Savage referred to Pelosi as "Nancy Mussolini"
On the July 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage referred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as "Nancy Mussolini." As Media Matters for America noted, during the June 27 broadcast of his program, Savage similarly referred to Pelosi as "the Mussolini in a skirt," "Nancy Pelosi Mussolini," and the "Mussolini-like woman of the day." During the June 27 show, Savage also said of Sen. Barack Obama: "We don't know whether he'd be more like Mussolini or Stalin, but one of the two would work."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the July 15 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation
SAVAGE: The question is what happens after November. Well, we have a twilight period between November of the election and January, when one of the -- two of the candidates becomes president. Then what happens to radio? Well, Obama will go along with Nancy Mussolini who wants to ban talk radio. Nancy Mussolini, the great liberal, wants to ban free speech because she finds it offensive. Will John McCain join those in the Republican-conservative wing of the party who want to continue free speech in America by banning the so-called Fairness Doctrine? Has anyone asked the great John McCain that question, where he stands on that? Until I know where he stands on that, I don't know where I stand with him.
Your criticism is pointless. Savage has not, is not, and never will be in public office, so whatever he may want to do is irrelevent since it will never actually come to light and affect Americans. Pelosi, on the other hand is the elected speaker of the house, and her actions do impact Americans. The fact that she is pushing legislation to marginalize opposing opinions is disturbing, and goes against everything that free speech stands for. I want far leftists to have just as much of a voice as the far right, and under the current right to free speech, they both do. It just happens that leftist opion does not succeed in talk radio, and is fading fast in the MSM. Pelosi is pushing legislation to increase the amount of leftist opinion available, when the free market has already proved that it is not in demand.
Irony,
My take, based on the thread, is that Savage simply thinks of Pelosi as a Fascist.
I don't know enough about Mussolini to know how evil he was. I realize he was eventually shot and hung upside down but for many years he was revered in Italy and by the left around the world.
Mags,
I do believe that the left admiring Mussolini is historically accurate.
It's historically accurate the the middle didn't really give a s#it about Uncle Musso.
Also, please my Uncle Mike alone. Some disease has ravaged his mind. But he sure makes a lot of money with his act. The family adores him.
Prince - it's called syphillis. Savage is a classic case.
Nonsense. Even though Mussolini was once a Socialist, he switched his position and became a Fascist (not an unlikely happening, as several Neo-Cons used to be leftists, i.e. David Horowitz) , backing Hitler in every move the latter made.
I find it curious that you claim not to know much about Mussolini, but are quick to point out that the Left's supposed admiration for him is "historically accurate". It sounds like you've been reading Goldberg's sorry excuse for a book.
And yes, Benito was a horrible man and a disgrace to the great man his mother named him after: Benito Juarez, Mexico's greatest president and a true visionary and reformer, who twice had to defend his country from insurrections by the Mexican Conservative Party, hellbent on destroying the separation of Church and State and doing their best to turn the Republic into a Kingdom. Sometimes, thing never change."Prove that the left admiring Mussolini is accurate, AA.... And don't give us Jonah Goldberg's definitions "
Why is it you constrict the definition to only those you approve of? Should he use mmfa's definition of liberal? Are you only capable of accepting definitions that agree with what you believe? Is that why you limit the allowed definitions?
Also, why do you constantly need help finding facts? Aren't you capable of doing your own work?
"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Here are two links that do what you ask. Neither are written by your Jonah, but both mention him. Apparently, Jonah is accurate with his description, is that why you don't want to use him as an example? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59446 , http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/liberal-fascism.html
WHEN people speak vaguely indefinitely and generally, they are saying nothing, but only pretending to... and when another gets together with them, to banter back and forth in equally vague indefinite general terms, then what you have is empty vacuous talk (yet the talkers fool themselves, and think they're talking on brilliantly higher and higher planes, with all their -isms and -ists and -istics).
On the other hand, people who speak specifically and definitely, about actual existent things (where there is actually something substantial and detailed in their mind when they speak, such as about specific National Policy issues), those people never mispeak, and are rarely wrong in what they say: and when they differentiate between what they know to be fact, and what they only believe (as maybe being something they take on trust from the word of another), then they're never wrong in what they say (the mark of the differentiation they make, being found when they say "I know" versus "I believe" or "I'm under the impression").
Every single person in this world who uses the term "fascism" is an idiot: they think they're saying something, but it's just a pretense... if there were some actual human behavior in their mind when they say that word, then they'd simply specifically and in detail describe that behavior, instead of using an idiot's empty word like "fascism", just so they can make the false appearance (I guess) that they're some kind of "political scientist" or something.
Likewise, the words left and liberal and right and conservative, are all empty idiot words used by idiots who pretend they are actually saying something, when in fact those words bring to the mind not a single National Policy opinion or anything else substantive detailed and definite, upon speaking or hearing those words.
People who talk that way just make a show, as though they think their audience finds them to be brilliant (brilliant "political scientists" maybe)... but it's pure fraud and a pretense: there's nothing that's actually substantive and real that comes to mind, when they make their actor's speeches from their imagined stage, to an imagined audience... and when they argue about -isms or -ists- or -istics, they just make a lot of ignorant and empty noise is all.
It's the cause and true form of human ignorance, speaking in more and more general terms: it's the true form of human ignorance, decked out in clothes that are pretended to be "intellectual".
"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity."
So what here is consistent with liberalism? Nationalistic? Concerned with cultural decline or decadence? Exalting race? Promoting cults of unity, strength and purity?
Any of the above?
Fascism is a right-wing based ideology, wherein the needs of the government and business are put above the people. I'd say that we see smatterings of fascism in our current political situations.
Mussolini was a fascist - and a right-winger.
Stop with your revisionist history. As a liberal, I take offense at being "told" by someone like you that liberals have revered Mussolini. We've not done that at all.
From what I've read, Fascism has it's origins in liberalism. Yes, it is different than socialism and communisim, but they all descend from the same roots which I do believe trace back to the French Revolution which put the goals of society ahead of those of the individual . (As opposed to the American Revolution that emphasized personal liberty.)
A number of people say Fascism is a product of the right. Can anyone provide examples? I'm not saying they don't exist, but am interested in which Fascist governments are considered coming from the right and why?
I recognize that the term Fascism is hard to define. I see the term is used almost daily here by those on the left to label those on the right. I recognize that every instance of Fascist type governments have their own distinct differences that may or may not make one consider them fascist. So it is largely a matter of opinion.
As an example, Nazism incorporated genocide against the Jews as it's primary focus, but it's early appeal, as I understand it, came from nationalism and socialism. The socialistic part of the ideology puts it on the left even though the Germans rejected communism and considered the Communists as their enemies.
AA:
Fascists are not now, nor have they every been leftists. They identified themselves as right-wing. They NEVER identified themselves as left-wing. Fascism has opposed Liberalism for the its entire existence. The only leftist links to Fascism at all have nothing to do with ideology, but only with the fact that some of the early Fascist leaders had ties to socialism--I repeat, these ties have NOTHING to do with Fascism's ideology; they became Fascists because they DID NOT AGREE WITH SOCIALISM. I suggest you spend a few minutes online and look it up--and be sure to look at the sources you use; anybody can post online. Here are some characteristics of Fascist governments. Linking Fascism with the left is, at best, uninformed.
Maybe we should make a distinction between the term Liberalism and Liberals. Classic Liberalism can be illustrated by our founding fathers here in America. Liberty, freedom, limited government. However another variant of Liberalism took root in Europe. The liberalism of the French during their revolution differed in that it promoted as the greater good of society as a whole over individuality.
That brand of liberalism eventually grew into socialism. Following the paths as each took hold, Communism and Fascism evolved as two offshoots of socialism. One using class struggle, the other Nationalism and Corporatism, but both still evolved from Socialism which evolved from the French liberalism.
Fog,
Thanks for the advice. :-)
AA,
Define judicial activism for me. You do realize which SC judges overturn Congress more than any others, right?
AA,
Any proof?
Some people who admired the early versions of Fascism,
George Sorel, William James, George Bernard Shaw, Eveyln Waugh, Cole Porter, Stalin, Siegmund Freud, Will Rodgers, Samuel Gompers, Erza Pound among others.
A good article about Fascism can be found at:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htmFried,
Didn't you ask me for those on the left?
Did I ever say Stalin was a liberal?
How about this and check out the cites on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism (i.e., opposition to political and economic liberalism).[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Nice,
I think you forget WWII. Did not America fight against Fascist Italy? Are you saying America was the left at the time?
FDR was president. He insituted the most sweeping govt. programs in the country's history. So the answer, AnotherAnamoly, is YES!
AA,
With FDR and both houses controlled by the Dems throughout the war, I would say that America was controlled by the left during WWII, wouldn't you?
How many of those wars were pre-emptive, Phil? You can argue Vietnam and Korea in that category.
When did europe and Russia become part of the US? Why did the US attack Germany when it was obviously a seperate aspect of the war. Japan and Germany may have been 'partners' but they had obviously different visions of the potential conclusion to that war. It's a lot like the war on terror; al queda has several units attacking in several coutries and training world wide. If your opinion is that the US had the 'right' to attack Germany after Japan attacked us on the basis that europe and Russia were being attacked by Germany then the US had the 'right' to attack Iraq after al queda attacked the US and Philipines and Russia and Indonesia and France and England and Germany and on and on.
"When did europe and Russia become part of the US? Why did the US attack Germany when it was obviously a seperate aspect of the war. Japan and Germany may have been 'partners' but they had obviously different visions of the potential conclusion to that war."
They were fighting on the same side. Germany declared war on us. No country has to be part of the USA for us to come to their aid when they are attacked. That is not "preemptive", period.
"It's a lot like the war on terror; al queda has several units attacking in several coutries and training world wide. If your opinion is that the US had the 'right' to attack Germany after Japan attacked us on the basis that europe and Russia were being attacked by Germany then the US had the 'right' to attack Iraq after al queda attacked the US and Philipines and Russia and Indonesia and France and England and Germany and on and on."
There was no alliance between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
Even if you dislike most of the commentators on Talk radio, and I'm no fan of Savage, suppressing free speech is a direct conflict of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nobody has to listen to anyone on the radio. They can turn the dial or turn it off. One day I suspect there will be some liberal talker who breaks through and rises to the top.
See my post below. Being on the radio has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and neither does the FD. You can keep saying it, but it just ain't true.
If your assertion were correct, we could see naked bodies on broadcast TV, hear F-bombs dropped on the radio, and so on and so forth. There are already rules out there for what can and cannot be said on broadcast media, and it's not suppression of freedom of speech, since there is no right inherent in being on the radio.
I agree that there are limits to free speech. You cited good examples. However the FD is about political speech which I put in a different category. Was it not Voltaire who said, "I do not agree with you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Savage is trying to prop it up as being somehow against freedom of speech, mostly because cowards like himself, and Limbaugh (just 2 quick examples) would have to have on folks who were opposite of themselves on certain segments of their programs. Opposing viewpoints, what a grand idea...
Also, the FD was not just about political speech, it was:
"The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced."
Which for most or if not all of Savage's show, would be a moot point, because he doesn't hardly ever have anything on there that is a matter of public importance. I mean, he thinks so, but some of the more rational thinking individuals on here might disagree.
And again, freedom of speech does not entitle one to a radio show.
As someone else posted, guy on a box, in a park, yelling about his opinions, that's freedom of speech. Blogs that I write, that's freedom of speech. Being on the radio has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and it is not a right guaranteed by our Constitution.
"Was it not Voltaire who said..."
Barn, what's with these pretentious little affectations in your posts lately? A while back you used the phrase "this is but a tempest in a teapot", you used "thy", completely irony-free recently.Who talks/writes like this?
Don't get me wrong, you're still funny when you're not trying to be , but what's the story? Are you playing some 18th century British fop in a community theater production and staying in character, or just trying to dress up your same ol' stuff with a little tinsel?
Well, there's a conservative double standard out there with regards to television. You know the big stink conservatives made out of seeing part of Janet Jackson's boobie. But then again, every other commercial on television is about how to either (1) "grow" a bigger wiener or (2) how to get it up.
It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Who ever said that the Cartoon Network was only for kids?
I stand by my previous statement. The right-wing was the group that was the most outraged by Ms. Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. The right-wing is the group that, for the most part, claims to hold certain values, but then don't abide by such values. Again, it's the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that is espoused by the right-wing.
My point is, people shouldn't get upset about seeing Ms. Jackson's nipple on national television, but at the same time, have no problem with commercials promoting penile growth and achievement of an erection. Not only is it somewhat hypocritical, it's also borderline sexist.
On a personal level, I tend to find the human body to be a beautiful thing. It's people with hang-ups about nudity that have the problem.
Cartoon network IS a kids television program. PERIOD.
That said, I have no problem with nudity in private. In the open public, I do. Do not take me for some closet nut. I enjoy The Exotic Erotic Ball.
What is the intended audience?
I never said what my sexual preference was.....
Break out the champagne: the animated version of Marvel's Fantastic Four is a hit. The Cartoon Network announced that the series' debut, "Trial by Fire" (which featured Ronan the Accuser), boosted ratings by 19% among the show's target demographic, children aged 6-11.
http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/fantastic_four_successful_debut
Who said anything about suppressing his speech? What are you talking about?
"Who said anything about suppressing his speech?"
If you're not interested in suppressing his speech, why is this article on mmfa? What is the purpose of this article if not to produce an anti-savage mentality? How is that different than what Savage does on his show (provide anti-liberal mentality)? And, would the FD provide full and complete access to internet web sites that produce controversial commentary? After all, some internet is broadcast over OUR airwaves, too. Are we going to control all the airwaves or only the airwaves that you don't like? Seems quite hypocritical for a liberal to clamor for fairness over conservative talk shows but denounce this fairness when concerning the porno going over wifi internet. Those are OUR airwaves, too, aren't they? I understand if you don't want to answer that question.
"If you're not interested in suppressing his speech, why is this article on mmfa? What is the purpose of this article if not to produce an anti-savage mentality? How is that different than what Savage does on his show (provide anti-liberal mentality)?"
If Savage has a legitimate complaint about someone on his show, he can make it. They can make legitimate complaints about him here.
"And, would the FD provide full and complete access to internet web sites that produce controversial commentary? After all, some internet is broadcast over OUR airwaves, too. Are we going to control all the airwaves or only the airwaves that you don't like? Seems quite hypocritical for a liberal to clamor for fairness over conservative talk shows but denounce this fairness when concerning the porno going over wifi internet. Those are OUR airwaves, too, aren't they? I understand if you don't want to answer that question."
It wouldn't apply to the internet. Wifi is not public airwaves, it's not like programming that's broadcast for public consumption.
"It wouldn't apply to the internet. Wifi is not public airwaves, it's not like programming that's broadcast for public consumption. "
It is when cities provide it free for public use. It is when government run mass transit provide it free for public use. Computers, nowadays, all have the capability to receive wifi transmitions. Kids own those computers, too. So, you're saying it's ok for the government to provide accessable porn to children without regulation? BTW, just whose airwaves does wifi use? Are they private airwaves that nobody uses accept only their specific audience?
"It is when cities provide it free for public use. It is when government run mass transit provide it free for public use. Computers, nowadays, all have the capability to receive wifi transmitions. Kids own those computers, too. So, you're saying it's ok for the government to provide accessable porn to children without regulation? BTW, just whose airwaves does wifi use? Are they private airwaves that nobody uses accept only their specific audience?"
It's not programming. It's not like there's a limited number of channels where the content is dictated for you. The internet is not comparable to television and radio.
Don't you think kids who own computers probably have parents with wi-fi in their residences? So I don't know why they'd be riding mass transit just to download porn, especially since it seems like it would be just a little embarrassing if someone saw them doing it. That's a parental issue anyway, they should be putting blocking software on those computers.
" So I don't know why they'd be riding mass transit just to download porn, especially since it seems like it would be just a little embarrassing if someone saw them doing it. That's a parental issue anyway, they should be putting blocking software on those computers."
So you blame the parents for not controlling "our airwaves"? Why aren't you blaming the parents for not controlling the radio kids listen to? Everyone else listening to Savage is an adult and doesn't need your forced monitering/correction of what we listen to. If I want to listen to liberal bunk, I'll turn on a liberal station (they are out there). If I want to listen to conservative bunk, I'll turn on a conservative station (they are out there too). I don't need or want the government forcing me to listen to liberal bunk when I choose not to, and I don't want the government forcing YOU to listen to conservative bunk when YOU don't want to.
See how the 'fairness doctrine' should work? You listen to what you want and I listen to what I want. No government forcing what I don't want to listen to on the stations I listen to. If I (or you) choose to listen to something controversial it would be our choice. If we disagree with the content, then either stop listening or complain to the advertisers.
I'll say it again, internet content is not programmed. Radio and television content is regulated, internet content is not, which is why it's up to parents. It's just not the same thing, so your charges of hypocrisy make no sense at all.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, it's not about ideology as much as accuracy. I don't know why anyone would put up such a struggle about that, do you?
savage: "[Mr. Obama] will go along with [Rep. Pelosi] ...to ban talk radio. [Rep. Pelosi] ...wants to ban free speech"
In short, what this guy refers to as "talk radio" is essentially this: A private use of a Public Resource (the Public Airways), to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People, by broadcasting on the radio bands of the Public Airwaves by way of an FCC License.
That's essentially what "talk radio" is, and what it became, when twenty years ago Reagan's FCC unilaterally repealed (without Congressional approval) the Fairness Doctrine of the FCC's Regulatory policy, de-regulating the Public Airwaves so as to no longer require EQUAL TIME in the public broadcasting of political opinions, and REPLY TIME in the public broadcasting of personal attacks.
When the Fairness Doctrine was repealed without Congressional approval, it was an act of de-regulation that immediately transformed FCC broadcast radio licences into powerful political tools... they could then be used to broadcast the political opinions of the holders of those Licenses, as though those broadcasters were simply using some private resource of their own (such as a press), instead of a Public Resource the Public Airwaves, by way of an FCC License and all the Regulations involved...
"Talk Radio", as powerful political tool used for the private purposes of broadcasters (using a Public Resource) was born twenty years ago, with the de-regulation of the Public Airwaves, specifically the unilateral repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.
It's got nothing to do with the First Amendment, or free speech, because there is no right to use the Public Airwaves, none at all (if you think you have a First Amendment free speech right to broadcast, then set up a transmitter and start excercising what you mistakenly think is a right: you'll be stopped, fined, maybe jailed... there is no such a thing as a right to broadcast, so therefore not having an FCC License, or having that License revoked, is no infringement of free speech)
"When the Fairness Doctrine was repealed without Congressional approval, it was an act of de-regulation that immediately transformed FCC broadcast radio licences into powerful political tools... It's got nothing to do with the First Amendment, or free speech, because there is no right to use the Public Airwaves, none at all"
Is this your basic complaint- that liberals can't compete with conservatives on "talk radio" therefore you need a procedure to force your unpopular opinion onto popular shows? Don't the desires of the free market determin who gets broadcast on a legally licensed radio station? If your complaint is against equallity of broadcast opinion then this certainly IS about free speech. If your complaint is about equality of the 'amount' of broadcasted opinion then it isn't. But, in that case the free market takes care of that aspect by providing venues for popular shows and unpopular shows go defunct. Which I suspect is the reason you find very FEW liberal radio shows available. Which I also suspect is the reason liberals are pushing for the FD. You may be right that this isn't about free speech, but only because liberals can't compete on a fair playing field in the radio business. If the free market wanted to hear your bunk, they would. It seems to me that the only way you can get your bunk broadcast over OUR airwaves is to use the government to force private business's to broadcast what it knows will lose them money.
There's no such a thing as a "free market" use of a Public Resource.
You can make no "free market" use of the Town Square or a City Park, or the fields of the Public Schools, or of Town Conservation Land, or a State Park or Forest, or Federal Lands...
There's a "free market" use (although still perhaps subject to specific Regulations) of privately owned property: you may set up a lemonade stand in your own yard, but not in the street... you may have a yard sale in your own yard, but not in a City Park (not without a Permit or License)... you may dig for precious metals in your own yard, and drill for oil too, but not on Public Lands: not without a Permit or License or Lease (which even a Lease gives absolutely no ownership, but has all its terms and conditions which must be met).
The use of the Public Airwaves, a Public Resource Regulated by the FCC, is not a "free market" use of private property: there is no such thing as a "free market" use of any Public Resource.
Were we to be talking about a publisher, and the press and other things that they own and are their private property, that would be different: they don't require an FCC License, because they're not using a Public Resource... they can print what they like.
We're talking about the Public Airwaves here, which is a Public Resource not a private one, which requires a License to use (there is no "right to broadcast" on the Public Airwaves)... which requires adherence to all the Regulations thereof, there being no "free market" use of a Public Resource.
Dem,
There are a large number of people who like listening to talk radio. They also have the right to the public airwaves. The FD would restrict their freedom. On Sunday I hear all sorts of Christian programs when scanning the dial. What about that? Some people don't believe in religion. Should those programs be restricted too to make it fair for atheists?
There is room enough on the dial for just about every type of radio program, including Spanish speaking programs, pet advice programs, atheists. reactionaries, anarchists, etc.
We do not need Government meddling with content as long as the content stays within the bounds already set to control obscenity. Let people decide what they want to listen to, not the government deciding for them.
I'm talking about a narrow group of BROADCASTERS (private citizens with private commercial and political objectives) using a precious Public Resource the Public Airwaves (precious as in FCC Licenses that you and I do not have or could ever receive), and using the privilege of BROADCASTING to the American People (privileged as in there is no right to BROADCAST on the Public Airwaves)... and those BROADCASTERS then use those precious and privileged FCC Licenses to do more than just sell their junk and crap to the American People, they then broadcast 24/7 their own private political opinions, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People... and they do this with those Licenses to the exclusion of all other political opinions (as though they think they own the Public Airwaves they BROADCAST on, and can do what they like with them)... and that if those BROADCASTERS are going to broadcast their political opinions to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People (and those BROADCASTERS don't have to do that you know: they can just stick to selling junk and crap), then they should allow EQUAL TIME in the public broadcasting of their political opinions, and REPLY TIME in the public broadcasting of their personal attacks...
Because those Public Airwaves are not their property in the least, but are a Public Resource that they are merely Licensed to use.
That's what I'm talking about.
What are you talking about?
Christian programs, religion, and atheists?
Spanish speaking programs, pet advice programs, reactionaries, and anarchists?
What in the name of good sense are you talking about?
When you say equal time, where does it stop? That is what I am talking about. Who determines which programs fall under the FD? Religious broadcasting is certainly promoting a point of view and trying to influence listeners is it not? With your argument, atheists or Muslim should be provided with equal time to espouse their views.
If programs broadcasts can be in Spanish, why not equal time for Japanese programs, or anyone else who feels their language is being unfairly kept off the airwaves?
In other words, anyone can make the argument about any program that they are not getting equal time if they hold an opinion different than the one being broadcast.
Other problems arise. Lets use Savage as an example:
1.Who determines what type of opinion will be granted equal time? I've heard Savage attack Republicans, Bush, and those on the left? Who determines which programs "offset" Savage?
2. How many types of "equal time" are allowed? What if you feel the "equal time" response does not reflect what you perceive to be a fair rebuttal? Would there need to be a third program that more closely resembles your views?
3. How does the government enforce the FD against Savage? Will there be an official "listener" determining how much of what Savage says requires a response?
4. What if Savage has on a caller who is liberal and argues the liberal point of view? Will Savage be required to next put on a caller who is conservative?
5. If the FD becomes law and Savage continues on air without some sort of acceptable rebuttal determined by the 'listener' above, will the broadcast license be arbitrarily revoked? Will the stations carrying the license be fined? What does this do their free speech rights?
FD has some chilling aspects to it and it runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
EVERY single question of yours has the same and simple answer:
The EQUAL TIME provision of FCC Regulations, in the broadcasting of political opinions, and the REPLY TIME provision in the broadcasting of personal attacks, are applied and enforced in the exact same manner, as they were by the FCCs and during the administrations of, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon and Ford and Carter, and yes Reagan too, up until the time the old fool yeilded to broadcasters to unilaterally de-regulate (without Congressional approval) our Public Airwaves.
The EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of FCC Regulations go all the way back to President Roosevelt, and were FCC Regulation through all those Presidents I mentioned, and through all their administrations and all their FCCs.
You act as though the EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of FCC Regulations were something new and untried... as though they were radical and innovative... as though it were some strange uncharted uncertain course we were plotting...
You must be a kid: you must be younger than twenty years old: it's nothing new or untried or radical or innovative or strange and uncharted and uncertain...
The EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of FCC Regulations: If they were good enough for Gen. Eisenhower, then they're good enough for me.
I have kind of an issue with kids who are really too young to understand these things, but don't know it, and jump in anyway, acting all panicked and confused about things their elders have long known about: it's tedious talking National Policy to kids not old enough to know the administrations of the Federal Government going back to President Roosevelt, or to know anything about what was the good and succesful Regulatory Policy of the FCC for more than forty years, and during all those administrations named (until that Alzheimer victim lost his bearings in Office, and did what he did to us, by unilaterally de-regulating our Public Airwaves)...
It's more like teaching school, than discussing National Policy.
(You really think the longstanding FCC Regulatory Policy of all those administrations I named, and for all those years, "runs directly counter to the First Amendment"? Boy, kids today, and the things they think: Franklin Roosevelt "chilled" Free Speech? Go figure.)
"EVERY single question of yours has the same and simple answer: "
Except, you didn't provide an answer for #1 on his list. Can you do that? Or are you going to continue to whine about old people trying to teach young people?
Dem,
Thanks for thinking me young. I like to think of myself as such. :-)
I am of the opinion that you make my point without realizing it. Talk radio like we know it today did not exist back then because FD effectively kept political talk radio off the air in previous administrations. There were no Limbaugh's or Savages or Press's or anyone else because of these rules.
Just because FD was in force during administrations prior to Reagan does not make it right. The same could have been said about separate but equal in the 50's and earlier.
You may like to see it re instituted but I doubt it will ever happen.
"then use those precious and privileged FCC Licenses to do more than just sell their junk and crap to the American People, they then broadcast 24/7 their own private political opinions, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People..."
That's good. You call the American people too stupid to turn the radio dial. As if 99% of us have autism (to some degree) and aren't able to stop listening without assistance from someone else.
"and they do this with those Licenses to the exclusion of all other political opinions (as though they think they own the Public Airwaves they BROADCAST on, and can do what they like with them)..."
Since when have the "other political opinions" been "exluded" from the airwaves?!? Perhaps you can give some proof or examples of this? You know when I watch a Heinz ketchup commercial, I never see Del Monte ketchup in those commercials. Has the owner paid to have Heinz on their broadcast? Aren't the commercials trying to manipulate/influence public opinion into buying their product? What if someone is offended by Heinz ketchup, do they have a right to EQUAL TIME??
"and that if those BROADCASTERS are going to broadcast their political opinions to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People (and those BROADCASTERS don't have to do that you know: they can just stick to selling junk and crap), then they should allow EQUAL TIME in the public broadcasting of their political opinions, and REPLY TIME in the public broadcasting of their personal attacks..."
EQUAL REPLY TIME?? WHY?? Are you too stupid to turn the station when an opinion is aired that you disagree with? Or, is everyone else too stupid and YOU are just trying to protect them? Thanks, but no thanks, I don't need your kind of protection.
And, like your playground analogy, everyone shares the airwaves. It ISN'T one group uses it first then the next group uses it next and so on. Which is what your plan is to have happen. When do the mexicans get to use the playground? How about the Africans? How bout the Chinese? In America we have the freedom to choose to play whenever we want without any government restrictions on WHEN we get to play. Your FD restricts our freedoms to suit YOUR purpose.
BTW, you never answered "WHO" gets to choose what is worthy of equal time being applied. Is it going to be a conglomerate of people or just one? Will this group (or individual) be elected or assigned? Will this group be diverse or politically connected?
In typical false liberal bantor, you claim to know so much about the FD, yet refuse (or don't know and are afraid to admit it) to answer "who" will decide what is acceptable for "equal" time on any particular show. Are you simply avoiding this question because you don't know? Or, do you know and the answer would vindicate the fears of those who oppose the FD?
Don't worry, I don't expect an answer to this question. I realize liberals are afraid to be put on the spot in regards to facts and truths, so you're off the hook to an actual answer.
" you may dig for precious metals in your own yard, and drill for oil too, but not on Public Lands:"
Again the liberal uses falsehoods to promote an inacurate ideal. Unless you have 'mineral rights' of your land you cannot drill for oil or dig below a set limit. Since most mineral rights were set long ago you are not allowed to drill for oil or dig for precious metals on your own land. But facts have never stood in the way of a liberal arguement, have they?
Phil:
I suggest you look at how much money that, say, Fox News lost in its first years of operation. Look at how much money, say, Clear Channel spends on conservative talk radio and how much money it loses.
The myth that liberal talk shows do not sell is ludicrous. Look at ratings in markets where liberal talk shows (like Stephanie Miller) are matched against conservative talk shows (like Hannity or O'Reilly)--they often beat the conservatives.
Figure this out. You're spouting talking points.
History,
Can you provide those links to prove your spouts? :-)
I don't see anywhere above that anyone was advocating removing Savage's first amendment rights.
Funny. I must have missed the part where Pelosi said that she wanted to ban talk radio. Same for Obama. I looked, and can't find that anywhere within his policies on his website.
And Mr. Savage, as you well know, being on the radio isn't about freedom of speech. Neither is the Fairness Doctrine (which I as a super duper bleeding heart liberal, do not support). Must we keep repeating that we, the people, control the airwaves, and you have to be licensed to be on them, and you do have to adhere to some certain standards, there is no implicit right or freedom of speech for having a radio program. Nope. None.
Now if the government came to you, and said, you are going to jail because of what you're saying, that would be infringement of freedom of speech, or if there were words and things we couldn't say, that would be freedom of speech, but since there really aren't, then you're once again, all wet. If someone did want to impugn your freedom of speech Mr. Savage, I'm pretty sure that the ACLU would help you out, even though you're an utter and complete moron.
Mags,
As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine says that equal time must be allotted to political speech on the radio and TV. I assume that Pelosi has suggested reviving this doctrine and that is what Savage is railing against.
The problems arise with who judges what is political and for which side? Who judges who offers an equal but opposite view? Some bureaucrat? If one is guilty of not adhering to the Fairness Doctrine can one be sued? Fined? Imprisoned? How would one enforce it?
The righties I've heard have said that the radio owners will simply cancel all political talk so as to save themselves the headache and expense of trying to adhere to the Fairness Doctrine. The practical effect of the doctrine will be to see these 'talkers' taken off the dial.
I'm not really for the re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine, but you should realize AA that when it was eliminated it opened the door for professional liars to get on the air and bloviate without any response and/or repercussions.
That, in turn, has contributed to the dumbing down of America and has hurt our status in world affairs. Remember the circus trial of Clinton spurred on by hate talk radio, which spurred on the Republican base which spurred on the Republican congress to pursue impeachment?
Remember when a vast majority of Fox viewers/listeners belived that Saddam attacked us on 9/11? Or that now believe that Obama is a muslim and went to school in a madrasa.
Where do you think those ideas originate? Are they good for the country? Why do you embrace ignorance?
That's always been my argument Irony - I could care less about the equal time.
"Just give me the truth." J. Lennon
Irony,
You are very condescending about the American public. Granted, most people do not have much interest int politics but why is it that you think your can determine how much reading is necessary to qualify as 'enlightened'? Does the public have to read the same things you do?
Who publishes the truth? Is it MMFA? How do you suggest we all access the 'truth'?
Come on, Foggy - we all know why the righties are so opposed to the Fairness Doctrine: If the FD were to be reinstated (about which I'm on the fence, I can see good points for both sides), it would mean that their radio and television liars could be challenged whenever they spew their lies. The righties basically want to protect their talk shows (because they do, in fact, reach millions of people - and to be honest, it's been effective) and protect the lies coming from these shows. Right-wing radio would have a sh!t fit if they had rebuttals coming from the left, especially the left would question them on their obvious lies and distortions.
AA, a couple of points that may help you with the Fairness Doctrine;
As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine says that equal time must be allotted to political speech on the radio and TV.That’s how it’s generally described in the conservative media, but pretty misleading. If I’m not mistaken, the doctrine only directed that some time be allotted, by those using our public airwaves, to discussing controversial topics. During this time, it would be required that opposing remarks be given a chance to be heard.
You’ve probably heard it characterized as Rush Limbaugh having to surrender half of his air time to Code Pink, but it actually was designed more as an occasional segment with some discussion, rather than uncontested demagoguery. For example, at the end of Rush’s 4 hours of GOP infomercial, he probably hits the road if he hears the word “debate”,, but the station would set aside a few minutes to have a conservative and a liberal “discuss” an issue, maybe one of the very issues that Rush had just “explained” to his audience without any fact checkers around.
The righties I've heard have said that the radio owners will simply cancel all political talk…Again, this is how they’re trying to portray it, and this fits right in with their theme that nobody wants to listen to the other side of the issues. I heard one of the righty talkers insisting that everybody would tune out as soon as some liberal started talking, which would be actually pretty telling as far as how much the conservative audience wants to “discuss” issues. Of course it’s not true.
Do you actually believe that the host of a profitable radio show would cancel himself because he was required to let somebody question him occasionally? There would only be two reasons for that;
All of that being said, I'm not really a proponent of the FD. With all of the available information out there today via the web & other sources, I think anybody who believes faithfully in one source (say, Rush, to stick with my example) is going to ignore any other opinions he's presented with.I'd much rather see a trend in the average American towards exploring some other sources than their usual, and trying to actually think about the different sides to an issue.
Pelosi: ‘Hate Radio’ Hijacked Political Discourse With ‘Xenophobic, Anti-Immigrant’ Rhetoric»
Pelosi praised several provisions of the bill, but strongly criticized the bill’s vehement opponents on the radical right — especially on talk radio. Pelosi objected to their tactics saying that “talk radio, or in some cases hate radio…just go on and on and on in a xenophobic, anti-immigrant” manner. Pelosi noted that when it comes to bashing undocumented immigrants, “all of a sudden, all these people of faith are just very unforgiving.”
A radio show = free speech? I WANT ONE!
Anyhow this all nonsense anyway - this is the extent of free speech rights...
Tommy, is that you?
If it is, nice disguise!
she is a fascist, you all must admit. today she called for stopping exports of u.s. oil. the only oil we export is to puerto rico, and i guess some from alaska because it makes sense as the route to china is shorter than shipping to the u.s.
btw, the dems want to make it illegal to import oil from alberta's oil sands.
she is a fascist, you all must admit.
That's a pretty funny line, Sands.
She is a fascist, you must all admit -
Viva il Duce! Viva il Duce!
I must admit nothing.
Sandss, define facist without using Goldberg's definiton and match Pelosi's beliefs.
Sands,
You clearly don't know what Fascism is.
History and Fried,
Apparently neither of you can define it, but you know when you see it! :-)
A fellow Fire Head. Yoiks!
SCEEEk.
I didn't hear him enter, but my nostrils flared at the sent of his perfume.
Pyramid Pehttully.
There was only one joker in L.A sensitive enough to wear that scent and I had to find out who he was.
I wish MMFA would stop buying the line that Savage is actually important in the media landscape. He is syndicated by Talkradio Network which is at the lowest end of the syndication spectrum. TRN buys ads on Talkers Magazine and feeds them propaganda which is then distributed unquestioningly. If Savage is on 350 stations they are mostly marginal stations in small or medium markets with negligible listenership. Savage is a card carrying member of the lunatic fringe. The only thing he worries about is being ignored..which is what MMFA should do.
He is on in all the major cities: New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Dallas, etc.
He is #1 in his time slot in New York, according to the most recent ratings.
He beats Hannity in San Fran.
He is the 3rd largest talk show in America.
He towers above any leftist that has ever written or spoke a word in the media.
If you call him and his listeners batsh*t crazy (I assume you feel the same way about rush, hannity, ingraham, oreilly listeners), you just placed your leftist ideologies in a category below "batsh*t crazy."
If "batsh*t crazy" is what succeeds in America, things that do not succeed have to be below that...
You're believing the propaganda they put out. In LA he's on a station(KGIL) that is hard to receive and practically no one listens to..something like a 0.1 rating. He's a marginal player who gets off by saying the most outrageous things he can think of. He should be ignored.
It is not free speech that is under attack. It is so called "Hate Speech" that is.
Hate Speech = Free Speech
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380143,00.html
I'm familiar with the story. Someone's idiotic claim that a scientific term is "racist" has nothing to do with accepted definitions of hate speech. Even if he tried to establish that classification, it wouldn't get any traction.
I provided an example of someone who distributed hate literature. If you can't see the disparity between that and what this Price character says, then there's not much I can do for you.
FYI:
THORAZINE:
ADULTS
Adjust dosage to individual and the severity of his condition, recognizing that the milligram for milligram potency relationship among all dosage forms has not been precisely established clinically. It is important to increase dosage until symptoms are controlled. Dosage should be increased more gradually in debilitated or emaciated patients. In continued therapy, gradually reduce dosage to the lowest effective maintenance level, after symptoms have been controlled for a reasonable period.
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/chlorpromazine_ids.htm
That's fine. Pelosi doesn't plan to bring it to the floor, so you're safe.
What's to worry about?