our country is already woefully ignorant on political issues and very apathetic.
You're right, normally when you ask a ridiculous question I don't answer......my bad for indulging your lack of comprehension here.
Your right Tommy, what was I thinking, I should have known that in order to get to the heart of what your really meant I was suppose to read through all of your posts from the last few days to get the hidden message. Are you posts like a word search now?
I'm thinking this is yet another demonstration of how you constantly change your argument to suit your needs at any given time.
You do have a short memory, apparently even for your posts on this particular thread......to "suit my needs?".
Funny, most of my responses here have been direct answers to your questions. Thank for you asking them to "suit my needs"
Until you suggested it yet again, NO ONE here said anything about having the government censor anyone. You do this every time and it's boring every time.
The Fairness Doctrine is specifically mentioned in this piece, which is government monitoring/level the playing field.
And I agree, it's usually promoted by liberals who are losing in the free marketplace of ideas, and it's constant drumbeat is very boooooooring.
DJs are always fired for saying stupid things. One pair was canned for getting a couple to have sex in the confession booth of a Catholic church. They weren't free speech heroes though because the right didn't like their method of ruffling feathers.
I find that hard to believe... unless the couple wasn't married. If they weren't married, then the Right was justified in getting those DJs fired. If the couple were married they were doing what the Bible told them to do. Besides, sex can be a religious experience as either party may call out to God. So, I don't see the harm.
In what way was the Right justified in getting the jocks fired?
I'm not defending them one bit. I personally find something like that way unfunny and horrible radio. (Sex on the radio? Ya-awwwn.) But I can't see how the Right was any more justified than anyone else with taste in asking for these people to be fired.
It's one thing to be a shock jock. It's another to be political commentator. You can be a shock jock and do occasional commentary, but if you're a political commentator on a NEWS channel or station, you can't try to be a shock jock. I'm perfectly fine for labeling Limbaugh, Savage and Beck as shock jocks, and it would mean that MMFA wouldn't have to cover them anymore.
To do that (pretend to be shock jock when you're a political commentator) only diminishes the effectiveness of the arguement or the point you wish to make.
It's amazing that Beck would label himself a shock jock only after a joke backfires. Howard Stern (the King of shock) would never apologize for a joke backfiring, but we wouldn't expect Stern to apologize (or backtrack as fast as Beck).
...'This is all about special interest groups...'- Ummm, Yeah, ok.... And Beck has it all wrong- it's not a leftist Witch hunt... it's a leftist NAZI hunt. Hmmm..., maybe the neocons have changed the wording for this week- this week, liberals are witches, next week they are traitors, next they are hysterical wimps, then they are nazis again... nice little loop there...
MMFA complained about Michael Smerconish calling people "sissies" on the air - something about it being a homosexual slur - although he was not talking about homesexuals. He was talking about how America has become a bunch of sissies with regards to everybody complaining about hurtful words. Funny thing is later on "Bill Mahar", of all people, took offense with MMFA and called MMFA a bunch of sissies.
No he didn't. I saw that episode, I recall his comments, and he NEVER called MMFA sissies.
Sir, you are incorrect. Here is the video:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/15/video-bill-maher-rips-media-matters/
Both the left and right - stop listening to propaganda ! Do your own research.
ok... but hotair can't even get their own transcripts correct- he said 'if you are complaining about this, you are a sissy'... and let's be fair to the man- he obviously knows nothing ABOUT MMFA and what it stands for because he doesn't even know what side of the political spectrum MMFA comes from and just referenced it to make a little point about 'gotcha!' politics...
>>CNN Headline News host [link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">Glenn Beck appeared on the May 14 edition of CNN's American Morning to discuss the dismissal of radio host [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] color="#0052a3">Don Imus and New York shock jocks [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] color="#0052a3">JV and Elvis and claimed that there is a "leftist witch hunt" against shock jocks.
Is there a heck of a lot of political commentary in "nappy headed hoes" and "me like fried rice" lines? I thought Imus was supposed to be liberal? Or at least not conservative?
The market adjusted itself as it pertains to Imus, and anyone else who gets booted off of the air. If these guys say something that is outlandish, and awful, if people still tune in, guess what? They get to keep their jobs. If there is an outcry, and sponsors start pulling ads and revenue, then guess what? They don't get to keep their jobs.
Imus was yanked for the mere fact that sponsors were dropping him like a hot potato. Not through anything that MMFA, or anyone else did or didn't do.
Deck da hars with bows of horryfa ra ra ra rah, ra rah rah rah
Such hatespeech. What a racist movie.
Such illogical reasoning. What a stupid post.
"In fact, Beck himself has a history of controversial comments"
Oh, boy. The Thought Police is back. I've never seen such a large group of those on the left who are so adament about ending free speech rights for those with whom they disagree. Of course Beck makes controversial comments. So does every single successful radio talk show host out there. Hardly anybody would listen to any of these shows if they were boring and didn't generate any controversy at all. Controversy gets ratings, and every successful talk show host knows that. Seriously, why would anybody want to listen to some boring host who didn't generate any controversy? There's controversial talk show hosts on both the right and the left, but it's just that the left wing talk show hosts bash the U.S. on a regular basis, and most people actually like this country and don't want to listen to this Anti-Americanism. The bottom line is that if you don't like Beck, then change the channel. Nobody is forcing you to watch him. This is a free country where political speech is constitutionally protected, and the censorship that is being promoted by those on the left only proves that they can't compete with conservatives in the arena of ideas.
This is not about free speech. Again. Same as before. Not about free speech. Not everyone is entitled to a radio and a TV show. But Beck, and others, are more than free to say what they want anywhere that they would like to, but they don't need to be paid for it. They can get a blog for free, just like everyone else.
I agree it is not about free speech. It is about a political agenda to get the right off the air. They don't like the fact that there are some many people tuning into these shows. These shows are a threat to their political power. They masquerade it as removing "hate speech" but that is a facade. The real goal is political power. Kuchinich and friends are trying to tie the radio stations down in red tape so they will not put on Rush because it causes them too much work under the fairness doctrine. Rush will be effectively silenced. It is like taking the offensive speech out of Saturday Night Live - nobody will watch it anymore.
So, then, what exactly are you saying? That no one will listen to talk radio without right-wing conservatives? Or that their offensive speech is what makes it so popular?
I think it is popular because it is a mix of comedy ( albeit hateful at times ) and politics. I think some people would not tune in if they could not make jokes about other people. Someone would have to define what "hate speech" is and what would and would not be allowed for me to make a judgment on how it would effect listeners. There is a show in Canada that is pretty funny called "this hour has twenty two minutes". It would show the prime minister of Canada crawling around like "Gollum" from Lord of the rings saying "My precious, My Precious". I don't know - is that hate speech ? If they took that stuff off the air I probably wouldn't watch the show. I would just read the paper for the news. Then again I don't want the show to be all about comedy either - I like some politics in as well. I may be childish by I find NPR totally boring and Beck kicks butt.
Well, first of all, it has to be subjective. Secondly, there has to be a clear delineation between news and entertainment shows. Shows on news networks, especially shows with the word "news" in their title on such networks, need to be careful in presenting news, not opinion. Shows which claim to be "fair and balanced" should be, not leaning one way or another. Persons who claim to speak only truth should not be tossing around opinion as fact, especially when such opinion is clearly negative, inflammatory, and without any obvious merit. Finally, the big rubric is, admit who you are. If you're an entertainer, then that's fine. Be up front about it. Don't pretend you are the "lone voice crying out in the wilderness."
As to your example about the PM of Canada crawling around like Gollum ... are there any Gollums around to be insulted? It seems simplistic, but there you have it. What was the context? Was he searching for power? Seeking to retain it? Determining hate speech isn't always difficult, but sometimes it requires a critical eye.
The Gollum thing was making fun of the PM never giving up the power even though his own party was trying to force him out. He had a reputation for hoarding power. He probably would be offended being compared to a creature like Gollum. I guess the show could have pointed out how only the facts in his attempts to hold power but the analogy to Gollum makes it really hit home to the audience. It sends a powerful message that the facts have a hard time showing. I could see kids watching that episode and all of a sudden seeing a connection between Gollum and how power can corrupt your soul and politics.
It is similar to when Rush uses the term "Clinton Inc", this hits home because creates an image of the power of the Clinton's political clout and connections and money.
Calling Michael Moore a fat slob adds nothing to the discussion except for maybe if you said: "look at how Michael Moore dresses - would you hire that guy ?", Look at how undisciplined he must be to be that obese. Then someone from the street who is not informed or have all the time to look into the issues might say - well I'm not listening to a guy like that because of his appearance is a reflection of his character. If his character is like that he might have other character defects - like lieing. I don't know if this is correct to say but a study might show undisciplined people are more likely to lie.
Race is a totally other story because it is something you can't change and your a born with it - it shows nothing of someones character.
I guess I would be for banning race insults on the air.
"I don't know if this is correct to say but a study might show undisciplined people are more likely to lie."
In a previous post you opined how you can't listen to NPR because it's too "boring". So you admit in one post you are intellectually lazy which is clearly a lack of self-discipline (in fact the most important discipline you can have to always strive for knowledge) and in the next you say Michael Moore must be a liar because he over-eats???? What does that make you?
I find tic-tac-toe boring as well - somehow this makes me intellectually lazy ? I find Beck far more intellectually stimulating than NPR, plus he is funny as well !
Really? I couldn't ever tell.
You find Beck more intellectually stimulating than NPR???? I bet you also find the three stooges more intellectually stimulating than reading David Hume.
"I may be childish by I find NPR totally boring and Beck kicks butt."
Unfortunately other's in this country share your "childish" mindset. NPR provides so much useful information on such a wide variety of topics that it is similar to attending college. I have learned so much about the world, art and history from NPR I am forever grateful for their programming. That you would choose controversy and hate speech to intelligent discussion says a lot about you as a person and I weep for the people like you in our country. NPR is only boring to those not interested in real knowledge and instead need "shock jocks" to pander to their insecurities and predjudices. Beck, Savage, etc. only audience is the uneducated.
NPR is no
Personal Best post,RINO Hunter! ;0)
NPR is nothing more than left wing radio as well. Just not as far left and partisan as Air America. It is unbelievably boring and offers no entertainment at all. Also, Rush Limbaugh's audience has been documented to be very intelligent as well. There are a lot of very well off, successful people who listen to his show. It's not just a bunch of "mind numbed robots" as you say. O'Reilly's audience is very intelligent as well.
NPR liberal bias? Remind me who funds NPR again....
Care to back that claim up with some proof?
I know many cartoons have intelligent audiences (The Simpsons, South Park, etc.).
O'Reilly's cartoon antics appeal to an audience which thinks "Itchy & Scratchy" is intelligent.
Rino,
NPR is about a lot more than politics and offers shows with a wide variety of viewpoints. It is one of our country's grandest achievements. To even compare NPR to Rush is the most ingnorant statement I have ever heard. NPR has art, music, history, some of the best in-depth interviews in the world, political news, world news, the BBC I could go on but why bother you have Rush to "inform" you and your ilk.
Pathetic. Truely pathetic.
Word 'em up claypot! My personal favorites are Car Talk and Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me.
"Beck, Savage, etc. only audience is the uneducated."
I had full-scholarships to one of the top universities in the world, now am 33, have a wonderful wife, a beautiful penthouse condominium, make over 300k a year doing cutting edge technology work.
I listen to both Beck and NPR. NPR is sometimes boring to me because they seem to avoid controversy. It is not boring all the time - I do listen to it at times but I find Beck appeals to me in many different ways. I like listening to a guy who recovered from drinking and drugs - you can learn a lot from people that bottomed out and recovered. He also has a friendship rather than hate with Al Sharpton - did you know that about him ? Did you know he marched with Al Sharpton ?
That a person can make money in this society and graduate from college is in no way a measure of one's intelligence. I have read your posts and they are not thoughtful and educated. You have said fat people are liars by nature and mentioned Michael Moore repeatedly even though he's irrelevent to this discussion.
But WOW you make 300k you must be a genius *sarcasm*
I noticed how you left out "full paid academic scholarship", and it was not for sports or being a nice guy.
>>the left wing talk show hosts bash the U.S. on a regular basis, and most people actually like this country and don't want to listen to this Anti-Americanism.
See, this is why your great stand against "political correctness" will always sound fake and hypocritical.
At least I'm not advocating that these liberal talk show hosts be taken off the air. I disagree with what they say, but I support their right to say it. I'm a big supporter of the 1st Amendment.
Still waiting on your examples. Do you support the businesses that sponsor them?
The 1st Amendment does not protect lies and slander. Nor does it protect hate speech. If cons want to stay on the air all they would have to do is refrain from lying, slander and hate speech. Pretty simple. This isn't about left vs. right because liberals and conservatives are different. Listen to Rush and listen to Thom Hartmann and tell me who uses hate speech. It's not the thought police jack, you are free to think what you want. But when you sit behind a microphone and use public airwaves to perpetuate myths and divide the citizenry it's a different story.
"If cons want to stay on the air all they would have to do is refrain from lying, slander and hate speech"
Considering that Rush has been documented to be almost always right 98.6% of the time, it's pretty obvious that he doesn't lie or use slander.
Provide the documentation please.
http://lqblog.com/category/the-clintons/ T
The independent auditing group is The Sullivan Group
Link didn't work, also even if he was 98.6% right about the Clintons, that does not encapsulate everything.
It said that the independent Sullivan Group has documented him to be accurate 98.6% of the time.
Okay, RH, you were totally disproven.Will you now admit your error?
And no, it doesn't matter, and has no relevance whether or not anyone else past, present or future admits their errors. Will you admit yours?
How was I disproven? Just because Thomas Sullivan happens to be a conservative?
Rino,
Having Sullivan, a guest host, vouch for his accuracy would be like having Al Franken vouch for Randi Rhodes's accuracy. Would you believe those statistics?
Or Indiana U. saying O'Reilly calls someone a name every six seconds.
Explain please Leather. Is it because they are a liberal arts school? Or is it because Soros funded something completely different?
I think you are making the wrong assumption that Leather-codpiece has the foggiest idea of what he is talking about.
No.
Because no study was ever done.
It was not a real study. It was done by a stooge who has no degree, no company who could do a study like this, and no training to complete such a study on his own.
It was a farce.
There is no such study.
So, now that you have been proven totally deceitful, will you acknowledge it?
I thought not.
You are being absolutely dishonest. I have heard Rush quote this very finding. What it actually states and probably why you provided a faulty link is, "The OPINIONS of Rush Limbaugh are right 98.6% of the time."
Now, what kind of idiot gets anything less than 100% accuracy of opinion rating? Opinions are opinions, they are not right or wrong, they are informed or uninformed. By that standard, if this study even comes close to being reliable, Rush misinforms his audience at least 1.4% of the time with his opinion. That may be OK by his listeners but I would find it insulting.
Do you mean the Sullivan Group detailed here ...
http://www.diddlysquat.tv/the_hoax.htm
and here ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Sullivan
because it seems awfully "conflict-of-interest-y" for someone with an "independant group" to be a stand-in host on Rush's show ...
D'oh. Oh no he d'int!
I can definitely agree that Rush is "almost always right 98.6% of the time."
in other words, he's WRONG 98.6% of the time, since "almost right" <> "right."
That's a statistic I can definitely believe! Way to bring the facts!
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Do you honestly think that's true? Do you ever check out his claims? Or do you just nod along like a bobble headed doll? Limbaugh demonizes Democrats and liberals on a daily basis, often stretching the truth to do it.
Baloney. Maybe he isnt lying maybe he is ignorant but he spews a lot of nonsense. He said there was no such thing as an implied contract that there are more native Americans today than when Columbus landed. He also said Tufts university did a study about bra size vs IQ, he clearly made that up and of course its a lie. The stat is worthless. If he says democrat Pelosi, speaker of the house was in washington today that is three true statements and then if he follows with a lie about her its still 75% correct. The man admitted to lying to his audience when he said he was tired of carrying water for policies so bad even the GOP congress couldnt make good arguments for them. You are being played for a fool by this guy he has told you to your face you are and you still lap it up. How pathetic is that. Trust me. Rush hates people like me because we will never buy his bilge but when he is at his country club sipping his hundred year old Cognac and smoking his Cuban cigar he has nothing but contempt for people like you an laughs at you with his friends IF he has any.
It is hard to define hate speech. For example if I call Rosie a "fat witch", yes most people will say that is hate speech. But if you call Michael Moore a "Fat Slob" that might be considered the truth. So would we ban calling Michael Moore a "Fat Slob" ? I don't know the answers to these questions but the idea of banning general "hate speech" is a hard to get a handle on.
How about this, then, as a rule of thumb for Hate Speech:
Does your particular name have (1) any bearing on the issue (being "fat" doesn't eliminate you from having a political opinion, and neither does being a "witch" or a "slob."), (2) have any deep-seated connotations involving prejudice on a racial scale (whether in reference to racial groups or to persecutors, such as Nazis), and (3) have any basis in reality? (too numerous to mention, but let's say "homosexual mafia")
If the parts of your speech meet any of these three criteria, don't bring it into a logical discussion.
"So would we ban calling Michael Moore a "Fat Slob" ?"
It seems to me you have a problem with deductive reasoning. If you are discussing an issue and you attack the appearance of another clearly hate is the motivation. The choice of the phrase "fat slob" instead of overweight is hateful, but neither one of these decriptions has any bearing on the issue it is used to influence listeners that are bigots to dismiss an arguement based on predjudice instead of facts.
Go to a job interview looking like a fat slob. All other things being equal you are far less likely to get the job. If you eat all day you are undisciplined and care nothing for your own body, and are less likely to care about your job.
Just saw a documentary on TV about the obese. It seems they have more hunger based on the number of fat cells in their body. So it's not a fair match if you're skinny but not hungry versus a fat guy who's always hungry. I had always looked at it the same way as you.
"Go to a job interview looking like a fat slob."
Skettle,
My prior roommate work on missle programming code. He has a photographic memory and is a genius. And yes he dresses like a slob as did ever other genius employed at his company. The company gave them passcards to work whatever hours worked for their lifestyle because so many genius are eccentric and unorthodox. Most people without above-average IQs have trouble "conforming" or caring about the superficial and I can assure you they are well paid and employed.
Correction: Most people WITH above-average IQs have trouble "conforming" or caring about the superficial and I can assure you they are well paid and employed.
I never said anything about a fat slob having a lower IQ. I would though say they are in general less disciplined than others. And being fat is just not about being superficial or conforming. It leads to many health problems - including diabetics, heart problems, erectile dysfunction etc. They certainly lie to themselves if they think eating so much food is helping them in any way.
Nice squirm wiggle worm.
Love that one size fits all conservative mentality! If you are not prosperous, it means you are not disciplined. If you are not disciplined, you cannot be moral. Therefore, you deserve your poverty.
And to address your earlier post about your academic scholarship, you may very well be a real smart dude, but scholarships are as much an indication of motivation as intelligence. Don't confuse them.
Also, don't confuse training with education. There is amountain of difference between the two.
If you are not prosperous, it means you are not disciplined. If you are not disciplined, you cannot be moral. Therefore, you deserve your poverty.
To me being an obese slob is an indication a lack of discipline. I also do not think anybody deserves poverty - but I don't think that because I'm rich I should be forced to pay for a poor person lazy person to sit at home, unless they are a single mom or have medical problems etc. I will employ a person to do housework, shovel the driveway, run errands for me but I don't think I should be forced to pay for them to sit at home. It is amazing how well hunger motivates people. I would like to replace "welfare" with "workfare". Give these poor people a job - a sense of dignity for crying out loud. If they work hard they can probably slim down - and will have less free time to raid the fridge.
You obviously do think folks deserve their poverty if you think that poverty is directly proportional to will power. So many people work two and three jobs just to have four or five dollars left at the end of the month. My mom was one of them.
Here's how I see it. Do it yourself without roads, the internet or police protection and see how well you do in the market. Take your tax cut and see how much of an infrastructure you create with it. It's as if conservatives always want the benefits of living in a prosperous society without having to give back any of the rewards afforded them by living in that community.
But you think you're being forced to pay for someone to sit around? That allegiance to stereotypes is amusing. So undrestand this, that you are investing your tax dollars in an infrastructure that protects and empoweers your ability to prosper. Ultimately, if the risk of failure is shared among all of us by pooling together the common wealth for the common good, we can then all share in the rewards of success. For liberals the ethic of personal responsibility includes being responsible for the well being of our community, not just ourselves.
If you're such a big supporter of the 1 amendment then you should actually learn what types of speech are protected under said amendment. Keeping your job when voicing an a viewpoint isn't protected under the 1st.
If you care to test this theory, go into work and call a black female co-worker a "nappy ho".
NO ONE is talking about taking conservatives off the air because of their ideological bent Mr strawman. Actions have consequences, people being racist and offensive might get fired off the radio just like they would from MY JOB for being saying racist and offfensive things. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. No matter how often you pretend there is it DOESNT EXIST.
As you were asked before, can you provide actual examples of these so called left wing talk show hosts who bash America and are anti-American? You can't. Because they don't exist. There isn't one left, or right wing talk show host out there who has ever said, I hate America. What a crock of shiite you're pushing.
"There isn't one left, or right wing talk show host out there who has ever said, I hate America"
Of course they wouldn't. The left wing hosts just talk about how America is a greedy capitalistic country that exploits poor countries and uses most of the world's resources.
Then, Rino, by your logic, none of them hate America. Remember how you kept defending Snow in that Blitzer thread about linking 9/11 and Iraq? You told us that unless Bush said something like "Iraq directed 9/11" we could not infer that. These are your rules, not ours because you never answered why our troops in Iraq thought they were avenging 9/11.
Not so much.
Lefties talk about our patriotic duty to correct that which has gone wrong with our country. We talk about our patriotic duty to question our leaders and captains of industry as a matter of holding them responsible for violating fundamental American principles and values.
What you think is hate is actually love of country. Big suprise you would think love is hate.
Roundhouse, I have no doubt that you and most liberals love the USA. Just my two cents. I also believe most conservatives love the USA as well.
Right on, man. I would agree. I just couldn't let rino slide on that generalization.
It's more likely rino you merely believe liberals hate America because someone is feeding you that line. Give me an example of anything that comes remotely close to "hating America." Please. Because the intellectually lazy and historically ignorant hate America. That would be people like yourself. People who would willingly swallow propaganda and direct animosity towards fellow Americans also hate America. Why do you hate America Rino? Why does Rush Limbaugh hate America? Why does Bush hate America?
"Seriously, why would anybody want to listen to some boring host who didn't generate any controversy?"
I listen to NPR all day every day in order to educate myself and learn about the world. I am not interested in "shock jock controversy" I am interested in facts.
It is sad that you admit you only want to be "shocked" and hear offensive material as opposed to actually learning and bettering yourself as a human being. I can assure you that there are millions of people who do not listen to hate speech as a form of entertainment.
Clearly this is the root of your all of your posts, you are uneducated and not interested in gaining understanding. You do not seek out knowledge instead you cling to predjudices and superstitions (and shock jocks who tell you how "normal" hate is) and would never allow facts or compassion to change your world view.
"Clearly this is the root of your all of your posts, you are uneducated and not interested in gaining understanding"
You don't know me, so don't pretend that you do. For the record, I had a 26 on my ACT in high school and a 3.9 GPA, and a 3.8 GPA in college. I'm just as educated as anybody here. Ya, I listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. And no, it's not "hate speech" in any way. Hate speech to a liberal is simply anything that is said that doesn't promote a liberal worldview or liberal agenda. It's something that the left throws out there to try to silence conservatives, since they can't beat us in the arena of ideas. Shows by Rush, Hannity and the like are both informative and entertaining. Shows on NPR are informative but not entertaining. I would rather have both. I watch C-Span as well and listen to the "neutral" journalists on TV. I also visit liberal websites like this one. I'm not afraid to hear from those with whom I disagree. I can handle opposing view points. I'm not like you and your fellow liberals who simply try to silence those with whom you disagree.
Rino charges, Rino misses
You don't know me, so don't pretend that you do.
Pardon me, but the great (and failed) attempts at mindreading on this site is a standard tactic of your side, not ours. You provide examples below.
For the record, I had a 26 on my ACT in high school and a 3.9 GPA, and a 3.8 GPA in college.
And this doesn't stop you from saying some pretty foolish things.
I'm just as educated as anybody here.
Wrong. There have been several contributors here with doctorates.
Ya, I listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. And no, it's not "hate speech" in any way.
You not only listen to them, you're apparently blind to the reasonable arguments against them. There have been many examples of their hate speech given on this site alone, and your denial of it doesn't make it go away.
Hate speech to a liberal is simply anything that is said that doesn't promote a liberal worldview or liberal agenda.
Nonsense. Liberals want a multiplicity of views, and always have. Spare us your projections.
It's something that the left throws out there to try to silence conservatives, since they can't beat us in the arena of ideas.
Wrong twice more. The left is not trying to silence anyone, despite your tireless (and tiresome) repetition to the contrary; and if there was an actual 'arena of ideas,' in which both sides get equal time to present their viewpoints, the conservatives wouldn't stand a chance.
Shows by Rush, Hannity and the like are both informative and entertaining.
If you enjoy being misinformed, I suppose.
Shows on NPR are informative but not entertaining. I would rather have both.
You're willing to sacrifice a lot of integrity for those chuckles, aren't you?
I watch C-Span as well and listen to the "neutral" journalists on TV.
That does you credit.
I also visit liberal websites like this one. I'm not afraid to hear from those with whom I disagree. I can handle opposing view points.
And you apparently can handle being proven wrong, since it happens repeatedly and yet you keep coming back for more.
By the way, it's "viewpoints," Mr. 3.9. Take it from an old English teacher.
I'm not like you and your fellow liberals who simply try to silence those with whom you disagree.
This is just as wrong as the many other times you've trotted out this canard. And please give up the mindreading and the broad brush. These are tactics that wouldn't have scored well in any debate class.
You can always spot the MMFA fanatics who have lost their argument. They really get ticked off.
Seemed like a very reasonable point for point rebuttal that refrained from name calling or hyperbole. Who's the fanatic?
You can alwasy tell the Planet wingnut trolls that dont have an argument they accuse someone who just put up a well reasoned analytical refutation of being mad despite all evidence to the contrary.
I love wingnut "logic". Thanks for the laugh. I haven't heard an argument so well laid out since second grade.
; )
I guess they are a new kind of animal. Shock jocks dressed up in conservative clothing.
The American public needs to toughen up, grow some thick skin and STFU. We used to call each other names as kids. We used to play on playgrounds that weren't coated in protective shock absorbing foam. We used to play in the street and hit balls with sticks.
Political correctness is turning our country into a whiny bunch of whimpy <slang for cats>. What happened to "sticks and stones..." ?
Steroetypes exist for a reason. Lots of lesbians are usually hefty man-looking. Lots of gay men are effeminate. Lots of Asian people talk with an accent, so do lots of Latinos. Trailer trash crackers wear stupid clothes and like to smoke. Some blacks like to commit crimes. Some white-collar honkey businessmen like to screw the common man. Cab drivers are often foreigners with hygeine problems.
There are real issues to deal with such as health care for all, improving education, keeping crime OUT of our country by securing our borders. Let's divert this useless waste of PC energy and try to cure cancer (I've lost four friends in four months to cancer). Priorities people!
So, why is your skin so thin that you feel you must respond?
Lots of lesbians are also hot-looking women, lots of gay men are also buff burly men, lots of asians and latinos also have no acccents, lots of cabbies also smell pretty, cannonfodder.... you are a walking, talking example of why people SHOULD be called out for negatively streotyping people in order to disenfranchise them.... and, please, grow a thick hide and do not respond to posts you don't like- it'll make you seem soooooo much more macho...
Beck says there's a "leftist witch hunt"
Hillary once told either Matt or Katie [I've forgotten which] that there was a "vast Right-Wing conspiracy"
Mostly personal observations/opinions folks. And both may have a tad of truth to them. Guess it depends which side of the aisle you're sitting on on whether you'll admit that.
It just sounds more sinister to use terms like "witch hunt" & "conspiracy" to some people.
No doubt the Right wanted to cripple Bill Clinton [though let's not forget he helped them out by playing around with Monica]
And the Left would love to silence Limbaugh & the rest of Conservative talk radio for a myriad of reasons, [and these guys often help the crusade against them by the Left by spouting some pretty offensive remarks at times]
You continue to make this baseless assertion.
We want hate speech to be unacceptable. Why don't you?
You continue to make this baseless assertion.
Could you be more specific? What "baseless assertion" are you referring to?
We want hate speech to be unacceptable. Why don't you?
Excuse me George, but where have I ever said or even implied that I thought "Hate Speech" should be acceptable? Did you simply pull that one out of your ass?
What do you define as "Hate Speech"? Is it poking fun at Hillary's voice? Rosie's weight? Bill's roving ways? See I don't consider that hateful.
Now if your talking bigoted or racial slurs, then I don't believe I, or any Conservative on this forum has ever said we approved of such a thing. For the record, I don't.
So kindly make a note of that & knock off implying otherwise.
Oh, and there clearly was and still is a vast right wing conspiracy.
Hillary was wrong about a conspiracy that invented an affair. The affair was real. It was not invented by a conspiracy. It was uncovered because of a conspiracy, though. It was a conspiracy that cost our country about $70 million dollars and resulted in no findings of major misdeeds by Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Conspiracy:
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
There is not, nor was there ever some Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I'd say it was pretty much out there for all to see. From Rush Limbaugh on the radio to David Brock writing in the American Spectator. BOTH sides engage in digging up dirt & spouting off against the other side. It's all out there in the open, which pretty much squelches your "conspiracy" B.S.
I guess Brock is doing penance for helping to contribute to that $70 million dollars it cost our country by bringing you MMFA ;-)
Are you implying that conservatives didn't get together in secret and scheme to bring Clinton down? Because they did. And Brock was part of it. He has atoned for his sins. But there most definitely was a vast right wing conspiracy. Not much will sway me on that.
Are you implying that conservatives didn't get together in secret and scheme to bring Clinton down? Because they did.
So where did this happen? When did this happen? Who was in attendance?
Did they ALL meet at some secret hideaway in the Rocky mountains? On an Caribbean island? A Texas ranch? A cave in Afghanistan? An expensive Florida resort where they played a little golf when they weren't *conspiring*?
Was it a one day meeting? A weekend? A week? Who ran the meeting? Who brought refreshments?
And if Brock attended the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy meeting, and now heads the Witch Hunt....does that make him a Double Agent??
Unless you have photographs, video, or minutes from the *meeting*, then I'm not buying there ever was any Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Isn't it more likely that they just simply fed off each other.
For example: Limbaugh would suggest Clinton did this or that...and other Right-Wingers picked up on it and repeated his charges? Or the American Spectator did the Troopergate story and Rush & others talked about it on their radio programs? Or in their columns?
If you have proof that *they* got together secretly to scheme to bring Clinton down, then provide some credible evidence please.
Read "Blinded by the Right", Brock, D.
And remember he was part of that VRWC. His story is FROM THE INSIDE.
I know that mainstream conservatives like Jeter2 aren't part of that group, but there was a concerted and coordinated effort to embarrass the Clintons and ultimately impeach Bill.
I don't know why the idea of a VRWC is still ridiculed by the right in some quarters when there is ample evidence it indeed existed.
When we were kids we called each other names. Yeah, then some of us grew up.
Except YOU are the one doing the whining. WWAAHHHH, stop holding my wingnut idols accountable for their actions. WWAAHHHH. We GET to be offensive bigotted and hatefilled on YOUR airwaves, WWAAAAHHHH. Its the rightwings God given right. WWWAAAAHHHH stop standing up for yourselves and calling a bigot a bigot, stop standing up for yourselves and demanding an input into how YOUR airwaves are being used, WWAAHHHHHH.
Rino and Tommy,
If you were sponsoring someone who started to spout views that you did not agree with, would you keep giving them money? If you withdrew your initial support are you censoring this individual? That is what you seem to be saying when individuals, or in this case websites, are simply telling the sponsors of these programs what they think of their content. Is that wrong? Is that censorship Rino or is that your beloved free market?
Rino, I know we have been over this before, but no one is considering jailing any of these people for their thoughts. Please tell me you are not a lawyer if this is your interpretation of free speech. Also, please post examples of liberals hating America for me. I have listened to many talk show hosts who disagree with the leaders of this country and bash their decisions, but I am not familiar with those who hate the country. If someone challenges your beliefs do they hate them?
Frankly, the censorship schtick is getting old. What you are basically espousing is that if sponsors decide not to support a show anymore, they are advocating censorship. If a liberal host said the things that you are accusing them of, you have every right (and should) to bring those statements to the people who are funding the individual to challenge them. Challenge them to see if they support what their money is paying for. Is that not the American way?
And, also, for rino... you keep saying 'police-loke state'. 'stalinism', etc... let's not get hyperbolic here, buddy, just think of it all as 'air-wave PARENTING'- it has a less negative connotation and is a more accurate portrayal of what is going on... if my kid is being bad and calling people names because he doesn't like them, I punish him- I don't put him in jail, I ground him and make him apologize...
This is what I'm really talking about. Liberal Democrats in Congress are getting ready to introduce a bill that would reenstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051407/content/01125106.guest.html
Please provide a site that at least has some semblance of neutrality and try to answer my questions regarding censorship.
The Fairness Doctrine is government censorship of the media. David Brock has been known to be a big supporter of the Doctrine. Democrats in Congress are going to introduce it. Here's a neutral link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine
Much better, now care to respond to my post about free market v. censorship?
Yeah, censoring lying and misinformation is such a terrible thing. Listen Rino the Fairness Doctrine was in place and we had a reasonably good main stream media that actually informed the public. The free market version of media does not. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives capitalism a pass.
I'm still waiting for someone on the right to explain to me how requiring broadcasters to allow both sides of an issue to be expressed (i.e. The Fairness Doctrine) is somehow censorship of suppression of free speech. It seems to me that opposing the doctrine supports a willingness to suppress opposing speech.
I know, that's a little too complicated for the average Limbaugh listener to understand.
Typical Dem mindset.. Lets pass a bill to make this stop... Lets pass a bill to make everyone fair and equal... blah blah blah.. It IS a form of censorship that should not get passed.. It will only lead to other laws that slowly creep in and take away our freedom and rights..
It is NOT a form of censorship to mandate both sides of an issue be heard. Thats ludicrous and you just repeating that it is amounts to nothing more than wishing it were so. The fairness doctrine was around for a long time before it was stripped by a Republican president. The AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE PUBLIC, we have a right to a say in how they are used. Saying that propaganda does NOT perform the public service function that was part of the deal that allowed commercial users to make bazillions off of OUR resource and that balanced informative programing does is NOT censorship. The right can still push their propaganda its just that the other side is also given. IF the policies and ideas the rightwing is so fond of are better they should have no problem with the other side being heard.
If not done extremely carefully it could lead to censorship or one party gaining effective political control of the airways. You would have to make the enforcing body totally unable to be influenced by a political party. That may seem like an easy thing to do but in reality it can be quite difficult. For example the supreme court is suppose to be not political but many liberals will say it is because of Bush's appointments. It is very hard to keep an agency from being immune to politics.
We had the fairness doctrine for decades when it was being eliminated I dont remember any accusations of bias. All the arguments were free market arguments.
What I am saying is that the fairness docterine could lead to bias. I think the goverment should be prudent about tinkering around with free speech. You better know exactly what you are doing. And if you are going to tinker around with speech, to be fair you must examine all speech in govt controlled areas - like in public schools and universities, since they are funded by the govt. The FCC has already been used in a bias way, one could claim, in the repeal of the fairness docterine - acting in favor of one poltical party, namely the republicans. Others would claim the repeal was in the public interest of free speech, as the FCC stated, when they did the repeal.
"Fight the doctrine which slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual." (Ellsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead, p. 669, Centennial edition.)
And exactly HOW does mandating both sides of a publish issue be heard censorship? Its actually the OPPOSITE of censorship. Then again that has been pointed out to you before. You seem afraid that without the exclusivity of having the one sided propaganda pounded day after day your side would have no chance in an arena of ideas. Well you are probably right about that.
"If you were sponsoring someone who started to spout views that you did not agree with, would you keep giving them money"
Ya, as long as they were getting good ratings. If they were a failure like Air America, then I would stop giving them money. It's all about ratings, not this PC garbage that the left throws out there. You're advocating censorship when you say that you want Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. off the air. In the case of simply boycotting advertisers, that's your Constitutional right as well, and you can do that if you want. I guess you could say that that would be legal censorship. But if you want to impose The Fairness Doctrine on talk radio, that is something that is unconstiutional in my opinion. I believe that the current Supreme Court would overturn the previous ruling and strike the Doctrine down. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are all big advocates of the 1st Amendment and have already made it clear that they view campaign finance laws as being unconstitutional.
I never mentioned the Fairness Doctrine, Rino.
So, good we have some common ground. Since Imus's sponsors withdrew their support it was not censorship. They were just exercising their rights as Americans.
If the same thing happens, and enough people boycott the sponsors of Limbaugh, et al, this is not censorship, but rather the free market working.
Your cries of censorship are meaningless when you ignore the Fairness Doctrine and see that most of what has happened here has to do with economics.
By the way, if you are a true moral values "Republican," how could you put your money behind a show just because of ratings if the host stood for everything you might be against?
To me, that is frightening.
Obviously you do not understand Republicans, the free-market, capitalism and economics if you had to ask that question. When you learn all you can about all of those things, you will then be a conservative and will understand the frustration with libs that most conservatives have.
Whatever. Plenty of liberals understand and even thrive in the market. How else do you presume cons made the stupid meme, limosine liberal, stick?
How much would it cost you to sell-out? If you did, could you still stand on principle or is that a sinking ship?
You forgot the lobotomy. I could never become a conservative without one.
AirAmerica is still on the radio you know. Adding new markets too. Are you aware Fox News lost some 30 million before turning a profit? Probably not. But again free market capitalism doesn't provide the best product it produces the most desirable. This country wasn't founded in capitalism, it was founded in, well, read the Constitution. Nothing about free markets and rights for corporations and a whole lot about preserving individual liberty for everybody. Not just the wealthy and the business owners. I think you need to reread the USC. You would find the Fairness Doctrine is in the publics interest and very much Constitutional. You're right about the right wing conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court though. It just goes to show conservatives have no respect for legal precedent. Besides, someone would have to bring it before them in a legal case which is doubtful to happen. Cons got rid of it because they claimed that insisting the public airwaves had actual balanced debate and news was too liberal. Well here we are 20 years later and the populace is more ignorant than ever. Good one Ronnie.
"It just goes to show conservatives have no respect for legal precedent"
If the precedent was incorrectly decided, then it should be overturned. Precedent is never binding. Liberals all of a sudden care about precedent because they want to preserve the judicial activism that has occured over the past few decades.
Please note which justices most often disagreed with Congress before you call liberal justices activist, ok?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090
If Congress passes laws that infringe on states' rights and are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court has an obligation to strike those laws down. It's not judicial activism to ensure that the federal government doesn't take an unconstitutional amount of power away from the states.
Wrong again Rino. You're batting 1000! Liberals have always beeninterested in precedence. Look at decisions of SCOTUSsince it's inception. Roe v Wade for example was rooted in legal precedent. You ever read it? They site case after case of previous SCOTUS decisions and opinions.
"Roe v Wade for example was rooted in legal precedent"
You're right. It was based off of another judicial activist decision in which the Supreme Court created a Constitutional right to contraception. Thanks for pointing that out.
Are you a lawyer Rino? Please enlighten us practicing lawyers with more dazzling legal analysis. What is judicial activism? What speech does the 1st amendment protect?
So, Rino, you would like the government to regulate contraception? I thought you would be against government that would be that big
It has been joked that most conservatives want a government that is just big enough to fit in your bedroom.
Precedent is never binding? Ever hear of stare decis? It isnt absolute.
I agree with you, if Kennedy is a strong defender of free speech. Also many people do not know but congress did not repeal the fairness docterine. It was the FCC that did. Trying to force the FCC to do something is likely to be interpreted by the courts as a political party trying to limit free speech for political gain. Such a move by congress would be viewed with skeptical eyes.
I doubt that. The FCC is a regulatory agency. Congress has every right to set standards for it. That would be like saying if the FDA allowed lower standards for e coli in beef Congress would have no right to write a law demanding stronger standards. Anyway the fairness doctrine was around for decades and the court didnt think it an undue burden nor did they find anything wrong with it. It takes a lot of wishing to think they would all of a sudden come up with an objection they didnt have for decades when it was in effect.
You are missing an essential point. Setting a higher standard for e-coli does not hurt one political party. Requiring the FCC to bring back the fairness docterine does hurt a political party, which is precisely why the democrats want it back - to hurt the republicans using the facade of "unbias" and "hate speech". Requiring university political science departments to be unbiased would likely be opposed by the democrats because they would see it as hurting their political party.
Instead of saying facade above - I should have said the "red herring" of hate speech and unbias.
Yeah its all about the ratings which is why Donahue was taken OFF the air when he was the top rated show on his entire network. Wait that doesnt make sense. NO its not all about ratings its about ADVERTISING which is dominated by the business community and if you dont think they have a ideological agenda then you are very naive.
I think Beck nailed it. The state of right wing hate radio is due to capitalism and the lack of the Fairness Doctrine. Solution? Re-enact it! But cons won't like that because they may have to actually not lie.
Dixie Chicks?
Beck is a poop stain on the bedsheets of life.
Get over it. When media folks abuse their power to attack private citizens they violate a public trust.
When Condi and other public citizens are attacked they have equal or greater power footing and media access to respond to these attacks. Private citizens have no such luxury and as such their rights are violated.
This is a classic false compromise, just like Beck's refutations of global warming. If one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.
Rhino, that business about Rush was hate speech? Come on Rush is the man who first said all drug users should be locked up but forgot that he would have to be locked up also. If he had no problem with drugs or his use of them why hire Roy Black? The only reason that this could be taken as hate speech is because Rush has never admitted that he used illegal drugs therefore you can call it hate speech because Rush has never publicly admitted that he used drugs. The truth is in his records but as long as he says he didn't do it it's not true. Pleaseeee
More misdirection by the trolls...
1. The issue is about Beck not Rosie.
2. The issue is not one of free speech but corporate media pandering to ratings and not news.
3. We can rightly criticize CNN for cloaking Beck in the mantle of a "news commentator" while he is continues to say the things he says. If CNN wants to put on a show hosted by Beck and titled "All the Stupid Things That Are In My Head" then let it be so.
Face it. This is all about how much you lefties hate these individuals. Plan and simple. Come on and call a spade a spade. These guys are like fingernails down a chalkboard to your ears. Don't hide behind "hate speech" and boycotting sponsors. Just shut it off. You'll start ruining my drive time if you get'em cancelled for Christ's sake.
Well Henry your wrong. We actually feel the way we do. You obviously think otherwise but we actually are p.o.ed about hate speech and a lack of decent media. You can cling to this idea we are all being dishonest by not claiming we just hate them. Like most things in life it's a little more complicated than just hating for hatings sake. If you can't comprehend that we might "dislike" or criticize someone for actual reasons maybe you should try another board.
I'm guessing you don't watch Comedy Central either.. America is about choice.. the entertainment field has ramped up pushing the line on what can be considered moral (to some)... I personally enjoy some of the off-hand entertainment stuff... my wife generally doesnt.. So I don't indulge when she wants to watch something together.. But she doesn't want to trade me in because of it..
Isn't the entertainment field considered "liberal" in general.. hmmm
2 points:
I didn't know we were talking entertainment. 2) If Hollywood is liberal, why do Righties jump on any politician who acted before? Arnie, Fred Thompson and Ronnie....
Beck says that only far left special interest groups are angered over the airing of the homeless man's grotesquely vulgar rape fantasies? That is completely backwards, if the homeless man wanted to press his case, excercise his free speech rights, would the CEI pony up the cash to take his case to the supreme court, or would it more likely be the ACLU? Surely he (Beck) can't believe that most people would consider the airing of rape fantasies of famous women abhorrent? His logic is so twisted, it circles around and appears to make sense to him. But what can we expect, it would be impossible for anyone to work the schedule he does and have fresh well thought out opinions, backed up with thourough research. Thus the inane repitition of the same lame talking points over and over.
Well, I made it. It took 45 minutes but I read all 156 comments on this subject. Unfortunately, all I've learned from our esteemed right-wing visitors is that they adore drooling morons and if you don't like it, you're an America-hater.
Can I at least negotiate a refund of 20 minutes of my life?
Wow! And I just jumped to the end and got a good laugh.
Thanks!
In case you missed Bill Mahar talking about media matters:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/15/video-bill-maher-rips-media-matters/
That has been discussed before. I don't think Maher has any real idea what this site does.
Maher can also be excused because what happened to Maher on Politically Incorrect was prett close to how Maher must have felt about what happened to Imus.
I like Maher a lot, but he is entitled to being wrong at times just like anyone else.
Right behind you JS. I thought Savage for prez was pretty sane today. Tommy was himself and I'll leave it at that, Rino too.
The site's side were their usual determined comptitent selves.
The best thing I see on hate speach is noting it, and comenting on it. I think of the Chinese Water Torture in how this operates. Its not fancy but it works. A major difference is the amount of effort it takes to do what mmfa does. I've thanked them before and I do so again.
Amen! And I protect Bill Mahar's right to call MMFA sissies:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/15/video-bill-maher-rips-media-matters/
Man this takes a lot of work !
I'm going to bed.
Eweston, in case I missed MICHAELSAVAGEFORPRESIDENT somewhere today, and you mean me, I'm not a conservative or a Republican or a rightwinger.
You are yourself, and I'm glad. Sunday you sounded like charges of defiling your god M.S. were about to start flying about. You were correct about the Neocon thing I wouldn't normally accuse M.S. of this, and I don't remember leveling that at him, but I lose tract on occasion.
What I'm finding annoying in these threads that spill over into the fairness doctrine and MORA and such, is that so many of these conservatives project their desires to dominate, force and constrain speech onto equal time legislation.
I think they need to consider their change the channel arguments from the point of view that they too can change the channel. They won't of course. They know the market is fixed, that competition is unequal, that there is collusion to exclude voices that favor progressive populism.
The market is manipulated by dishonest players, they just happen to be players who share the market fundamentalist views that conservatives here hold.
The Beaver wants us to all get along these days, but the fact is the Beav has been perhaps one of the more divisive voices on radio. Reaping what you sow comes to mind.
Note to The Beaver: Look up "hypocrisy" and "credibility" in the dictionary. You can find dictionaries at most book stores.