Libs Once Again Want The Fairness Doctrine

[red states rule]

Libs are feeling giddy now, and Sen Bingaman says the Fairness Doctrine needs to be brought back.

Bingaman defected from Hillary to support Obama. He's the guy talking about a new Fairness Doctrine yesterday - audio below from the Jim Villanucci show on KKOB.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/veF2KNlHW6w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/veF2KNlHW6w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/10/dem-senator-fai.html

[retiredman]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

[red states rule]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

It is scary when the Federal government wants to regulate political speech - and libs like you have no problem with it

As libs have said about sex and violence on TV - if you do not want to see it (or in this case listen) change the station

[Immanuel]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

I think we should all be frightened by the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We should be up in arms anytime the government tries to limit free speech in any manner and that goes for which ever side of the political spectrum is being limited.

Immie

[retiredman]

It is scary when the Federal government wants to regulate political speech - and libs like you have no problem with it

As libs have said about sex and violence on TV - if you do not want to see it (or in this case listen) change the station

it is interesting how you failed to answer my questions.

[Kathianne]

I think we should all be frightened by the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We should be up in arms anytime the government tries to limit free speach in any manner and that goes for which every side of the political spectrum is being limited.

Immie

Exactly. It's almost like the MFM's of the world believe that if they can just shut out the voices, suddenly everyone will see the world through the prism of NPR and PBS.

[retiredman]

I think we should all be frightened by the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We should be up in arms anytime the government tries to limit free speach in any manner and that goes for which every side of the political spectrum is being limited.

Immie


so you have no problem with large corporations using their clout to drown out any but their own viewpoints from the public airwaves? We disagree.

[red states rule]

it is interesting how you failed to answer my questions.

I did

I am not surprised you would enjoy the liberal state regulating opposing voices.

Before the fairness doctrine, there were about 150 talk radio stations - now there are over 2000

The ONLY reason libs want this is because they are unable to compete with conservatives talk show hosts - so they must force staions to carry their liberal shows, or drop the conservative hosts

[Immanuel]

so you have no problem with large corporations using their clout to drown out any but their own viewpoints from the public airwaves? We disagree.

Give an example?

Immie

[red states rule]

so you have no problem with large corporations using their clout to drown out any but their own viewpoints from the public airwaves? We disagree.

They are not drowned out. Air America ring a bell? NPR?

Your problem is, the their ratings stink; while people like Rush and Sean rule the talk radio business

[retiredman]

I did



no. you didn't.
try again:

without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

I won't wait, however...I am off to see my hospice patient.

[red states rule]

I think we should all be frightened by the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We should be up in arms anytime the government tries to limit free speech in any manner and that goes for which ever side of the political spectrum is being limited.

Immie

Immie, it would only be a matter of time before the libs come after the internet and want to regulate what is posted

[red states rule]

no. you didn't.
try again:

without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

I won't wait, however...I am off to see my hospice patient.

As I said before I would turn the dial

[darin]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

You'd support state-run/regulated radio/tv? The simple reason Hannity and Rush are successful is (gasp!) people LIKE THEIR SHOW. Why not let the MARKET decide what is broadcasted? Radio stations are in the business of making money. If more folk like what Hannity and Rush are saying, than say, Air America, those programs will succeed. Fairness doctrine sounds like bit like communism.

[Immanuel]

no. you didn't.
try again:

without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

I won't wait, however...I am off to see my hospice patient.

I think what you want is to silence those with any opposing point of view from your own one-sided view of the world. The Dems are not looking for Fairness here, they want control and elimination of those who don't agree with them.

With Obama set to become the next President, I can surely understand that desire.

Immie

[Immanuel]

You'd support state-run/regulated radio/tv?

I think the answer to that is clear... Yes.

Immie

[red states rule]

You'd support state-run/regulated radio/tv? The simple reason Hannity and Rush are successful is (gasp!) people LIKE THEIR SHOW. Why not let the MARKET decide what is broadcasted? Radio stations are in the business of making money. If more folk like what Hannity and Rush are saying, than say, Air America, those programs will succeed. Fairness doctrine sounds like bit like communism.

In MFM's world, the ignorant masses must be educated. To them the people are to damn stupid to make the correct chocies, so they must be FORCED to listen to the intellectually superior progressives

This one area in the vast media is a thorn in the side of liberals, and they must control and silence dissenting vocies

[red states rule]

I think what you want is to silence those with any opposing point of view from your own one-sided view of the world. The Dems are not looking for Fairness here, they want control and elimination of those who don't agree with them.

With Obama set to become the next President, I can surely understand that desire.

Immie

To MFM, in his world he is superior to everyone else, and if you disagree with him - you are stupid and need to be indoctrinated

[red states rule]

What provides more fair coverage?

talk radio or The View?

talk radio or The Daily Show?

talk radio or CBS News?

talk radio or NBC News?

talk radio or ABC News

talk radio or MSNBC?

talk radio or the NY Times?

[avatar4321]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

Losing free speech is scary. Without it our nation wouldnt be what it is.

And I know you love the fairness doctrine. But I still cant believe you support surpressing speech. i expected better of you. Maybe im naive, but I did.

[Immanuel]

What provides more fair coverage?

talk radio or CBS News?

talk radio or NBC News?

talk radio or ABC News

talk radio or MSNBC?

talk radio or the NY Times?


I don't think one can say either side provides fair coverage or even fairer coverage. The difference is that they provide completely different points of view and that is how it should be. I should be able to turn to Sean Hannity and listen to his side of an issue then turn to Randi Rhodes and hear her side of the issue.

The government should not interfere with the programming decisions of any privately owned broadcasting stations.

I have never watched The View or The Daily Show so I'm not including them in my comments.

Immie

[emmett]

Libs are feeling giddy now, and Sen Bingaman says the Fairness Doctrine needs to be brought back.

Bingaman defected from Hillary to support Obama. He's the guy talking about a new Fairness Doctrine yesterday - audio below from the Jim Villanucci show on KKOB.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/veF2KNlHW6w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/veF2KNlHW6w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/10/dem-senator-fai.html

Guess what? They are going to get it too! Scary!

[Little-Acorn]

Libs Once Again Want The Fairness Doctrine

"Once again"???

Did I miss the period when they stopped wanting it?

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with the "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it earned its name by being evenly applied.

For every negative report on McCain/Palin on network TV, there has to be one of equal length, showing them positively. For every reference to "tax cuts for the rich", there has to be something pointing out that either (a) the not-so-rich are getting tax cuts too, or (b) the "rich" are the ones hiring people and paying them, and that historically such tax cuts have resulted in rising prosperity for ALL income groups. For every reference to the Keating Five (in which John McCain was completely exonerated), there has to be a report of what Barack Obama did or didn't do with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and/or ACORN.

For every newspaper story "investigating" Sarah Palin for having a trooper fired who had abused his authority as a cop, abused his wife etc., there has to be one "investigating" how she ran a state government with 29,000 employees, gave rebate checks to every citizen of her state while still running balanced budgets, took on adn defeated the big oil interests in her state, introduced competition in the oil industry where it didn't exist before, rooted out corruption in both political parties, etc.

For every movie depicting corporations a big, impersonal, and evil, there has to be one showing Ford or General Electric or Wal-Mart moving into a neighborhood, opening a big facility, giving jobs to a thousand people, the prosperity of neighborhoods rising, Johnny picking up his prom date in his new car which he couldn't have afforded back when the new plant wasn't there, etc.... something that happens far more often than corporations polluting a stream or blacklisting a whistleblower.

Sure, the "Fairness Doctrine" sounds fine to me... as long as it's truly fair, and in all media. As soon as the liberals start signing onto such a REAL "Fairness Doctrine", they'll get my full support. Should happen any day now, right? :lol:

----------------------------------------

P.S. On second thought, I don't really want the government controlling every aspect of the media and deciding who can say or print what. So, sorry, I've changed my mind. Being a conservative, I'll have to oppose the "Fairness Doctrine", even in its truly "fair" form.



* Never mind *

[Yurt]

You'd support state-run/regulated radio/tv? The simple reason Hannity and Rush are successful is (gasp!) people LIKE THEIR SHOW. Why not let the PEOPLE decide what is broadcasted? Radio stations are in the business of making money. If more folk like what Hannity and Rush are saying, than say, Air America, those programs will succeed. Fairness doctrine sounds like bit like communism.

i would like to expand one of your points to make it clear to the liberal gestapo's on this board who apparently need thought control in order to get their platform accross to people, as if near total control of the MSM is not enough:

i would change MARKET...see above

i know the market is essentially the people, but i think there are those who would miss your point

[theHawk]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

I would hope that an assualt on the first amendment would scare the bejesus out of anyone. At least anyone who claims to cherish the Constitution and the individual rights.

[crin63]

One way or another Libs have to silence the opposing viewpoint. After all we are just entirely to stupid to make decisions for ourselves. We need to give the government all our money and let them tell us where to live, where to work, what to think, how much to eat, what we can and cant say and on and on and on.

Libs make me sick. I sat for 8 months and listened to c-span while recovering from surgery. That is where I learned what Libs really think of us the American people. They despise us for having the freedoms we have. Were to stupid to manage our own lives by their way of thinking. They think we are all a bunch of inbred redneck racists with a 3rd grade education clinging to our religion and guns because we disagree with them. They can take their fairness doctrine and.... well I won't go there. Its difficult to be angry and not curse at times.

[Little-Acorn]

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with the "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it earned its name by being evenly applied.

For every negative report on McCain/Palin on network TV, there has to be one of equal length, showing them positively. For every reference to "tax cuts for the rich", there has to be something pointing out that either (a) the not-so-rich are getting tax cuts too, or (b) the "rich" are the ones hiring people and paying them, and that historically such tax cuts have resulted in rising prosperity for ALL income groups. For every reference to the Keating Five (in which John McCain was completely exonerated), there has to be a report of what Barack Obama did or didn't do with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and/or ACORN.

For every newspaper story "investigating" Sarah Palin for having a trooper fired who had abused his authority as a cop, abused his wife etc., there has to be one "investigating" how she ran a state government with 29,000 employees, gave rebate checks to every citizen of her state while still running balanced budgets, took on adn defeated the big oil interests in her state, introduced competition in the oil industry where it didn't exist before, rooted out corruption in both political parties, etc.

For every movie depicting corporations a big, impersonal, and evil, there has to be one showing Ford or General Electric or Wal-Mart moving into a neighborhood, opening a big facility, giving jobs to a thousand people, the prosperity of neighborhoods rising, Johnny picking up his prom date in his new car which he couldn't have afforded back when the new plant wasn't there, etc.... something that happens far more often than corporations polluting a stream or blacklisting a whistleblower.

Sure, the "Fairness Doctrine" sounds fine to me... as long as it's truly fair, and in all media. As soon as the liberals start signing onto such a REAL "Fairness Doctrine", they'll get my full support. Should happen any day now, right? :lol:


Actually, such a "Doctrine" could have beneficial effects on a lot of TV stations, newpapers, etc. in the country. Especially those that have been experienceing long slides, with their readership/viewership going down and down, having to cut their staffs and lay off entire offices full of people, etc., as ABC, CBS, the NY Times, LA Times etc. have been doing for years now.

Showing actual "fair" respresentations of news as described above, could do a lot toward reversing these stations' deterioration and failures, as it has done for Fox News - the only major station to publish both sides without being forced to by government.

The huge number of slowly-failing liberal outlets around the country, should support an EVENLY applied "Fairness Doctrine"... if only for their own self-preservation.

:slap:

[stephanie]

doesn't the fairness doctrine only apply to radio??

now you see why the Socialist Democrat party wants it..

they already own all the rest of the medias..

I hope people wake up, and soon..

[Little-Acorn]

doesn't the fairness doctrine only apply to radio??

now you see why the Socialist Democrat party wants it..

they already own all the rest of the medias.
Exactly. Which is why I want it applied to ALL media, not just radio.


If the leftists actually want "Fairness", they shouldn't have a problem with that.

Right? :lol:

[retiredman]

Exactly. Which is why I want it applied to ALL media, not just radio.


If the leftists actually want "Fairness", they shouldn't have a problem with that.

Right? :lol:

I think the issue is publicly controlled airwaves.

[retiredman]

Losing free speech is scary. Without it our nation wouldnt be what it is.

And I know you love the fairness doctrine. But I still cant believe you support surpressing speech. i expected better of you. Maybe im naive, but I did.

I don't support suppressing anything. I support providing equal access to the american people from public airwaves for all points of view

[stephanie]

I don't support suppressing anything. I support providing equal access to the american people from public airwaves for all points of view

the hell if you don't..

radio stations are PRIVATLY OWNED..that would end if the little Marxist is elected.

[retiredman]

the hell if you don't..

radio stations are PRIVATLY OWNED..that would end if the little Marxist is elected.

radio stations are privately owned, but the airwaves are not. sorry.

[red states rule]

I don't support suppressing anything. I support providing equal access to the american people from public airwaves for all points of view

Liberal talk radio does have equal access - your problem is most people CHOOSE not to listen

In comes elected Dems who want ot FORCE stations to carry the programs

[red states rule]

radio stations are privately owned, but the airwaves are not. sorry.

So now you want the government to dictate the programs and what can and can;t be said over the air

[Immanuel]

So now you want the government to dictate the programs and what can and can;t be said over the air

Well, hello! :D

That is exactly what he has been saying all along.

Immie

[Kathianne]

So now you want the government to dictate the programs and what can and can;t be said over the air

Just long enough for the owners to take talk radio off the air, they won't be able to afford to carry commercial free liberal programs. So they'll change format.

[stephanie]

Liberals are just like little Hitlers..

[retiredman]

So now you want the government to dictate the programs and what can and can;t be said over the air

do you support the government preventing, say, pornography from being said over the air? Are you really suggesting that government has no role to play in monitoring the content of broadcasting over public airwaves?

[red states rule]

Just long enough for the owners to take talk radio off the air, they won't be able to afford to carry commercial free liberal programs. So they'll change format.

and then MFM and his fellow libs will have their wish - a 100% 24/7 liberal media

[red states rule]

do you support the government preventing, say, pornography from being said over the air? Are you really suggesting that government has no role to play in monitoring the content of broadcasting over public airwaves?

To libs like you, conservative talk radio is pornography.

Your basic problem is people have decided NOT to listen to liberal talk shows, so now you do what comes antural - have the government interfere with the free market and FORCE stations to carry programs the listeners do not want to hear

[stephanie]

so I suppose they are going to compare conservative talk radio to being pornography..

I'd say the Airhead America is such, but I can turn the station..

what idiot would fall for that one..good grief.

[red states rule]

To MFM this is what he considers fair and balanced coverage of the 2008 election

I am sure he sees nothing wrong with the bias.


How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

McCain did succeed in erasing one advantage Obama enjoyed earlier in the campaign—the level of media exposure each candidate received. Since the end of August, the two rivals have been in a virtual dead heat in the amount of attention paid, and when vice presidential candidates are added to the mix the Republican ticket has the edge. This is a striking contrast to the pre-convention period, when Obama enjoyed nearly 50% more coverage.

http://journalism.org/node/13307

[retiredman]

so I suppose they are going to compare conservative talk radio to being pornography..

I'd say the Airhead America is such, but I can turn the station..

what idiot would fall for that one..good grief.


RSR suggested that government had no role in monitoring what went out over the airwaves. I merely pointed out the fallacy in that position.

[red states rule]

RSR suggested that government had no role in monitoring what went out over the airwaves. I merely pointed out the fallacy in that position.

They have role in censoring political speech - get it right

I know that is hard for you to do - but do try

[retiredman]

To libs like you, conservative talk radio is pornography.

Your basic problem is people have decided NOT to listen to liberal talk shows, so now you do what comes antural - have the government interfere with the free market and FORCE stations to carry programs the listeners do not want to hear

you neatly avoided my two questions. WHy not take a stab at actually answering them?

do you support the government preventing, say, pornography from being said over the air?

Are you really suggesting that government has no role to play in monitoring the content of broadcasting over public airwaves?

[Immanuel]

They have NO role in censoring political speech - get it right

I know that is hard for you to do - but do try

I'm sure that is what you meant.

Immie

[retiredman]

They have role in censoring political speech - get it right

I know that is hard for you to do - but do try

you still avoided my questions. typical.

no one is censoring political speech.... merely ensuring that time is alloted for all points of view to be heard...on PUBLIC airwaves.

[Yurt]

as libs, at least those who have bothered to investigate the issue, know, even the courts are primarily opposed to instituting the fairness doctrine again, as the original purpose for the doctrine no longer exists and the courts find it a troubling stampede on the first amendment.

however, the libs just want to distract from the reality that they control TV and print news, so they create a red herring by whining how they can't get enough people to listen to their shows on the radio and therefore, the government must step in and force stations to air liberal speech.

it is a bogus issue and one that shows the libs truly want complete control of how we receive information and thereby controllign our thoughs

[Immanuel]

you still avoided my questions. typical.

no one is censoring political speech.... merely ensuring that time is alloted for all points of view to be heard...on PUBLIC airwaves.

Excuse me, but all points of view are already hear on PUBLIC airwaves.

This is like trying to legislate environmental protection for the Dodo Bird. To late! What they want to ensure happens is already happening.

And yes, they are censoring political speech. That is exactly what they are doing.

Immie

[retiredman]

Excuse me, but all points of view are already hear on PUBLIC airwaves.

This is like trying to legislate environmental protection for the Dodo Bird. To late! What they want to ensure happens is already happening.

And yes, they are censoring political speech. That is exactly what they are doing.

Immie


no. they are not. sorry.

[Gaffer]

you still avoided my questions. typical.

no one is censoring political speech.... merely ensuring that time is alloted for all points of view to be heard...on PUBLIC airwaves.

What part of this don't you understand?

If I want to hear the lefts point of view I can turn on cnn, nbc, cbs, abc, cspan, npr, pbs, or any number of left wing blog sites. To hear the right wing side I can only get it from talk radio. A little from FOX, and right wing blogs. My choices are limited. Having you people taking out talk radio limits access even more.

[Immanuel]

no. they are not. sorry.

You're not being honest at the moment. Regardless of which part of my post you are replying to. All points of view are heard and the Dems ARE attempting to censor free speech.

Immie

[red states rule]

What part of this don't you understand?

If I want to hear the lefts point of view I can turn on cnn, nbc, cbs, abc, cspan, npr, pbs, or any number of left wing blog sites. To hear the right wing side I can only get it from talk radio. A little from FOX, and right wing blogs. My choices are limited. Having you people taking out talk radio limits access even more.

For some reason the left feels it must have total control of political speech. If not for talk radio, the stories about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko would never have seen the light of day

Obama's gaffes would never have been reported

Biden's constant stupid comments would have been ignored

For these reasons, libs like MFM have no problem with the government shutting down these voices.

[theHawk]

I think the issue is publicly controlled airwaves.

Hey, lets enact a fairness protest doctrine, to say who can say what at protest gatherings. They use publically controlled streets when protesting.


:poke:

[Immanuel]

For some reason the left feels it must have total control of political speech. If not for talk radio, the stories about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko would never have seen the light of day



That is exactly why this is a topic of discussion today and the fact is that the left through CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, NBC, MSNBC CNBC etc. have rebutted these stories since they first broke out, but it hasn't been enough as far as they are concerned.

Immie

[red states rule]

That is exactly why this is a topic of discussion today and the fact is that the left through CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, NBC, MSNBC CNBC etc. have rebutted these stories since they first broke out, but it hasn't been enough as far as they are concerned.

Immie

It took the liberal media over one year to report of Rev Wrong. Sean Hannity was on the story for one year, and had Rev Wrong on his radio show and Fox News talking about his "GD America" sermon

Yet, the liberal media ignored it

As I posted before, conservative talk radio is a thorn in the side of the left. It is the only part of the media they do not have in their hip pocket

The liberal media have not rebutted Ayers, Wrong, and Rezko - they have glossed over them and tried to spin them as right wing attacks

[emmett]

I don't support suppressing anything. I support providing equal access to the american people from public airwaves for all points of view


We have that now!

[Immanuel]

The liberal media have not rebutted Ayers, Wrong, and Rezko - they have glossed over them and tried to spin them as right wing attacks

You are wrong... as wrong as Jeremiah Wrong.

They have rebutted it very well. They have libs and most moderates convinced that it is nothing to worry about. Don't let them fool you, they've taken care of the damage control on that issue.

Immie

[red states rule]

You are wrong... as wrong as Jeremiah Wrong.

They have rebutted it very well. They have libs and most moderates convinced that it is nothing to worry about. Don't let them fool you, they've taken care of the damage control on that issue.

Immie

As I said, they have spun the relationships and tried to dismiss them. However, if Mccain had a friend who bombed abortion clinics, a pastor who preached hate toward blacks, and a convicted felon who helped him buy his home - I know damn well the liberal media would be talking about all 3 of them every day of the week

To libs character only counts if the candidate has an "R" at the end of his/her name

[red states rule]

We have that now!

To MFM "equal access" means the stations MUST carry their programs regardless if their audience wants to listen to them

[crin63]

What scares me is that people might really believe what MFM seems to portray. Its hard for me to believe that anyone could be so ignorant and foolish as to actually hold his view. He's got to be jerking everyone's chain.

[red states rule]

What scares me is that people might really believe what MFM seems to portray. Its hard for me to believe that anyone could be so ignorant and foolish as to actually hold his view. He's got to be jerking everyone's chain.

Crin, MFM is for anything that benefits his party - and it is irrelevant to him the impact on the country or the people

He is not jerking anyone chain. With him, his only priority is more power for his party, and more liberal government control

[retiredman]

What scares me is that people might really believe what MFM seems to portray. Its hard for me to believe that anyone could be so ignorant and foolish as to actually hold his view. He's got to be jerking everyone's chain.

I am neither ignorant nor foolish. You should try to avoid insulting people just because you disagree with them.:laugh2:

[retiredman]

We have that now!

we'll have to agree to disagree.

[red states rule]

I am neither ignorant nor foolish. You should try to avoid insulting people just because you disagree with them.:laugh2:

But you are arrogant, condescending, and obnoxious

IOW, a typical liberal

[Immanuel]

I am neither ignorant nor foolish. You should try to avoid insulting people just because you disagree with them.:laugh2:

Said the pot to the kettle. :poke:

Immie

[retiredman]

Said the pot to the kettle. :poke:

Immie

I am trying to take the high road, my friend.:poke::poke::poke::poke::poke::poke::poke:

[Immanuel]

I am trying to take the high road, my friend.:poke:

Try harder, my friend. :laugh2::poke::poke::poke::poke::poke:

Immie

Man! I can't believe I'm limited to the number of smilies! Talk about an infringement of my freedom of speech!!!

[retiredman]

Try harder, my friend. :laugh2::poke::poke::poke::poke::poke:

Immie

Man! I can't believe I'm limited to the number of smilies! Talk about an infringement of my freedom of speech!!!

remember the log in the eye?

[Immanuel]

remember the log in the eye?

That is what I'm trying to remind you of. :D

Immie

[retiredman]

That is what I'm trying to remind you of. :D

Immie

and vice versa

[Immanuel]

and vice versa

What's that? I can't see... there is a log in my eye! :)

Immie

[retiredman]

What's that? I can't see... there is a log in my eye! :)

Immie

mine too

[Yurt]

there is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine, everyone knows this except goebbels' followers, even the courts disagree with the "fair"ness doctrine :laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like we have yet another thread that little mfm didn't like but couldn't refute, that he has managed to hijack and change the subject to "What mfm said and what he meant and no he didn't and yes he did and etc. etc.".

....as he does to so many threads. This time the gullible dupes who help him do it, are RSR and Immie.

Only a matter of time before this one gets locked like the others.

[Immanuel]

Looks like we have yet another thread that little mfm didn't like but couldn't refute, that he has managed to hijack and change the subject to "What mfm said and what he meant and no he didn't and yes he did and etc. etc.".

....as he does to so many threads. This time the gullible dupes who help him do it, are RSR and Immie.

Only a matter of time before this one gets locked like the others.

We've had our say. Everything that needs to be said has been said. You can jump in with your 2 cents... if you had any... any time you want.

Immie

[Little-Acorn]

You can jump in with your 2 cents...
Posts 23 and 27, or http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=312806#post312806 for the un-hijacked version.

See what I mean about hijacking? You are so busy playing with yourselves, you didn't even notice posts that were on topic.

[Immanuel]

Posts 23 and 27, or http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=312806#post312806 for the un-hijacked version.

See what I mean about hijacking? You are so busy playing with yourselves, you didn't even notice posts that were on topic.

I noticed your posts. I simply didn't have anything to comment on them and they were hours ago. No one else was going to comment on them either.

I happen to agree with you, but I doubt your going to get much of a response to your thread seeing as how you decry censorship, yet requested it in the OP of that other thread.

And, I've been fighting a damned headache all afternoon. I needed some relief.

Immie

[Little-Acorn]

you decry censorship, yet requested it in the OP of that other thread.


Not censorship, just pest removal. Quite different, wouldn't you say?

BTW, pest removal reduces headaches too. Hope yours gets better, Immie.

[red states rule]

Not censorship, just pest removal. Quite different, wouldn't you say?

BTW, pest removal reduces headaches too. Hope yours gets better, Immie.

This scheme by the Dems is censorship. I remember years ago Dems were handing out "Hush Rush" buttons

Their goal is to remove conservative talk shows from the airwaves

[retiredman]

This scheme by the Dems is censorship. I remember years ago Dems were handing out "Hush Rush" buttons

Their goal is to remove conservative talk shows from the airwaves
I beg to differ. Who are you to claim to know the goals of the democratic party?

[No1tovote4]

I beg to differ. Who are you to claim to know the goals of the democratic party?
Past history is the best measure of future actions in both people and groups. It isn't hard, nor does it take psychic ability, to understand motivation. Even lawyers, juries, and the courts understand that humans have this capacity. Only people who are political hacks pretend that nobody could possibly understand their "perfect and benevolent" motivation.

[retiredman]

Past history is the best measure of future actions in both people and groups. It isn't hard, nor does it take psychic ability, to understand motivation. Even lawyers, juries, and the courts understand that humans have this capacity. Only people who are political hacks pretend that nobody could possibly understand their "perfect and benevolent" motivation.

I know of no one in my party who wants to silence conservative talk radio.... they only want to ensure that the listeners are provided equal time for other viewpoints and not be bombarded with Rush/Sean/Savage hatred 24/7.

[No1tovote4]

I know of no one in my party who wants to silence conservative talk radio.... they only want to ensure that the listeners are provided equal time for other viewpoints and not be bombarded with Rush/Sean/Savage hatred 24/7.
Please. All one has to do is listen to Air America for about 5 minutes before somebody mentions the evils of "Conservative Talk Radio"...

And they know that the easiest way to silence the tide of their success it to enforce a change in format that forces radio stations to put their money into "equal time" rather than towards presenting what their audience wants to hear.

An equivalent would be to force a Metal Station to play an equivalent time of "Soft Jazz" mixed in with their regular programming.

I remember the times of the un"Fairness" Doctrine, the editorials on the news and the flash of a telephone number to call if you wanted to give the opposing view that was up for 5 seconds at most as some dude who took fast-talk classes read lawyerspeak. It was stunning to hear anybody on the airwaves promoting anything near my ideas. It was near magical to suddenly hear anybody on any airwaves at all, even though it wasn't mainstream, speaking something that I agreed with. We were in a rut of liberal talking points seldom, if ever, effectively answered.

Seriously it sucked.

[Gaffer]

I know of no one in my party who wants to silence conservative talk radio.... they only want to ensure that the listeners are provided equal time for other viewpoints and not be bombarded with Rush/Sean/Savage hatred 24/7.

I take it by this that you listen to talk radio 24/7. Who's forcing you to do this?

[retiredman]

Please. All one has to do is listen to Air America for about 5 minutes before somebody mentions the evils of "Conservative Talk Radio"...

And they know that the easiest way to silence the tide of their success it to enforce a change in format that forces radio stations to put their money into "equal time" rather than towards presenting what their audience wants to hear.

An equivalent would be to force a Metal Station to play en equivalent time of "Soft Jazz" mixed in with their regular programming.

I remember the times of the un"Fairness" Doctrine, the editorials on the news and the flash of a telephone number to call if you wanted to give the opposing view that was up for 5 seconds at most as some dude who took fast-talk classes read lawyerspeak.

Seriously it sucked.

just because people on the left don't LIKE conservative talk radio is no proof that they want to silence it completely.

try again.

[red states rule]

just because people on the left don't LIKE conservative talk radio is no proof that they want to silence it completely.

try again.

There is no proof Al Capone killed people but we all know he did.

[No1tovote4]

just because people on the left don't LIKE conservative talk radio is no proof that they want to silence it completely.

try again.
This is a sad excuse for the action you cheer on knowing it would end "Conservative Talk Radio". It maintains that we are "too stupid" to be able to render a logical path from a starting point. Neither you nor I are that stupid, so it must be deliberate disingenuous thought, probably so you can fool yourself into thinking it is somehow OK to limit others speech in this manner.

As I said, it would be like forcing a radio station to play music equally from every genre. It would just suck. Stations play to their audience, not the audience to the station.

[red states rule]

This is a sad excuse for the action you cheer on knowing it would end "Conservative Talk Radio". It maintains that we are "too stupid" to be able to render a logical path from a starting point. Neither you nor I are that stupid, so it must be deliberate disingenuous thought, probably so you can fool yourself into thinking it is somehow OK to limit others speech in this manner.

As I said, it would be like forcing a radio station to play music equally from every genre. It would just suck. Stations play to their audience, not the audience to the station.

Libs like MFM really do believe people are to stupid to make the right decisions, and therfore the government must make those decisons for them

As long as it is Dems making those choices, MFM will support those choices no matter what they are

The fact that stations may go out of business, or conservative talk show hosts will be put out of the business it perfectly acceptable if it means opposing viewpoints are silenced

[retiredman]

This is a sad excuse for the action you cheer on knowing it would end "Conservative Talk Radio". It maintains that we are "too stupid" to be able to render a logical path from a starting point. Neither you nor I are that stupid, so it must be deliberate disingenuous thought, probably so you can fool yourself into thinking it is somehow OK to limit others speech in this manner.

As I said, it would be like forcing a radio station to play music equally from every genre. It would just suck. Stations play to their audience, not the audience to the station.


I do not know that anything can end "conservative talk radio". I do, however, think that something other than "exclusively conservative talk radio" is in the national interest.

[red states rule]

I do not know that anything can end "conservative talk radio". I do, however, think that something other than "exclusively conservative talk radio" is in the national interest.

You mean the liberals interest. The left has equal access, it is the public chooses conservative talk shows - and that is what pisses off liberals like you

[retiredman]

You mean the liberals interest. The left has equal access, it is the public chooses conservative talk shows - and that is what pisses off liberals like you

no. I said exactly what I meant. YOu should worry more about putting intelligent words in your own mouth and worry less about trying to mis-characterize mine.

[red states rule]

no. I said exactly what I meant. YOu should worry more about putting intelligent words in your own mouth and worry less about trying to mis-characterize mine.

I did not mis-characterize you. I translated your post perfectly

[retiredman]

I did not mis-characterize you. I translated your post perfectly

I disagree. My words don't need "translation"...your words, however, do need some "education".

keep trying, however:lol:

[No1tovote4]

I do not know that anything can end "conservative talk radio". I do, however, think that something other than "exclusively conservative talk radio" is in the national interest.
This is total rubbish. We've already seen that the best the Democrats have to offer on the radio is failure on top of failure with some stench mixed in, yet you want to force them to put this steaming pile of failure onto the airwaves to bankrupt and turn off their audience.

It is preposterous to pretend the effect would be otherwise. Just as a Metal station forced to play equal time of Classical would soon be off the air.

There was a reason that talk radio never picked up during the un"Fairness" Doctrine.

It is inane to pretend that forcing people to put steaming pile of failure onto the airwaves will in any way make them better.

The radio stations mold themselves to their listeners, listeners like radio stations to play what they like and therefore program them into their radios. Forcing them to play crap their audience doesn't like will kill AM radio and the talk format, and quickly.

[Kathianne]

I do not know that anything can end "conservative talk radio". I do, however, think that something other than "exclusively conservative talk radio" is in the national interest.

It's not 'exclusively', but besides the point. You have no faith then in the market place. So, 'big brother' should tell the owners what to play.

[retiredman]

It's not 'exclusively', but besides the point. You have no faith then in the market place. So, 'big brother' should tell the owners what to play.
the airwaves belong to the people.... ALL the people, not just the conservative ones.

[Kathianne]

the airwaves belong to the people.... ALL the people, not just the conservative ones.

NPR ring any bells? Air America took a shot. Why is it do you think, that 'liberals' don't seem to be able to make it on the radio?

[No1tovote4]

the airwaves belong to the people.... ALL the people, not just the conservative ones.
The Airwaves belong to the "people", not to Democrats and their measure of "fairness".

[retiredman]

The Airwaves belong to the "people", not to Democrats and their measure of "fairness".

the majority of the people's representatives will administer that. sorry.

that is how a representative democracy works.

[Kathianne]

the majority of the people's representatives will administer that. sorry.

that is how a representative democracy works.

So in reality, you do not believe in protecting 'minority rights'? Only the minorities you choose?

[retiredman]

So in reality, you do not believe in protecting 'minority rights'? Only the minorities you choose?

Oh..I DO believe in minority rights. I would never attempt to eliminate conservatives from talk radio.

try backing off the hyperbole, perhaps.

[Kathianne]

Oh..I DO believe in minority rights. I would never attempt to eliminate conservatives from talk radio.

try backing off the hyperbole, perhaps.

No hyperbole, just able to read. The assumption that a majority in both houses and the executive is ready and able to shut down free speech and you are happy with that.

You know that the Fairness Doctrine would cause 'the public airwaves' to lead to change in format, which will in reality you hope, shut down discourse in the public arena not controlled by your 'wing' of the political spectrum.

So how much control is 'just right' for the government?

[red states rule]

Oh..I DO believe in minority rights. I would never attempt to eliminate conservatives from talk radio.

try backing off the hyperbole, perhaps.

No, you will leave the dirty work to your elected Dems

[retiredman]

No, you will leave the dirty work to your elected Dems


I would rigorously oppose any attempts to eliminate conservative talk radio.

[Kathianne]

I would rigorously oppose any attempts to eliminate conservative talk radio.
No you wouldn't. Not by politicians, certainly not by the owners.

[No1tovote4]

the majority of the people's representatives will administer that. sorry.

that is how a representative democracy works.
Rubbish. First, the majority of gains your party will make are conservative Democrats who do not support this inane legislation that enforces a specific view onto others.

I don't know why I am, but I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of people who argue against government curtailing something like Gay Marriage because it limits the free choice of others, yet they will argue that a different free choice should be taken from others because they don't like the choices they make.

Choose not to listen to the stations and they will go off the air, choose to listen to left-wing talk radio and it will maintain profitability.

Force people to suck because you don't like others success=not good government...

Why is it that every solution of the lefties is to drag somebody down to the lowest level rather than an attempt to bring somebody up to the level where they can compete?

[retiredman]

Rubbish. First, the majority of gains your party will make are conservative Democrats who do not support this inane legislation that enforces a specific view onto others.

I don't know why I am, but I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of people who argue against government curtailing something like Gay Marriage because it limits the free choice of others, yet they will argue that a different free choice should be taken from others because they don't like the choices they make.

Choose not to listen to the stations and they will go off the air, choose to listen to left-wing talk radio and it will maintain profitability.

Enforce people to suck because you don't like others success=not good government...

if democrats cannot pass fairness doctrine legislation, so be it..that is the will of the people as expressed by their representatives

[Immanuel]

Not censorship, just pest removal. Quite different, wouldn't you say?

BTW, pest removal reduces headaches too. Hope yours gets better, Immie.

Thank you... it did.

Sorry about the snappy remark earlier.

Immie

[Yurt]

if democrats cannot pass fairness doctrine legislation, so be it..that is the will of the people as expressed by their representatives

so that is all that matters, the majority of the people say so?

[Yurt]

i have question:

why is the fairness doctrine needed? is it because of the unequal airtime mfm?

[retiredman]

so that is all that matters, the majority of the people say so?
and the rights of the minority are not infringed as determined by the courts.

[Yurt]

and the rights of the minority are not infringed as determined by the courts.

:clap:

YAY, you will never get your fairness doctrine then :laugh2:

post 112...have an answer?

[No1tovote4]

if democrats cannot pass fairness doctrine legislation, so be it..that is the will of the people as expressed by their representatives
If they were running on this I may agree with you, but they are not. Just as they are not running on allowing gay marriage, and in fact state the opposite of what I believe their intent to be. (Evidence: The intention to remove the Defense of Marriage Act and thus open other states to acceptance of such marriages from elsewhere...)

IMO, they do not mention this one because they know most of the US does not support it but want to do it anyway.

In the interest of accuracy and truth: To be entirely open, I am NOT against gay marriage, I am against the government regulation of a religious institution at all. All such contracts between consenting adults should be "Civil Unions". Marriages happen in churches, where many gays already have been married...

[retiredman]

:clap:

YAY, you will never get your fairness doctrine then :laugh2:

post 112...have an answer?


you may be right.

I think the fairness doctrine might be appropriate to balance out the nonstop right wing hate speech that floods the airwaves of the public, "counselor".

[red states rule]

you may be right.

I think the fairness doctrine might be appropriate to balance out the nonstop right wing hate speech that floods the airwaves of the public, "counselor".

any examples of hate? Or is simply telling the truth about liberals, what they believe in, and their double standards considered hate speech to you?

[Yurt]

you may be right.

I think the fairness doctrine might be appropriate to balance out the nonstop right wing hate speech that floods the airwaves of the public, "counselor".

so you want the fairness doctrine in order to make the viewpoints more equal in terms of time/listeners..."preacher"

[No1tovote4]

you may be right.

I think the fairness doctrine might be appropriate to balance out the nonstop right wing hate speech that floods the airwaves of the public, "counselor".
I've never heard "hate speech" from other than Air America. (I am sorry that it failed, it was a true image of Ds and having it there was, IMO, negative toward their party.)

Seriously, there is no "hate speech" like Democrat "hate speech" as they wish for the horrible deaths of others... and the callers were amazing.

[red states rule]

I've never heard "hate speech" from other than Air America. (I am sorry that it failed, it was a true image of Ds and having it there was, IMO, negative toward their party.)

Seriously, there is no "hate speech" like Democrat "hate speech" as they wish for the horrible deaths of others... and the callers were amazing.

Here is one article on Air America's greatest hits


Bozell Column: Ludicrous Lionel
By Brent Bozell (Bio | Archive)
January 8, 2008 - 23:40 ET

At what point, exactly, did we come to hate humans for having the arrogance to assume they are wiser than beasts?

The "we" in that equation belongs squarely to the camp of the loony radical left, which now broadcasts that hatred for humans on the Air America radio network. How low can this disgraceful failure of a radio venture go? One of their newest hosts goes by the radio name "Lionel." (His real name is Michael LeBron.) "Lionel" unfurled a rather unique take on the tragic incident at the San Francisco Zoo, where a tiger mauled a teenager to death.

He cheered for the tiger.

Then he cheered the death of Steve Irwin, the beloved "Crocodile Hunter" of TV fame.

I’m not kidding. Here’s the quote: "Call me wacky, but hurray for the tiger that killed the kid who was...taunting him. Now, I know this is not right...but let's hear it for the wild...I loathe zoos. I'm still cheering the fact that some stingray whacked that Aussie pain-in-the-ass Steve Irwin."

Some might call him wacky. Others would just call him sick.

Let’s note that there is no definitive media account yet that shows that 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. was taunting the tiger when he was killed. But if he did? He deserved death?

When the quote was circulated on blogs like NewsBusters and the Radio Equalizer, "Lionel" didn’t defend his statements. Instead he did what liberals so often do: he protested that he was only joking. He denounced conservative bloggers as the kind who say "I'm either going to expose myself to children at a park, or stay home and blog." Some bloggers "apparently bored, may have commented on a comment that I had regarding...Steve Irwin and the barb that shook the world." He claimed they were "obviously sardonic comments." His swaggering tone during that segment did suggest he was going to say something shocking, but his own Air America blog stated unequivocally, without any attempt at humor: "If you shoot a tiger with a sling-shot, you deserve to get mauled. That’s just how it works."

Cro-Magnons would agree with this man.

Liberals would have us believe that liberalism is all about seeking the highest peak of happiness and compassion for humanity. But when that humanity clashes with the animal kingdom, left-wing crazies throw compassion out the window, suggesting a different motto: "Screw the Human." Comedian Bill Maher also mocked Irwin’s death in September 2006 by attending numerous Halloween parties a month later dressed as the Crocodile Hunter, complete with a bloody stingray barb attached to his khaki shirt.

Why aren’t the media elites scandalized by hateful statements like these? When liberals get called on the carpet for saying crazy things, they are always only joking. When conservatives are joking, the media see their humor as scandalous, even dangerous. Leftists like Bill Maher can argue on television that the world would be a better place if Vice President Cheney was killed by terrorists and liberal elites will yawn because, he was kidding, see. But when Rush Limbaugh’s show runs a song parody of Al Sharpton lamenting Obama’s popularity called "Barack the Magic Negro," the same people suddenly are outraged.

NBC put on leftists who denounced Limbaugh for having a racist show, and "the radio equivalent of a blackface minstrel show." The reporter complained that there’s no "hue and cry" because his "niche audience" expects this kind of joke. The on-screen graphic screamed: "Is Limbaugh Getting a Free Pass?"

It’s a question you’ll never see posed by NBC about Maher or "Lionel."

When Limbaugh laughs about "feminazis," liberals are apoplectic in their fury. When the Air America types angrily label President Bush a Nazi, they’re nowhere to be found.

The other night, Maher was a guest on Conan O’Brien’s show. Speaking of Mitt Romney, he said, "You can’t be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work…and on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That doesn’t make you a person of faith… That makes you schizophrenic." O’Brien then asked if anyone who is religious is a schizophrenic. Maher replied: "Well, yes, sort of, because they have walled off a part of their mind."

Never mind that Maher just insulted about 91 percent of the American people as irrational, even mentally ill. The reaction from the media elites was, predictably, total silence.

Liberals in the Old Media who constantly decry talk radio as a haven for right-wing haters ought to have the honesty and integrity to cover both sides of the street before they present themselves as the nation’s guardians of public civility and decorum.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2008/01/08/bozell-column-ludicrous-lionel

[retiredman]

I've never heard "hate speech" from other than Air America. (I am sorry that it failed, it was a true image of Ds and having it there was, IMO, negative toward their party.)

Seriously, there is no "hate speech" like Democrat "hate speech" as they wish for the horrible deaths of others... and the callers were amazing.


I disagree.

[red states rule]

I disagree.

Still waiting for your examples of conservative hate speech

[No1tovote4]

I disagree.
1. You have no idea what I have heard, maybe I am just amazingly lucky and miss all the hate speech that you hear.

2. I don't care if you disagree with my opinion, explain why. That's what we are here for. Elsewise why should we post at all?

Imagine the conversation:

Me: I think :insert opinion here:

You: I disagree.

Me: And?

You: I disagree, a lot...

Me: And?

You: I disagree, tons...

It gets boring.

[red states rule]

More from Air America

Air America Radio Host Mugged, Liberals Blame Conservatives
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
October 16, 2007 - 11:15 ET


If something bad happens to a liberal anywhere on the face of the planet, should it be assumed a conservative is responsible?

Such appears to be the case according to the blog Talking Radio, which on Tuesday reported the unfortunate mugging of Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes in New York City Sunday evening.

In true Joy Behar fashion, the piece, after giving some details of the attack along with Rhodes’s apparent injuries, quickly addressed the possibility that the event was indeed political, and somehow connected to Hillary Clintons vast rightwing conspiracy

Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and displayed no purse or jewelry, [Air America Radio host] Elliott speculated that "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."

"Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own," he asked. "Are we threatening them. Are they afraid that we're winning. Are they trying to silence intimidate us."

Some of blog posters also expressed concerns that the attack on Rhodes was hate crime.

Amazing, wouldn’t you agree? This network went bankrupt because of its poor ratings. Yet, in these folks’ view, conservatives are so threatened by Randi Rhodes that they would resort to violence in order to silence her.

And this is supposedly the intelligent political party in our nation.

Alas, the stupidity continued:

Attacks on liberal talk radio stations and their hosts are not a new thing. About a month ago a gunman fired a shot through a window at the studios of KPFT, Houston’s, Pacifica station narrowly missing a DJ who was hosting music show at the time. There is currently a $10,000 reward offered to anyone who identifies the shooter.

This is not the first politically motivated attack on KPFT. More than 35 years ago, the Ku Klux Klan blew up the station's transmitters twice within the Houston station's first year on the air.

Also, according to a blogger on Democratic Underground, Thom Hartmann said on his Friday show that his auto repairman, after replacing his windshield, pointed out to him that he had three bullet holes in his car.

Apparently, some right-wing critics of lib talk aren’t happy that conservative talk only accounts for 90% of the programming on talk radio. These whack jobs appear determined to whatever it takes to silence the opposing point of view.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/16/air-america-radio-host-mugged-liberals-blame-conservatives

[Yurt]

so you want the fairness doctrine in order to make the viewpoints more equal in terms of time/listeners..."preacher"

did you miss this?


I disagree.

:link::link::link:

one of your favorite smilies...it cracks me up how you DEMAND others provide proof, but are not willing to do the same when asked

[hjmick]

More from Air America

Air America Radio Host Mugged, Liberals Blame Conservatives
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
October 16, 2007 - 11:15 ET


If something bad happens to a liberal anywhere on the face of the planet, should it be assumed a conservative is responsible?

Such appears to be the case according to the blog Talking Radio, which on Tuesday reported the unfortunate mugging of Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes in New York City Sunday evening.

In true Joy Behar fashion, the piece, after giving some details of the attack along with Rhodes’s apparent injuries, quickly addressed the possibility that the event was indeed political, and somehow connected to Hillary Clintons vast rightwing conspiracy

Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and displayed no purse or jewelry, [Air America Radio host] Elliott speculated that "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."

"Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own," he asked. "Are we threatening them. Are they afraid that we're winning. Are they trying to silence intimidate us."

Some of blog posters also expressed concerns that the attack on Rhodes was hate crime.

Amazing, wouldn’t you agree? This network went bankrupt because of its poor ratings. Yet, in these folks’ view, conservatives are so threatened by Randi Rhodes that they would resort to violence in order to silence her.

And this is supposedly the intelligent political party in our nation.

Alas, the stupidity continued:

Attacks on liberal talk radio stations and their hosts are not a new thing. About a month ago a gunman fired a shot through a window at the studios of KPFT, Houston’s, Pacifica station narrowly missing a DJ who was hosting music show at the time. There is currently a $10,000 reward offered to anyone who identifies the shooter.

This is not the first politically motivated attack on KPFT. More than 35 years ago, the Ku Klux Klan blew up the station's transmitters twice within the Houston station's first year on the air.

Also, according to a blogger on Democratic Underground, Thom Hartmann said on his Friday show that his auto repairman, after replacing his windshield, pointed out to him that he had three bullet holes in his car.

Apparently, some right-wing critics of lib talk aren’t happy that conservative talk only accounts for 90% of the programming on talk radio. These whack jobs appear determined to whatever it takes to silence the opposing point of view.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/16/air-america-radio-host-mugged-liberals-blame-conservatives

Didn't it turn out that Rhodes had actually fallen down in a drunken stupor?

[red states rule]

Didn't it turn out that Rhodes had actually fallen down in a drunken stupor?

Looks like you are correct

Was Randi Rhodes Mugged by 14 Bloody Marys?
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
October 17, 2007 - 10:24 ET

As reported here in NewsBusters yesterday, liberals immediately began blaming conservatives for the supposed mugging of Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes on a New York street. After much blame cast in the leftwing blogosphere against evil rightwing muggers as the culprits, it turned out that there was no mugging in the first place. Supposedly it was just an accident.

However, there is now some interesting speculation as to just what caused Randi's non-mugging. Here is an interesting observation made by commentator GBW over at Gawker.com in a post amusingly titled, Was Talk Show Host Randi Rhodes Jumped By 14 Ketel Ones?:

Randi Rhodes was no more assaulted by a right-wing fanatic on Monday than Dick Cheney was. She, in fact, fell down and injured her teeth outside of a Midtown Irish bar at around 6 o'clock Sunday evening after downing about fourteen Ketel One Bloody Marys. She was abusive to the barstaff and generally gross, crass, loud, and pretentious. I genuinely hope she has a speedy recovery. I never would've disclosed this (I believe that anyone should feel free to hang out at Irish pubs at any time and not be concerned about someone publishing their behavior) if Air America hadn't grossly interpreted a drunken indiscretion and allowed it to be morphed into some bullish rhetoric on air. Whatever journalistic integrity the station may have ever had is now completely compromised. The manipulation of the public diminishes any cause, whether just or fabricated.

So far the only major news outlet to mention the Bloody Mary possibility has been the New York Post in an article titled, RANDI RADIO DAZE:

The mystery was deepened by the facts that Rhodes didn't file a police complaint or call an ambulance to take her to the hospital.

The story was the buzz of the blogosphere. There were hundreds of postings on the subject.

An anonymous contributor to Gawker.com said Rhodes fell after drinking 14 Bloody Mary's at a Midtown Irish pub.

The jury is still out as to whether a bunch of Bloody Marys were the real culprits in the Randi Rhodes "mugging." However, if the "victim" had been, say, Rush Limbaugh, the MSM would already have been howling about his drunk and disorderly conduct as well as screeching about the false mugging report. Most likely Randi will be very reluctant to discuss her mugging that wasn't when she returns to the air.

Of course, the fact that there was no mugging didn't keep the usual suspects in the leftwing blogosphere from making wild accusations about evil rightwingers who wanted to shut poor Randi up. Among the most amusing of the Randi mugging conspiracy theories came courtesy of the Democratic Underground. Here are some of their more entertaining speculations on this topic:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was deliberate, because of her views. Last week she was going after the freepers pretty harshly.

I blame the thugs! And it isn't unreasonable, considering the political climate these last few years, that someone might be angry at Randi or any liberal talk show host!

They knocked out teeth went for her MOUTH - how much plainer can it get - someone was trying to shut her up - you know she is one of the mouthiest of "progressive" talk show hosts - and she has been on THE tv more than most - it seems pretty obvious to me - Mike Malloy and the others need to watch their backs....I put NOTHING past these people

Freepers have guts when they are five-to-one attacking an unsuspecting woman. Just like the Nazis before them.

But this does look like (to me, anyway) a pissed off, agitated wing-nut (or nuts) who did this. Knocked out some teeth? Perhaps to shut her up. Wing-nuts, if you've heard Randi talk, the girl WILL NEVER STOP TALKING. She will be going after you goose-steppers again in no time. Truth always wins out over violence.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/10/17/was-randi-rhodes-mugged-14-bloody-marys

[Sitarro]

I think the fairness doctrine scares the right. without hannity and rush broadcasting the talking points to the faithful 24/7, how would you all know what to think or say? what would happen if you happened to turn on your radio and actually hear an opposing viewpoint?

Would you have a problem with the Government mandating that someone that actually knows the Bible and is also qualified to talk about it should be able to get up and speak after you (to correct you incorrect translation and assertions) at your religious club Trinity? How about an atheist? Or a Muslim.....wait, that wouldn't be an opposing view would it?

[Kathianne]

you may be right.

I think the fairness doctrine might be appropriate to balance out the nonstop right wing hate speech that floods the airwaves of the public, "counselor".

So the 'representatives' can and will, willy nilly, answer back that 'the people' just do not know or choose what is in 'their best interests' when it comes to entertainment or 'their choice' of what to listen to on 'the people's airwaves.'

Indeed you mean 'the ruling party's' airwaves. Not mob rule or minority rule, rather 'government rule.' Nice and very much what all your 'fellow military members fought and died for.' Thanks for keeping faith.

First the vote, now free speech, spread the wealth. These are the same people that called GW, 'fascist.' Just wait.

[red states rule]

Would you have a problem with the Government mandating that someone that actually knows the Bible and is also qualified to talk about it should be able to get up and speak after you (to correct you incorrect translation and assertions) at your religious club Trinity? How about an atheist? Or a Muslim.....wait, that wouldn't be an opposing view would it?

I would also like to remind folks, libs have tried to have Rush censored from Armed Forces Radio

While only one hour of the 3 hour show is broadcast, and despite the popularity of the show with the troops - libs still have a tizzy over his show being carried and listened to by the troops

The preacher man is not interested in hearing other POV's - I am sure his church is much like Obama's where liberalsim is preached from the pulpit

[retiredman]

Would you have a problem with the Government mandating that someone that actually knows the Bible and is also qualified to talk about it should be able to get up and speak after you (to correct you incorrect translation and assertions) at your religious club Trinity? How about an atheist? Or a Muslim.....wait, that wouldn't be an opposing view would it?

the government has no role in religion.
the government HAS a role in regulating the content of the PUBLIC airwaves.

[red states rule]

the government has no role in religion.
the government HAS a role in regulating the content of the PUBLIC airwaves.

Yes, libs live to regulate political speech - when it comes from conservatives

[retiredman]

Yes, libs live to regulate political speech - when it comes from conservatives

do youy have that sentence loaded as a macro so that you can just hit two keys and it types itself? You are boringly repetitive.


I do not wish to only regulate conservative political speech. I seek public control of the content of public airwaves.

[red states rule]

do youy have that sentence loaded as a macro so that you can just hit two keys and it types itself? You are boringly repetitive.


I do not wish to only regulate conservative political speech. I seek public control of the content of public airwaves.

No, you want government control over political speech that critizes your party

[retiredman]

No, you want government control over political speech that critizes your party


not so. I have never said that, nor do I even think it.

[red states rule]

not so. I have never said that, nor do I even think it.

You can't deny something that is obvious

At the same time, Dems are trying to silence opposing vocies via the courts


KRLA sued over content

Man alleges that the radio station’s shows serve the Republican Party, not the public.
By Veronica Rocha
Published: Last Updated Monday, September 8, 2008 10:15 PM PDT
GLENDALE — A Los Angeles man has filed a lawsuit against a conservative talk radio station — which broadcasts from the city — claiming the station and its media company misrepresented their federal license agreement by serving the interest of the Republican Party rather than the public.

David Birke and his attorney Johnny Birke filed a complaint Aug. 27 against seven talk show hosts of KRLA-AM (870), Salem Communications Corporation and its owner Edward Atsinger III, alleging that they use the public airwaves to push Republican beliefs. David and Johnny Birke would not say whether they were related, citing attorney-client privilege.

KRLA’s broadcast studio is at 701 N. Brand Blvd. in Glendale.

David Birke contends the radio station, its show hosts and the company have defrauded the public by using their radio license to discuss only Republican issues, Johnny Birke said Monday.

David Birke also alleges that they misrepresented their promise to the Federal Communication Commission to serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”

The station and its media company serve only “that particular political segment of the public,” Johnny Birke said.

“This a legal attack about the facts and law about what these defendants did and what they are doing on the airwaves,” he said.

Radio hosts Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Mike Gallagher and Kevin James are named as defendants in the suit.

“My client saw a need to address something that has gone unquestioned for so many years,” Johnny Birke said. “He lost his interest in the public radio airwaves.”

David Birke is a longtime registered Democrat, according to the complaint.

“He’s not doing this for publicity,” Johnny Birke said. “My client’s case can be proven.”

Salem Communications’ attorney did not return calls seeking comment.

According to the complaint, “Salem Entities and Atsinger had no intention of serving the public interest, convenience and necessity. Instead, these defendants always intended to use the public airwaves to serve the interests exclusively of the GOP at the state and national level.”

The radio station, its media company and the company’s Political Action Committee have helped fund the Republican Party by raising money for its party-affiliated candidates and officials, according to the complaint.

“They [the radio station and media company] will try to portray this as an attack on free speech,” Johnny Birke said.

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/articles/2008/09/09/news/gnp-filing09.txt

[Gaffer]

“They [the radio station and media company] will try to portray this as an attack on free speech,” Johnny Birke said.

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/articles/2008/09/09/news/gnp-filing09.txt

It is an attack on free speech. If he doesn't want to listen to the station there is a dial on his radio that allows him to tune into other stations.

[red states rule]

It is an attack on free speech. If he doesn't want to listen to the station there is a dial on his radio that allows him to tune into other stations.

Not good enough for libs. The fact other POV's are being heard by the masses infuriates, and will not be tolerated

[retiredman]

You can't deny something that is obvious

At the same time, Dems are trying to silence opposing vocies via the courts


KRLA sued over content

Man alleges that the radio station’s shows serve the Republican Party, not the public.
By Veronica Rocha
Published: Last Updated Monday, September 8, 2008 10:15 PM PDT
GLENDALE — A Los Angeles man has filed a lawsuit against a conservative talk radio station — which broadcasts from the city — claiming the station and its media company misrepresented their federal license agreement by serving the interest of the Republican Party rather than the public.

David Birke and his attorney Johnny Birke filed a complaint Aug. 27 against seven talk show hosts of KRLA-AM (870), Salem Communications Corporation and its owner Edward Atsinger III, alleging that they use the public airwaves to push Republican beliefs. David and Johnny Birke would not say whether they were related, citing attorney-client privilege.

KRLA’s broadcast studio is at 701 N. Brand Blvd. in Glendale.

David Birke contends the radio station, its show hosts and the company have defrauded the public by using their radio license to discuss only Republican issues, Johnny Birke said Monday.

David Birke also alleges that they misrepresented their promise to the Federal Communication Commission to serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”

The station and its media company serve only “that particular political segment of the public,” Johnny Birke said.

“This a legal attack about the facts and law about what these defendants did and what they are doing on the airwaves,” he said.

Radio hosts Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Mike Gallagher and Kevin James are named as defendants in the suit.

“My client saw a need to address something that has gone unquestioned for so many years,” Johnny Birke said. “He lost his interest in the public radio airwaves.”

David Birke is a longtime registered Democrat, according to the complaint.

“He’s not doing this for publicity,” Johnny Birke said. “My client’s case can be proven.”

Salem Communications’ attorney did not return calls seeking comment.

According to the complaint, “Salem Entities and Atsinger had no intention of serving the public interest, convenience and necessity. Instead, these defendants always intended to use the public airwaves to serve the interests exclusively of the GOP at the state and national level.”

The radio station, its media company and the company’s Political Action Committee have helped fund the Republican Party by raising money for its party-affiliated candidates and officials, according to the complaint.

“They [the radio station and media company] will try to portray this as an attack on free speech,” Johnny Birke said.

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/articles/2008/09/09/news/gnp-filing09.txt


perhaps you misread my post:

not so. I have never said that, nor do I even think it.

[red states rule]

perhaps you misread my post:

not so. I have never said that, nor do I even think it.

Sorry, your true intentions are well known. You have no problem with a liberal government pencil pusher deciding what political speech can be said on the radio

Libs have shown their obsession with getting people like Rush, Sean and Laura off the air permanently

[Immanuel]

perhaps you misread my post:

not so. I have never said that, nor do I even think it.

Oh my Lord, how many hundreds of times have you used that line? Maybe you need to learn to write clearly, ever thought it might be you that is the problem? No, of course not, libs are perfect.

Immie

[retiredman]

Sirry, your true intentions are well known. You have no prblem with a liberal government pencil pusher deciding what political speech can be said on the radio

Libs have shown their obsession with getting people like Rush, Sean and Laura off the air permanently

I have never said, nor do I think, that conservative thought should be banished from the airwaves. period.

[red states rule]

I have never said, nor do I think, that conservative thought should be banished from the airwaves. period.

Just regulated off the air

[red states rule]

Sure MFM, Dems have no intention of getting Rush off the air :laugh2:

Pelosi Supports 'Fairness Doctrine'
by John Gizzi

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08. In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

[retiredman]

again. please try to reread and actually comprehend my words as shown in post #142.

[red states rule]

again. please try to reread and actually comprehend my words as shown in post #142.

Why? Did you go back and edit your post?

[stephanie]

anybody with half a brain know why the Democrats want to bring back the fairness doctrine..

all the spin in the world won't change the facts..and to sit here and see our own American citizens in favor of these types of tactics is pretty sickening...

[retiredman]

Why? Did you go back and edit your post?


not at all. My words stand unedited. You can ignore them and claim that I didn't say them or that I didn't really MEAN them all you want. I said them. I mean them. I stand by them. Now... either discuss them or move on.

[red states rule]

anybody with with half a brain know why the Democrats want to bring back the fairness doctrine..

all the spin in the world won't change the facts..and to sit here and see our own American citizens in favor of these types of tactics is pretty sickening...

As usual, libs say one thing, then when give the chance, they will do the opposite

[Yurt]

again. please try to reread and actually comprehend my words as shown in post #142.

why don't you try to reread and actually answer post 125

[Kathianne]

I have never said, nor do I think, that conservative thought should be banished from the airwaves. period.

Just the ability, opportunity to express it.