The right to free speech is a right guaranteed each and every one of us by the Constitution. Periodically Democrats (it's always the party that is soooo concerned about everyone's civil rights.) find that particular Amendment inconvenient and at times a major impediment to their 24 hour a day 365 day a year propaganda campaign to convince Americans of how evil, greedy and xenophobic we are as a nation and society.
This issue tends to be brought to the forefront each and every time the people of this country have the temerity to actually get involved enough in the direction of our country and culture that the spineless worms in Washington have no choice but to, you know actually do the job they were elected to do.
The latest issue to bring forth the "free speech for everyone except...." screed of Hillary Clinton and Babs Pelosi is the twice defeated Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill or as the left preferred to call it Immigration Reform. This abomination went from conception to written bill to vote faster than any legislation since they voted themselves their last pay raise. The fact that well over 65% of Americans were strongly opposed to it, in no way at all slowed down these self serving power whores in Congress. The two senators from Massachusetts; Edward "Swimming Ted" Kennedy and John "the gigolo" Kerry were so put off by the flood of calls opposing this legislation that they stopped answering the phones in their Senate offices. Although to be fair this was not exactly 100% accurate. Kennedy's office continued to field calls quite promptly on the office's Spanish speaking lines.
Stop for a second and think about what you just read. The people who WE elected to represent us, our views and opinions and interests, hold us in such contempt and low regard that they can't even be bothered to PRETEND that they have the slightest interest or concern as to how we feel. Correct me if I missed something in my civics classes here, but isn't that pretty much exactly what their job is? To represent the wishes of their constituencies in all votes that come before them? Isn't that pretty much like having a mailman who doesn't deliver the mail but is really top notch at driving his truck and taking lunch breaks, as well being active in getting better perks for himself?
In the DPS (Dreaded Private Sector) we have a name for job performers like that. They're called former employess. But in the public sector fat with the pork from the money they confiscate from each and everyone of us who work, it works differently. In the halls and backrooms of the Senate and House, two of the queens of the cockroach colonies infesting those two august chambers of our government, Clinton and Pelosi are making another attempt at shutting down conservative news and talk shows. You see in the warped and self aggrandizing minds of demigogues like them, this legislation didn't pass because talk radio insisted on informing listeners of exactly what type of handouts and entitlements were contained within this bill. To make matters even worse the sheep (that's us) had the unmitigated gaul to get uppity and demand that their representatives do what they are paid to do and represent US and not their own personal interests.
They call it the "Fairness Doctrine". Now who could possibly be against fairness right? One thing the liberals are good at, is making a s**t sandwich sound appetizing. In fact the fairness doctrine is nothing less than government controlled and mandated content on any and all broadcast media. This means if a radio show has a "conservative" (determined by some bureaucrat no doubt) host for a 4 hour shift they then would have to have a liberal host for the same amount of time. Never mind that liberal talk radio was a dismal failure and that they went bankrupt in less than a year. Never mind that there is apparently no demand for it from the public, they want to stifle opposing viewpoints before they are born. (kind of an information abortion if you will)
Look if you don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, here's an idea; CHANGE THE STATION. You don't have to listen and you don't have to pay for it. On the other hand if you find NPR and their decidedly leftist leanings on many issues not to your liking, well you certainly can change the channel, but you better believe you are gonna to keep paying for it. You see there is the dirty little secret of liberal radio; there is no market for it. People are overdosed on it by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS etc. talk radio is the only media outlet for consumers who don't think Lenin was just misunderstood.....
So many liberals are quick to jump on any program or legislation put forth by the conservatives that they can in some theoretical bizarro world see as having some possible minute limiting of some perceived right they hold as "destroying the constitution", yet on this blatant and open attack on freedom of speech they have no issue at all. The fact of the matter is liberal talk radio doesn't work because there is no market for it. This "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing less than an attempt to silence critics of the failed liberal policies and inform the public of information that they don't want the voting public to know.
I realize many liberals have no problem with the idea of their leaders thinking of them as too stupid to make important decisions for themselves. As a matter of fact in the case of most liberals I pretty much agree. Most of them would vote to outlaw electricity, gasoline and bad weather if Hillary, Al and Teddy K said that's what we need to do. Most of the people to the right of Mao, however tend to think of ourselves as responsible enough to make informed decisions based on accurate information and are grateful to have such a source available.
I'll tell you what Hill, I'll keep paying for the trash you throw out on NPR and not listen to it, if you just change the channel when Rush exposes you for the Manchurian Candidate that you are. Since we're feeling magnanamous on the right tonight, we won't even demand that you pay for it. Fair enough?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 181
I do not agree with your comment on liberials. I would like to think I am a liberal but I can't be. I like my electricity, my oil heat and my car. All of which I will have to cut back on to pay for my health insurance that Mr. Mitt (Too busy Govern) Romney has imposed.
I enjoyed you article and support your right to make your comments.
Treachery despises the light of open discourse.
The Bush administration has, since their first theft of the white house, banned ANY opposing opinion from even entering the same building as der fuhrer, let alone confronting him with their opposing views. So much for democrats being the antithesis of free speech.
The fairness doctrine would open free speech, by once again allowing TRULY diverse political discourse, instead of allowing the right wing to completely dominate the public airwaves. Of COURSE, republiCONs oppose it...it would expose the public to the truth, and KILL the GOP. There's a very good reason why republiCONs destroyed the law and have refused to allow it to return. They cannot survive on a level playing field, because their policies are SO detrimental to America and Americans that they simply would not be elected to power, if the masses learned the truth.
Look at how absurd the arguments against the fairness doctrine are. Allowing a more diverse political discussion would be "censorship?" Inviting BOTH sides of a political discussion instead of just one is somehow a "limit to free speech?" Ridiculous.
As for "changing the station," it must be noted that, in many markets, there is no alternative to right wing talk, on AM stations. It's either Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, O'Reilly, Savage, Liddy, Dr. Laura, or dozens of other right wing propagandists, or it's right wing Christian radio. Nice diversity. Where's the "liberal media bias?"
The public NEEDS to be informed, regardless of whether or not one particular political party finds that terribly inconvenient. Democracy cannot survive without an informed populace (another reason why republiCONs are opposed to the fairness doctrine).
As for the "free market" argument of right wing radio dominance, it's complete bullshit, of course, as is pretty much everything that the right wing shovels out these days. The FACT is that, as soon as the fairness doctrine was killed, Roger Ailes and other VERY powerful corporatists BOUGHT right wing dominance of the airwaves.
The Rev. Sun Myung Moon owns UPI, the Washington Times, and other publications. He is a convicted felon who has a long, sordid history of anti-American, anti-Christian, criminal behavior, and, he is a close friend of the Bush crime family. His Washington Times has yet to post a profitable year. So much for the public knocking themselves out for right wing opinion.
Rupert Murdoch poured untold millions upon million of dollars into launching a right wing propaganda network disguised as a "news" network. Fox "news" failed to post a profit during its first four years of operation. Up until Monicagate came along, only 30,000 people were watching Bill O'Reilly, Fox's leading rated program. The network was rammed into some 40 million homes, through cable subscriptions, yet could not produce a following.
Murdoch also owns the NY Post, which is another right wing publication that has never posted a profitable year. Weird, huh?
Contrarily, during the runup to, and shortly after the illegal war in Iraq began, Phil Donahue had the highest rated program on MSNBC, a flailing, failing network. Donahue was the ONLY host whose program had ratings that were INCREASING on that network. He was fired for not towing the right wing line on the war. He was replaced with a right wing former congressman, who had quit congress right after being re-elected, immediately after a pretty young intern turned up dead in his office. Shhhhh...don't tell anyone that happened.
Limbaugh's career was virtually nothing until he was syndicated by clear channel and rammed into hundreds of markets. How did clear channel get the program "sold?" They didn't. There was no clammoring for right wing propaganda. Clear channel offered stations the program for free, on the condition that national ad sale revenue went, not to the local stations, but to clear channel.
It was brilliant marketing, not a public demand, that created a right wing dominance of the public airwaves. Now that they have this dominance, the last thing they want is to open free speech, by allowing something like the fairness doctrine to open political discussions for BOTH sides.
Make no mistake, when right wingnuts howl in protest about the fairness doctrine, it is NOT because the law would LIMIT free speech, but rather because it would ENCOURAGE free speech. This simply cannot be allowed, because right wing ideology is so strongly opposed by the majority of the nation.
This issue is THE issue that kills the lie about a liberal media. If there were truly a "liberal media bias," as these right wingnuts claim, they would've restored the fairness doctrine years ago, in order to level the playing field. They're not fools. They know damn well that they dominate the airwaves, and that the fairness doctrine would eliminate that dominance.
I failed to address this line of crapola.
Liberal talk radio DOES work, and it works VERY WELL. This is further evidence of why the "right" will fight tooth and nail to avoid a restoration of a level playing field.
In markets in which both formats compete head to head, many progressive programs run either neck and neck with, or have larger audiences than their CONservative counterparts. Randi Rhodes beats Limbaugh in markets where they compete head to head. Ed Shultz is massively successful, as is Stephanie Miller and several others. On top of impressive radio ratings, Air America Radio has set records for internet streaming. AAR dwarfs ANY CONservative talk program through streams. It is simply not true that progressive talk radio doesn't work. It's another right wing lie. In markets where it's allowed to compete head to head, it does quite well.
Aside from the cold, hard ratings as evidence, the fact that the majority of Americans holds progressive ideals means that there is a significant portion of the population that is not being served by right wing dominance of the airwaves.
The fairness doctrine took a "thumping" when it came up for vote in the House. And not just from the right.
Here, libs, this is for YOU .........
How would allowing TWO differing opinions be aired be a restriction of free speech, and who on the left has advocated removing talk radio? You, as is the case with most on the "right," with regard to most issues of the day, have been sorely misinformed.
" If they don't like what's on the radio then they've got plenty of lefty shit on TV to watch or read in newspapers or look at on the internet. "
Right. Left shit like Fox "news," or the plethera of right wing propagandists that litter every other "news" network? The only TRULY progressive voice on television at this time is Olbermann. His ratings are doing extremely well, btw.
And, which "lefty" newspapers is it that dominate the landscape with free publications? Why is it that you righties are so afraid of a level playing field? Are you THAT unsure of your own policies? You should be. You do not have a majority of the nation on your side of the issues of the day.
"I notice the only person with great disent is afraid to reveal his true identity"
Oh, and your last name is "B," then, right? Why is it that you folks are so damned dishonest?
There are 4 levels of stupidity in life.
1. Pat Buchanan Stupidity is where you ignore facts and when you feel that foot slipping towards your mouth again you fall back, "it's free speech" or false patriotism – "he/she doesn't support our troops". During his Presidential Campaign Buchanan visited a factory that was struggling to stay open because of cheaper labor overseas. He arrived in a $200,000 Mercedes and put his frosty reception on the fact that his car was to expensive not because it was from Germany and the Factory Workers were promoting "Buy American".
2. Rush Limbaugh Stupidity is where you actually think you are funny and there is no limit of how low you will go to jab an opponent. When Bill Clinton was first in the Whitehouse they got a dog. Limbaugh's quip was "now there are two dogs in the Whitehouse, have you seen Chelsey?" This was a teenage girl he was attacking about her looks.
3. Bill O'Reilly Stupidity is where you rarely even the have basic facts correct but you don't care if you can use it to make your somewhat addle brained point. In O'Reilly's world if you are louder and sneer more then you win.
4. Ann Coulter Stupidity is where you encompass all the other stupidities and add your own spin to it. The personal attack. This where you can spew all of your hate and prejudice.
thanks for writing this so well.
I'm glad it got featured on the front page of gather or I would have missed it.
You said what I believe much better than I could.
Every news cast on the tv as well as npr has a left slant to it why can't talk radio say something for the rest of us?
good job! I gave you a 10 for your well written words and the courage you had to post them. This is gather after all and I know how they come out of the woodwork.
Fox news is leftist? Since when?
Btw, the public airwaves, whether they be in the spectrum of visible light and broadcast on television, or in the spectrum of AM radio, are still the public airwaves, not the liberals or CONservatives. They belong to ALL of us. You have no right to dominate any of it, just as the left has no right to dominate any of it.
And, if the left has so thoroughly dominated TV, as you've implied here, why on earth would you and your fellow righties oppose leveling the playing field? Hmmm? How come nobody can ever answer that question? All of you righties are vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, yet you bitch and complain constantly about the so-called "liberal media." Are you really so easily misled and fooled that you can't see through the monstrous holes in this twisted logic?
The people need to get together and cross party lines since the politicians dont seem to want to do it.
The right nor left has the right to doninate the the public airwaves,,,,,,
Yay you Clarke!! You got one right, Proof that even blind squirrels can find the occasional acorn.... You are correct sir. They are public airwaves (or satellite or cable) and as such are free to be used by any compnay with the equipment and backing to ($$) to broadcast within stated parameters set by the FCC (not applicable to satellite broadcasts which is a private pay service...) these radio stations come up for review of their licensure every few years before the FCC to make sure they are not in violation of any of the laws governing their license to broadcast on their assigned wavelength (station).
Clarke if you are really going to try and say that CNN owned by the leftest of the left Ted Turner is anything other than a liberal propaganda machine you really need to up the thorazine brother it's not working right. Recent polls of television news show hosts and or anchors showed a 78/22 liberal/conservative ratio. Now I think you just said that about the right dominating anywhere other than AM radio to ratchet up the debate. No one honest tries to argue that anymore. Foir crying out loud CBS had to fire Dan Rather for reporting a blatantly false story about Bush during the election. A story he had been told by several sources was not true. Yet his ideology was so much anit-conservative he did it anyway!! When Katie Couric interviews either of the Clintons, they should do the interview in a bed, a plaxe more suitable for the verbal foreplay she calls inciteful questions......
One more thing if lberal talk radio is just wiping out conservative radio everywhere they compete, why do you want to stop conservative talk??? I would think if I were kicking your butt on a topic (kinda like here and now) I would want to let the other side keep looking silly until they quit.............Oh yeah that's right, your full of BS, I forgot, Air America went bankrupt and was bouncing payroll checks within 6 months of their launch......You already have 95% of the broadcast television "bews" shows and close to tje same of cable...You have PUBLICLY funded NPR which I have to pay for even though most of what they say I find nauseating........That's not enough for you?
Typical Hard left position whatever you are given by others isn't enough they should give you more. God forbid you earn anything yourself....That's too........bourgeois huh?
Why do you feel it necessary to ridicule those with whom you disagree? Does this somehow make you feel better about yourself, or do you honestly believe that this enhances the view that others hold of you?
"Unfortunately Clarke you just make it so easy to discredit you. All one needs do is read your own words to see your hypocrisy or cynicism or both. "
So far, all I've seen is you attempting to insult me. Your childish, weak insults do not constitute factual refutation of my statements, believe it or not.
"Clarke if you are really going to try and say that CNN owned by the leftest of the left Ted Turner"
CNN is not owned by Ted Turner. Check your facts.
"is anything other than a liberal propaganda machine you really need to up the thorazine brother it's not working right"
Again with the cheap, meaningless, pathetic little insults. Sorry, but the fact that you cannot carry on an intelligent, rational conversation with someone that disagrees with you does not mean that everything that you say is correct. CNN is a not a leftist organization, you freak. Get a grip. Who's got the tinfoil hat on now?
Again, the surest proof that there is no such thing as a "liberal media" is the FACT that the republicans allowed the fairness doctrine to wither away, and, in spite of having 100% control of the government for 6 years, did nothing to bring it back. Do you want a level playing field, or just an excuse to bitch and complain about mythical dragon beasts? Grow up.
"Foir crying out loud CBS had to fire Dan Rather for reporting a blatantly false story about Bush during the election."
Once again, check your facts. Rather was NOT fired, he resigned, and he did NOT resign because of a "blatantly false story about Bush." The story was NEVER REFUTED BY ANYONE, ESPECIALLY BUSH himself. It was NEVER proven whether or not the documents that were presented were either authentic or not. HOWEVER, the content of the story itself was completely substantiated by those who were close to the commander that was alleged to have typed them.
Bush DID receive preferential treatment to get into the TANG, and he DID go AWOL before he completed his term of commitment. Sorry again, but facts is facts. You backed a yellow-bellied chicken hawk. I backed a decorated war hero.
"A story he had been told by several sources was not true."
This is another lie. He still stands by his story to this day. His only regret is that he did not completely authentic the documents before airing the story.
"When Katie Couric interviews either of the Clintons, they should do the interview in a bed"
This is an absurd statement that only a truly delusional, partisan hypocrite could ever make. When was the last time you recall any news anchor or reporter correcting one of the countless BushCheneyCorp lies? They lie on a daily basis, often many times in a single day, but have you EVER seen a so-called "liberal reporter" call them on their lies? Get real.
"One more thing if lberal talk radio is just wiping out conservative radio everywhere they compete, why do you want to stop conservative talk??"
Gee, another lie. What a shocker. I have NEVER advocated stopping wingnut radio. In fact, I've even made that statement in this very thread. Why would you make such a scurrilous, baseless comment? Do you not read well, or do you seek to intentionally misinform other readers? I come to battle with the truth. You will not find yourself victorious in debate with me by lying and attempting to deceive.
"Oh yeah that's right, your full of BS"
I'm thinking that others will see that it is you, and not I, that is completely full of BS.
"Air America went bankrupt"
First, AAR is not all of progressive talk radio. Secondly, the model that AAR was launched under had never been attempted before, and was not sound for the industry. Finally, as a reminder, Fox news lost money for four straight years after its launch, and the Washington Times and NY POST have NEVER posted a SINGLE profitable year. Luckily, they've got rightwing owners with very deep pockets that don't mind constantly propping up their media outlets.
"You already have 95% of the broadcast television "bews" shows and close to tje same of cable."
Then, you should join me in supporting a leveling of the playing field. To argue against it is to argue against logic, is it not?
"You have PUBLICLY funded NPR"
NPR is the ONLY broadcast media outlet that even comes CLOSE to broadcasting actual, fact-based news. Isn't it ironic that you find that unacceptable? As Stephen Colbert said last year, "As everyone knows, facts have a decidedly liberal slant." Sorry about that.
"Typical Hard left position whatever you are given by others isn't enough they should give you more"
Not sure what this is about...you're apparently coming a bit unhinged. Have another drink.
"God forbid you earn anything yoursel"
And, I can't even fathom where you got this from. Perhaps, it's another weak attempt to insult, since you obviously can't produce anything factual to refute any of my previous statements.
The jury, the judge, and the prosecutor all found that Libby had LIED, not forgotten. In fact, the prosecutor said that there was so much lying and obstruction of justice going on that he couldn't even do the job that he was brought in to do. Not exactly the type of behavior that most real Americans would consider worthy of defense.
" Yet Sandy Berger ( a Clinton bud)"
Clinton is not in office, and hasn't been since the middle of Jan., 2001. You might want to ask your boy's justice dept. why Berger hasn't been locked away. They're sort of in charge of that sort of thing now. Sorry to burst your little bubble of delusion, but you can't blame Clinton for this one, believe it or not.
"The people who WE elected to represent us, our views and opinions and interests"
Well, no, that is not how representative democracy works. We elect people to decide complex matters on our behalf. We do not elect them to be mouthpieces for our opinions or momentary preferences. If that were what the Constitutions authors intended, they would have written a rather different document, with a whole lot more "referendums" called for.
Of course their going to be sensitive to their constituents take on many issues, but that is not elected representative's actual job. Their job is to educate themselves as best they can on the evidence available and the ramifications of matters that come before them, and vote accordingly.
If "Liberal talk radio DOES work, and it works VERY WELL" then why do we have to have a "restoration of a level playing field?"
And why should my right to free speech be violated by telling me that I have to present "both" sides of an opinion? If I don't want to present your side, no premise of natural law says that I have to. If I am forced by law to express an opinion I disagree with, where exactly is my "free speech?" Doesn't seem that free to me.
And, as I've always said, the Constitution guarantees you the right of FREE SPEECH, and does not the right to be HEARD.
I find it very interesting that Clark complains and writes:
"Why do you feel it necessary to ridicule those with whom you disagree? Does this somehow make you feel better about yourself, or do you honestly believe that this enhances the view that others hold of you?"
When he does it all the time. I've been in many disscussions with him and have seen him be downright nasty to people with opposing views. Yet he cries that he's being ridiculed by Chris. Go figure.
Anyway, I see you've been featured, Chris, and I'd like to say congrats to you. It couldn't have happened to more deserving guy.
There you go again, ruining any credibility you might otherwise have, right off the bat, with all the personal attacks. It's very magnanimous of Clark to give you the time that he does. Whatever happened to your rather short lived credo of disagreeing without being disagreeable?
BTW, for those who are on the "free speech wagon," what our beloved founding fathers said and what the constitution "says" and what we all do have become somewhat different things. Nothing is poured in cement, not even the constitution - living or not.
I agree most fervently.
But, I believe the very first step we ought to take in that evdeavour is to cease and desist in the tremendous over-use of generalizing statements about "politicians" and what "they" are doing or not doing. It is extremely misleading, and causes people to do precisely the opposite of what you recommend.
It truth, these people are just that, people. And what some do is not what all do. I watch rather much coverage on C-SPAN, and through written media, of what actually takes place in Washington. It is totally ludicrous to lump all our representatives together into a "them" that are not doing their job. The bulk of these people work extremely hard on our behalf, and I can observe for myself that they are perfectly capable of clear and even profound reasoning.
There is an element in DC and elsewhere, which would have us believe otherwise. And that is, of course, an element that would rather we not look carefully at what politicians are doing, for if we did, we would see their shenanigans for what they are; An attempt "to divide us and distract us" from our serious fulfillment of our jobs.
THOSE folks just love to hear all representatives spoken of harshly.
Judi I think you are definitely keeping your eye on the ball. Contrary to what some here believe I am in NO WAY a fan of GWB I think he did a commendable job immediately after 9/11 and then was faced with a situation that was well betond his abilty to grasp and act upon prudently. I think he felt a strong desire by the people of this country for revenge and acted precipitously and short sightedly in going inot Iraq. That said we ARE there now and extricating ourselves without creating an absolute cesspool of extremism and a haven for terrorists is not as simple as bring the boys home.
Missy, Clarke and I go back a ways and I don't take his method of expressing his obviously passionately held opinion (too) personally. I think deep down inside he really respects me if in no other way than as a foil for his positions, as I do him.
Even though all that money spent on his college education seems to have been tragically wasted.............
;-)
As a free-thinking, open-minded conservative (usually labeled "liberal"), I am always noticing how the "right" is whining for freedom of speech or whatever, then complaining, throwing fits, and backing down when any group they don't agree with takes advantage of the doors they have opened, thinking somehow that those doors were for their use only.
It is nice to know that it is an even and balanced mockery that is going on instead of being so one-sided like I saw it. *smile* +10
Because, the control of the vast majority of public airwaves is in the hands of a very few elitists, who do not allow progressive talk radio or progressive opinions to be heard. They are multi-national corporations who profit from the very policies that rightwing politicians and their propagandists espouse.
Bringing back the fairness doctrine, or better yet, regulation and divestiture in the broadcasting industry would allow the free market to work, and progressive voices would compete in the same markets with conservative voices. Why are republicans suddenly so strongly opposed to the free market?
"And why should my right to free speech be violated by telling me that I have to present "both" sides of an opinion?"
Please, re-read your comments and re-think your position. Nobody is advocating violating your right to free speech. Creating a level playing field would encourage MORE free speech, not less. YOU may present any side of a given argument that you wish. The fairness doctrine would merely mean that the radio station that broadcast your voice would be required to offer the same amount of time for an opposing view. You know...sort of like "free speech."
"And, as I've always said, the Constitution guarantees you the right of FREE SPEECH, and does not the right to be HEARD."
Actually, the broadcast airwave frequencies are public domain, which means that neither you, nor those who serve as your propaganda ministers, own them, nor can you or they use them solely for your own agenda, burying all other voices in the process.
I have never heard this. Do expound. It sounds as if, if this is true, Gonzales should never have assigned him to the case.
"There is nothing wrong with allowing this and, for the most part it is allowed by the right wing talk shows."
You're joking, right? Mike Malloy lets moonbat wingnuts on once in a while as well, but it hardly constitutes what I would consider "balance."
"The difference is in FORCING the other opinions."
But, you don't consider having rightwing elitists buy up all the bandwidth and ramrodding rightwing programming down our throats 24/7 to be "forcing the other opinions," right?
"If liberal talk radio is superior in the markets where they compete, why not expand?"
It is, but there is a limited amount of frequencies that are available, and most of them are currently controlled by huge corporations that benefit from republican policies.
"And your reasoning of why Fox, Rush , etc didnt succeed at first is silly."
No, it's perfectly valid to make those comparisons, when someone is suggesting that the reason that AM radio is dominated by right wing propagandists is because that's what the market demands. Scaiffe, Murdoch, Moon, and other elitist corporatists have paid HUGE cash to build and keep afloat the right wing echo machine. It's entirely legitimate to point that out, and to point out the fact that progressive radio does very well against conservative radio, in markets where they compete head to head. Again, put them on a level playing field.
And, let's not forget that the nation is predominately PROGRESSIVE, not conservative. Not only was that proven in the 2006 election, but recent polls have convincingly shown that to be the case. It seems more than a bit absurd to assume that, while the public favors progressive ideals overall, they prefer to listen to right wing propaganda, 24/7.
"Shoudl Micheal Moore's "documentaries" be forced to give equal time to the other point of view? "
Fraudulent argument. Moore creates movies a PRIVATE audience that has to PAY to see them. The PUBLIC airwaves are for THE PUBLIC, NOT republicans or liberals alone. They belong to ALL of us.
If you don't want to see the truth, you can skip seeing Moore's movies. If I only have access to FREE broadcasts, and don't want to hear right wing lies, and I live in MOST of the country, I have not choice. THAT is what the issue is.
"If a liberal talk show can compete, then it should. The fact is, is cant. So, it doesnt.
"
Check your facts. Progressive radio is alive and doing very well, in spite of the fact that right wing elitists have bought up most of the bandwidth.
You big knuckleheaded leftie you!!!
:-)
Why not? Don't YOU want to know that these people exist? I feel the same about little crack ho Annie. I LOVE the fact that she's constantly being offered an open mic on all of the "liberal media," so the public can see what she represents.
TY Karen....... back atchya
To deny that the media isn't liberal is the same as denying that you have a nose on your face.
- everybody sees it
- you don't
- you deny it
- meanwhile, it runs
You aren't really asking us to ignore that you need a hanky, are you?
"Check your facts. Progressive radio is alive and doing very well, in spite of the fact that right wing elitists have bought up most of the bandwidth."
OK, so I checked the facts. Not one liberal talk radio program is in the Top Ten in my market - Chicago - arguably the most liberal town in the U.S.
Truth is, Liberal talk radio is boring, and can't stand up to the scrutiny. And since emotion gets drained out in the long format of talk radio, Liberal shows can't keep a sound byte going for more than a few seconds. Instant disaster.
"The latest issue to bring forth the "free speech for everyone except...." screed of Hillary Clinton and Babs Pelosi is the twice defeated Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill or as the left preferred to call it Immigration Reform." Do you mean the bill that your man GW was foaming at the mouth to sign into law. The one that would ruin this country? That would drive down wages even more, so the Bubba's (R) Landscape service profit margin would be even greater. Is that the one your talking about.
"Correct me if I missed something in my civics classes here, but isn't that pretty much exactly what their job is? To represent the wishes of their constituencies in all votes that come before them?" Well it depends on who you ask. The republibots say that it's their job to lead the country, and if that means to go against their constituents on issues that they don't agree with them, then thats ok. Or which constituents. The ones that voted for them, or ALL of them.
"They call it the "Fairness Doctrine". Now who could possibly be against fairness right?" Kinda like the "USA PATRIOT ACT" Who could possible be against that, huh?
"So many liberals are quick to jump on any program or legislation put forth by the conservatives that they can in some theoretical bizarro world see as having some possible minute limiting of some perceived right they hold as "destroying the constitution" Kinda like the "USA PATRIOT ACT."
"I realize many liberals have no problem with the idea of their leaders thinking of them as too stupid to make important decisions for themselves." Right again. Like the ones who are so secretive, that they won't even tell their bosses (us) what they are up to. Oh wait, thats republibots.
"Most of them would vote to outlaw electricity, gasoline and bad weather if Hillary, Al and Teddy K said that's what we need to do." It sounds like you are the one who believes your party's talking points, without checking the facts first. Now go on and goose step to some more conclusions.
Wouldn't that be... limitations on FREE SPEECH?
Wouldn't that also be what the Dittohead CONS are trying to do? Stiffle any dissenting opinions?
You really should do a bit of a cleaning job on that plate-glass bellybutton of yours - you obviously aren't seeing clearly.
Joan, it's time to to learn another trick, this sophomoric railing against anything not in the little Red Book grows wearisome for those of us who actually have views and opinions of our own, and don't just parrot the talking points of the disciples of Marx. Here's a thought (hopefully it doesn't make your brain freeze up seeing as it seems very poorly acquainted with them) Before you write a comment why not think for a second. I know this can get to be tiring, as that poor wee organ in your head apparently doesn't get much exercise. Try to follow me here, I'll go slow and try to use small words;
Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT stifles expression (speech) through coercion or legislation designed to curb speech. Talk radio is an OPEN forum. Seeing as how your policies and plans are so damn wonderful one would think there would be a stampede for discussion by all you aspiring mensans. Guess what? When the extent of your problem solving is "CONS suck!", some people (as hard as you find this to believe) grow bored with eloquent discussion like that rather rapidly. Hence the utter and complete failure of non-subsidized Liberal talk radio. Liberals are free to call in to these shows anytime they please. It seems however that the dearth of original thought put forth by the left leaves a bit to be desired programming wise. I mean Joan, how many ways can you say "Bush sucks!!!" and come up with witty little words combining con and some expletive?
Oh yeah denny hiding something? You mean the body of Mary jo Kopechne drowned in Ted K's car when he drove of the bridge while attempting to feel her up and then left her there to die? Hiding like that? Or like Robert Byrd (D-WV) the former KKK grand dragon and now Senior Democrat Senator from W. Virginia? Or maybe you mean like Gerry Studds (D-MA house of rep) the former congressmen who repeatedly got his male underage interns drunk and then raped them in the House gym? You mean secrets like that??
Denny the last thing you want is to get in a pissing match with me. I suspect you lack the proper equipment to be able to participate from a standing position.
Guess what? You simply saying this does not make it so. The mainstream media is definitely not "liberal." If it were, we would not be in Iraq right now, the public would not stand for the constant lies being told by the BA, we'd have universal health care, and we'd be well on our way to ridding ourselves of our oil addiction. Use your head.
"OK, so I checked the facts. Not one liberal talk radio program is in the Top Ten in my market - Chicago - arguably the most liberal town in the U.S."
I'd like to see your documentation. Not that I don't believe you, but I've found it very difficult to pull actual Arbitron ratings, for some reason, and have a difficult time compiling the data into a comparative format.
What I know is based upon what I've read and heard, that is that progressive radio performs quite well in head to head match ups with CONservative radio, and that the format is expanding, at the same time that conservative radio is contracting.
Again, with the majority of America leaning convincingly progressive, it simply doesn't make sense that nearly the entire AM spectrum is polluted with right wing ideology.
"Truth is, Liberal talk radio is boring"
Be specific. Which particular show are you referring to, and how is it that you don't feel the same about CONservative talk radio? I find it incredibly boring to listen to hatred, intolerance, fear mongering, and outright lies endlessly. What in particular do you find superior about that format, and how can you explain that, although the American populace is largely progressive, the only thing that they want to listen to on AM radio is right wing propaganda? Does that make any sense to you?
" Isn't refusing to allow equal time to opposing viewpoints... censorship?
Wouldn't that be... limitations on FREE SPEECH?
Wouldn't that also be what the Dittohead CONS are trying to do? Stiffle any dissenting opinions?
You really should do a bit of a cleaning job on that plate-glass bellybutton of yours - you obviously aren't seeing clearly."
Censorship is when you prescribe what the market will do, without the 'consent' of the marketplace. In this case, the market has already determined that Liberal Talk Radio is a comparative failure with Conservative Talk Radio. The censorship I think you're talking about Joan, is called "The Fairness Doctrine" – something that was abandoned 20 years ago because it couldn't be enforced.
Conservatives love the debate, and will take any opportunity to have a substantive discussion on Talk Radio. Liberals are the ones who can't seem to make it work. They just don't seem able to generate high enough numbers to stay on the air (i.e. : Air America).
People should be able to do or say whatever they want, UNLESS they are VIOLATING(violating=violence) YOUR PERSONAL SPACE.
In example, touching you or your things without permission.
All of this virgin ears shit needs to stop.
People should be able to do or say whatever they want, UNLESS they are VIOLATING(violating=violence) YOUR PERSONAL SPACE.
In example, touching you or your things without permission.
All of this virgin ears shit needs to stop.
People should be able to do or say whatever they want, UNLESS they are VIOLATING(violating=violence) YOUR PERSONAL SPACE.
In example, touching you or your things without permission.
All of this virgin ears shit needs to stop.
You do realize that you've made points that would support the fairness doctrine, right? Is it just me that sees this as just a bit ironic?
Here's an interesting piece.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/22/schultz-on-radio-report/
Not brand new, but noteworthy nonetheless:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Liberal_talk_radio_trends_ahead_of_
Limbaugh_among_2554_i_0711.html
http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?t=56211
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/2007/02/aar-
snubbed-in-talkers-magazine-list.html
"Liberals are more than welcome to get their own show and run it 24/7 and noone on the right will complain for one second."
That's a lie. You people have been bitching and moaning about the "liberal media" for years. I can only imagine the pissing and moaning we'd be hearing if there actually WERE a liberal media, and if liberal billionaires owned 90% of the AM market and ramrodded their ideology across the entire spectrum of the radio dial.
"But back to the censorship issue. When it comes to teh left ideas, they are based in absurdity like conspiracy theories."
Knowing how many times our government has carried out illegal, covert actions over the decades, and knowing how often the left has been absolutely spot on in describing them, long before they became public knowledge, how can you even say this with a straight face?
Wasn't it the left that said that there were no WMD in Iraq? Boy, that was sure a wacky conspiracy theory, wasn't it?
Wasn't it the left that said that republiCONs were stealing elections? Boy, another goofy, wacky theory, right?
Wasn't it the left that first said that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was entirely fraudulant? Goofy bastards again, right?
How about global warming? Wasn't that the left as well? Boy, who would ever believe them on anything? They're just full of goofy conspiracy theories.
How about this whacked out conspiracy theory that the right likes to bandi about:
On 9/11, 3 steel-framed skyscrapers crumbled to piles of dust after mere minutes of very cool fires smoldering over a tiny percentage of buildings. Not once, either before or after 9/11, has this ever happened. Not only that, but all three collapsed PRECISELY as if there had been controlled demolitions. Not one of them even brushed up against a neighboring building as they came down. The buildings were designed to withstand not only significant fire, but impact by commercial jetliners. Somehow, magically, physics disappeared for a short while, though.
And the "official conspiracy theory," which states that the building's floors "pancaked" upon one another, somehow fails to take into account the fact that the 47 steel cores within the buildings crumbled to dust right along with everything else. Had the floors caved in on one another, as the official conspiracy theory states, we'd have seen the inner steel cores of the buildings still standing.
This is the type of nonsensical conspiracy theory that you get on right wing radio, yet some people are still foolish enough to listen.
"Guess what? You simply saying this does not make it so. The mainstream media is definitely not "liberal." If it were, we would not be in Iraq right now, the public would not stand for the constant lies being told by the BA, we'd have universal health care, and we'd be well on our way to ridding ourselves of our oil addiction. Use your head."
The mainstream media isn't Liberal? Apparently you're the only one in the universe who thinks this way......lol.
Me saying it only reflects that Liberal Talk Radio has gotten some bad press, due to ratings. Me saying it only says that I notice that the flagship of Liberal Talk Radio went bankrupt. Me saying it only recognizes that Liberal Talk Radio hasn't penetrated many markets – even ones like San Francisco, Seattle, or Chicago – like it should have done easily.
Even if Liberal Talk Radio were popular, it wouldn't have stopped our involvement in Iraq, it wouldn't have helped Universal Health Care become established, and wouldn't have curbed America's oil addiction. I'm using my head, Clark………..and realizing that Liberal Talk Radio is limp in this country. It was killed by Liberal apathy (what else is new?), since you guys weren't even listening to it when it was on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" "Truth is, Liberal talk radio is boring"
Be specific. Which particular show are you referring to, and how is it that you don't feel the same about CONservative talk radio?"
I heard Jeanine Garafolo on Air America last year, and couldn't believe how uninteresting she was. She was a name-caller, and that was about it. She had no real show, except for the fluff-ball pre-screened Libs who called in and showered her with compliments.
When her producer accidentally made a mistake and let a Conservative through who had a decent point, she had no reasonable response except to lash out at them as a "Bush lover" or some other hilarious name. She didn't even respond to her own topic of discussion when a Conservative would refute it. I thought it was the most shameful display I'd yet heard. Unfortunately, I hear that's very typical on Liberal Talk radio.
So, in other words, you oppose having right wing billionaires buying up an entire radio spectrum and cramming it with right wing propaganda broadcasting 24/7. Good, we're in agreement then.
"In this case, the market has already determined that Liberal Talk Radio is a comparative failure with Conservative Talk Radio"
That's simply not true. Look at how long wingnut radio has been the ONLY format on AM. How long has AAR been around? What other progressive programming is offered on a consistent basis? You're not making fair comparisons at all, and the fact is, as I've shown above, progressive talk radio IS doing rather well, especially considering where they're starting from. They're not going to overwhelm a behemoth that's been created over 20 years in a year or two, but that doesn't make it a failure.
"Conservatives love the debate, and will take any opportunity to have a substantive discussion on Talk Radio. "
This is laughable. CONservatives have no position from which to win a debate, which is why they continually resort to divisive issues such as gays, god, and guns. The fact is, on every issue of importance to the public today, progressive ideals are favored. Watch or listen to any right wing pundit. On the RARE occasions in which they actually allow a REAL progressive (usually, they'll put some drugged-out kook on, so they can mock him) to appear, they either resort to shouting them down when they're confronted with facts, or they simply cut quickly to a commercial, and when they return, the progressive voice is magically gone.
Listen to Thom Hartmann sometime, if you want to see an OPEN discussion on issues. He brings some of the most rigid wingnuts I've ever heard of onto his program to debate various issues, and he does so respectfully and with a true sense of open sharing. Unfortunately for the wingnuts, Thom is armed with the facts, and he doesn't mind using them.
No, I'm far from the only one with a functioning brain. There IS a "liberal media" but it most certainly does not exist in the mainstream media. There is also most definitely a CONservative media, apart from the mainstream media. The difference between the two is that the CONservative media was launch many years before the liberal media, and they have been incredibly effective at getting their talking points into the mainstream media, simply by repeating them over and over and over again, across their op ed pages, throughout talk radio, and on Fox.
Very often, the right wing talking points of the day, whether they are based in fact or not, become key stories on the evening news all across the mainstream media. If and when the talking points are disproven, it's quite rare that any corrections are issued, and the original story becomes accepted by all.
That's why you could have a decorated American war hero slimed and smeared by proven liars with a wicked political agenda become the lead story of the nation for weeks, a mere few months away from a presidential election. It was proven within a day or two that the swift liars were full of shit, but did that stop the mainstream "liberal" media from carrying the story for almost an entire month? Nope.
Remember the lie that Fox told about Barak Obama, several weeks ago, where they said that he had gone to a school that trains terrorists? Never mind that there was no basis whatsoever for their story, and that a simple phone call proved it fraudulent. They reported it as fact, it was picked up by CNN, who also reported it as fact. Later in the day, when CNN actually cross checked it and found it to be false, they issued a correction. Fox went on to say that it was a lie that was issued by the Hillary Clinton campaign to impune Obama. Never mind that there was absolutely no factual evidence to support this. With Fox, facts do not matter, and, as we saw right in plain view, when Fox lies, other networks repeat it.
You need to pick up and read David Brock's books about this subject. He was an insider in this game, from very early on, and he describes in exquisite detail how it works. It's really quite brilliant, though certainly revolting and highly disturbing.
You can also prove this to yourself by simply shutting off all broadcast media for a few weeks. Ignore the radio, ignore the television, and just go online or to the library to get your information. Then, pop the TV back on after a few weeks, and see if what they're talking about matches what you're reading (it doesn't), and ask yourself why.
How can I do that? You people aren't going to do anything to change a good thing. You've found a way to completely dominate the broadcast media, and can just sit back and bitch and moan about the "liberal media" endlessly. Of COURSE you're not going to do anything to level the playing field, when it's tilted in your favor, you goof! That's why I said that the proof that there is no "liberal media" is the fact that CONservatives have done nothing to level the field!
"Apparently the govts of France, England, Germany, and Russia are part of our consrvative party."
Actually, none of those nations believed that there was a justification for invading Iraq, except for England, which was cut in on the loot, of course. Perhaps, you've forgotten that the UN did NOT issue a resolution to authorize an invasion, and the reason that they did not is because they were completely unconvinced that there was a legitimate WMD threat there. Didn't your "liberal media" tell you about this?
"and the proof is where?"
Google "election fraud" for 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. There are literally millions of links with more proof than you could ever finish reading. Also, take the time to read Bev Harris free electronic book "Blackbox voting," on her website blackboxvoting.org. As well, you should read some of the material that Greg Palast has been uncovering. He's got over 500 of the missing white house emails, that explicitly describe the caging process that was used to disenfranchise black voters. Trust me, there's plenty of evidence out there. You're just not going to see it on your "liberal media." (Isn't that weird? Wouldn't you think that a "liberal media" would broadcast the truth about election fraud?)
"Didnt we just say that the dems took congress in 06?"
That doesn't mean that there was no election fraud. It means that the voter turn out for democrats overwhelmed the fraud. Again, do some research on this subject, and you'll learn the truth, if you're willing to accept it.
Did I scare you by asking direct questions, a format where you cant ramble on like a lunatic and not adress a point?"
What the hell are you talking about? I believe I've addressed every sentence you've typed.
So, you listen to part of one show, a year ago, and all of the sudden have a full, broad, complete understanding of every aspect of progressive talk radio?
And, are you not aware that your rightwing talk pundits do the exact things that you condemn all of progressive radio for, based upon your brief encounter with one particular host? Are you going to pretend that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc., etc., etc. do not brush aside callers that make them uncomfortable, do not name call, and do not dominate their own programs? Get real. See, this is the part where you're starting to show what a blind hypocrite you really are. You're not even honest enough to discuss something like this in a rational manner, because you're far to blinded by ideology.
"They would rather watch Fox."
Nope. Sorry. Fox is only one "news" network. FAR more people watch the others than watch Fox. Fox's ratings are miniscule compared to free broadcast networks. When you add up all viewers of all other networks and compare to Fox, you see just how puny they really are.
Apparently, questions are like kryptonite for this Clark Kunt."
Wow. Right back to the personal attacks and insults again. I guess that means you're feeling cornered. Sorry about that.
" I asked 4 or 5 specifc questions. You havent answered them - youve avoided them. "
I haven't seen them. Is there a particular reason why you can't re-ask? You're not afraid of what I'll reply with, are you?
I'm sorry, but Fox news' overall ratings are paltry when you combine all other networks and compare. And, head to head, free broadcast networks have far more viewers as well. In the cable world alone, yet, fox dominates, although their numbers have been steadily tanking for several months now, while some seem to be rising steadily.
" So committed liberals such as George Soros + Ted Turner + all of Hollywood + etc dont have the money, power, connections to make liberal radio work even considering it is superior in every market they go head to head. Wow"
They absolutely have the money, power, and connections. They simply haven't done so. Very recently, an organized effort was launched to build a media apparatus similar to what CONservatives have built over the past 25 years, but it's in its infancy.
"Its funny that corporations (which exist to make money) would choose the shows that stand to make them LESS money"
War is extremely profitable. Aside from that, corporations have benefited mightily from republiCON policies. The entire broadcast media is now owned by a tiny handful (I believe 5 or 6) of massive corporations.
"Really, your even too stupid to change the dial? You HAVE to listen to talk radio?"
Are you too stupid to realize that changing the station from Limbaugh to Hannity does not signify change of broadcast opinion? The point is not that I HAVE to listen to talk radio. The point is that, in most of the country, if I am a progressive who WISHES to listen to talk radio, I have no choice but to listen to right wing opinion.
"
1) What happens if a network wants to air, after the private release, a Moore documentary or any other film that is one sided in its opinions?"
Haven't things like this already happened? I seem to recall the right being all up in arms some time ago, over a Reagan documentary that was aired on one of the big three networks. I also recall a VERY heavily distorted and biased documentary about 9/11 being aired on one of those networks very recently as well.
"Should they be censored because they are public outlets?"
Nobody has suggested censorship. Equal air time to offer opposing views is not "censorship." It BROADENS free speech, not curtails it.
"2) Oh, and lets not forget the internet. We're going to make sure that every single website is "fair"? Thats public also."
The internet isn't a public medium. It's used by the public, but the public doesn't own the IP addresses. Those are private. If you're stuck in BF Idaho with an internet connection, you're not forced to view only wingnut opinions, are you? However, if you're stuck in BF Idaho with an AM radio, you have to. See the difference?
"3) What about other works such as "An Inconvenient Truth" which now shows up in public schools. Should that book have 50% of its pages dedicated to the other side?"
That would seem like a pretty solid idea, wouldn't it? Do you want your kids only hearing one side of such an important issue? I don't.
"4) Who decides and monitors the various viewpoints of each issue and decides which viewppoints are valid (in the case of an issue having multiple viewpoints)"
The fairness doctrine had regulatory oversight built in.
Who decides which viewpoints are valid? You and I. Isn't that the way it should be? Or, do you believe that only right wing pundits should be allowed to arbitrate and dominate all opinions?
I guess this paragraph was probably a typo as well:
"Not surprisingly, the more you write, and teh more insight we get into you the more obvious it is that you are a ranting raving lunatic that will only believe liberal sources and conspiracies. You even, like most crazy people, begin to believe them until it is simply common sense to you."
"You it just dawned on me I am debating a guy (or girl, or kid, who knows) that has named himself after a comic book character...LOL."
Awesome irony, ain't it? You didn't really just figure that out, did you?
They've only started very recently. CONservatives have a 20 + year head start. It's going to take some time, particularly when republiCON policies have tilted the playing field so heavily in their favor.
"1) the outrage was similar to the Moore outrage. It was never about opposing views but accuracy in those views."
Right. So, how did YOU feel about a reagan documentary that contained inaccuracies being broadcast unchallenged on the public airwaves? Did that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, or did it infuriate you, because there was no countering opinion offered?
"With talk shows, the hosts are openly admitting what political side they are on."
And? That makes it ok that 90% of AM radio has nothing but right wing pundits, 24/7? Would you feel the same if that 90% majority were progressives?
"2) We arent talkking about having alternative sites, or radio shows, or tv shows. we are talking about modifying the format of specific shows. A specific show=specific website. A specific show <> the web in its entirety."
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Nobody is advocating altering the content of specific programs. The fairness doctrine merely meant that, for each hour of a given political perspective, an equal amount of time had to be alotted for the opposing viewpoint.
"3) Thats pure stupidity. What youre saying is that people cant give their opinions as they wish to give them."
That's pure stupidity. How would offering an alternative viewpoint mean that nobody could offer their opinion? It would open MORE opinion.
"4) "The fairness doctrine had regulatory oversight built in" the govt that is so corrupt (i agree with you on this one) and evil should be trusted? Come on."
The government is you and I. Regulatory oversight means open air. It prevents corruption. It is closed, secretive government agencies that foster rampant corruption.
"Youre laughable."
You make no sense.
Excuse me, but he's been name calling, and has yet to make a single valid, sustainable point. I may be aggressive, but I've address each and every point with facts and logic-based opinion. Rich has offered nothing but his opinion,which often seems based in anything but logic, and never seems to be based in fact. Opinions based solely upon one's own opinions are hardly substantive debating points.
"So, in other words, you oppose having right wing billionaires buying up an entire radio spectrum and cramming it with right wing propaganda broadcasting 24/7. Good, we're in agreement then."
I think the profit motive and market forces will determine who listens to what on Talk Radio stations…………not the Fairness Doctrine. The success of Conservative Talk Radio has already proven that the marketplace chooses its superstars........and its losers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark, even Walter Cronkite admits that most media is liberally biased. Come on, don't try to feed me creamed corn and tell me its ice cream, Clark. We all know what's going on in the media. Everyone does, Clark………except you. I have to admit, it's funny to hear you spin though………
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You need to pick up and read David Brock's books about this subject. He was an insider in this game, from very early on, and he describes in exquisite detail how it works. It's really quite brilliant, though certainly revolting and highly disturbing."
Are you talking about slime-master David Brock from Media Matters? Now you make me laugh. I wouldn't trust anything this Soros mouthpiece has to say about any topic. He's the ultimate propagandist pimp for the Left. Next time, try choosing someone at least somewhat neutral, Clark. I won't read from this nutjob's menu.
I thought you just said above that a billionaire buying up airtime and cramming it with his material was abhorrent to you. So why would you accept that program now with Brock?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election fraud, Clark? So are you trying to tell me that 50 individual states certified their elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006, and all those Secretaries of State were in on the fraud? How is that even numerically possible? You understand that those Secretaries put their jobs and income on the line when they certify elections, don't you, Clark? I used to think that you were above the nutty conspiracy theorists – but I'm not so sure now.
Are you also pushing forward the idea that Democrats stole the election in 2006? Hell, Conservatives aren't even saying that! We just accepted the results and moved along. Why can't you Lefties just accept things, move along, and stop with this insane conspiracy nonsense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, you listen to part of one show, a year ago, and all of the sudden have a full, broad, complete understanding of every aspect of progressive talk radio?"
I totally got my fill after just one show of Air America. After being shocked at its idiocy, I asked the person who told me about the show, if this was what it was like all the time. He said "yea, you caught the show on a mild day." I laughed, and never tuned in again. LOL
I'm now stunned that you can even sit there and tell me that I should listen to MORE of this nonsense so that I have a full and complete understanding of Liberal Talk Radio. That's laughable, Clark.
I suppose I could start beating my head against a wall so that when I stop it will feel good. Same screwy logic.
You know as well as everyone here does Clarke that forcing equal time to an opposing viewpoint would chase away a very large portion of the audience. But that's the point isn't it? Chase away the audience and get rid of the pesky dissenting voice that lives almost exclusively on the AM band, which just for informational purposes generally only have a broadcast range of 35-60 miles.
As far as bandwith goes......well clark around here (boston suburbs) there are only about 5 AM stations.......Seems like a wide open market for that desperately wanted "progressive" (why do people insist on being ashamed of what you are? liberal/socialists in favor of wealth redistribution through government mandates, taxes and entitlements) radio. Want to invest Clarke? I'll be the front man for a fee of say 8%... Whaddya say?
I don't know why he feels it's necessary to do that but if he can't use just one line between paragraphs like the rest of us his posts shouldn't be published until he edits them.
I would agree with this, if the majority of airwaves hadn't been brought under the control of a tiny handful of corporations with republiCON interests as an agenda.
"Clark, even Walter Cronkite admits that most media is liberally biased."
That's absurd. You haven't read his quotes, have you? Let me guess...you're getting your "news" from Limbaugh, Fox, Drudge, and newsmax again, right? Thought so. Expand a bit. Try reading the words from the horse's mouth.
"Are you talking about slime-master David Brock from Media Matters? Now you make me laugh. "
David Brock used to be at the core of the right wing echo machine. He speaks from a very qualified position, and is well worthy of acknowledgment. That is, of course, unless you're afraid of what he has to say, for some reason.
You might want to try to dare to step out of your little box of partisan "news," and read some other opinions and truths for a change. You probably wouldn't be such a hypocrite if you did.
"I thought you just said above that a billionaire buying up airtime and cramming it with his material was abhorrent to you. So why would you accept that program now with Brock?"
Media matters has never received a penny from Soros. Sorry. We've already covered this, and I think we put it to bed pretty firmly.
Additionally, Soros funds liberal think tanks, just as Murdoch and Scaiffe fund wingnut think tanks. Soros has not bought up all of the AM spectrum, to ramrod his ideological beliefs down the collective public's throats. You can choose to avoid the truth that media matters presents on their website. Most Americans are not so lucky with regard to their exposure to right wing propaganda. If you live in an area that only gets AM radio, you're stuck.
"Election fraud, Clark? So are you trying to tell me that 50 individual states certified their elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006, and all those"
I showed you where to go to get the information. I'm not going to discuss every point with you here. If you're not interested in finding the truth, that's your problem, not mine. The subject is deep and wide, and requires a considerable amount of time to begin to digest. Fortunately, the evidence is all fully documented and widely available to you.
"Are you also pushing forward the idea that Democrats stole the election in 2006?"
Of course not. Democrats aren't counting the votes, republiCONs are. Democratic voters simply turned out in such large numbers in 2006 that they overwhelmed the fraud machine. That doesn't mean that republiCONs weren't attempting to steal another election, however. Again, google is your friend.
"I totally got my fill after just one show of Air America"
My, what an open mind. I stand corrected. You clearly ARE the world's leading expert on progressive talk radio.
I'm not the least bit surprised that you lack the intellectual curiosity to listen to an opposing viewpoint. Most people who have weak faith in their own beliefs do the same. If you can somehow just avoid hearing challenges of any kind to your belief system, all of your "truths" will remain intact. We call that "living in a bubble."
You see how transparent this is? If you were truly convinced of your own beliefs, you would welcome the opportunity to fortify those beliefs, by exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints, rather than bury your head in the sand in ignorance.
I challenge you to listen to Thom Hartmann and/or Randi Rhodes consistently for one full week. While you listen, make notes of what issues you disagree with, and when you have a chance, do your own research to see if what they're saying is factual.
That is, unless you're too afraid of what you might learn.
I don't know why he feels it's necessary to do that but if he can't use just one line between paragraphs like the rest of us his posts shouldn't be published until he edits them."
WAAAAHHHHHHHHH!~!!!!!! WAAAHHHHHHH!!!! BOOOHOOO!!!!!
Yes, by all means, when you cannot refute what I say, see if you can get me censored. Freak.
That's funny, because I've yet to see anyone refute anything that I've said.
"I don't believe for one second that you truly believe that crap about the WTC."
I absolutely do not. There is simply no way in hell that those buildings were not demolished.
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, even at its optimal burn rate. The thick, choking, black smoke that poured out of those buildings is proof positive that we were not witnessing a hot burn. The fires were smoldering. Had they been burning anywhere near peak temperature for jet fuel, we'd have not seen that thick, black smoke.
The planes were traveling over 500 mph, yet their impact did not cause the buildings to even shake visibly, because the buildings were constructed to absorb such an impact.
The most convincing proof against the ridiculous pancaking theory is that there were no twisted sections of the 47 heavy steel columns. In fact, there was virtually nothing left of them, except puddles of molten steel in the basements. What got hot enough to melt steel for weeks after the collapse? Office paper? Computers? Certainly not jet fuel. Jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel. Thermite can, however. By strange coincidence, it's also used to demolish buildings and cause the EXACT same type of collapse that we saw three times on 9/11. Weird coincidence, right?
No, can't be...the government has NEVER lied to us! There's NEVER been a false flag incident before! What the hell am I thinking? It's far more logical to accept that, for a single day, the laws of physics were suspended somehow, than to even consider the possibility that it was an inside job.
"You know as well as everyone here does Clarke that forcing equal time to an opposing viewpoint would chase away a very large portion of the audience. "
Excuse me? You just made the case for equal time for opposing views. Currently, over 50% of the population is being chased away.
"As far as bandwith goes......well clark around here (boston suburbs) there are only about 5 AM stations"
Actually, there are over 20.
"(why do people insist on being ashamed of what you are?"
How is calling myself a progressive evidence of shame of what I am? What are you smoking? If I were ashamed of being progressive, wouldn't I not admit that I'm progressive? Am I missing something here?
Far too much detail to go into on a message board thread. I'd suggest you do some research on your own. It's a huge, complex subject, full of very interesting inaccuracies and inconclusive assumptions.
We could start with something simple though, if you'd like. The head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Muhammad Atta shortly before the attacks. Why? Muhammad Atta was reportedly the ring leader. Why would our "good friends" in Pakistan have funded 9/11, and more importantly, why was this never followed up by the FBI?
Seriously, if you truly want to know about 9/11, there are millions and millions of pages that have been written about it, as well as some very brilliant documentaries. I would strongly urge you to seek this information for yourself, if you're sincerely interested. Suffice to say that we have not been told the truth.
Watch this:
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
Part II covers what you're looking for.
This one is pretty good as well:
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
Good sites:
http://st911.org/
http://www.911proof.com/
http://www.rense.com/general24/t500.htm
Good stuff, and there's plenty more. The more you read and see, the more holes you're going to find in the official conspiracy theory.
"Additionally, Soros funds liberal think tanks, just as Murdoch and Scaiffe fund wingnut think tanks. Soros has not bought up all of the AM spectrum, to ramrod his ideological beliefs down the collective public's throats"
The left are liberals and the right are "wingnuts"?
Your increasingly shrill denials notwithstanding Clark I think I might have to give the credibility edge to the architect and engineer of the WTC, call me wacky but I just think he might be a teensy weensy bit more knowledgeable than you -no offense intended-
You keep saying that 3 towers collapsed........Was the third one the invisible tower only visible to those who overactive conspiracy fueled minds have pushed them into hallucination land?
Again I ask you pass the bong bro, you've obviously had too much of the cheeba
I also am exceedingly curious as to what makes you feel that your out of hand dismissal of each and every source provided that is contrary to yours is somehow "thoughtful and considered" but anyone who questions your sources is an obvious idiot. Firstly, obvious to whom?? You?? Well don't take this the wrong way Clark but that is a position I am more than happy to occupy. If a fool calls you a fool isn't that kind of like a double negative which actually turns out to be a positive. I don't know how to break the news to you buddy but your reinforcements have bugged out, cut and run, I'm sure you understand the concept. It is one that the Democrats have been honing to an art form for over 40 years now.
Oh yeah BTW Gulf of Tonkin: LBJ /Democrat
WMD in Iraq: yes some said there were none which is patently BS considering the fact we sold them Chemical weapons which they used on the Kurds to tune of 30,000 dead. If that wasn't WMD what was it? Nasty swear words and Bacon bombs?? Additionally over half of the Democrats approved the action against Iraq. So give it rest huh?
Just wondering does the google search on election fraud cover the fact that after recount after recount after recount that in fact Bush won FL? Or would that be "An Inconvenient Truth" best left unsaid? Does it mention Gore's attempt to get the Supreme Court to invalidate the ballots of 100,000+ soldiers who voted via absentee ballots from Afghanistan and Iraq? I bet not.
Earlier you mentioned that Scoot