Savage continued to label supporters of the Fairness Doctrine "Nazis"
On the May 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called Democrats who support the proposed Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA), "National Socialists," continuing his pattern of comparing Democratic supporters of MORA to "Nazis." MORA would reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," which, until 1987, required "that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage," as the Supreme Court wrote when it upheld the doctrine in 1969.
Citing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, Savage said: "If Senator Mitch McConnell will be the first to stand up against ... the National Socialists in the Democrat [sic] Party who are trying to ban free speech in this country, I will vote for any Republican." Later in the program, Savage directed a caller to an article on his website about the Chinese Cultural Revolution, saying, "[T]he reason I want you to do that is because there are people in this country who would gladly line up conservatives and shoot them against the wall." When the caller responded that those who would do so are "mentally insane," Savage replied, "No, they're not. They're mainstream progressives." He added: "They're no different than the Bolsheviks in 1917."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage has repeatedly compared Democrats to "Nazis." On the May 2 broadcast of his radio show, Savage called MORA's author, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY), the "chief National Socialist," adding that Hinchey is seeking "the final solution for conservatives on talk radio." Additionally, on the May 11 broadcast, Savage denounced Rep. Robert Wexler's (FL) questioning of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales during a May 10 congressional hearing about the firing of U.S. attorneys: "The last time I saw a politician scream at someone like that was in Nazi Germany in the kangaroo court trial against people who conspired to kill Hitler."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the May 15 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: I just got an email. I have to read it to you because our time is almost up -- I want to do so many things at once. Thank God we finally have a Republican [who has] stepped up to the plate. This came to us minutes ago: "McConnell Blasts Efforts to Limit Freedom of Speech ... 'Government is not the speech police.' "
Michael Savage just got this. "U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement regarding attempts by Democrats to revive the misnamed Fairness Doctrine." He said our -- and I want to read it to you. I can't rush through this. I will say this: If Senator Mitch McConnell will be the first to stand up against the neo -- the National Socialists in the Democrat Party, who are trying to ban speech in this country, I will vote for any Republican. I'll vote for him for the presidency, if he wants to run.
[...]
SAVAGE: Well, you know what I want you to do tonight? Go onto michaelsavage.com and look at the bottom-left story -- "The Chinese Cultural Revolution: Remembering Mao's Victims" -- and how socialism in China led to the Red Revolution and what happened to people in that country, how many millions were killed by Mao Zedong.
CALLER: I will do that, Michael.
SAVAGE: And the reason I want you to do that is because there are people in this country who would gladly line up conservatives and shoot them against the wall. You know that, don't you, [caller]?
CALLER: Well, those are the mentally insane people.
SAVAGE: No, they're not. No, they're not. They're mainstream progressives. They would gladly line up thousands of people against the wall and shoot them if they had the power to do so and think they could get away with it. They're no different than the Bolsheviks in 1917. I'll be right back.
i dont get the fairness doctrine. if having ben stein on al franken's show to counter al franken causes his ratings to plummet because ben stein is sooo boring and monotone, it isn't a good thing. having david brock on michael savage would be entertaining but its sort of like forcing a radio host to have a co-host and thus takes control away from the people. we need to work toward smaller government here, not larger govt with federal oversight over everything from speech to thought.
The fairness doctrine does not require every show to be balanced. It does require every licensee to be balanced.
The MORA of 2005 (H.R. 3302) merely said, "A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."
Sadly, all this fuss about MORA seems to be about nothing. I see no evidence that it has been reintroduced in 2007. Hinchey told Raw Story in January that he would, but it has not happened yet.
"i dont get the fairness doctrine"
The thing that you need to understand is that most liberals are now adamently opposed to free speech and a free press. They seek to silence conservatives through government censorship since they can't beat them in the arena of ideas. Liberal talk radio has been an abysmal failure, because very few people buy into their far left, Anti-American views. So liberals just try to "level the playing field" through government censorship. It's pathetic and disgusting.
no one is advocating censorship. if that's your only argument, you're out of talking points.
MEFIRST, et all,
Two Democrat congressmen recently proposed bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine”. RINO HUNTER is right in noting that liberal talk radio has been a failure in the market place. By contrast, conservative talk radio is doing very well. The fairness doctrine is de facto censorship in that it puts the burden on the broadcaster to totally change his way of doing business, i.e. that he schedules “equal time” at equally good times for opposition political statements. This loses listeners rapidly as they simply don’t listen to something they don’t want to hear. If you argue, for example, that one quarter of the broadcast day is devoted to political right wing talk radio, then under the fairness doctrine, you are forced to squeeze left wing opinion in on an equal time basis. Zap! There goes a lot of the market that you would otherwise have.
By contrast, the radio frequency broadcast spectrum for TV is dominated by liberal-biased media (NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.). The FCC has rule over these just as they do the AM and FM audio bands. Yet, there has historically been no fairness doctrine (correct me if I’m wrong, but this is my recollection) imposition on what are deemed “news broadcasts”. That is the crux of the issue. NBC, ABC, and CBS would claim that their news broadcasts are unbiased. BUT, there bias is legend! (Read, for example “Bias” or “Arrogance” both by Bernard Goldberg, a CBS insider who never voted for a Republican in his life.)
So, conservative talk radio’s argument is basically “why should we be forced to live under the fairness doctrine when the liberal TV “news” broadcasts are not”
first of all, you keep repeating this false nonsense that liberal radio is a failure. untrue, the ed schultz show has done very well in several markets and yet has a hard time getting air time. meanwhile right wingers like o'reilly and hannity have fractional ratings in many radio markets. when you have companies owning several stations in some big markets, and all they run is right wing talk, there's a problem. especially since they do not own the airwaves, but are given them on the basis of a promise of serving the public good. as for the rest of your "librul media" talking points, i've heard them all before. the media is owned by big businesses. general electric owns nbc, for instance.
Either Ed Schultz is doing good or he has trouble getting ar time it cannot be both. IF people wanted to listen to him in other markets then he would be on in other markets.
If radio stations weren't controlled by such a small number of companies, your statement would be more believable. It is difficlult to make a free-market generalization about something that more accurately resembles an oligopoly.
"The thing that you need to understand is that most liberals are now adamently opposed to free speech and a free press. They seek to silence conservatives through government censorship since they can't beat them in the arena of ideas." --RinoHunter
Personally, I am leaning towards opposition of the Fairness Doctrine, but I think the paranoia demonstrated by Rino Hunter is pretty entertaining in itself. Remember, the folks that Rino Hunter seemingly admires are the same guys who told the media "You better watch what you say" and censored much of the discussion before and after the war with their bullying tactics.
Claims of "censorship" from proud Republicans like Rino Hunter ring hollow.
I totally agree with Michael Savage. He's right as usual.
Find a mainstream Progressive that advocates any such violence that Savage claims they would delight in.
If anything he says is true, please explain why the mainstream progressives of San Francisco haven't lynched him.
Or anyone at all, ever.
There doing right now in this blog.
It would have been nice to have the internet around during Jim Crowe. I am sure the black folks at the time would have greatly prefered being lynched figuratively on an obscure website as opposed to the real thing.
Savage didn't say that all progressives want to do that, only some.
Did Iflurry say all? He said mainstream just like Mike. You're the one saying mainstream means all.
But since mainstream is usually synonymous with majority you are absolutely wrong in saying Savage said some.
Mike meant exactly what he said, "They're mainstream progressives."
Since there are hardly any progressives in America (Don't confuse "progressive" with "liberal." Progressives are to the left of liberals.), it is possible that "mainstream" progressives would be for what Savage claims that they support.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Round, as Savage has said, liberals oppose the Fairness Doctrine. Progressives support it. There is a difference between the two. Also, you shouldn't end your sentences with prepositions.
Why is ending sentences with prepositions something to be concerned about?
Savage is wrong. Progressives are peaceful.
Stalin was a progressive. Was he peaceful?
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.
Stalin was a fascist.
Now find a mainstream Progressive that desires to kill conservatives by the thousands.
Stalin was a Communist, not a fascist. Get the terminology right. Communists are "progressives." Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive by the standards of his day, but he was no Commie. He'd be a conservative today.
Actually, Rossevelt led the anti-trust charge, which meshes nicely with Hinchey's MORA proposal.
Also, Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. Does that sound like a modern day 'free market' conservative?
Find a mainstream Progressive that desires to kill conservatives by the thousands.
Roundhouse, I don't mind that part of Hinchey's bill. I mind the fairness doctrine. Mainstream conservatives don't oppose anti-trust laws. Like I said, Teddy Roosevelt would be a conservative today. Even though he was a "progressive" back then, he was still a Republican. He was to the right of liberal whackjobs like William Jennings Bryan.
Teddy Roosevelt left the corporate Republican party and created the "Bull Moose" Progressive party.
He was a friend to the labor unions, an early environmentalist, a social progressive, initiated consumer protection acts, exercised diplomacy over military force, the man was a Progressive.
I haven't heard a mainstream conservative of today call for ending the National Park system.
No , the just want to open them up to exploitation by the lumber and mining industries.
Savage saying Stalin was progressive shows how little he knows about the subject. Here's the true Stalin:
The theory of aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism was one of the cornerstones of Stalinism in the internal politics of the Soviet Union. It was put forward by Joseph Stalin in 1933 and supplied a theoretical base for the claim that ongoing repression of political opponents is necessary.
Stalin argued that the further the country would move forward, the more acute forms of struggle will be used by the doomed remnants of exploiter classes in their last desperate efforts - and therefore, political repression was necessary to prevent them from succeeding in their presumed goal of destroying the Soviet Union. Stalin believed that the class enemy could even worm its way into the party claiming to lead a socialist state. He evaluated his associates of the day based on whether they acted on that belief or the belief that a party could have no enemies inside it. Tolerance inside the Party to those who disagreed with the official Party line was called by Stalin "rotten liberalism". He believed such tolerance would make the Party weak and eventually lead to its destruction. As a result, he argued that purges were sometimes necessary
This was from Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravation_of_class_struggle_under_socialism
Now, who would be the exploiter class in modern day america? Hmmm, savage?
Actually, no one killed more communists than Joseph Stalin. He essentially wiped out the entire generation of bolsheviks through his endless rounds of purges. He never demonstrated even the remotest understanding of the political & economic theories advanced by Karl Marx & V I Lenin. Referring to him as a fascist is a reasonable analysis of his actions.
Calling him a progressive, however, is just bizarre. He was hardly a progressive, in ANY sense of the word. Its a case of simply refusing to accept any standard, recognizable definition of the word.
Weak.
Stalin actually supported universal healthcare.
How, by killing everyone so they wouldn't need doctors?
Do you ever tire of pulling lies out of your ass?
And Hitler liked German Shepherds. Does that really say anything good about Hitler or bad about German Shepherds?
"Savage didn't say that all progressives want to do that, only some."
-----
Since the logical definition of the word "some" is "at least one," you will have no problem pointing out one "progressive" who has advocated the nonsense you say Savage is correct about.
hi, mr. scientist, find any links that show cancer cures are not true?? I didn't think so! But to answer your question...because people who live in SF are morons. Complete morons.
There is nothing wrong with freedom of speach. Why is the left trying to federalize it and control it? Why don't they just become better at making money in the media? That way they wouldn't whine all day long about how successful righties are and lefties are NOT! Face it, mr scientist, that's the reason lefties hate conservative media...because it makes money and leftist media losses money. And the greedy lefties want a piece of the pie but since they aren't good enough to cut their own slice they demand the government give it to them! Lefty media= lazy, inept, stupid. Fortunately, the public knows this and that's why they don't pay attention to them.
And once again we are treated to the very stupid rantings of autopsychotic. The wonder without a brain straight from under his bed in his mommys basement. I wont bother explaining to him once AGAIN that there is no free speech issue involved with the fairness docrtine. It would be a waste of electrons. Higher brian function is far beyond his capacity. Its all he can do to remember what the WeinerdogLimbaughHannity radio guy told him what to think today and spew it once again in your direction. If an original thought ever entered his incredibly empty head its likely the shock would induce a coma. So we are treated to his ignorant, logic free rantings, mostly hate and stupidity but a wonder in their consistancy. Consistantly ignorant and worthless.
We can tell who is the one expressing hate! Thanks for the kind words, solon.
Thats not hate its derision. You are far to piteous a character to hate. I dont think about you at all beyond responding to your delusional posts. Why do you think a person who calls the people of San Fransisco complete morons DESERVES any kind words?
Why do you think a person who calls the people of San Fransisco complete morons DESERVES any kind words?
I'm not asking for kind words from you or anyone, simply pointing out that you ONLY express hateful words....just like Savage (IYO) does. Savage doesn't call his words hateful, either. He 'makes up' words to describe it, also. You sound just like Savage, now. Perhaps we should use this new law to remove you from the airwaves? Or force you to express another opinion!
Again, the words are descriptive, not hateful. If the words are accurate, then there is no hatred involved, just skilled observation.
Someone who calls all the inhabitants of an entire city "morons" has no standing to complain about the words used by any other poster.
That is an outright lie. I often make logical and rational debating points. No one who has been here very long can reasonably deny that. However I do that WHEN there is something substantial to debate. When YOU just call names returning serve is the only thing called for. You can lie all you want about me ONLY saying hateful things the regulars here KNOW better and you only make yourself look foolish. I know you wingnuts think things become true because you SAY them but in the reality based universe it doesnt work that way.
"I wont bother explaining to him once AGAIN that there is no free speech issue involved with the fairness docrtine"
You shouldn't be explaining anything, since you're not a teacher and nobody cares what you say anyway. You can make all the excuses you want for the Fairness Doctrine, but the bottom line is that it is a blatant attempt by government to regulate political speech. The government has the right to regulate obscene speech in the media but not political speech. The Supreme Court was wrong in 1967 and no doubt would be over ruled by the current Supreme Court. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are all major free speech defenders, and they would certainly declare the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional if it is ever reinstated.
RINO HUNTER, Solon is a teacher? That would explain a lot.
Not a teacher. I am a conductor on the Railroad. I have been for more than 30 years
It isnt my fault you are a moron. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED period. You seem to think if you say there IS enough times it will magically become true. That is just another of your delusions. The airwaves BELONG TO US. We have a right to a say in how they are used. The fairness docrtine was part of the FCC from its beginning until it was torpedoed by Raygun. As for the Supreme Court I hope you dont mind if we consider THEM a better judge about what is constitutional than YOU. Especially since you are far to ignorant to be taken seriously. How in the WORLD could free speech be infringed by mandating both sides of an issue be heard? The rightwing is terrified that unless their propaganda is sent out WITHOUT any counterview they will never be able to sell their brainwashing to anyone.
I assume this is directed at me... though clarity was never one of Autolycus's strong points.
Happy now? I debunked your claims nobody believed to begin with.
If Weiner was a representative of the good people of San Francisco, I'd agree with you. But he's not. Most of them are no different than the citizens of any of our large cities, so unless you have a beef with America, I'd suggest you back off.
Most of them are no different than the citizens of any of our large cities
"Most" of them are deviants, which classifies them are morons. Obviously, you've never been there, either!
Sorry, mr scientist! But your quack hunters don't do anything to disprove Dr. Otto Warburg's discoveries on the causes and corrections for cancer. You may have disproved the liberals need for medical marijuana with your article, but nothing to disprove what I said. Keep trying.
Geniuses and morons are deviants, also. My guess is you fall in the latter deviation, since you have no idea what you are blathering about.
Most of them are deviants because YOU say so? No, you are a depraved moron without the slightest standing to pass judgement on the majority of residents of an entire city. The two things you consistantly show in your posts is that you are incredibly stupid and have lost all touch with reality so no one in their right mind would give you the slightest credibility on any issue much less the moral or intellectual standing of the residents of any city. You dont have the intellecutal capacity to judge dustbunnies.
Quite frankly, I have no idea what your cancer-curing claims are, but they are probably nonsense, like everything else you say.
How exactly are the people of San Francisco "deviants"? Is it because they don't have anti-sodomy laws? Is it because the divorce rate isn't as high as in the Bible Belt? Is it the Chinese immigrant population?
That supporters of MORA are Nazis? No he isnt right however he is consistant, by which I mean he is still insane
Consistancy isn't limited to Savage...solon!
The comparison fits quite nicely. Nazis controlled the airwaves by saying who goes on and who doesn't. That is the exact same thing this new law would do. So, while you may not like the comparison, the comparison works. And your nazi-ism shows by your support of that law. It makes more sense that the 'progressives' are the nazis, since they are the ones calling for restricting and controlling free speach. I haven't heard too many conservatives calling for restricting or controlling free speach rights, have you??
You havent heard from anyone calling for restricting free speech. You may not like thinking for yourself but try to figure out how in the world mandating both sides of an issue be heard restricts free speech in ANY way. Of course it doesnt, its ludicrous to even say it does. You have to be simple minded in the extreme to even make the claim. Then again you are. Your ignorance is legendary. The law would take no one off the air. Why dont you pull your head out of that dark, dank orifice you keep it in, stop parroting the ignorance that much smarter people who have nothing but contempt for your stupidity have you repeat as if they made sense
No, it wouldn't restrict free speach or remove anyone from the air. Except when someone (who is that someone) thinks the speach is hateful, right? What it would do is force a private enterprise to air opinions that do not financially benefit him/her. If liberal media is such a good thing to hear why are they not listened to? If they were listened to then liberal media wouldn't need to propose such a stupid law! Right? The problem is that you think it's a right to force private business's to fulfill your hateful needs. Have you ever wondered; if liberal media is such a peaceful message, why do they have to resort to extortion to get their message exposed? The only thing you are complaining about with Savage and the others is that they continue to voice their opinions and those opinions sound violent and racist to you. What is it you're after? To allow liberals to voice their violent and racist opinions too on someone else's privately owned media enterprises?? Yeah! That sounds like you want to restrict and/or remove conservative opinions from the airwaves.
First of all, I personally am not an advocate for the fairness doctrine, per se. I am, however against media consolidation because it hampers democracy by limiting opinion and narrows the topics of discourse. When one discusses the media as if it is supposed to be product or a service solely meant to please and entertain consumers I think the true role of the news media is ignored. Democracy is dependent upon a well informed and mobilized populace, and in order to achieve that, the news media must be the fourth estate. The news media must question ALL authority, whether it be corporations, liberal or conservative public servants, or any other powerful organization. If the media is an arm of a corporation, or the government, how can it effectively do it's job? There is a time and place for the free market and it's definite benefits, but the media and it's true democratic role is far too precious to be completely in the hands of any who constitute the upper rungs of hierarchy. The corporations which currently control most of our media do not own the airwaves, they license them from we the people. It is a social contract. We allow for them to use our airwaves, and in return we should expect non biased information and facts. I would not like to remove any of the current voices necessarily, but rather add to them. The problem is not so much with those already in the mainstream media, but rather with the lack of a true wide range of opinion, and a lack of real and complete truth telling. I personally would be happy if there was just one popular mainstream station that was not liberal or conservative, (or as the case may be, corporate) but honest. It should not be about liberal ideas Vs. conservative ideas and who wins out in the marketplace. We should be demanding the whole truth from our media instead of being complacent with simply having our preconceived notions regurgitated to us on the 24/7 news cycle of talking heads and partisan hacks. This is not about right Vs. left, this is about the truth! Take for example, the atrocities committed in East Timor, which was one of the worst genocides of a people since the Holocaust. We barely heard a squeak from the media at the time this was happening. Is it a coincidence that our government was supplying weapons to the Indonesians which made it possible for the genocide against the defenseless Timorese, and our media was complicit in its silence? I believe the only American reporter to actually go to East Timor and cover the genocide was Amy Goodman, for which she was nearly killed. And when she returned, what did she receive for her bravery and truth telling? She was not punished, but merely marginalized by the media; pushed off to the side and virtually ignored. It may be a coincidence except for the fact that it happens all of the time.
continued...
Is it a coincidence that the same companies, such as GE(NBC), who own weapons manufacturing plants which profit from the slaughter of innocent people, also are mostly silent about our governmental and corporate support for for those who would use the weapons bought from us to squelch democracy in other parts of the world? No, it is not a coincidence, it is systemic. How can we object to our corporations and government supporting dictators and militias when we are meant to never find out about it, at least not until it is too late? We need to demand that our media fosters democracy instead of its own private interests. Just because a show or a network is profitable due to support from corporate interests does not somehow mean that it is a winner in the market place of ideas or truth, especially when our MSM choices are crap, crappier, and crappiest. It only means that it does the best job of entertaining and anesthetizing the masses with the least amount of facts that would upset the status quo. If anyone can justify that because the market dictates it, then you will get exactly what you deserve; lies, half truths and selective information. If we were to really look at which t.v. networks are truly surviving in the REAL free market, meaning direct financial viewer support instead of indirect and often unintentional financial support funneled through corporate sponsorship, the only networks I can think of that would qualify would be LINK and, to some extent, PBS. I am pretty sure that LINK takes no money from corporations, unlike PBS, and it is probably the best station on cable t.v. (or t.v. in general) in my opinion. We need to recognize that if we continue to place our information dissemination into the hands of those with a vested interest in keeping us in the dark, we cannot expect to ever really know the truth.
Democracy is dependent upon a well informed and mobilized populace, and in order to achieve that, the news media must be the fourth estate. The news media must question ALL authority, whether it be corporations, liberal or conservative public servants, or any other powerful organization.
And that is one reason I do not understand the lefts hatred of Savage. He attacks both sides of the table and brings all issues to the forefront. Of all those I've heard on radio, he is the only one who attacks both sides. And for this he gets reamed by the lefties because they choose not to agree with his positions. Instead they are in the process of attempting to eliminate him and others the same way they did Imas. Free speach? No, the liberals are against free speach. In fact liberals are the driving force behind this nation turning away from being a democracy. So, while your story about timor was informative, soon (if liberals have their way) you will not even be able to speak of those events without fear of losing your job or livelihood.
I don't hate Savage. I think he is a bit ridiculous, maybe even crazy, but I would never say he should be taken off the air. I don't listen to him, and I don't like him, but I think the key is more diversity, not less. My main concern is media consolidation. Just as I don't want the government controlling my information, I also do not want some monolithic corporation, like clearchannel, controlling my information either. I fear that is what has been taking place more and more with radio, newspaper and television. Although there is the internet, some good alternative press and a small amount of good television, I feel we have to fight just to keep those things pure and out of the hands of corporations. I don't want what is happening in China with google to ever happen here, but if I remember correctly, I think there was some talk in congress about regulating the internet. I think if that were to happen, it would be a huge step toward the death of our democracy. Media deregulation when it pertains to ownership is what scares me.
I wish somehow there was a mainstream news network that was truly fair and balanced, and it reported in depth on everything of importance, instead of spending two weeks straight talking about Anna Nicole. I want true investigative journalism, and it is very rare to find. CNN, MSNBC and FNC are all crap. They're not even news, they are info-tainment, and in FOX case, it is neo-con info-tainment, but it is all propaganda.
Please do not say liberals are against free speech because it is not true. You cannot put us all in one box, we all have different ideas. I disagree with other liberals often. When you say "liberals are the driving force behind this nation turning away from being a democracy", I have to disagree. It is not that simple. Maybe some liberals fall into that category, but it is bigger than that. I believe there are a lot of liberals who are also fighting for democracy. I would never say all conservatives are the same, but some are very authoritarian and they are also part of the problem. I honestly don't buy into the left/right dichotomy too much because it oversimplifies very complex issues.
Please do not say liberals are against free speech because it is not true. You cannot put us all in one box, we all have different ideas.
You're right, I'm sorry. I should say "most" from now on.
I also do not want some monolithic corporation, like clearchannel, controlling my information either.
Maybe this isn't true for other areas, but clear channel operates am 910 (knew) in the bay area. This station has Micael Savage on it's daily program list. Clear channel also owns and operates am 960 (kqke) in the bay area which is a 'progressive' station and carries many air america personalities. Is this the type of ownership and operative equality lefties are after with this law?
"You're right, I'm sorry. I should say "most" from now on." --autopshyche
No. You shouldn't say "most" liberals either. You have demonstrated you have no idea what "most" liberals think with your insipid posts largely consisting of a regurgitated mess of conservative TV/radio talk show strawmen.
Until you can demonstrate you even know what one liberal thinks accurately and intelligently, you should refrain from making a bigger fool of yourself by pretending to know what "most" liberals believe.
First of all, I could easily say most conservatives are selfish and want to impose their narrow idea of morality on the rest of us, but I do not actually believe that because I know better. I may disagree with a lot of conservative ideas, but I understand we may just have a different way of looking at things. But if you want to make yourself look ignorant and judgmental, that is your choice.
Second, I have lived in 3 major cities in the US, and in all three of them popular local stations have been closed down and replaced by generic crap pop radio stations that are not local. Have you ever heard of Minot, North Dakota? I suggest you look into what happened there because of their lack of local stations. Small local stations cannot compete with large corporations no matter how popular they are, because they will never have as much money. Hopefully you realize that having money does not mean something is better. Money is not the only way to measure success.
AGAIN THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED. When Weinerdog gets arrested for what he says or is stopped from ranting on a streetcorner get back to us. I dont want him off the air. I also dont hate him. I just think he is insane. He is far from balanced because he attacks Bush for not being rightwing ENOUGH. He needs to increase his medication but I am fine with him staying on the air as long as people think he is worht listening to. However if you take him seriously YOU need to increase YOUR medication too.
Those on the right who post here do hate those who disagree with them, or point out their irrational arguments or logically flawed discussions.
They do hate.
They also assume that everyone else is as unbalanced and illogical as they are, so they accuse us of hating them.
I don't hate Bush. I hate his behavior, and the choices he has made. Every patriotic American should hate the way he has abused his power in many ways, like helping to hobble the Justice Dept with all those grads from a 4th tier law school. Every patriotic American should recoil from his decision to ignore the UN Weapons Inspectors info, and his rush to war despite all the ways that the intelligence was called into question before the invasion.
We hate his poor judgement.
The rightwingers hate us because they are shallow characters who hate being proven wrong and despicable, and they attack those who make those proofs.
Not, speaking of Bush, it's the liberals who by and large agree with his ridiculous call for amnesty.
I don't hate Bush. I hate his behavior, and the choices he has made.
Michael Savage doesn't hate the gay person, but he hates their behavior and the choices they make. Yet most liberals still call him a hate-monger. Hmmm, wonder why one hate-monger is ok, yet another is not! Medication? I'm not the only one who needs it!
You see, Bush is the leader of this country. He has a lot of responsibility, and his behavior affects all of us. How does that compare to how two adults who love each other, or lust for each other, decide to behave. If you do not understand the difference between scrutiny of how a public servant behaves, and unfairly judging people for personal matters, I don't know how to explain it to you. Anyways, being president is a choice, being gay is not.
Autopsychic, the idea that Michael Savage attacks both SIDES of the ISSUES is rediculous. He attacks Bush and other Republicans for not being conservative enough, yes that's true. But I've never heard him stick up for gays, immigrants, poor people (except maybe to turn the UN headquarters into a homeless shelter). I've never heard him argue for diplomacy over war, not giviing tax breaks to the rich, etc.
Tman, Savage was against the war in Kosovo. How about that? As far as the poor go, Savage says that they should get a job. As far as the rich go, Savage supports giving both them and the rest of America tax cuts. He says that there should be less government, not more taxes. Savage has no problem with immigrants who assimilate. Savage has no problem with gays who keep their lifestyle out of politics.
And I baked a cake out of my own feces and smothered it with a delicious vanilla icing and Oreo cookies. Want a bite?
How many times will you sing the praises of your man Weiner before you realize none of it takes away his insanity and hatred?
"Savage has no problem with gays who keep their lifestyle out of politics."
So, by your logic Christian fundamentalists should also keep their lifestyles out of politics. Or is that somehow different because gays are icky? The difference is gay rights are a human rights issue, and imposing your narrow minded religious morality on others is antithetical to human rights.
Those businesses are using OUR resource to make their money. The airwaves are OURS. They BELONG to US. In the deal that was made to allow them to profit off of OUR AIRWAVES they were supposed to perform a public service we have EVERY RIGHT to demand they do so and have a say in how that is done. It isnt my fault you are too stupid to understand this. It has been gone over many times. What YOU want is your IGNORANT propaganda pushed WITHOUT the other side being heard, because its the only way it could be taken seriously by any but ignorant morons like YOU. One day as you aspire to understand, well, ANYTHING you may be able to grasp this extremely simple concept, then again I wont be holding my breath.
What YOU want is your IGNORANT propaganda pushed WITHOUT the other side being heard,
And what YOU want is to force a private business to put an oppossing opinion on his airwaves (they are his, too) to please you even though that opinion will cost him revenue. YOUR idea is to force a private owner to air YOUR ideals because YOU can't figure out how to do it on YOUR OWN! Just like a true liberal, YOU want someone else to provide FOR you.
As I pointed out earlier, knew and kqke both are owned by clear channel. One gives the opinion of the right and the other gives the opinion of the left. Is that the "fairness" you are after? Then quit your whining!!! Maybe you're too busy playing with your trains in your basement to notice there is a progressive radio station run by clear channel.
Look moron. The AIRWAVES BELONG TO US. WE have a right to say how they are used. The deal made to allow commercial use, that is allow private companies to make obscene buttloads of money off of OUR resource is that they also perform a public service. It is up to the people what form that takes, therefore we have every right to demand something like the other side of public issues being heard. It is like if I allow YOU to farm my land, making profit from MY resource, I have every right to DEMAND that you farm in the way I feel will not devalue the land and if you dont LIKE the terms you can go somewhere else. This is a simple concept. You have to be a complete and utter moron not to get it. YOU act like we OWE it to private industry to just use OUR resource in whatever way THEY want with nothing to say about how they use OUR resource. You are a waste of time. Why not go outside and play with the other special children and let the adults get on with their conversation. Your mommy needs to clean her basement.
"I totally agree with Michael Savage. He's right as usual." - Michaelsavageforpresident
FAR right. EXTREME right. So far to the right that he despises his own heart for being on the left.
Savage calls almost everyone a Nazi.
Like Worrierking asked last week wouldn't it be simpler if Savage released a list of everyone he doesn't consider a Nazi?
To me the Fairness Doctrine is just another intrusive regulation that attempts to police the public airwaves. I want less government interference in my life, not more.
Savage calling everyone nazi's? Can't be true, according to conservatives like O'Reilly and Hannity their side NEVER calls anyone NAZI'S.
As for the fairness doctrine, I've said it a million times now, I support the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule. Those two rules do not force anyone to have to sit next to an opposing party and debate on the air thus "forcing" some weak skinned conservative from having to hear an alternate viewpoint. Granted, that speaks volumes when conservative views can't withstand an alternate viewpoint...
O'Reilly is not a conservative. He's against the death penalty. He's against spanking. He supports amnesty for illegal aliens. Savage said that O'Reilly is a liberal Democrat. O'Reilly is VERMIN for supporting illegal alien VERMIN. O'Reilly is jealous of Savage too.
"Savage said that O'Reilly is a liberal Democrat."
Well, I say he is a conservative republican.
Weiner's take on O'Lielly
O'Lielly's 'opposition' to the death penalty is simply a throw away line that he uses to 'prove' that he is a so-called 'independent'. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the death penalty. When has anyone heard him argue against it with the loony passion he exhibits for all of his true position? When has he ever accused death penalty supporters of being cruel or blood-thirsty. Its just a simple dodge to try & claim a semblance of balance.
And O'Lielly is PRO illegal immigrant? Pullease! While he may not dehumanise them to quite the degree that the Savage Weiner does, he's at least nipping at his heels.
O'Lielly a liberal Democrat?
Pull my finger, Weinerboy.
I think he's actually pro death penalty. Notice how he often says he's anti-death penalty right before he says, "But in this case..." (Zacarias Moussaoui, Patrick O. Kennedy, David Westerfield, etc.).
If he were really anti death penalty, he would be against it in all cases. You're correct in saying that he uses it as a transparent ploy to portray himself as independent.
And how about this one: "I would execute everyone at Gitmo."
[link to thinkprogress.org]
I'm for the death penalty in all cases of first degree murder committed by anyone 12 or older. No exceptions.
"Americans still live in one of the few countries that kill people to make clear what a terrible thing killing people is. Hardly any other civilized place does this anymore. In the past three decades, the number of nations that have abolished the death penalty has risen from 16 to 86. Last year four countries accounted for nearly all executions worldwide: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States. As my Irish grandmother used to say, you're known by the company you keep." -- Anna Quindlen, "The Failed Experiment"
Iflurry, polls consistently show that most Europeans, even most French people, support capital punishment. Their nations have gotten rid of the death penalty against their will. Many traiterous European lawmakers advocated getting rid of capital punishment so that Nazis would not be put to death. I totally support capital punishment, as the Bible actually demands it for murderers.
Yes and the bible also demands it for adulterers. Something we dont even consider against the LAW anymore. The bible is NOT the basis for comon law. This is a tough argument. There are good people on both sides of it. My take is this. I agree that many people may DESERVE the death penalty. The way I see it though, the way we treat people is a function of who WE are not who they are. Your brother in law might be a jerk but you still treat him with civility because YOU are a decent person. We ought not to kill people not because they dont deserve it but because we ought not to want to be the kind of PEOPLE that kill people. Its a complicated issue but I will never support the death penalty.
Iflurry, I agree with your logic. Cuba has universal healthcare. We don't want to be seen as being in cahoots with them, so let's stick to our current healthcare system.
Society KILLS murderers as a means of stating that MURDER is wrong. Not all killing is murder; the death penalty is certainly not. Once again, the Bible supports capital punishment, so it's okay with God. I'd rather be okay with God than with some socialist politicians in France.
What about when someone is put to death wrongly? You conservatives say we should fix government over-spending before we allow social programs, well shouldn't we fix the inequities in our justice system before we put people to death? Remember what the Duke boys said- if they had been poor they never could have defended themselves properly.
Locking them up for the rest of their lives also says society thinks it is wrong.
Would you at least put all your thoughts into one post instead of cluttering up the page this way?
My point wasn't that, if Country A does it, that automatically makes it wrong. My point was that it is an increasingly archaic policy.
How dare you compare the hypocrisy of killing to show that killing is wrong with the idea that people have a right to health care? Maybe Cuba knows something we don't (along with, say, Canada, who last time I checked wasn't stuck in Iraq).
Death penalty supporters aren't cruel or bloodthirsty. That's why. We're simply for JUSTICE. O'Reilly is hardly a conservative.
1) Bill-O claims to be against the death penalty
2) Bill-O does not argue against the death penalty as much as, say, the "War on Christmas".
Which leads us to 3) Bill-O does this because he recognizes that the death penalty supporters are correct?
Do your fingers operate independently from your brain?
Death penalty supporters are correct, but I don't know what O'Reilly recognizes. You'll have to ask him. He opposes the death penalty. In my mind, that makes him a liberal.
They arent correct just because you say they are. This is the very definition of a subjective judgement. This delusional idea you rightwingers have that all you have to do is say something and it magically becomes true is so precious.
Maybe you should stop drinking the Weiner brand Kool-Aid and realize that your labels don't define the world.
Mes, O'Reilly supports Bush's amnesty bill. That makes him pro illegal alien. O'Reilly is VERMIN, and he's jealous of Dr. Savage.
First of all, O'Reilly has expressed fear that the bill would make America less white, as MMFA has documented. And as much as I dislike Bill-O, why is he jealous of a man without his own television show or list of bestsellers? I heard about O'Reilly long before I had heard of Weiner.
Are you kidding me? Savage wrote four consecutive bestsellers. Secondly, Savage has more listeners than O'Reilly has TV viewers, and O'Reilly's radio show is a flop. That's what O'Reilly is jealous. O'Reilly got Savage banned from the supposedly conservative Fox News. Remember now, Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary.
O'Reilly has stated that Bush's plan is the only way to deal with the illegal immigration problem. Of course, he's wrong.
Bill-O, sad to say, has FIVE bestsellers to Weiner's four (according to you).
So what if Weiner has more people sucking at his teat? I never said that Bill-O had more fans, just that I certainly wouldn't be jealous if I were in his shoes.
Regardless of what you say Murdoch wants, his actions are speaking much louder than you.
Whether he's wrong or right doesn't change the fact that Bill-O is not the person you paint him to be.
Dude, don't read to much into Weiner's take on O'Reilly. From Savage's perspective, just about everyone is a liberal. I'll admit that O'Reilly is not quite the GOP water-carrier that Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Morgan are, but he is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear Savage apply the liberal moniker to James Dobson or Dick Cheney.
This got me thinking. I think conservatives can basically fall into three categories:
1. The often intelligent, logical-minded, well-spoken, conciliatory conservative who just happens to be dead wrong about many many things. They are people with which the left can respectfully disagree. These individuals include the "think tank" conservatives, and some former politicians, guys like William Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Michael Smerconish, Joe Scarborough, and John Fund. These guys are not abhorrent, just wrong about a lot of issues like the economy and Iraq, and occasionally are apologetic about failed policies.
2. The Republican apologists. These guys are not as much conservatives as they are Republican loyalists, which is of note because it accounts for frequent inconsistencies in their personal ideology. These guys are essentially an arm of the RNC, and no matter what the issue is, you already know what their position will be by what the Republican consensus is. The global warming skeptics are among this crowd, not because any personal beliefs or scientific evidence, but because environmental awareness hurts corporate contributers to the RNC. These include Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck.
3. The last type is the head-up-his/her-ass conservative. This is someome who is either insane or so backwards-thinking as to appear insane by today's norms. Michael Savage falls into this category, along with Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Melanie Morgan and Neil Boortz. These people are dangerous because they earn points in the court of public opinion for what is perceived as being unafraid to speak one's mind. In reality, it only seems this way because most insane people like this don't garner the attention of the mass media. They are also completely unapologetic and unwavering, because in their warped minds, they are always right.
O'Reilly is somwhere between category 2 and category 3.
Nick, Buchanan was against the war in Iraq. Are you saying that he's wrong about Iraq?
Even within the three categories there is diversity. I don't expect I can summarize 40 years of conservative politics in a few paragraphs. But Buchanan is a guy whom I can at least expect to be right on occasion, as with Iraq. Most, if not all, of the people mentioned in this category are against the war at this point. This category includes the last remnants of Goldwater conservatism before the neocons and the religious right infiltrated the movement. Also included arethe Reaganists, who still believe supply-side economics works, and think that Reagan ended the Iran hostage crisis and the cold war. Even they are a little delusional, but most Americans are with regard to Reagan's legacy, so it's understandable.
I don't like the neocons, but I have no problem whatsoever with the religious right. I was a huge fan of Dr. Jerry Falwell, and I will miss the guy. He was wonderful.
You have every right to your opinion about Falwell, and the religious right, but can't you understand how those of us who are not Christian fundamentalists could have problems with the things that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their ilk say? I have many gay friends and they do not deserve to have someone else try to legislate their fundamentalist views into their lives. I understand that many on the other side of this argument do not want gay people to impose their "immorality" on society, but many of us do not see it that way for good reasons. Some of us don't want to live in a biblical theocracy.
"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
-Jerry Falwell
Also, please read this. If you have even an ounce of compassion it will break your heart.
http://www.fallwell.com/momOFgaySON.html
I couldn't find the Falwell webpage.
Try harder. Highlight link, CRTL C, CTRL T, CTRL V.
Nick, Savage is a manmade global warming skeptic based on research and reading books, not a whim.
Nick, Buchanan and Savage are pretty much the same, in my opinion. I don't agree with your categories either. There are really just two categories: Bushbots and real conservatives. Buchanan and Savage are both in the latter category. Real conservatives are correct at least 90% of the time.
Bushbots like your man "Let's all pity the amnesiac Attorney General Gonzales" Weiner?
Iflurry, that's insanity if you're actually calling Savage a "Bushbot." He has stated that Bush is the worst President ever! If he were a Bushbot, he'd say that Clinton is the worst ever. (Of course, Savage despises Clinton too. Savage has said that they're the two worst Presidents in history.)
3. The last type is the head-up-his/her-ass conservative. This is someome who is either insane or so backwards-thinking as to appear insane by today's norms. Michael Savage falls into this category, along with Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Melanie Morgan and Neil Boortz. These people are dangerous
James Dobson? Why in the world would you include James Dobson? Because he has a moral opinion? Or because his opinion is total opposite of yours? You biased opinion also shows when you fail to include Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, and Rachel Maddow in your list of nut cases. Fairness? Liberals are NOT interested in FAIRNESS, they want dominance and the only way to achieve that goal is to remove all competition. Since they can't compete they seek to force others, using government intervention, to air their complaints. And to remove competition by using fear mongering among the populance (ie, Don Imas, Michael Graham)
Exactly. James Dobson is simply a family values advocate and social conservative. He's a very nice and soft spoken man who simply advocates conservative views on social issues. I don't understand why the left disparages him the way they do. Coulter and Boortz are both bomb throwers and deserve to be criticized, but not Dobson. Dobson is simply a soft spoken and mild mannered man who supports traditional values. The liberals just disagree with his views on social issues, as they are all pro abortion and pro gay marriage. That's basically what it amounts to.
What is wrong with Thom Hartmann? He is a good man, and very fair. He always has people with opposing views on is show, and he is very civil when debating them. I can't think of a conservative radio host who is equivalent. He is also a Christian, but maybe it doesn't count unless one is the"right" kind of Christian. Do you not like him "Because he has a moral opinion? Or because his opinion is total opposite of yours?".
And there we have it. Names from both sides become "hated" because of what they stand for. People on both sides disagree with the other's values and suddenly "anyone" from 'that' side is evil. Thanks for helping point that out.
So, at least you admit that conservatives can be just as unfair and hypocritical as you think liberals are.
When you cough up the liberal pundit who calls for killing a Supreme Court justice, beating conservatives with baseball bats, killing one hundred million people, or making torture a telivised sport you will have a point, until then its a false equivelence.
Maybe Dobson isn't insane, but he has said some very outlandish things in the name of "Christian values." And, like Falwell, Dobson's infusion of religion into politics should alarm people on both sides of the aisle. I have no problem with Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes or Bill Maher pushing secularism because we live in a secular nation. You have to see the Falwells and Dobsons of the world from the eyes of a non-Christian. We live law-abiding, moral lives, by all of society's definitions, yet that still isn't enough for these guys. And it is these guys who are responsible for convincing scores of social conservatives to vote for Republicans who don't represent their best interests. As long as these voters see gay marriage and abortion as the top priorities of government, any real social, economic, educational, and political progress in the U.S. will be stymied for decades. That is why these guys are dangerous.
Thanks Jeter.
I'm glad someone can remember what I said. I sure as hell can't.
Jeter,
You have mentioned the essence of my objection to the Fairness Doctrine. I do not want the government intruding or even indirectly dictating content to radio stations.
That is a fair position IMO.
Ah there you are, ready for another rhetoric soaked weekend?
I think he's totally out to lunch as usual. Lies are truth, strenth weakness, bravery cowardly. democratic folk are demons, repulicans blessed beings and Michael is god.
Watch your blood pressure please.
"Lies are truth, strenth weakness, bravery cowardly. democratic folk are demons, repulicans blessed beings and Michael is god."
You forgot one--Fox is News.
OK, I just didn't think it was pertinent to this thread.
Mr. Over the Top (or under the lowest) uses flamatory rhetoric as his way of separating himself from others on the right. That being said the "Fairness Doctrine" could easily renamed the "Lawyer Full Employment Act" as it will result in almost daily lawsuits (fairness being somewhat subjective in interpretation).
You maybe right Oscar. It could be a step up from their usual employment for maybe half of them.
Question: How many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?
I'm not really sure, but probably at least 6 would file briefs, on behalf the light bulb and its right to remain unchanged.
Answer: How many can you afford.
Thanks for the answer! I think I will come up with a low cost alternative to requiring a lawyer to change my lightbulbs (like making my wife do it) OOPS, that's probably not the right answer.
What Savage is scared of is the following:
a) The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. Pp. 386-390.
The First Amendment is a public matter Savage doesn't like the First Amendment he likes total Goebble Control via privatization
(b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others. Pp. 390-392.
The resource is scarce because we as the common people can scarcelly get the fifteen minutes of fame that Savage gets on a daily basis. Savage is scared of what free market ideas really means. To him free market idea means he controls the airwave you listen now shut up while he speaks.
The resource is scarce because we as the common people can scarcelly get the fifteen minutes of fame that Savage gets on a daily basis
Air america had it's 15 minutes for all the world to listen to. It failed. People don't want to hear mindless blather from hateful people. Well, not those who think for themselves. Well, I guess some do need to have their hands held for them and really miss air america.
If people didnt want to hear mindless blather from hateful people Coulter and Weinerdog would have disappeared LOOOONG ago. There is no one on the left that is anywhere NEAR as hateful as either one at least in a comparable position the ones you listed arent even in the ballpark. Your delusions are astonishing.
You're projecting , Mikey.
Please allow me to shout out this question once again, and I really would love an answer to it.
IF THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED, WHY THEN DID THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION ABOLISH THE FAIRNESS DOCTORINE ?
I think this question blows holes through right wing talkers often cited premise of the "Liberal Media."
"IF THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED, WHY THEN DID THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION ABOLISH THE FAIRNESS DOCTORINE"
For one thing, because Reagan was a small government conservative who was a staunch defender of free speech and a free press. Conservatives stand up for free speech and a free press, while liberals seek to censor those with whom they disagree. Also, the Fairness Doctrine only applies to talk radio, which is the one sector of the media where conservatives actually have an advantage. Conservative talk radio helps to balance out the blatant liberal bias on television and the print press. It's the one sector of the media where conservatives actually have a voice. That's why liberals want to take it away. They want liberals to be able to control the radio media the way they control the television media and the print press.
"Conservatives stand up for free speech and a free press, while liberals seek to censor those with whom they disagree."
And down is up and black is white. The Right Wing invented censorship. Book burnings, revisionist censorship of textbooks, news blackouts, censorship of the arts, imprisonment for criticizing the status quo, etc. These are not the acts of liberals or progressives. They are by definition the acts of conservatives hwo have appointed themselves guardians of morality.
Conservatives are not for censoring the arts. We just don't think that the taxpayers should have to foot the bill. The arts should run on a free market like everything else. I don't like art. I shouldn't have to fund it.
Please don't tell me that I'm a neanderthal because I don't like art either. I'm a very smart person. I'm just more of a math guy than an art guy. I never liked art in school, and I just have no taste for it.
I don't like war. Tell me why I should have to fund it. I don't have children in school (anymore), why should I have to fund it? I've never been to Yellowstone, why are my tax dollars? [And the list could go on and on...]
Therick, now that's a different question. If the government passes a law to fund something, then taxpayers have to fund it. However, when I said that "I shouldn't have to fund art," I meant that the government should not be in the business of funding art. To be honest, I don't find that in the Constitution anywhere. A truly conservative Supreme Court would rule arts funding unconstitutional. Art just should not be funded by Uncle Sam.
"Conservatives are not for censoring the arts."
Conservatives censor art all the time. You say that art shouldn't be funded by Uncle Sam, but it is. and ol' conservative moral majority-lovin' Uncle Sam wants to dictate what can and can't be shown in public spaces. That's censorship. Here's a recent list, with many cases that have nothing to do with government funding:
[link to www.ncac.org]
"and ol' conservative moral majority-lovin' Uncle Sam wants to dictate what can and can't be shown in public spaces. That's censorship"
If the art is in a public place then it's not censorship. If it's in a government funded, public building then the government has every right to take it down. Going by your theory artists should have the right to display pornographic art in public schools as well. If it's a public building, then the government has the right to regulate it.
"If the art is in a public place then it's not censorship."
That's just flat out wrong.
"If it's in a government funded, public building then the government has every right to take it down."
At least there's some debate about that, but that doesn't change the definition of censorship. It's still censorship. And the notion that government funded programs have the right to become arbiters of morality has been successfully challenged time and time again in a court of law.
I don't consider urine or dung to be art. That stuff should be dumped into the toilet.
Clams, you need to understand that many people don't like their tax dollars funding art that they find offensive. People don't like funding art that attacks their religious beliefs. That's why I'm against public funding of art. That would fix the problem entirely. Privately funded art galleries can do what they want.
YOU need to understand I dont like funding Nuclear Weapons. So I guess that means the government should stop making them.
"I'm a very smart person."
-----
Don't tell us, let us figure it out for ourselves. If someone has to tell others that he is smart, chances are he isn't.
See BUSH, George W: "I'm plenty smart."
Q.E.D.
I dont like nuclear weapons or unjustifyable wars. Should I have to fund them? I dont like corporate wellfare should I have to fund it? When Arthur Miller wrote Death of a Salesman, arguably the most important play ever written in America he did so on a GOVERNMENT GRANT.
This is all history and doesn't apply to today. I'm talking about today's conservatives and today's liberals. Liberals have traditionally stood up for free speech rights, but no longer. There is a new and growing faction of anti-free speech liberals who seek to silence those with whom they disagree. Traditional liberals have always stood up for free speech rights, but these new anti-free speech liberals aren't traditional liberals. Also, conservatives may have supported censorship at one time, but they now follow the example set by Ronald Reagan and oppose government censorship of speech and the media. Conservatives support free speech rights, a free press, a free market, and a smaller government.
Conservatives support free speech rights, a free press, a free market, and a smaller government.--Rino Hunter
The facts are--Conservative SAY they support free speech rights, a free press, and a smaller government. What they do is something altogether different.
Once again, you think down is up. What is it with all this revisionist history surrounding Ronald Reagan lately? Doesn't anyone remember what Jesse Helms, Alfonse D'Amato, Dick Armey (all conservatives, surprise, surprise) did under Reagan's watch? They waged a massive censorship campaign against the arts after Reagan unsuccessfully attempted to nix the NEA.
And as far as conservative attacks on freedom of speech being a thing of ancient history, you apparently haven't been keeping score lately. Here's a different list from the same site I linked above:
[link to www.ncac.org]
First of all nobody cares about art, and it's also an issue that deals with freedom of expression, not freedom of speech. It also looked like most of the art exhibits were in public, taxpayer funded places. I will admit that sometimes social conservatives go too far in trying to censor obscene speech, but at least they don't attempt to censor political speech. There's a big difference between censoring obscene speech and censoring political speech. Liberals are attempting to censor political speech, while some social conservatives are simply attempting to clean up our culture. I'll admit that they go too far, but at least they aren't trying to censor someone's political opinion. It's also still an open debate about whether pornography is really "freedom of expression" or not. Some of these artists who make these paintings are simply sick and demented. I'm not attempting to censor them, but I can understand why some people want to get rid of the filth that they are putting out.
My post covered more than just censorship of art. I was just using that as the most obvious example to rebut the notion that conservatives oppose censorship. The link I provided specifically addressed multiple instances where our supposedly free and autonomous press was undermined by conservative entities in our government. Political voices have most definitely been suppressed by the Right. And this isn't ancient history.
Meanwhile, you haven't actually provided any examples to back up your charge that liberals want to censor political speech. And before you launch into another rant about the Fairness Doctrine: It ISN'T a call for censorship. At this point, that's been explained here far too many times to ignore.
Clams, McCain-Feingold is a perfect example of liberals suppressing political speech. Corporations like the NRA can't run ads that even mention federal candidates sixty days prior to a general election and thirty days prior to a primary election. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves on that one. Ideas are not to be feared or restricted.
MONEY is not speech. They can stand on the streetcorner and say ANYTHING THEY WANT. IF they want to work for specific candidates they must do so based on the laws that govern campaign spending. That is NOT a free speech issue.
Solon, you're not good at paying attention. I didn't mention money. I said that the NRA is actually legally barred from running a political ad mentioning federal candidates before an election. In the minds of all strict constructionists, a political ad is free speech. They're actually speaking their minds about politics in the ad. Political speech was meant to be protected. That's a perfect example of liberals restricting speech. The first amendment was written with the specific intention of political speech, not porn. Unfortunately, liberals have rewritten the Constitution to protect porn but not political speech.
I would say YOU arent good at reading. Explain to me how they run any ads WITHOUT spending money? The money spent on a campaign in ANY way is controlled. This is so money isnt the ONLY thing that determines an election. To pretend running political ads is NOT spending money is ludicrous in the extreme. As I said they can stand on any streetcorner all day and all night saying whatever they want about ANYBODY running for election or not, that is pretty much the ONLY thing free speech guarantees.
Solon, I'm sorry, but if a corporation wants to appear on television (especially a cable station which is not the public airwaves) and say anything about political candidates, it should be able to do so. That is exactly what the first amendment was meant to protect. Unfortunately, it's now called "electioneering." I didn't mention money. Speech is speech.
So, because a corporation has more money and power, do they have more right to their message being heard than you or I do? The first amendment was not intended to give more political clout to those with more money
You said run ads, running ads is spending money it is a complete divorce from reality to claim otherwise. Free speech also does not guarantee any audience only that you can SAY what you want.
I have already shown you once that the FCC regulates Cable the same as other airwaves, if you dont like that take it up with the Supreme Court.
No they arent YOU are a liar. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE.
Solon, if anything is free speech, political speech is. There should be no restrictions whatsoever on political ads, except for, of course, equal time laws on the public airwaves.
Political ads are spending money. Leveling the money playing field is the only way to stop corporations from competely controlling the process with their vast resources. It doesnt restrict political speech since they can go door to door or stand in any park and talk about their candidate or issue until they fall down from exhaustion. This is pretty much the only thing free speech guarantees.
"First of all nobody cares about art"
-----
Not true. Only the brain-dead and the terminally stupid don't care about art.
Why? Because art is supposed to make one think. They are incapable, so they don't care about art.
It's sad, really. Pitiable, even.
The statement that nobody cares about art is among the most ignorant I have ever seen, possibly the most ignorant thing ever written in the English language.
Nixing the NEA isn't censorship. Censorship is the act of banning speech by the government. The opposite of banning speech, that is, allowing speech, does not mandate public funding of said speech.
"Nixing the NEA isn't censorship."
I never said it was. I said that Reagan unsuccessfully attempted to abolish the NEA, and then certain conservatives with a moral mission used the NEA to censor artwork. You're arguing from a position of confusion, and I don't see much point in arguing with you about things I didn't say. I think I've made my point clear enough for everyone else to understand.
You are so full of it. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. When someone gets arrested for what they say get back to us.
Solon, if somehow the NRA broke the law by sneaking in a political ad that mentioned a federal candidate before an election, someone might get arrested.
No. They may get fined, but I doubt seriously anyone would be arrested. You are also guilty of answering a definite question with a hypothetical example.
Do you have any legitimate links to demonstrate the requested information?
...the Fairness Doctrine only applies to talk radio, ...
As I said in an earlier post; "Your knowledge of The Fairness Doctorine is obviousely limited." The Fairness doctorine covers Television and Radio airwaves--ALL television and ALL radio. Not just talk radio.
"...Reagan was a small government conservative who was a staunch defender of free speech and a free press. Conservatives stand up for free speech and a free press, while liberals seek to censor those with whom they disagree.
Second, this fails to answer why a conservative republican would abolish their only tool available to combat the rampant 'Liberal Media.' So, is there not a Liberal Media? Frankly, I'm tired of watching you dance. So, try answering the question directly, or get off our a&&e&.
The fairness doctrine does apply to TV, but it's not going to apply to mainstream media shows that "just report." Michael Savage claims that if the fairness doctrine returns, he will sue to get on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS to counteract liberals like Katie Couric. I'm not very optimistic about that, although it would be great if that were to happen.
Therick, the word "media" is plural, not singular. Secondly, I already answered that in an earlier thread. The fairness doctrine would only deal with blatant bias on commentary programs, thus damaging conservative talk radio. The fairness doctrine never fixed the problem of the liberal media bias, since the liberal media bias is covert. It's covert because it's done by anchormen and reporters who pretend to be unbiased "journalists." They sneak their bias into their work. Therefore, your question is stupid. The media will have a liberal bias whether there is a fariness doctrine or not. That's why Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine; he wanted conservative talk radio to flourish, and it has. So, in conclusion, the media are liberal, and I am against the fairness doctrine because it won't fix the liberal media bias.
Please, tell me again how smart you are, because I love it when somebody is trying so hard to sell me something. Then explain to me how ending the Fairness Doctorine allowed Conservative talk radio to flourish, when conservatives believe(d) the Liberal media bias myth.
Your knowledge of the Fairness Doctorine is lacking. It dealt not only with commentary, but news programs, and programs that dealt with many social issues as well. So, explain how hearing both sides (or many sides) of important issues is unfair to Conservatives.
You also stated that Liberal Bias exists and is covert. Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back this up?
By the way--my question isn't "stupid" just because you are unable to answer it. Your non-response speaks volumes.
I've actually given examples on recent boards showing liberal media bias. Recent Savage boards.
No you havent. Its flat out not true. The media bias does not break down into a liberal/conservative dichotomy. So you can find lefty bias, usually on social issues, and we can find righty bias usually on economic and foriegn policy issues. Neither prove a left right bias. You argue from a flawed premise
Careful, the choo choo is coming out of the tunnel. You can tell by the way articles are written that they have left slants to them. I once noticed they would say "President" clinton when something popular happened and then use "the administration" when something un-popular happened, during his presidency. If you read that 'insurgents' murdered local women and children then that media is slanted to the left. When you read 'terrorists' murdered local women and children it is right slanted. I don't see the word 'terrorist' used very often.
It could also be an example of your own bias creeping into what you read.
Arguing that the media are "liberal" is likely a convenient way to get followers of a certain ideology to discount anything that does not support that particular view they may hear/read/see in the media.
The conservatives have been pretty successful at this as evidenced by the 30-40% of Republicans who still think the President is doing a good job despite making what would seem to be the single biggest blunder in American history up to this point.
So because things arent written in the way those slavish to the rightwing message like that is somehow proof of liberal media bias? There is no obligation to adhere strictly to rightwing propganda to prove there is no liberal bias. You have no point.
The media has NEVER had a liberal bias. That is a lie the rightwing has told so long that you expect us to take it seriously but its ludicrous I am a liberal and I have NEVER seen my point of view pushed by the mainstream press.
Savage is obviously going too far when he calls the supporters of the Fairness Doctrine nazis, but he's certainly correct when he says that these liberals are trying to stifle free speech. These liberals could certainly be compared to socialists or even fascists, as they are trying to end free speech for those with whom they disagree. They know that they can't defeat conservatives in the arena of ideas, so they have to try to silence them through government censorship. Luckily, this bill will never pass unless an anti free speech liberal gains control of the White House and the Democrats get a 60 seat majority in the Senate.
No one is trying to shut anyone up! Both sides of issues need to be heard. If one side controls the airwaves because they can afford to, then the other side is not going to be heard. And the reason all sides need to be heard (even loathsome republicans) is because broadcasting companies rent the airwaves from those who own them--WE THE PEOPLE.
A good argument can certainly be made that those against the Fairness Doctorine are the ones hindering free speech.
Only in far left fantasy land.
Fantasyland? Your sid is the ones who don't want Liberals to be heard, who doesn't want to share our airwaves.
Will the real Nazi please stand up.
therick, I believe "far left fantasyland" is the crazy place where the sky is blue, the earth is millions of years old and 2+2=4.
Oh my God, I'm living in a fantasyland! Someone pinch me.
Huntington, not funny. BTW, nobody is against liberals having talk radio shows. Liberals should succeed in a free market though. They need to get listeners. In other words, they must succeed the old fashioned way. They must UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN it.
They could if they weren't shot down by big business everytime they started to get off the ground.
You mean the 'big business' of listeners not caring to hear the liberal opinion? The only big business that causes a lack of liberal radio is the lack of business knowledge and lack of insightful thought by the hosts. Liberal radio spews hatred of all who disagree with their position and people do not want to hear that. Even though liberal radio not succeeding on it's own is bad, having the government force liberal radio on the public is worst, since the air waves are OURS! And some of us do not want the government using MY (and your) airwaves for political purposes.
"Liberal radio spews hatred of all who disagree with their position"
Only liberal radio hosts do that? I don't listen to liberal radio, except for Thom Hartmann on the internet, so I don't know if liberal radio is just as guilty, but I have heard many conservative radio hosts "spew hatred" towards liberals, gays, feminists, etc. It goes both ways.
You are a liar and a moron. Liberal radio does NOT spout hatred that would be rightwing radio. If it was all about ratings maybe you can explain why Donahue was taken off the air when he had the highest ratings on his network
If there was no market for hatered on the airwaves Coulter and Weiner would have long ago been consigned to oblivion. You finally GET that the airwaves belong to US. Therefore we have every right to use the democratic process to say HOW they are used. Once the ball is rolling I am fine with however it shakes out.
Who is stopping the liberals from being heard?
Ratings.
Yeah thats what stopped Donahue from being heard. WAIT no it isnt he had the highest rated show on his network
Donahue's ratings plunged spectacularly, from 660,000 households his first week to just 136,000 households his sixth week, a drop of 80%.[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC
If Donahue was so popular, why don't they bring him back? They like Olbermann -- why not Phil?
I love how you always give links that prove the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Here's what you left out:
"On February 25, 2003, MSNBC cancelled the show, citing low viewership. However, that month, Donahue averaged 446,000 viewers and became the highest rated show on the network. Other MSNBC shows, including Hardball with Chris Matthews and Scarborough Country, averaged lower ratings in 2005. Later, the website AllYourTV.com reported it had received a copy of an internal NBC memo that mentioned that Donahue had to be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war". Donahue was a vocal critic of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He mentioned the internal memo later in an interview on WILL-AM, a public radio station."
While I would concede you are a virtual expert on fantasyland based on the fact your every post shows you exist soley in that strange place. I am afraid the fact you are ruled by the delusional fantasies you constantly spew on this website precludes you from making any credible judgements about what is and what isnt fantasy. I urge you to leave the cramped confines of Planet Wingnut and joing here in the reality based universe. You might even like it and if not you can always go back to your world of delusional fantasies
"I urge you to leave the cramped confines of Planet Wingnut"
Yes Captain Solon! I will now become a liberal and support the great liberal agenda of enermous and intrusive government, higher taxes, amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion on demand, more gun control laws, stringent environmental laws, legalized gay marriage, a weaker national security, civil rights for terrorists, and best of all, an anti-free speech agenda which seeks to silence conservatives. I love my new liberal agenda!!
I love my new liberal agenda!!
Now go buy a couch and watch tv. That's all you'll need to do now, with everyone else doing everything for you.
Maybe it looks that way to the congenitally ignorant like you. I am a liberal and no one does for me. I support myself and do very well. Now go listen to your rightwing hatetalk, its time for Weinerdog to tell you what to think.
And go play with your trains while you sing 'I've been working on the railroad'....
I am sure ignorance like that gets a big laugh on the Shortbus. Why dont you go outside and play. That big yellow ball that gives light and warmth is called the Sun dont be afraid of it or worship it. I feel for you that even the shortbus kids make you feel intellectually inferior. YOU ARE. Get over it.
Just make sure you're not watching Faux Noise or CNN.
You are a liar. Weaker national defense nor attacking free speech is anywhere near liberal. Then again since you are far to stupid to understand our agenda I dont expect you to support it. Its those delusional fantasies you have that keep you spouting such ignorance. Too bad you are a moron. You cant blame liberals for that. Just keep telling us how we need to get as many Americans killed as we possibly can, thats the moron staple from Planet Wingnut.
Therick, by your logic, since I don't have a radio show, my free speech is being hindered. Your logic is quite flawed.
I said nothing even close to that. I said; "A good argument can certainly be made that those against the Fairness Doctorine are the ones hindering free speech."
In other words--Savage (and the right) has his (their) way, and the Fairness Doctorine is not reinstalled. He can say "Democratic Presidential candidates are a bunch of Nazis," on the air. Now, we know this is not true, yet it goes unchalanged, and he can pound it home night after night. . .
Oh wait, Thats what we have had since the Fairness Doctorine was abolished. I repeat--WILL THE REAL NAZI PLEASE STAND UP!
I'll just remember that next time someone cries 1st Amendment when someone says we should fire Weiner.
So if Savage doesn't have a radio show, his free speech isn't being hindered either. Looks like your prophet is whining about nothing.
"If one side controls the airwaves because they can afford to, then the other side is not going to be heard"
Afford to? If liberal talk show hosts got good ratings, radio stations would carry their shows in a heart beat. It has nothing to do with money. Liberals simply can't get Americans to tune in to hear their far left agenda. Liberal talk radio has been an abysmal failure, and that is why they feel they have to use the power of the government to "even the playing field." The fact of the matter is that if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, many radio stations would simply cancel shows like Rush's and Savage's because they would get tired of putting up with the bureacratic hastle. Conservatives like Rush would have to put on boring liberals who would make his ratings plummet, and this would also cause radio stations to drop his show. The federal government would be in effect telling him how to run his own PRIVATE radio show which is not funded by tax payer dollars. It's a blatant supression of free speech.
You obviousely have a limited understanding of how the Fairness doctorine actually worked. There was no requirement for equal time for opposing views, however, there was a requirement for time to be set aside (for example 5 minutes at the end of each hour) for opposing views. Sometimes it was done as a rebuttal. Sometimes there was no one wishing to express opposing views, but if you or I disagreed with Rush, or Al Franken, or Walter Cronkite, and we had a valid argument, we could contact our local station, and get a few minutes for rebuttal. Understand, although Rush (or whomever) produces their shows, they broadcast them on OUR airwaves.
The Fairness doctorine worked well for many decades. Yet somehow you think that a system that makes things fair for all would be inequitable for republicans. So please answer this: IF THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED, WHY THEN DID THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION ABOLISH THE FAIRNESS DOCTORINE ?
"The Fairness doctorine worked well for many decades"
I don't believe this to be true. The radio stations avoided controversy, because they did not want to deal with the red tape of the rebutal system. They would not even put advertisers on that were controversial. Because of this speech was dulled down to non controversial issues. The net effect was less political speech.
Oh baloney they did not avoid controversy. There has been a long string of hatemongers on the radio going back to father Coughlin.
It's irrelevant with the multitude of media available today to have a fairness doctrine. The whiney left is just trying to silence the opposition.
The AIRWAVES STILL BELONG TO US. We have a right to say how they are used. Actually its the ignorant right that is afraid of the other side of the issues being heard.
"I don't believe this to be true."
-----
That in no way makes it false.
TheRick, you keep repeating yourself. It's getting annoying.
If liberal talk show hosts got good ratings, radio stations would carry their shows in a heart beat. It has nothing to do with money.- RINO Hunter
Rino, if you're not even caught up enough to understand the connection between ratings and money, you might want to go to Freerepublic for a while and rest your brain.
See you soon!
And you know this because your I Ching told you? Oh yeah you pulled it directly out of your ass. IF it was all about ratings why was it that Donahue was cancelled while the top rated show on his entire NETWORK? It isnt about RATINGS its about ADVERTISING. IF it only took an audience for radio why was Jim Hightower cancelled soon after his skyrocketing ratings took him to national syndication? He said things Disney didnt after they bought his network and they got rid of him DESPITE his ratings not because of them. You just come in here and spout things taken directly from your rectal database because you WISH they somehow represented reality
"IF it only took an audience for radio why was Jim Hightower cancelled soon after his skyrocketing ratings took him to national syndication? He said things Disney didnt after they bought his network"
Exactly. Hightower bashed his own boss! You can't publicly criticize your own boss and expect to keep your job. Maybe you should try it and see what happens. The next time you go to work criticize your boss in front of all the other employees and see what happens. My guess is that you won't have your job for very long. Hightower was a complete idiot for criticizing his own boss ON THE AIR! It had nothing to with him being a far left liberal. It was simply the fact that he publicly criticized his own boss!
Actually I have criticised my boss many times in my thirty years on the railroad. They cant fire me because they dont like what I say. I have a union contract. So then it ISNT a free speech issue when the boss is offended but it is when the OWNERS of the resource being used get offended. At any rate that is irrelevant. What was being said is that it is ratings alone that keep the left off the air. No when the business community doesnt like what is being said it takes lefties off the air.
Well, then. You must be the poster child for why unions are a bad thing. disgruntled employees cannot be fired and must be allowed to continue playing with toy trains in their basement.
Maybe Solon does a good job. Can't you criticize your boss and still be a efficient employee? See, unions protect people from getting fired just because a worker says something the boss doesn't like. If you can't handle criticism, you're not a good boss.
YOU must be a poster child for the ignorant. I can be fired IF I screw up or violate the rules. However the rules only say I cannot be argumentative or abusive. As long as I am RIGHT and tell my supervisor he is wrong and WHY I am fine. This has happened many times. To you the hierarchy is all that is important. It doesnt make me disgruntled that my boss is sometimes wrong. Its just you are too stupid to understand the distinction. If I were to cuss at him or call him names I could be fired. Unlike YOU I am not that stupid which doesnt mean I cant criticise. Which is how it SHOULD be. You are a poster child for fascism and stupidity. None of that is my fault
If that's true, then Clear Channel never would have stopped airing The Dixie Chicks songs. And Phil Donahue would still have a show.
Media corporations don't want a host that's going to rail against corporate control of media, do they? You think if Wal-Mart advertises on your radio network, they want your host talking about how great unions are for workers?
For some reason, people seem to overlook this incredibly simple point.
Therick, what about the Libertarian position? Authoritarian position? Moderate position? Fascist position? Communist position? Liberals assume that there are only two positions to an issue, which is why the Fairness Doctrine is illogical.
All sides don't need to be heard if the American people don't want to listen to liberal talk radio and stations lose money because they're forced to air liberals.
Once again, the media do have a liberal bias, but I'm against the fairness doctrine, since it wouldn't do anything to solve the liberal media bias. So stop the nonsense that conservatives are contradicting themselves by claiming that there is a liberal media bias but opposing the Fairness Doctrine, which would supposedly remedy said bias.
There is NOT a liberal media bias and one wont appear because you keep CLAIMING there is.
The vast majority of the American people disagree with you:
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
What do we call it when someone insists on believing in opinion, when the facts say otherwise?
Because they have been lied to by the rightwing for so long on the issue. Anyway that argument is a logical fallacy
Argumentum ad populumThis is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people.
You keep repeating this like a mantra in the vain hope it will magically become true. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. THERE NEVER WAS. We have explained to you why at least a dozen times. At this point you are just lying. You still also have not explained how mandating both sides of an issue be heard will STIFLE any speech. That is because the very concept is ludicrous on the face of it and if you REALLY believed your ideas were better you wouldnt be scared that the other side be heard it is actually YOUR side that is afraid of the marketplace of ideas.
You're right, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is however a freedom of press issue and it does infringe on the rights of radio stations to air what makes them the most money. In other words it goes against the free market. Liberal hosts simply do not bring in the same amount of listeners as cons. The fairness doctrine is an attempt to force radio stations to run programming their audience won't listen to and removes the right of radio stations to play what they want to play.
Yes it does go against the holy free market but it would NOT demand equal time nor that there be a liberal host for every conservative host just that time be allowed for the other side of publich issues or whoever were attacked be allowed to defend themselves. We interfere with the free market all the time with demands of labelling. You cant sell crack to kids that goes against the free market too. The market is NOT the holy defining principle that guides every action our country takes. When OUR airwaves were given over to commercial use, that is allowing commercial entities to make obscene buttloads of money off of OUR resouce the deal set was that they perform a public service we have every right to say when we think that isnt happening or what would better MAKE that happen. Now you have every right to YOUR input into the same controversy and we can all let the democratic process shake it out. There is of course the money issue which will skew that debate but lets leave that aside. The point is that the debate itself is EXACTLY free speech and how democracy ought to function and the hysterical people who are attacking the very debate itself as undemocratic, Nazi, or an infringement upon free speech are demogoguing and are WRONG.
The above post points out, that those who keep mentioning "Free Speech", are either too dumb to understand the truth, or think themselves so clever they can talk around that truth, and confuse you from it.
Either way, heads up to the dummies... and to the clever ones, talk around this:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO BROADCAST" OR A "FREEDOM TO BROADCAST", ON TELEVISION OR ON RADIO...
NO SUCH RIGHT OR FREEDOM EXISTS...
You have no Right or Freedom to broadcast anything at all, on the frequency bands used by television and radio broadcasters.
You need a License from the FCC (proof right there that no such Right or Freedom exists: The requirement of a License or Permit).
Once issued a License, you are subject to any and all Regulations and other requirements that the Licensing Authority (the FCC) makes as a condition of that License.
This is where the Fairness Doctrine comes in, as part of the FCC's Regulations.
savage, imus, and all the rest of them, they have their Freedom of Speech, they have a Right to Speak... they can roam the streets all day long, and shout their opinions at anybody and everybody, at the buildings even if they like... nobody can or will stop them, nobody can or will interfere with their Right and Freedom of Speech.
But again, neither they nor anyone else has anything called a "RIGHT TO BROADCAST" or a "FREEDOM TO BROADCAST", on television or on the radio...
Because no such Right or Freedom exists.
Or why else does the FCC require a License, and require that FCC Regulations be met, to broadcast on the television and radio frequencies of the Public Airwaves?
There also is no such thing as a Fairness Doctrine. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Leather, that was a funny (and effective) response. Lol.
There isnt one now but there WAS one there was NEVER a free speech issue here.
So, Weiner is saying that there are people in this country who want to line up conservatives and shoot them. And, for the sake of argument, presuming this strawman actually existed, the caller says that they are insane. Weiner's response is to say they're not insane. Don't worry, Doctor Weiner, we're not going to shoot you. We'll just put you in a nice padded room without a microphone where you can't hurt yourself or anyone else. You cuckoo, baby!
Max Baer, are you the real Max Baer who played Jethro on The Beverly Hillbillies?
Personally I dont care one way or another about the fairness doctrine. I trust the American people to catch on in good time to what is best for America. Not because the past has shown they do but because that it the only way we will end in up with a just and righteous society. If they dont catch on they face the consequences of NOT catching on and pay the costs which will itself help raise the awareness.
We are never going to find the promised land because we elected the right people. As Eugene Debs said If I could lead you to the promised land like Moses I would not do so. For if I could lead you in someone else could lead you out. In the end an awakening of the people a rising of the awareness of the people is our only real hope for a truly sustainable world. It is only in the people that true power should reside. When we will no longer accept our interests being sublimated to the protection of privelege, when we will no longer accept worthless reasons for war, when we will no longer accept subjegation they will stop. In the way women got the vote when they would no longer accept being second class citizens the way blacks got a measure of justice when good people would no longer accept a society that didnt give them that dignity. THIS is the process where our hope lies.
You know, with all the conservatives accusing the media of having a so-called "liberal bias," would they be for the Fairness Doctrine?
Tman, I already answered that. You and Rick, please don't ask that question EVER AGAIN. YOU'RE REALLY GETTING ON MY NERVES. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD DO NOTHING TO FIX THE COVERT LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS THAT IS DONE IN SUPPOSEDLY UNBIASED REPORTING, NOT COMMENTARY.
For instance, I saw a report done on MSNBC about federal budget cuts. In the background, they showed old people walking in canes. The message by the liberal media was clear: Republicans are killing old people, yet nobody actually said it. How would the fairness doctrine fix anything done similar to that on a broadcast TV station? Answer: it wouldn't. Next?
Quit being a sniveling little %#&*, and answer it once.
Oh, I get it.
I should have said, "that is displayed." My apologies.
There is no liberal media bias. No matter how long you CLAIM there is there ISNT. STOP pretending there is and when will you guys STOP claiming there is a free speech issue here. It doesnt exist stop saying it does.
For instance, I saw a report done on MSNBC about federal budget cuts. In the background, they showed old people walking in canes. The message by the liberal media was clear: Republicans are killing old people, yet nobody actually said it. How would the fairness doctrine fix anything done similar to that on a broadcast TV station? Answer: it wouldn't. Next?
Things like Social Security and Medicare (y'know... stuff for OLD PEOPLE) are run with federal money. Heck, if it was about INCREASING funding for Social Security, would you have thought that the right-wing media was trying to say that Republicans love old people?
"In the background, they showed old people walking in canes."
-----
They must have been awfully big canes, for old people to be able to fit inside them. Were they like the big candy canes that appear in the sky in your fantasy world?
I don't recall your answer. Please repeat it. I realize proving a covert liberal bias that is done in supposedly unbiased reporting, while somehow excluding commentary, would be dam hard to detect much less prove.
Very impressive house of cards. Covincing argument, no. You say its covert, yet its message is clear. How is it possible for a covert message to be clear?
My thoughts exactly. The right blow hards keep saying that the media goes out of its way to report bad things about Republicans. Fact is, Republicans do more bad things, and the media reports bad things.
The devil just can't get a fair shake.
The FAIRNESS Doctrine was set up to keep LIARS from spreading lies on THEIR radio or network and allowing the offended person to rebut.
With the liars that exist on FoxNoise, Rush Osamabinlimbaugh and their fellow ilk who do nothing but lie about liberals the Fairness Doctrine was designed to allow someone to rebut lies and innuendo as well being able to present an opossing opinion.
IT actually kept a lot of radio and tv stations HONEST. Which doesn't exist anymore with the righwing whackjobs who think honesty is for wusses. REAL MEN LIE in their perverted way of thinking.
Who was the moron stating that Neo Clowns ALWAYS tell th truth and it's the liberals who lie all the time?
Then why is it only conservatives are FIGHTING this idea?
Simple it'll keep them honest or somewhat honest.
IF Neo Clowns always told the truth, then it would seem they would be saying, "BRING IT ON!"
But they are fighting it. Hmmmmm
The Fairness Doctrine was put in when there were only a small limited amount of stations. Today there are tons of media outlets, so it is useless.
How would you like a Fairness Doctrine for the internet? Then Media Matters would be forced to air Newsbusters articles.
This is just a poor attempt to attack the Limbaughs of the world. It will fail miserably.
"The Fairness Doctrine was put in when there were only a small limited amount of stations. Today there are tons of media outlets, so it is useless." - Leatherface
Yes. You're right. There ARE tons of media outlets.
And they are nearly all owned & controlled by the same small number of monolithic media mega-corporations who insist on universally injecting the same dishonest talking points over & over again
So, your point was... what?.
"So, your point was... what?."
-----
Covered up by his leather helmet, as usual.
I dont care how many different media outlets there are. Since anyone can start up a website the internet isnt part of this equation. The AIRWAVES belong to us and we darn well have a right to a say in how they are used. Limbaugh just THINKS its all about him because with his giant ego he thinks EVERYTHING is about him. He is hysterically afraid of his audience hearing the other side because it would be so easy to show how full of Sh%t he is if the other side of an issue WERE heard. WWAAAAHHHHH dont make me put someone on who will puncture my balloon of lies, distortions, and propaganda. I cant compete if the TRUTH is anywhere near my BS.
How would the Fairness Doctrine do anything about Fox News anyway? The Fox News Channel is a cable station. It's not on the airwaves. Secondly, if Fox is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo right wing as the libs claim, why is Michael Savage BANNED from appearing on the station? You'd think that right wingers would just love Dr. Savage.
The FCC regulates cable. I dont know if this version of the fairness doctrine would apply to them but it could
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html
The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities."
I'm not going to read all of the previous comments because if the internet has taught me anything (and it certainly hasn't) it's that I can easily ignore what anyone else is saying. So, I would simply like to point out my amusement at this statement: "...there are people in this country who would gladly line up conservatives and shoot them against the wall."
Does Savage envision a gang of Democrats wielding a circus cannon? So now he's worried about roving bands of liberals who will turn Neo-Cons into human cannonballs? Interesting mental image.
Is my comment stupid? Yes. Is it appropriate to the level of discourse in which Savage engages? Yes.
Savage is a clown and can only aspire to the dignity of the human cannonball.
"I'm not going to read all of the previous comments because if the internet has taught me anything (and it certainly hasn't) it's that I can easily ignore what anyone else is saying."
-----
Then you won't mind if we ignore your blowhard blustering as well.
Mr. Savage seems to be paralyzed both ways from his rectum. His diatribe is all the progressives need, seems he is truly their greatest ally.
What a tour de force the previous 160 or so posts were. (Naw. I didn't read all of them but a good 50%).
Someone up there hit the nail on the head. The reason that conservatives fear the "fariness doctrine" is the perceived bias on those segments of the RF spectrum allocated to television. TV has a strong liberal bias in what is supposed to pass for news (yeah. yeah. I know I'm just asserting that but I do so from reading at least four books with hundreds of listed events backing this up).
The fairness doctrine doesn't apply to news broadcasts because they do not SUPPOSEDLY contain opinion. But, give us a break. They wreak with opinion and they wreak with omissions that give a biased perspective to a news story.
I don't listen to Michael Savage but if he said he would demand the right to rebut the nightly TV (RF) broadcast news given reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, I think he's right.
There is NO liberal media bias, thats garbage. I am a liberal and I dont see my point of view pushed by the news or media in general it never has and most likely never will. Just because you guys keep saying it doesnt make it true. If you want to read an institutional analysis that colleges use about the media try Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky.
Why does Media Matters even bother with reader comments? I'd disable them. Nobody ever offers anything constructive; all that ever happens is some right-wing troll will show up to poison the well, which then results in endless posts from the same 12 or so people re-iterating the exact same things they've said to the same troll dozens of times in the past.
Honestly, is there a point to reader comments here (or on any site)?
"Honestly, is there a point to reader comments here (or on any site)?"
-----
If your post is any indication, no. Fortunately, there are many others here who have something valuable to say. Perhaps you should read what some of them have to say and learn something before you condescend without standing to do so.