| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Bill Rood" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2007 12:51:06 AM |
| Object: |
Imus down, Coulter next? |
Letter to employees explains reasons for firing Imus:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/12/173145.shtml?s=ic
Excerpt:
"One thing is for certain: This is about a lot more than Imus. As has
been widely pointed out, Imus has been visited by Presidents, Senators,
important authors and journalists from across the political spectrum. He
has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of
objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people.
In taking him off the air, I believe we take an important and necessary
step not just in solving a unique problem, but in changing that culture,
which extends far beyond the walls of our Company.
I want to thank all those who came to see us to express their views. We
are now presented with a significant opportunity to expand on our record
on issues of diversity, race and gender. We intend to seize that
opportunity as we move forward together."
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing to
-- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
.
|
|
| User: "optikl" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 11:45:26 AM |
|
|
"Bill Rood" <wjrood@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just a constitution loving American" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 11:49:17 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "optikl" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 12:34:45 PM |
|
|
"Just a constitution loving American" <wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176569357.276995.56750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media
for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react.
Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like
Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope
he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you
believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Everyone uses that example and in the context of Imus or Coulter, it's not
the same thing. Further, I don't recall any riots in the homosexual
community as a reslt of Coulter's hate speech.
Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the words
of the transmitter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wes Penn" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 04:37:13 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 12:34 pm, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Just a constitution loving American" <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176569357.276995.56750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media
for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react.
Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like
Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope
he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you
believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Everyone uses that example and in the context of Imus or Coulter, it's not
the same thing. Further, I don't recall any riots in the homosexual
community as a reslt of Coulter's hate speech.
Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the words
of the transmitter.
Eh, the quote was "words don't incite". Regardless of your limited
context, the examples show they do. Besides, what may be offensive to
you is not necessarily to someone else. The intelligent thing to do
would be RESPECT everyone. But, to get back to Imus' situation, which
of those women were convicted of prostitution? If none (as probable)
then he is also guilty of deframation of character and libel, at
best. The thing they should do is sue Imus, CBS and every other
outlet that was live at the time and hit the poor, violated "victims"
in their wallets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "optikl" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 09:26:06 AM |
|
|
"Wes Penn" <wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176586633.768783.176820@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Everyone uses that example and in the context of Imus or Coulter, it's
not
the same thing. Further, I don't recall any riots in the homosexual
community as a reslt of Coulter's hate speech.
Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the
words
of the transmitter.
Eh, the quote was "words don't incite". Regardless of your limited
context, the examples show they do.
Wes, I answered that criticism. Let me repeat:
"Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the words
of the transmitter."
Words can't do anything. It's you and I who make an emotional (or maybe
rational) decision to react.
That doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate how the words are delivered.
But again, that's a "decision" we make.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wes Penn" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 08:44:07 PM |
|
|
On Apr 15, 9:26 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Wes Penn" <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176586633.768783.176820@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Everyone uses that example and in the context of Imus or Coulter, it's
not
the same thing. Further, I don't recall any riots in the homosexual
community as a reslt of Coulter's hate speech.
Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the
words
of the transmitter.
Eh, the quote was "words don't incite". Regardless of your limited
context, the examples show they do.
Wes, I answered that criticism. Let me repeat:
"Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the words
of the transmitter."
Words can't do anything. It's you and I who make an emotional (or maybe
rational) decision to react.
That doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate how the words are delivered.
But again, that's a "decision" we make.
So are you saying the charge of inciting a riot is therefore
unconstitutional? Ok, I will concede you the fact the the receiver
makes the "decision". However, when the theater tries to clear, or
the plane is delayed, then that is the fault of the people reacting?
That's almost as bad as saying it's not the bullet that kills...the
receiver shouldn't have allowed the wound to occur.
One has the "right" to say anything, even the "fire" and "hijack"
examples, if one so wishes. However, one will then have to suffer the
consequences of his actions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "optikl" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 09:39:31 PM |
|
|
"Wes Penn" <wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176687847.938051.189090@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
One has the "right" to say anything, even the "fire" and "hijack"
examples, if one so wishes. However, one will then have to suffer the
consequences of his actions.
No argument with your conclusion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Helms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 05:33:37 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 12:34 pm, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Just a constitution loving American" <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176569357.276995.56750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media
for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react.
Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like
Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope
he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you
believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Everyone uses that example and in the context of Imus or Coulter, it's not
the same thing. Further, I don't recall any riots in the homosexual
community as a reslt of Coulter's hate speech.
Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the words
of the transmitter.
Oh, really? Than next time you're getting on a plane, try making a
bomb joke and let us know how your bizarre interpretation of the
Second Amendment plays out with those "panicky" TSA people. Let us
know what their "Receiver Decision" was as soon as you get out of jail
and pay your fine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "optikl" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 09:35:44 AM |
|
|
"Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms132@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176590017.161129.194540@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Oh, really? Than next time you're getting on a plane, try making a
bomb joke and let us know how your bizarre interpretation of the
Second Amendment plays out with those "panicky" TSA people. Let us
know what their "Receiver Decision" was as soon as you get out of jail
and pay your fine.
Just because they decide not to tolerate a bomb joke, doesn't mean the words
themselves have some magical power. They could just as easily decide to
ignore me. Now, that's not very practical and I'm not stupid. I'm very aware
of the emotional component of receiving a message. Look, you're free to
believe or think whatever you want. Just be careful in accepting
restrictions on speech. Once intolerance for speech becomes
institutionalized, the train has left the station, never to return.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Helms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 05:39:34 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 5:33 pm, "Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:34 pm, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Just a constitution loving American" <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176569357.276995.56750@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media
for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react.
Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like
Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope
he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you
believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Everyone uses that example and in the context of Imus or Coulter, it's not
the same thing. Further, I don't recall any riots in the homosexual
community as a reslt of Coulter's hate speech.
Besides that, fire and hijack are just words. If you panic when you hear
them, that's a receiver decision not an a priori effect caused by the words
of the transmitter.
Oh, really? Than next time you're getting on a plane, try making a
bomb joke and let us know how your bizarre interpretation of the
Second Amendment plays out with those "panicky" TSA people.
I mean First Amendment, dammit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 12:41:02 PM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2007 09:49:17 -0700, "Just a constitution loving American"
<wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Yeah what Imus said was over the top even considering that
stupid things are going to be said when you make your living
saying provocative things 20 hours a week. It's still hypocritical
to can him considering all the things which get a pass.
I'm more interested in ignorant pundits, or pundits with an agenda
who disseminate unfounded propaganda for the purpose of
preparing the public for wars but even then : Where do you draw
the line?
There are groups that exert overwhelming pressure in order to
stifle debate on important issues in this country so I'm reluctant
to fire anybody if only we could have it both ways....but we can't.
You can't, for instance, have a serious discussion on mainstream
TV about the Israel Lobby because of pressure groups. You can't
even disseminate news that's not complimentary to Israel, sometimes,
for the same reason so it should be a tactic of usenet posters
and bloggers to call media organizations to account for
disseminating war propaganda which is deemed to profit Israeli
hardliners or political parties since that's the case.
How much clout should political pressure groups have to exert
their perogatives towards on the air personalities ?
--
Scott Ritter on YouTube
Israel's influence of U.S. policy & the Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4&NR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rood" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 12:52:58 AM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
On 14 Apr 2007 09:49:17 -0700, "Just a constitution loving American"
<wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Yeah what Imus said was over the top even considering that
stupid things are going to be said when you make your living
saying provocative things 20 hours a week. It's still hypocritical
to can him considering all the things which get a pass.
Actually, it's not hypocritical at all. Only one standard is used to
determine who gets to be on the air -- money. The sponsors were bailing,
so Imus had to go. It was as simple as that.
I'm more interested in ignorant pundits, or pundits with an agenda
who disseminate unfounded propaganda for the purpose of
preparing the public for wars but even then : Where do you draw
the line?
Unfortunately, in our system "you" don't draw the line at all. It's
strictly the sponsors and station management who draw the line. One
would HOPE they would stop giving air time to people who are
consistently WRONG, like William Kristol and other neo-conservatives,
but alas they have a compulsion to give equal time to both Truth and Lies.
I do think one place you can draw the line quite easily is between
legitimate political speech, even if it expresses arguably racist
viewpoints, and gutter insults (Imus) or violent expression (Coulter)
that have little or no relevance to any political issue and only incite
hate.
There are groups that exert overwhelming pressure in order to
stifle debate on important issues in this country so I'm reluctant
to fire anybody if only we could have it both ways....but we can't.
You can't, for instance, have a serious discussion on mainstream
TV about the Israel Lobby because of pressure groups. You can't
even disseminate news that's not complimentary to Israel, sometimes,
for the same reason so it should be a tactic of usenet posters
and bloggers to call media organizations to account for
disseminating war propaganda which is deemed to profit Israeli
hardliners or political parties since that's the case.
Yes. This is a problem. All political views expressed in civil language
should be allowed. They unfortunately are not.
How much clout should political pressure groups have to exert
their perogatives towards on the air personalities ?
Political pressure groups have very little clout. Pressure groups didn't
get Imus fired. The sponsors and network execs were considering the
expected reaction of the general public to the remarks. They could care
less about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. What they care about is the 95%
of their listeners who won't say a word but might quietly turn off the
radio or change the channel. In thinking about those 90%, they decided
the remarks were so offensive to critical groups that a substantial
portion of them would indeed change the channel. It was a purely
economic decision.
Bill
--
Scott Ritter on YouTube
Israel's influence of U.S. policy & the Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4&NR
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 07:03:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:52:58 -0500, Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net>
wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
On 14 Apr 2007 09:49:17 -0700, "Just a constitution loving American"
<wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Yeah what Imus said was over the top even considering that
stupid things are going to be said when you make your living
saying provocative things 20 hours a week. It's still hypocritical
to can him considering all the things which get a pass.
Actually, it's not hypocritical at all. Only one standard is used to
determine who gets to be on the air -- money. The sponsors were bailing,
so Imus had to go. It was as simple as that.
I'm more interested in ignorant pundits, or pundits with an agenda
who disseminate unfounded propaganda for the purpose of
preparing the public for wars but even then : Where do you draw
the line?
Unfortunately, in our system "you" don't draw the line at all. It's
strictly the sponsors and station management who draw the line. One
would HOPE they would stop giving air time to people who are
consistently WRONG, like William Kristol and other neo-conservatives,
but alas they have a compulsion to give equal time to both Truth and Lies.
Oh I can see some pundits on CNN who try to be fair. CNN's "This
Week at War" has considerably better pundits than former AIPAC
newsletter editor Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" but they still have
former IAEA inspector spokesman from some crappy think tank
whose name escapes me speaking as "Iran regime change last"
and some nerd from the "American Enterprise Institute" speaking
for "Iran regime change first"......sort of like our political parties
I do think one place you can draw the line quite easily is between
legitimate political speech, even if it expresses arguably racist
viewpoints, and gutter insults (Imus) or violent expression (Coulter)
that have little or no relevance to any political issue and only incite
hate.
Not so easily. You're just getting into censorship and somebody
can say pretty over the top stuff if he makes people laugh.
Imus's joke wasn't any worse than lots of comedian's jokes
except it bombed cause it was too edgy for a white guy to
say....that's all. If it had worked, he would be working.
There are groups that exert overwhelming pressure in order to
stifle debate on important issues in this country so I'm reluctant
to fire anybody if only we could have it both ways....but we can't.
You can't, for instance, have a serious discussion on mainstream
TV about the Israel Lobby because of pressure groups. You can't
even disseminate news that's not complimentary to Israel, sometimes,
for the same reason so it should be a tactic of usenet posters
and bloggers to call media organizations to account for
disseminating war propaganda which is deemed to profit Israeli
hardliners or political parties since that's the case.
Yes. This is a problem. All political views expressed in civil language
should be allowed. They unfortunately are not.
How much clout should political pressure groups have to exert
their perogatives towards on the air personalities ?
Political pressure groups have very little clout. Pressure groups didn't
get Imus fired. The sponsors and network execs were considering the
expected reaction of the general public to the remarks. They could care
less about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. What they care about is the 95%
of their listeners who won't say a word but might quietly turn off the
radio or change the channel. In thinking about those 90%, they decided
the remarks were so offensive to critical groups that a substantial
portion of them would indeed change the channel. It was a purely
economic decision.
Bill
I would say that the ADL gets it's way at suppressing news
uncomplimentary to Israel whether it offends or not. And it's
no secret that realpolitic concerning AIPAC lobbying for the
U.S. not to talk to Iran, for instance, is commonly read in the
Israeli press and rarely in the U.S....other issues as well such
as the ongoing AIPAC spy case investigation and trials which
seem to lead towards California Rep. Jane Harman which
I read about first in Haaretz but here's a good US version
from MSNBC (but rarely anything televised which mentions
AIPAC) You know guys like Matthews would run with this
if they were free to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
or the arrest of the Israeli spys in NJ whom may have been tailing
some of the hijackers before 9-11. Brit Hume tried to run that story
on FOX and Abe Foxman got the story both killed and taken from
the FOX website though It's up on YouTube of course.
Of course you read it in the "Jewish Forward" first but
Ketcham's article is better:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/highfivers_and.html
Here is how Counterpunch finally got the story that "Salon"
was forced to kill.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03072007.html
So this was forbidden to be televised by the pressure from
Abe Foxman's ADL and anonymous e-mail cyber-attacks
shutting down FOX servers.
That has more to do with a politically motivated pressure
group than public acceptance.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on the other hand, can slant whenever U.S.
military spokesmen blame everything wrong in Iraq on Iran
and CNN's Glenn Beck can openly proselytize anti-Muslim
smears for the purpose of a war with Iran....CNN knows that's
what he's there for and they know Blitzer was an AIPAC Lobbyist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rood" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
17 Apr 2007 01:15:04 AM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:52:58 -0500, Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net>
wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
On 14 Apr 2007 09:49:17 -0700, "Just a constitution loving American"
<wespenn56@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "optikl" <opt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjr...@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real. If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
Interesting premise...if speech can't incite, try yelling "fire" the
next time you're in a crowded theater, or "hijack" at the next airport
you're in.
Yeah what Imus said was over the top even considering that
stupid things are going to be said when you make your living
saying provocative things 20 hours a week. It's still hypocritical
to can him considering all the things which get a pass.
Actually, it's not hypocritical at all. Only one standard is used to
determine who gets to be on the air -- money. The sponsors were bailing,
so Imus had to go. It was as simple as that.
I'm more interested in ignorant pundits, or pundits with an agenda
who disseminate unfounded propaganda for the purpose of
preparing the public for wars but even then : Where do you draw
the line?
Unfortunately, in our system "you" don't draw the line at all. It's
strictly the sponsors and station management who draw the line. One
would HOPE they would stop giving air time to people who are
consistently WRONG, like William Kristol and other neo-conservatives,
but alas they have a compulsion to give equal time to both Truth and Lies.
Oh I can see some pundits on CNN who try to be fair. CNN's "This
Week at War" has considerably better pundits than former AIPAC
newsletter editor Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" but they still have
former IAEA inspector spokesman from some crappy think tank
whose name escapes me speaking as "Iran regime change last"
and some nerd from the "American Enterprise Institute" speaking
for "Iran regime change first"......sort of like our political parties
I do think one place you can draw the line quite easily is between
legitimate political speech, even if it expresses arguably racist
viewpoints, and gutter insults (Imus) or violent expression (Coulter)
that have little or no relevance to any political issue and only incite
hate.
Not so easily. You're just getting into censorship and somebody
can say pretty over the top stuff if he makes people laugh.
No, I'm not talking about censorship -- at least not government
censorship. What I'm saying is that the owners of a radio station or
network have the right -- and responsibility -- to regulate what is or
isn't said on their private platform. Further, I'd like them to allow
all range of political expression, but to ban speech that has no real
political value but is merely intended to incite or pander to hate and
violence, and to think twice about inviting talking heads who are
consistently wrong and totally discredited. Surely they can find some
pundit from the War Party who has occasionally been right about
something. Robert Novak maybe?
Imus's joke wasn't any worse than lots of comedian's jokes
except it bombed cause it was too edgy for a white guy to
say....that's all. If it had worked, he would be working.
There are groups that exert overwhelming pressure in order to
stifle debate on important issues in this country so I'm reluctant
to fire anybody if only we could have it both ways....but we can't.
You can't, for instance, have a serious discussion on mainstream
TV about the Israel Lobby because of pressure groups. You can't
even disseminate news that's not complimentary to Israel, sometimes,
for the same reason so it should be a tactic of usenet posters
and bloggers to call media organizations to account for
disseminating war propaganda which is deemed to profit Israeli
hardliners or political parties since that's the case.
Yes. This is a problem. All political views expressed in civil language
should be allowed. They unfortunately are not.
How much clout should political pressure groups have to exert
their perogatives towards on the air personalities ?
Political pressure groups have very little clout. Pressure groups didn't
get Imus fired. The sponsors and network execs were considering the
expected reaction of the general public to the remarks. They could care
less about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. What they care about is the 95%
of their listeners who won't say a word but might quietly turn off the
radio or change the channel. In thinking about those 90%, they decided
the remarks were so offensive to critical groups that a substantial
portion of them would indeed change the channel. It was a purely
economic decision.
Bill
I would say that the ADL gets it's way at suppressing news
uncomplimentary to Israel whether it offends or not. And it's
no secret that realpolitic concerning AIPAC lobbying for the
U.S. not to talk to Iran, for instance, is commonly read in the
Israeli press and rarely in the U.S....other issues as well such
as the ongoing AIPAC spy case investigation and trials which
seem to lead towards California Rep. Jane Harman which
I read about first in Haaretz but here's a good US version
from MSNBC (but rarely anything televised which mentions
AIPAC) You know guys like Matthews would run with this
if they were free to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
or the arrest of the Israeli spys in NJ whom may have been tailing
some of the hijackers before 9-11. Brit Hume tried to run that story
on FOX and Abe Foxman got the story both killed and taken from
the FOX website though It's up on YouTube of course.
Of course you read it in the "Jewish Forward" first but
Ketcham's article is better:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/highfivers_and.html
Here is how Counterpunch finally got the story that "Salon"
was forced to kill.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03072007.html
So this was forbidden to be televised by the pressure from
Abe Foxman's ADL and anonymous e-mail cyber-attacks
shutting down FOX servers.
That has more to do with a politically motivated pressure
group than public acceptance.
Yes, the pro-Israel lobby is definitely the exception that proves the
rule. I can't think of another pressure group with a grass roots
constituency that consistently gets its way.
You may be interested in http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on the other hand, can slant whenever U.S.
military spokesmen blame everything wrong in Iraq on Iran
and CNN's Glenn Beck can openly proselytize anti-Muslim
smears for the purpose of a war with Iran....CNN knows that's
what he's there for and they know Blitzer was an AIPAC Lobbyist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
17 Apr 2007 07:04:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:15:04 -0500, Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net>
wrote:
(brevity snip of old stuff)
I do think one place you can draw the line quite easily is between
legitimate political speech, even if it expresses arguably racist
viewpoints, and gutter insults (Imus) or violent expression (Coulter)
that have little or no relevance to any political issue and only incite
hate.
Not so easily. You're just getting into censorship and somebody
can say pretty over the top stuff if he makes people laugh.
No, I'm not talking about censorship -- at least not government
censorship. What I'm saying is that the owners of a radio station or
network have the right -- and responsibility -- to regulate what is or
isn't said on their private platform.
Quite right but I didn't think that Imus's insulting comment was
even televised. I was thinking that the Reverend Al Sharpton
was who brought it to the country's attention or the girls
probably wouldn't have heard it at all.
If he only said it on the radio, he has lots of competition from
all sides including Black rappers whom I've heard lean on
Asian Americans, with impunity, just prior to the LA riots
when plenty of Asian Americans were attacked.
Further, I'd like them to allow
all range of political expression, but to ban speech that has no real
political value but is merely intended to incite or pander to hate and
violence, and to think twice about inviting talking heads who are
consistently wrong and totally discredited. Surely they can find some
pundit from the War Party who has occasionally been right about
something. Robert Novak maybe?
Imus's joke wasn't any worse than lots of comedian's jokes
except it bombed cause it was too edgy for a white guy to
say....that's all. If it had worked, he would be working.
(brevity snip)
I would say that the ADL gets it's way at suppressing news
uncomplimentary to Israel whether it offends or not. And it's
no secret that realpolitic concerning AIPAC lobbying for the
U.S. not to talk to Iran, for instance, is commonly read in the
Israeli press and rarely in the U.S....other issues as well such
as the ongoing AIPAC spy case investigation and trials which
seem to lead towards California Rep. Jane Harman which
I read about first in Haaretz but here's a good US version
from MSNBC (but rarely anything televised which mentions
AIPAC) You know guys like Matthews would run with this
if they were free to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
or the arrest of the Israeli spys in NJ whom may have been tailing
some of the hijackers before 9-11. Brit Hume tried to run that story
on FOX and Abe Foxman got the story both killed and taken from
the FOX website though It's up on YouTube of course.
Of course you read it in the "Jewish Forward" first but
Ketcham's article is better:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/highfivers_and.html
Here is how Counterpunch finally got the story that "Salon"
was forced to kill.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03072007.html
So this was forbidden to be televised by the pressure from
Abe Foxman's ADL and anonymous e-mail cyber-attacks
shutting down FOX servers.
That has more to do with a politically motivated pressure
group than public acceptance.
Yes, the pro-Israel lobby is definitely the exception that proves the
rule. I can't think of another pressure group with a grass roots
constituency that consistently gets its way.
You may be interested in http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
Absolutely interested !
It didn't take them long to attack George Soros for
his criticisms of the Israel Lobby.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on the other hand, can slant whenever U.S.
military spokesmen blame everything wrong in Iraq on Iran
and CNN's Glenn Beck can openly proselytize anti-Muslim
smears for the purpose of a war with Iran....CNN knows that's
what he's there for and they know Blitzer was an AIPAC Lobbyist.
--
http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
10 Jun 2007 04:35:29 PM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:15:04 -0500, Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net>
wrote:
(brevity snip of old stuff)
I do think one place you can draw the line quite easily is between
legitimate political speech, even if it expresses arguably racist
viewpoints, and gutter insults (Imus) or violent expression (Coulter)
that have little or no relevance to any political issue and only incite
hate.
Not so easily. You're just getting into censorship and somebody
can say pretty over the top stuff if he makes people laugh.
No, I'm not talking about censorship -- at least not government
censorship. What I'm saying is that the owners of a radio station or
network have the right -- and responsibility -- to regulate what is or
isn't said on their private platform.
Quite right but I didn't think that Imus's insulting comment was
even televised. I was thinking that the Reverend Al Sharpton
was who brought it to the country's attention or the girls
probably wouldn't have heard it at all.
If he only said it on the radio, he has lots of competition from
all sides including Black rappers whom I've heard lean on
Asian Americans, with impunity, just prior to the LA riots
when plenty of Asian Americans were attacked.
Further, I'd like them to allow
all range of political expression, but to ban speech that has no real
political value but is merely intended to incite or pander to hate and
violence, and to think twice about inviting talking heads who are
consistently wrong and totally discredited. Surely they can find some
pundit from the War Party who has occasionally been right about
something. Robert Novak maybe?
Imus's joke wasn't any worse than lots of comedian's jokes
except it bombed cause it was too edgy for a white guy to
say....that's all. If it had worked, he would be working.
(brevity snip)
I would say that the ADL gets it's way at suppressing news
uncomplimentary to Israel whether it offends or not. And it's
no secret that realpolitic concerning AIPAC lobbying for the
U.S. not to talk to Iran, for instance, is commonly read in the
Israeli press and rarely in the U.S....other issues as well such
as the ongoing AIPAC spy case investigation and trials which
seem to lead towards California Rep. Jane Harman which
I read about first in Haaretz but here's a good US version
from MSNBC (but rarely anything televised which mentions
AIPAC) You know guys like Matthews would run with this
if they were free to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
or the arrest of the Israeli spys in NJ whom may have been tailing
some of the hijackers before 9-11. Brit Hume tried to run that story
on FOX and Abe Foxman got the story both killed and taken from
the FOX website though It's up on YouTube of course.
Of course you read it in the "Jewish Forward" first but
Ketcham's article is better:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/highfivers_and.html
Here is how Counterpunch finally got the story that "Salon"
was forced to kill.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03072007.html
So this was forbidden to be televised by the pressure from
Abe Foxman's ADL and anonymous e-mail cyber-attacks
shutting down FOX servers.
That has more to do with a politically motivated pressure
group than public acceptance.
Yes, the pro-Israel lobby is definitely the exception that proves the
rule. I can't think of another pressure group with a grass roots
constituency that consistently gets its way.
You may be interested in http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
Absolutely interested !
It didn't take them long to attack George Soros for
his criticisms of the Israel Lobby.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on the other hand, can slant whenever U.S.
military spokesmen blame everything wrong in Iraq on Iran
and CNN's Glenn Beck can openly proselytize anti-Muslim
smears for the purpose of a war with Iran....CNN knows that's
what he's there for and they know Blitzer was an AIPAC Lobbyist.
--
http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
Who does Coulter work for for them to fire her. She has a fan base that
pays her to speak and buy her books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rood" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
11 Jun 2007 12:04:19 AM |
|
|
Vitor wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:15:04 -0500, Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net>
wrote:
(brevity snip of old stuff)
I do think one place you can draw the line quite easily is between
legitimate political speech, even if it expresses arguably racist
viewpoints, and gutter insults (Imus) or violent expression
(Coulter) that have little or no relevance to any political issue
and only incite hate.
Not so easily. You're just getting into censorship and somebody can
say pretty over the top stuff if he makes people laugh.
No, I'm not talking about censorship -- at least not government
censorship. What I'm saying is that the owners of a radio station or
network have the right -- and responsibility -- to regulate what is
or isn't said on their private platform.
Quite right but I didn't think that Imus's insulting comment was even
televised. I was thinking that the Reverend Al Sharpton was who
brought it to the country's attention or the girls probably wouldn't
have heard it at all.
If he only said it on the radio, he has lots of competition from all
sides including Black rappers whom I've heard lean on Asian Americans,
with impunity, just prior to the LA riots when plenty of Asian
Americans were attacked.
Further, I'd like them to allow all range of political expression,
but to ban speech that has no real political value but is merely
intended to incite or pander to hate and violence, and to think twice
about inviting talking heads who are consistently wrong and totally
discredited. Surely they can find some pundit from the War Party who
has occasionally been right about something. Robert Novak maybe?
Imus's joke wasn't any worse than lots of comedian's jokes except it
bombed cause it was too edgy for a white guy to say....that's all.
If it had worked, he would be working.
(brevity snip)
I would say that the ADL gets it's way at suppressing news
uncomplimentary to Israel whether it offends or not. And it's no
secret that realpolitic concerning AIPAC lobbying for the U.S. not
to talk to Iran, for instance, is commonly read in the Israeli press
and rarely in the U.S....other issues as well such as the ongoing
AIPAC spy case investigation and trials which seem to lead towards
California Rep. Jane Harman which I read about first in Haaretz but
here's a good US version from MSNBC (but rarely anything televised
which mentions AIPAC) You know guys like Matthews would run with
this if they were free to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
or the arrest of the Israeli spys in NJ whom may have been tailing
some of the hijackers before 9-11. Brit Hume tried to run that story
on FOX and Abe Foxman got the story both killed and taken from the
FOX website though It's up on YouTube of course.
Of course you read it in the "Jewish Forward" first but Ketcham's
article is better:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/highfivers_and.html
Here is how Counterpunch finally got the story that "Salon" was
forced to kill.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03072007.html
So this was forbidden to be televised by the pressure from Abe
Foxman's ADL and anonymous e-mail cyber-attacks shutting down FOX
servers.
That has more to do with a politically motivated pressure group than
public acceptance.
Yes, the pro-Israel lobby is definitely the exception that proves the
rule. I can't think of another pressure group with a grass roots
constituency that consistently gets its way.
You may be interested in http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
Absolutely interested !
It didn't take them long to attack George Soros for his criticisms of
the Israel Lobby.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on the other hand, can slant whenever U.S.
military spokesmen blame everything wrong in Iraq on Iran and CNN's
Glenn Beck can openly proselytize anti-Muslim smears for the purpose
of a war with Iran....CNN knows that's what he's there for and they
know Blitzer was an AIPAC Lobbyist.
--
http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
Who does Coulter work for for them to fire her. She has a fan base that
pays her to speak and buy her books.
I don't care if the crazies want to pay her to come and talk to them,
but there's no reason she should ever be on network television. Come to
think of it, I haven't seen her for a long time. But then I don't watch
much tv.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David R" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
11 Jun 2007 12:36:24 AM |
|
|
"Bill Rood" <wjrood@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:sJ4bi.58$Ml7.29@newsfe12.lga...
I don't care if the crazies want to pay her to come and talk to them, but
there's no reason she should ever be on network television. Come to think
of it, I haven't seen her for a long time. But then I don't watch much tv.
you haven't missed anything, she's still a bony, butt ugly,hillbilly
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rood" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 12:29:49 AM |
|
|
optikl wrote:
"Bill Rood" <wjrood@magnaspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oZZTh.8742$tB6.260@newsfe06.lga...
People have a first amendment right to free expression, but there is no
inalienable right to have CBS as your venue. They did the right thing
to -- finally -- fire Imus. There should be room in broadcast media for
the full spectrum of political speech, from William Kristol to Noam
Chomsky, but the commentary must be civil and must not incite violence.
Ann Coulter has incited violence and engaged in hate speech. No
respectable network or radio station should allow her on the air.
Bill Rood
Speech can't "incite" anything; it's the receiver who decides to react. Yes,
anyone with any integrity would distance themselves from jackass like Imus.
But, no sponsor would do that until this latest instance of jackass
behavior. I don't fault Imus, solely. All he did was take all of the rope he
was allowed so that he could hang himself. CBS and the sponsors got
something from Imus, revenue, so they let him continue his shtick. Ann
Coulter incited violence, how? By saying "*****"? Get real.
The "*****" remark was mild by Coulter standards. She has advocated
killing Muslim leaders and converting the rest to Christianity. Such
remarks incite both Christians and Muslims to war against one another.
She has a right to say whatever she wants, but she has no inalienable
right to use airwaves she doesn't own to say it. If the owners don't
want to incite religious war, they should not publicize such remarks.
Nor for that matter should they publish similar remarks directed at
other groups by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or anyone else.
If you believe
this, then I'm truly sorry for you. You have the IQ of a dolt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 09:10:07 AM |
|
|
Franken, according to news reports, has held two fundraisers in California
this year. "One was in Los Angeles and one in California," said his
spokesman, Andy Barr.
Don't you just love the detailed reporting of Frankie's finances?
I guess Minnesota citzens will be playing second fiddle to Hollywood first,
then California, second.
If the media goes after Coulter, then we will have indisputable proof the
liberal Democratics are planning to shut down Free Speech for anyone else
but liberal Democratics
.
|
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 03:01:22 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:3h5Uh.597$h8.231@trnddc06...
Franken, according to news reports, has held two fundraisers in California
this year. "One was in Los Angeles and one in California," said his
spokesman, Andy Barr.
Don't you just love the detailed reporting of Frankie's finances?
I guess Minnesota citzens will be playing second fiddle to Hollywood
first,
then California, second.
If the media goes after Coulter, then we will have indisputable proof the
liberal Democratics are planning to shut down Free Speech for anyone else
but liberal Democratics
Don't worry about it wocky. No one is "going after" coulter. He/She's great
at creating votes for democrats. Evertime It opens it's mouth, it shows how
ignorant, predjudiced, violent, destructiove, hate-filled and hypocritcal
right wingers are.
(As long as clowns like you support it, it will continue to drag your
precious GOP through the mud & slime that solely belongs to you and yours.
As a sidebar, evertime it speaks on TV and shows it's huge adams apple, it
also proves it cant even tell the truth about it's gender).
So, to summerize, I am all for Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bortz, Orielly
etc. Because as long as they are out there screaming their messages of hated
and volence into micophones and news-print, the more votes go to the
democrats. One would think you stupid fuckers would have learned that after
the '06 midterms, but, you haven't. You are as stupid as the rest of the
GOP and your post proves it.
You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Highlander" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 07:33:55 PM |
|
|
"XTS" <xts@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4621330b$0$16691$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:3h5Uh.597$h8.231@trnddc06...
Franken, according to news reports, has held two fundraisers in
California
this year. "One was in Los Angeles and one in California," said his
spokesman, Andy Barr.
Don't you just love the detailed reporting of Frankie's finances?
I guess Minnesota citzens will be playing second fiddle to Hollywood
first,
then California, second.
If the media goes after Coulter, then we will have indisputable proof the
liberal Democratics are planning to shut down Free Speech for anyone else
but liberal Democratics
Don't worry about it wocky. No one is "going after" coulter. He/She's
great
at creating votes for democrats. Evertime It opens it's mouth, it shows
how
ignorant, predjudiced, violent, destructiove, hate-filled and hypocritcal
right wingers are.
(As long as clowns like you support it, it will continue to drag your
precious GOP through the mud & slime that solely belongs to you and yours.
As a sidebar, evertime it speaks on TV and shows it's huge adams apple, it
also proves it cant even tell the truth about it's gender).
So, to summerize, I am all for Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bortz, Orielly
etc. Because as long as they are out there screaming their messages of
hated
and volence into micophones and news-print, the more votes go to the
democrats. One would think you stupid fuckers would have learned that
after
the '06 midterms, but, you haven't. You are as stupid as the rest of the
GOP and your post proves it.
You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist
shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats
shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come.
What? No talk of Rosie in this discussion?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 03:32:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:01:22 -0400, "XTS" <xts@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:3h5Uh.597$h8.231@trnddc06...
Franken, according to news reports, has held two fundraisers in California
this year. "One was in Los Angeles and one in California," said his
spokesman, Andy Barr.
Don't you just love the detailed reporting of Frankie's finances?
I guess Minnesota citzens will be playing second fiddle to Hollywood
first,
then California, second.
If the media goes after Coulter, then we will have indisputable proof the
liberal Democratics are planning to shut down Free Speech for anyone else
but liberal Democratics
Don't worry about it wocky. No one is "going after" coulter. He/She's great
at creating votes for democrats. Evertime It opens it's mouth, it shows how
ignorant, predjudiced, violent, destructiove, hate-filled and hypocritcal
right wingers are.
(As long as clowns like you support it, it will continue to drag your
precious GOP through the mud & slime that solely belongs to you and yours.
As a sidebar, evertime it speaks on TV and shows it's huge adams apple, it
also proves it cant even tell the truth about it's gender).
So, to summerize, I am all for Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bortz, Orielly
etc. Because as long as they are out there screaming their messages of hated
and volence into micophones and news-print, the more votes go to the
democrats. One would think you stupid fuckers would have learned that after
the '06 midterms, but, you haven't. You are as stupid as the rest of the
GOP and your post proves it.
And I can assure you that Michael Moore drove Gun Rights
voters to the polls for the GOP in 2000 thus costing Gore the
race. But the Dems still blame the Greens for that.
You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come.
C'mon. Imus is no racist. Hell, he played great R+B on his show.
Bigots don't do that. He just goofed making a living being
provocative 20 hours a week. If you want to case on him: Do
it for his finding a job being provocative 20 hours a week.
--
Scott Ritter on YouTube
Israel's influence of U.S. policy & the Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4&NR
.
|
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 04:37:51 PM |
|
|
"can_o_worms" <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:n9h223lq4bq6238en8557j5g9rqvksabji@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:01:22 -0400, "XTS" <xts@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:3h5Uh.597$h8.231@trnddc06...
Franken, according to news reports, has held two fundraisers in
California
this year. "One was in Los Angeles and one in California," said his
spokesman, Andy Barr.
Don't you just love the detailed reporting of Frankie's finances?
I guess Minnesota citzens will be playing second fiddle to Hollywood
first,
then California, second.
If the media goes after Coulter, then we will have indisputable proof
the
liberal Democratics are planning to shut down Free Speech for anyone
else
but liberal Democratics
Don't worry about it wocky. No one is "going after" coulter. He/She's
great
at creating votes for democrats. Evertime It opens it's mouth, it shows
how
ignorant, predjudiced, violent, destructiove, hate-filled and hypocritcal
right wingers are.
(As long as clowns like you support it, it will continue to drag your
precious GOP through the mud & slime that solely belongs to you and
yours.
As a sidebar, evertime it speaks on TV and shows it's huge adams apple,
it
also proves it cant even tell the truth about it's gender).
So, to summerize, I am all for Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bortz, Orielly
etc. Because as long as they are out there screaming their messages of
hated
and volence into micophones and news-print, the more votes go to the
democrats. One would think you stupid fuckers would have learned that
after
the '06 midterms, but, you haven't. You are as stupid as the rest of
the
GOP and your post proves it.
And I can assure you that Michael Moore drove Gun Rights
voters to the polls for the GOP in 2000 thus costing Gore the
race. But the Dems still blame the Greens for that.
That's the biggest "apples" to oranges argument I've ever heard.
You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist
shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats
shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come.
C'mon. Imus is no racist.
*****.
Hell, he played great R+B on his show.
Bigots don't do that. He just goofed making a living being
provocative 20 hours a week. If you want to case on him: Do
it for his finding a job being provocative 20 hours a week.
I see you opened up and swallowed the old "20 hour a week" line.
I hope that ***** tasted like sugar for you.
What the ***** is so difficult about working 20 hours a week?
Out of the 20 hours he was sitting on his *****, a great deal of that time was
for commercials. Another chunk of that time was when other guys on his crew
were reading sports or headline news. Another chunk was when member of his
crew were calling people in the news derogatory names.
Then you deduct the time his guests were doing the talking, and out of the
few hours he had to open his mouth all he could come up with was sorry
racists ***** like that?
Jesus Christ man, that's the sorriest excuse I've ever heard. If you're
going to try and excuse away his remarks, at least come up with something
better than the few paltry hours he had to talk into a microphone. As far
as playing some R&B, that reminds me of the old "I have a black friend" that
racists and bigots default to when trying to excuse away their ignorance.
One thing your post proves is that racism still exists in 21st century
America, and people like you will always defend it, excuse it away and feel
indignant when one of your own gets nailed for it. You can have the last
word kid people like you make me sick, and I have no more to say to you.
--
Scott Ritter on YouTube
Israel's influence of U.S. policy & the Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4&NR
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 05:08:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:37:51 -0400, "XTS" <xts@woh.rr.com> wrote:
C'mon. Imus is no racist.
*****.
Hell, he played great R+B on his show.
Bigots don't do that. He just goofed making a living being
provocative 20 hours a week. If you want to case on him: Do
it for his finding a job being provocative 20 hours a week.
I see you opened up and swallowed the old "20 hour a week" line.
I hope that ***** tasted like sugar for you.
What the ***** is so difficult about working 20 hours a week?
Out of the 20 hours he was sitting on his *****, a great deal of that time was
for commercials. Another chunk of that time was when other guys on his crew
were reading sports or headline news. Another chunk was when member of his
crew were calling people in the news derogatory names.
Then you deduct the time his guests were doing the talking, and out of the
few hours he had to open his mouth all he could come up with was sorry
racists ***** like that?
What's easier than making money being provocative 20 hours
a week is milking the "racism" issue for personal or political
PR gain as does Sharpton or Abe Foxman.
Jesus Christ man, that's the sorriest excuse I've ever heard. If you're
going to try and excuse away his remarks, at least come up with something
better than the few paltry hours he had to talk into a microphone. As far
as playing some R&B, that reminds me of the old "I have a black friend" that
racists and bigots default to when trying to excuse away their ignorance.
I've just never known racists to like R+B.
That ain't no Hank Williams song y'know.
One thing your post proves is that racism still exists in 21st century
America, and people like you will always defend it, excuse it away and feel
indignant when one of your own gets nailed for it. You can have the last
word kid people like you make me sick, and I have no more to say to you.
You're taking it a lot harder than the girls are it seems.
--
Jeffrey Blankfort on Washington DC's
subservience to the Israel Lobby:
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/blankfort-interview.html
illuminating full interview with Jeffrey Blankfort:
http://bleiersblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/jeffrey-blankfort-my-years-of-middle.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 04:30:38 PM |
|
|
xts sez:
"You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come..."
______________________________
Oh, come on now Mr. X, you know you liberal Dumbocrats were behind the whole
thing. Or, if you
didn't know, that explains why they have you on their roster of morons.
I suppose you are going to tell us that your two liberal immortals, Jesse
and Sharpie, had nothing to do
with liberal scion, but politically incorrect, Donnie getting his hat handed
to him?
We already know that neither one of them can commit no wrong, and that
liberal memory is selectively short.
You really should stick to your comfort zone. You keep showing your
ignorance by repeating what some smarter
liberal assholes cobbled together as one more miserable attempt to explain
Coulter's total domination of liberals by
simply using - well, words.
When you hear some new, or more spiffy abusive ad hominem about Coulter, be
sure to bring them up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 05:19:44 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:2KbUh.2184$nU4.1691@trnddc03...
xts sez:
"You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist
shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats
shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come..."
______________________________
Oh, come on now Mr. X, you know you liberal Dumbocrats were behind the
whole
thing.
Now the stupid wocky republiscum comes up with a conspiracy theory.
KOO KOO KOO KOO---(lol) You're a total fuckin moron.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
14 Apr 2007 10:02:25 PM |
|
|
Mr. XTS forgot to add the full text of what I said:
">Oh, come on now Mr. X, you know you liberal Dumbocrats
were behind the whole thing. Or, if you didn't know, that
explains why they have you on their roster of morons..."
_____________________________
Then he has to switch immediately to the ad hominem typical of a liberal
***** out
of it's depth...
"Now the stupid wocky republiscum comes up with a conspiracy theory.
KOO KOO KOO KOO---(lol) You're a total fuckin moron..."
I rest my case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rood" |
|
| Title: Re: Imus down, Coulter next? |
15 Apr 2007 12:16:06 AM |
|
|
Docky Wocky wrote:
xts sez:
"You think because two networks decided to fire an old ignorant racist shock
jock because he cost them sponsors, it was due to liberal democrats shutting
down free speech. You are as dumb as they come..."
______________________________
Oh, come on now Mr. X, you know you liberal Dumbocrats were behind the whole
thing. Or, if you
didn't know, that explains why they have you on their roster of morons.
I suppose you are going to tell us that your two liberal immortals, Jesse
and Sharpie, had nothing to do
with liberal scion, but politically incorrect, Donnie getting his hat handed
to him?
We already know that neither one of them can commit no wrong, | | | | |
