Which Conservatives should we allow on the air?

[bryant69]

I see that we are in a collective tizzy over the firing of Don Imus (which, to be fair, was probably the right move for NBC/CBS to make). What's more I see several posts apparently quite seriously discussing who we knock off the air next (with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh leading). So here's an alternate question; assuming we do have the power to get rid of voices we don't like, which conservatives should we allow to stay on the air?

Letting them know early that their jobs are safe from us, might even persuade them to go after their more egregious brethren.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ClassWarrior]

1. The ones who comport themselves like responsible citizens.

NGU.

[atreides1]

17. Who gets to make that determination?

You?

[ClassWarrior]

Why do you ask? Is it really so hard for you to figure out...

...what's responsible and what's not?

NGU.

[shadowknows69]

58. Um, no offense but I don't want you or any one person

or any mob of people making that decision. I have no problem with Imus being fired for what he said but this is smelling like a witch hunt now folks and that's dangerous territory. Remember when we were all told to shut up about the war and our beloved President? Apples and oranges with the racism issue but is it really? The marketplace should be what gets idiots like Imus fired and it has. This mob mentality of "who do we get taken off the air next" is really frightening.

[ClassWarrior]

60. Society is a "mob," and standards and mores are a "witch hunt?"...

So let me get this straight. You don't want any one person, or any group of people, deciding what's responsible, acceptable behavior in society?

Awrighty then. Anarchy rules, dude!

:headbang:

NGU.

[Casper Alabaster]

70. Why should it be frightening?

These motherfuckas usurped free elections in the United States, started 2 unnecessary wars, and killed over a million people, with our tax dollars. World opinion has always been against the United States (even Nazi Germany polled higher); the only thing that can save us is to purge from the public discourse the malingering malcontents. And the smokers.

[ClassWarrior]

75. Considering how you have twisted my words, it's no wonder...

...you feel so comfortable defending Rush and the rest of the immoral, irresponsible freaks.

By the way, what does your handle mean? "White White?"

NGU.

[Casper Alabaster]

79. Who's twisting words?

I wasn't responding to your post, lighten up dawg.

[shadowknows69]

89. Imus did all this?

You're giving hate radio more power than they deserve. As far as the smokers, they just found a spot on my lung so that may take care of itself soon enough.

[Casper Alabaster]

95. I'm sorry to hear you might have a spot on your lung,

I don't know what more to say except I hope you won't let it censor you from posting on DU and educating n00bs like me.
I don't think you can under-estimate Hate Radio, look what happened in Rwanda in 1994. A million dead, genocide organized by radio, while the United States sat back and laughed. Much like 1942, when the US and the rest of the so-called civilized world happily deported fleeing Jews back to continental Europe, Himmler, and to Auschwitz. Hate Radio can do that.

[Frogger]

128. I totally agree.

If we start to limit free speech, then our. turn will come.

The best way to expose idiots for what they are is to let them rant in public. Let them expose themselves. And then counter with good, reasoned, logical, and factual discourse.

Let the public see the difference between liberals and conservatives. They'll make the right choice.

But to just shut the opposition up? In addition to being Stalinist, occasionally they might serve as a needed corrective when one of ours goes too far. It can happen.

[Toots]

129. Do you think it is mob mentality to punish a child for wrong doing?

All anyone is asking for is civility. If they can not find that possible then I suggest they be sent to a less influential position. A person has the right to be a uncivil as they wish but we also have the right to ask for accountability... You want Bush* removed don't you. What's the difference?

[Casper Alabaster]

87. Right now, it seems to be Al Sharpton. n/t

n/t

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

96. I think blatantly racist/misogynistic remarks make the determination

I don't think we should go on a witch hunt. I do think that people who make blatantly racist and or misogynistic remarks should not have their own show. That is a pretty low standard which many conservatives seem unable to meet. Note that Imus can still go on the air and his right to free speech has not been violated. He just no longer gets his own massive bully pulpit from which to make racist/misogynistic remarks.

[Casper Alabaster]

101. He feasibly could, if only all his advertisers didn't want

to be associated with hating a bunch of black chicks on a college basketball team who never heard of him, let alone harmed him in some way. It's so cool Imus is now an unemployed fucktard!
I kind of wish he was in prison though.
Fuck Imus!:rofl:
Oh yeah, welcome to DU, fellow n00b!

[MessiahRp]

2. They're all liars

So I figure the ones that aren't advocating racism, murder, and extreme hate are fine. It's one thing to be politically opposed to people or their policies, it's another to wish people dead as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage tend to do.

Rp

[Casper Alabaster]

74. The problem is,

the people you mention want everybody dead except themselves. Baby Jesus smiles upon them, frowns upon us....

[Deep13]

3. Ed Shultz. That's it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. ..

:evilgrin:

[terip64]

4. The ones who don't use public airways for hate speech. duh n/t

[bryant69]

7. Isn't espousing conservatism by definition hate speech?

Bryant

[terip64]

14. I have some 'conservative' acquaintences who don't use hate speech,

That doesn't mean they aren't greedy and selfish, IMHO, but they are smart enough not to use hate speech.

[atreides1]

19. Because they don't use it around you

Doesn't mean they don't use it when you're not in their company!

[terip64]

32. You're right. They probably don't use it at work or in mixed company.

These idiots on the radio have been saying anything they want and it is wrong and should be stopped. We have more problems with Janet Jackson's breast then with hate speech. I say time's up for hate speech. And it is about time.

[Casper Alabaster]

81. If they're not advocating torture and genocide,

then how do you know they're conservative? I suppose that's pre-Imus...

[Sadie4629]

21. Um, no

Free speech for some, not for others? Is that what you're advocating?

[bryant69]

23. Free speech for those who use it truthfully and honestly

but lies and distortions and deceptions shouldn't be protected from the will of the people. And, let's face it, without lies and distortions and deceptions, there isn't any conservatism.

Bryant

[Sadie4629]

29. "Lies, distortions, and deceptions"

Who gets to decide "absolute truth?" Every issue has shades of gray.

[unpossibles]

35. who said anything about absolute truth?

I think you are reading into this. Imus is not a victim of free speech oppression. Any employer can decide that an employees very publicly stated views do not meet the image they wish to present. Free speech - the 1st. - applies to government censorship not private enterprise and the will of the people/advertisers.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that pundits try to at least be honest - you know, how journalism used to be before the alleged think tanks took over things.

[Sadie4629]

39. An example of "shades of gray:"

Just before the election I got a call from the Granholm campaign. Some young woman told me that is we only re-elected Jennifer Granholm she would work to overturn the ban on stem-cell research.

The problems with this are:
1--There is no ban on stem-cell research
2--There is a ban on federal $$ for embryonic
3--Embryonic stem-cell research goes on through private funding.
4--Adult stem-cell research can (and is) funded by government $$.

To know the WHOLE truth, (which the young woman who called me didn't) is to enable a person to make up his or her own mind on this particular issue. The topic of this thread was "Which conservatives should we ALLOW on the air." (Paraphrased.)

Imus is a different situation, and not exactly the topic of this thread.

[unpossibles]

56. I think you are over-simplifying the stem cell situation too, honestly

1--There is no ban on stem-cell research
while there is not exactly a ban, per se, there is practically one in the sense that private research will not cover the cost of something that is potentially a huge boon in the fight against disease.

2--There is a ban on federal $$ for embryonic
true. Which is almost the same thing. Without federal funding, the research is slowed down to a crawl. Are you against the funding or the research? And do you realize that federal funds were spent on Polio research last century?

3--Embryonic stem-cell research goes on through private funding.
but not to the same extent, and also the ban applies to any lab which does private funded stem cell research - in other words if a lab does private stem cell research and gets federal funds for other research, they are now disqualified from any federal funds. This is essentially a ban imo.

4--Adult stem-cell research can (and is) funded by government $$.
adult stem cells do not have anywhere near the potential to cure disease that embryonic stem cells do.

I hesitate to say this, but I feel you are splitting hairs both on the freedom of speech issue (which as I said is more an issue of employer rights against hate speech re: the OP) and on stem cells, and I feel you are pushing certain talking points and yourself are not being fully honest about either issue, but perhaps I am wrong.

Honestly, I think the OP's question seemed a little more tongue and cheek than you are taking it, but perhaps I am wrong. And also honestly, I have no problem holding people accountable for what they say. Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are given multiple platforms of respect and do nothing but spout outright lies, then say "hey, I was only being funny! Lighten up PC jerk" or whatever when called out for it. Are you against honesty in the media?

[Sadie4629]

57. You've posted some things that I didn't know. Thank you.

I didn't know that a lab that does embryonic stem-cell research could not get funding for other projects. That's horrible.

And no, I'm against neither the funding or the research. It was merely an example of "half-truths" that I've heard ("Ban on stem-cell research!!!" Well, no . . .) and trying to relate it to the attempt to stifle conservative voices.

I agree that Bryant69 cannot possibly be serious about "Which conservative voices should we 'allow.'" But until he yells "Gotcha!!" or something, I figure the topic is open to discussion.

(BTW, just within the last couple of days there has been progress made in both heart valve research and diabetes research using stem cells. ****adult stem-cells**** Guess there is some potential there.)

Anyway, thanks for your nice, reasoned post. I expected to get banned for some of the points I brought up!

[unpossibles]

65. it's all good and honestly I prefer communication with anyone

frankly I disagree with my peers on some issues, but as long as people at least attempt to be honest about their own view (and yes, two people can disagree while still being honest), it's all good.

I hate the KKK and everything they stand for but they have the right to their opinions. That said, I have the equal right to say they are full of crap.

And the adult stem cell advances are great news indeed.

have a good weekend!

[Casper Alabaster]

90. No grey areas,

the examples you cite are all RW-talking points. I'm not suggesting you yourself are one, just the examples you cite.
Back on topic, 'which, if any, conservatives should we allow on the air?' I still gotta say none for now, unless they're found not-guilty of their crimes-against-humanity charges, and that's a hugh if!:spank:

[Casper Alabaster]

86. Censorship, this is a word often misunderstood...

unpossibles has the most correct current meaning. The OP is asking an open question, as to how can the boundaries of prior-restraint on speech be expanded. On the college campus, in the workplace, outside of the United States, where smart people are, hate speech is actionable by the government, by request of the people voting for it. Democratically enacted "censorship" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Casper Alabaster]

82. *ding*ding*ding*

Conservative 'ideology' is based on a quicksand quagmire of lies, distortions, and deceptions, which inevitably leads to burning books they hate and the authors who wrote them.

[Casper Alabaster]

77. The "c" word is offensive,

and yes, all modern and contemporary dictionaries include that word as a component of hate-speech. Geez, crack a book!:spank:

[Casper Alabaster]

78. self-delete dupe n/t

dupe.

[mainegreen]

6. They're all allowed on the air, Imus included.

Imus was not banned from broadcasting.

[bryant69]

9. We got him fired; we are now going to get Beck and Limbaugh fired

How is that not banning them from broadcasting?

Bryant

[ClassWarrior]

15. The goal isn't to get someone fired. The goal is to hold...

...broadcast profiteers responsible for the toxic wares they pedal. Does the existence of the FDA amount to banning food and drug companies from doing business? Or is its purpose to hold accountable the irresponsible ones?

NGU.

[bryant69]

26. Exactly. Reasonable and responsible broadcasters have nothing to fear

It's only those who peddle lies and distortions and filth that have to worry; in other words, conservatives.

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

92. If Ben Stein or William Buckley Jr. had radio shows, I wouldn't want them off the public airwaves

Pat Buchanon and Bay Buchanon and Robert Novac, I wouldn't want them off the air either.

They aren't hatemongers who use offensive terms on a daily basis with the intention of being insulting. They don't go for shock value.

[Casper Alabaster]

104. Wow, that's the pantheon of American fascism...

Wm. Buckley was a worthy adversary. Pat Buchanan just hates wetbacks, and Novak leaks the names of covert CIA agents to the press, under the guise of being a columnist for a newspaper. If only Ben Stein would've told him first how bad it was all going to turn out, before he told everyone else.
They're hate-mongers and traitors not intending to shock anyone into accepting fascism, but they insidiously promote it day after day, and of course are sophisticated enough to avoid using rhetoric overtly offensive to the 'swing-voters'.

[Casper Alabaster]

102. Well, yeah. n/t.

n/t

[Casper Alabaster]

105. To hold responsible and accountable by government

oversight implies firing, fining, and eventual imprisonment, with all the resources of the relevant government agency.
The existence of the agency doesn't deter the honest businessman from plying his trade, but if they cross the line, the agency would be negligent to overlook/not prosecute private sector hate-mongers/criminals.
The KKK had some 4 million members in the 1920s, now they're down to a few hundred, most in federal custody, happily enjoying the role of prison wife.:rofl:
Getting fired is only the beginning!

[Sadie4629]

18. Big difference

But I think you know that. MAYBE no network will touch him ever again, but that isn't the same as being "banned."

BTW, can't he go to XM or Sirius, and probably make more $$$ than he was?

[mainegreen]

28. Because there's a chance he'll be back.

Somewhere with someone else.

[Casper Alabaster]

100. It's not the government banning them for now,

it's that no advertiser will sponsor their hate. Without a paycheck, they'll have to sign up at free republic and spew hate, for free!:nopity:

[davhill]

8. Maybe George Will

[Nikki Stone1]

47. Well, at least he knows who Vercingetorix was

I wouldn't vote him off the island, even though I disagree with his interpretation of things economic.

[MN ChimpH8R]

122. As a political commentator, Will makes one hell of a

baseball writer. No kidding. One of the best writers on the game ever. Whodathunkit? Make him commissioner of MLB; he'd do a good job and enjoy it and wouldn't write any more water-headed columns about the glories of economic royalism and Edmund Burke.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. Make a list of the ones that aren't liars, bigots or hypocrites for our

consideration. Leave off the crazy and treasonous ones too.

[bryant69]

40. THat's why I started this post

I'm too lazy to do it myself.

I guess I'm seeing George Will, Lou Dobbs, Ed Schulz, and William F. Buckley?

Bryant

[ecstatic]

11. I'd say Lou Dobbs maybe

:shrug: He is borderline conservative but he also presents news that appeals to many moderate democrats.

I say as long as the "journalist" is respectful and doesn't make nasty, hurtful and baseless remarks, the person should be free to say what s/he pleases.

[dysfunctional press]

12. "the power to get rid of voices we don't like"

wow. just...wow.

we need to DEFEND the people's right to FREE SPEECH. even and especially that which we don't agree with.

the concept of the bill of rights seems to be lost on A LOT of people, on BOTH sides of the aisle.

[bryant69]

16. The bill of rights only protects from Government intrustion on free speech

If we as individual citizens can gather together and force silence to voices we don't agree with, we can do so without infringing on their constitutional rights in the slightest.

Or so I am told.

Bryant

[Sadie4629]

25. What a wonderful world that would be!

:eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

30. fighting intolerance with intolerance...

what a bunch of fucking hypocrite morans.

[joe_sixpack]

45. That's right

and then we can burn all of their books that we don't agree with as well. That won't violate their constitutional rights either. Power to the People!

[bryant69]

46. Exactly - so long as the Government doesn't do it

The First Amendment only protects them from Governmental intrusion not from all intrusion.

Bryant

[Casper Alabaster]

107. It's only Constitutional

when the Government decides it is. The First Amendment is doled out to the taxpayers on a provisional basis, subject to future legislative/judicial deals, just like the other 9 'rights' of 10!
I wish I would've been born in Mexico...:-(

[Casper Alabaster]

109. "Power to the People",

It's what they all say...:scared:

[Casper Alabaster]

106. You have it backwards...

the political class/government is now protected from the intrusions and hate-speech (criticism) of the citizens. Thanx W, and your Supreme Court too!
Your essential point is correct; the media's job is to snow enough citizens into accepting/getting used to giving away their Liberty to the government; the 'People' are de facto/de jure left with whatever illusions of free-speech they're told to, just like in real life!:)

[Ganja Ninja]

20. Great! When they stop marginalizing liberals I'll start fighting ...

for bigot's rights.

[Touchdown]

24. Bill of rights doesn't apply here

Nobody is calling for their incarceration for their speech.

The First Amendment says I have a right to free speech. It does not guarantee me a 3 hour radio show, guaranteed guest as "expert", or 1 hour television rant-fest. If your standards apply, then where's "Countdown with Touchdown"? I think CBS Sunday morning for my show would be appropriate, wouldn't you agree?

None of these people have a right to a national spotlight. To say they do is just guying into their talking points, because they bring out that same old "shutting down my freedom of speech" canard every time they get caught saying hateful things on our public airwaves.

[dysfunctional press]

33. what you REALLY need...

is to buy a radio and/or television that has knobs and dials that allow you to CHANGE the channel, turn the volume down, and /or turn the thing on and off.

[Sadie4629]

36. Great suggestion,

but probably a little threatening to some people in this thread.

[Touchdown]

69. I do. And I use them.

...and you totally missed my point.

[dysfunctional press]

84. and you apparently missed the point of civics.

it's a real shame that most school districts across the country have dropped civics requirements from their curriculum. threads like this PROVE what a mistake that is.

we're turning into a nation of self-centered & ignorant hypocritical oafs.

[Touchdown]

91. No, I didn't, but you apparently did.

They have the right of free speech. They do not have a constitutional right to a TV show.

[dysfunctional press]

116. if they pay for the time they have a right to use it as they see fit within the law...

to broadcast any message they choose.

people who would choose to stifle other people's messages, must not have to much faith in their own message to prevail in the court of public opinion.

sad, really...

[Touchdown]

117. We're not talking about paying for time

We're not talking about anything of the kind.

You brought up The Constitutional right to free speech in your defense of laying off of hateTV or Radio. There is not any Constitutional right for any individual to have access to mass media. Your original argument is flawed. Whatever circumlocutions you made subsequent are not of the topic I responded to.

What we're doing is the "free market" and letting it decide.

BTW: Imus got paid. He didn't pay anything. His advertizers, who since abandoned him paid. Free market.

[dysfunctional press]

118. imus had a job- he didn't own the microphone, or pay for the airtime.

the people who pay for the airtime are allowed to put any message/messenger that they choose.
just ask the people who own the mic's and pay for the airtime that glenn beck and rush limbaugh use.

btw- i didn't say that the right they had to the airwaves they pay for was a constitutional one.

[Touchdown]

119. Then our conversation should've been a short one.

Because I replied to that very point you made.

[dysfunctional press]

120. the main thing is- the opposing voice has as much right to the airwaves as our side.

some people don't seem to think so.

[Touchdown]

123. Of course they do.

But...they have much more access than we do. Wouldn't you agree? And, as far as opposing voices are concerned, advocating for privatization, or for further involvement in Iraq are opposing issues. Callling us Socialists and Terrorist Coddlers, when we're not even in the TV studio are not opposing voices. They are well poisoners.

[dysfunctional press]

124. i'd certainly agree. i'd also agree that bill clinton bears a big part of the responsibility.

the telecom act of '94 was NOT a good thing.

[Sadie4629]

34. Every issue has shades of gray

Presenting opposing views is sometimes the only way to get at the "real" truth of any issue.

[BOSSHOG]

13. The reinstatement of the fairness doctrine would do the trick

reagan killed the fairness doctrine which gave birth to the likes of limbaugh, who has proven that he can not hold down a legitimate job. He has to hate and lie unfettered. He and his kind intensely fear the reinstatemnt of the doctrine. There is no better reason to want it back.

[Make7]

49. I agree. Let them all on - along with an opposing point of view. ( n/t )

[formerrepuke]

22. I liked William F Buckley..Pompous and funny (emphasis on pompous).

[KittyWampus]

93. exactly! not all conservatives are offensive, insulting filth-slingers.

[unpossibles]

27. the ones who are not lying racist sexist America-hating scumbags

I fully support the 1st Amendment, and that it applies to all, even people who suck. However, no employer should allow their employees to outright lie about stuff. If Imus and Rush and others want to claim they are just comedians (all while they condemn entertainers for having public political stances... :eyes: ), then they should stick to the comedy circuit and bill their shows that way.

I find it ironic that the true comedians - Stewart, Colbert for instance - came up through comedy and when they went political still managed to tell the truth in a funny way. Then there is the opposite path - Coulter, Limbaugh - who started off in politics then went "funny" to grind some axes.

Say what you want to say, believe what you want to believe, but don't try to pass off a turd as a snickers bar. And if you do and get fired, don't cry about it.

[KharmaTrain]

31. It's Not The Politics, It's The Verbage

I have no problem with a right wing talk host saying most anything on a radio. I will tolerate Rushbo's lies as long as I know there's an alternative on the dial to his bile. As long as there is diversity on the airwaves, there should be room for all types of political and social speech. The problem is when those airwaves are controlled by a handful of hands and our choices of who we listen to are limited.

[youthere]

37. It's not about "allowing" or "disallowing" someone on the air...

it's about holding them accountable for unacceptable slurs. What was Imus'point in the comment he made? That the Rutgers team was tough (I'm not really sure) ? Couldn't he have said "Wow!Those girls are one tough team!" Instead he chose a racial slur to make his point and THAT is what was so unacceptable. If he had called them a "tough team" how many people would happily today never know who Don Imus was?

I'm not "out to get" any broadcaster (although, I gotta' admit seeing Limbaugh get the ax would give me a fuzzy warm feeling). There are ways to make your point without being insulting and offensive. If you disagree with me, tell me why. Don't just call me names.

And incidentally, Limbaugh and Beck seem to be the most singled out on this forum but we all know (whether we want to admit it or not)it's not just the conservatives, there are plenty of left leaning radio and talk hosts that walk some pretty thin ice too.

[Sammy Pepys]

38. Ummm....anyone of them who want to be on the air?

I dunno....free speech or something?

Why should we be afraid of letting conservatives take the airwaves? What does it make us look like if we don't want them to take their views public?

[bryant69]

41. We've tried letting them take their views public

We've seen what happens. Thousands of Dead American Soldiers and Hundreds of Thousands of Dead Iraqis, caused, in part, by the constant filth and distortions of Conservatives on our airwaves. Without their filth do you think President Bush would have been able to bamboozle the American people so easily?

I don't.

Bryant

[Sammy Pepys]

42. So you want to ban people from the airwaves because of their political views?

Who are the fascists again?

[bryant69]

44. Is that the best response you have?

Conservatives are causing real damage to America every day, and they are able to do so by creating a climate in which their views are taken as normal. If the American people are shielded from their deceptive filth, they will be able to see the truth.

Don't you want the American people tlo see the truth?

Bryant

[Sadie4629]

48. Again, I have to ask

Whose truth? Should there be no forum for dissent on "certain issues?"

[bryant69]

61. If you assert, as Limbaugh and Coulter have, that we found WMDs

in Iraq, you are not dissenting. You are lying. If you say "President Clinton was offered Bin Ladin's head on a platter and turned it down" you are not dissenting. You are lying.

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

94. You are twisting the issue and I think you are doing it on purpose. The issue isn't their positions

of what the political affairs of the day are... it's how they express themselves and their views.

Frankly, I think you know this.

[Sammy Pepys]

55. Can I get some assurance that you're serious?

Because I'm not really sure that you are, and I think the issue is so clear cut that any sort of proposal like this is pretty much DOA.

If this is a good faith argument that you're making, just say so. I'll bury it.

[bryant69]

62. You'll only bury good faith arguments?

Make your case then.

Bryant

[Sammy Pepys]

67. No, I don't waste my time with bad faith ones....

And I've seen nothing to indicate that you're the least bit serious about this idea. You're just trying to stir shit up, I think....make some point in a roundabout way.

Of course, the motivation for you might be that you've run out of motivation to make your points and defend your beliefs. You'd rather abuse law so that you don't have to answer critics or opponents and don't have to demonstrate the merits of your own system of beliefs. If the public doesn't have a myriad of ideas to choose from, they'll have to choose yours (or so you think). You won't to tip the scales by doing the least amount of work, rather than crushing the opponent in their own ring.

I think you know and realize what you're suggesting is foolhardy and ridiculous. I don't think you're serious about it. But the above is what others will draw from suggestions like this. You don't want to go to the mat for anything...and the interpretations of that theory will be wide-ranging and embarrassing to you as an individual and ourselves as a forum and purveyors of a way of thinking.

Let's face it: conservatives aren't going away. I've seen you in discussions on this board regarding the intellectual history of the same and you seem to treat it with some respect...which I think is a good thing. Getting rid of Rush or O'Reilly or whoever is edit:NOT going to make those ideas disappear, and you know that.

[bryant69]

71. THe other point you neglect to put in

Is that there are a number of much more serious posts advocating exactly what I am in a more limited way.

There really are posters here at DU who are seriously working to get Beck and Limbaugh off the air and who are starting from the point that now we got Imus it's time to go after the next set.

Bryant

[Sammy Pepys]

80. Well, when you go fishing...

...sometimes you don't catch every fish in the pond. Yours was the thread I happened to see. Specific criticism for you aside, my response applies just as much to them as it does here.

So are you confirming my suspicion...that this isn't a serious proposal on your part?

[bryant69]

83. it's not entirely

Although I am surprised at how the internal logic of the position does hold up.

Bryant

[Sammy Pepys]

85. How so?

I see it as a inherently weak, not-easily-defended position. The reasoning behind it is tenuous and lightweight, and ulterior motives abound.

[bryant69]

110. Ulterior motives?

What are my ulterior motives?

If you are too much of a coward to say them openly, send me a private communique.

Bryant

[Sammy Pepys]

115. I'm not chargng you with having them...

...I'm saying the reasoning behind the argument can be construed a number of ways to suggest that there is something more sinister at work because it relies on a very specific field being cherry-picked for exclusion. I think that's a major weakness.

[Casper Alabaster]

111. Last week it was "nappy-headed hos",

next week it'll be "the niggers". Oh wait...

[gollygee]

43. The market rules

If someone makes enough people angry that the advertisers decide to pull their ads from the show, that'll happen. Or if advertisers simply don't want to be associated with the show.

This isn't censorship - it's capitalism.

[MedleyMisty]

51. Yes

There is a difference between some people boycotting someone's advertisers and Congress passing a law saying that no one can use the phrase nappy-headed ho's.

I think the phrase "Your rights end where mine begin" applies here. Imus can say anything he wants to say. And other people are free to object to that and are free to decide to not buy the products of companies that advertise on his show to express their objection. And the companies are then free to decide to pull their ads, and the network is then free to decide that the show isn't making money anymore and should be canceled.

No one is guaranteed the right to having a national show and getting paid millions to express their opinions.

[joe_sixpack]

52. That brings to mind

what a lot of conservative friends were explaining to me about their flap with "The Dixie Chicks". That it was "market forces" at work, not the government censoring them or pulling their records off of country music stations.

[gollygee]

53. That's exactly what it was

they boycotted the Dixie Chicks and that was their right. Obviously not enough people agreed with them.

[guitar man]

59. Exactly!!

I smacked a right-winger upside the head with that very analogy last night. He was pissing and moaning about the "PC police" getting Anus kicked off the air an I quietly reminded him of his outrage and support for the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks. what comes around goes around.

Now, as far as the OPs suggestion of "who" should be allowed on the air,I think that's the wrong approach. Rather than "who" should be on the air, it's "what" should be on the air.

Political discourse is fine, but the bigoted hate speech has got to go. Rush, Hannity et al should be welcome on the air,but they need to know that a constant barrage of slurs and hate will not be tolerated, and that boycotts and market forces WILL be deployed to hit them and their employers in the pocketbook to make it so. Any efforts we make should be to "clean up the airwaves", not to ban certain commentators, no matter what we think of their political views.

[MedleyMisty]

64. Yep

It goes both ways. Only not enough people agreed with them, so the Dixie Chicks continued to make money.

[joe_sixpack]

113. Sadly, depending on the way you look at it, it does...

go both ways. There's much on TV and the radio that I can't understand why people waste so much time on. Reality shows, Rush and O'Reilly, The View, Survivor etc. But the numbers show that many people don't agree with me and these programs obviously make money for some one. If enough people showed their displeasure by not paying attention to Imus or the Dixie Chicks or Fox News, they would eventually go away. If there's enough who think they're evil or too hateful, they'll do what it takes to marginalize them. But, if there's plenty who do like them and support them, they'll stay. Both the ones I agree with, and the ones I don't.

Now, if we all concur that this provides a level playing field, than we don't need a fairness doctrine or government to decide who wins or loses. We watch as more and more people pay attention to insipid, vapid works of media. Some, we might even feel will cause harm to society in the long run. But what can we do, other than shout the alarm to whomever will listen, and let the chips fall as they may? The trouble is, we might say it's okay to let the majority decide, until the day the majority disagrees with us.

[dogday]

50. Who decides what I listen to?

The power of the remote control has always been mine.... I like to be able to pick and choose who and what I hear....

[greendog]

54. You can get rid of ALL of them by noon today.

Just turn off the damned TV.

TV will NEVER be worth watching. Not in our lifetimes. And probably not ever.

It's the way that "the powers that be" tell you what to think. Don't give 'em a chance. Just turn the damn thing off.

[bryant69]

63. Hmmmm. Battlestar Galactaca?

The Simpsons?

The Daily Show?

Heroes?

Bryant

[greendog]

76. Well, I suppose I could buy a TV to watch the Simpsons...

...and dedicate a whole room in my house to the TV. Or.....maybe I could find some other way to use my time and money.

In all the years the Simpsons has been on the air I've seen it exactly one time. It was OK. Maybe it was even "art". My point is: There's plenty of other stuff out there to compete with the few things on TV that aren't horrible. Even the so called "good stuff" on TV is interrupted with advertisements every few minutes. And those advertisements are probably for products of dubious value.

All in all, it's not worth having around (and certainly not worth paying for).

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. I could always listen to william buckley.

Tho I disagree with just about everything he says, he says it so well. Besides, his accomplishments and erudition are vastly at odds with the knuckle-dragging conservatives that currently predominate, guaranteeing that he will be ignored by both the left and the right.

[Casper Alabaster]

68. I thought this was a poll at first...

I'd say none. I think they should be held in protective custody until they're frogmarched up the gallows.
They believe only in money, they can be turned at the drop of a dime. But they can't be on the air in a free society.

[bryant69]

73. A man after my own heart.

However I don't think we can actually execute people for having the wrong opinion without getting the State involved, and getting the state involved would violate the first amendment. So I think will have to settle for knocking them off the air.

Bryant

[dysfunctional press]

121. "...they can't be on the air in a free society."

:rofl: :rofl:

that certainly doesn't sound like much of a free society.

[WilliamPitt]

72. All of them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x646211

[mmonk]

88. The question isn't what conservatives are allowed on the air

but when they lie to millions of people, when are we allowed to counter?

[WinkyDink]

97. IIRC, the Capitalist owners get to decide whom to hire and fire.

[Zywiec]

98. I'm glad I have satellite radio!

Thank God I can subscribe to listen to what I want without any government or "mob" influence.

[MadBadger]

99. Hannity and O'Reilly are in the clear.

Sad to say, I dont think O'reilly and Hannity can be taken down because from what I have heard, they dont say things as bad as Imus, or Rush, or Beck. If you have an example, feel free to bring it up. And Hannity seems to spend most of his time insulting dems, but that wont be enough to take him off the air. I think the people that can and should be taken off the air now are when you make serial racist and deplorable comments like Rush Limbaugh.

Again, maybe I just dont hear the racist, mysogenist, or other comments by Billo or Hannity, besides the typical I'm anti-american because I oppose the war.

Anyway, I would love to find an example to prove me otherwise. Anybody have anything?

[baldguy]

103. Conservatives are people who love America.

They respect their fellow citizens. They follow the law. They take responsibility for their own actions. And encourage others to do the same.

Those in power, on the air and in control of the media are not conservatives.

[terrya]

108. Andrew Sullivan

He's a conservative, but he's seen the light on Bush. He can stay.

[bliss_eternal]

127. Agreed.

He was kind of scary for a while. Thankfully, he's seen the light. :)

[StinkyMcPinknose]

112. Where was I when you guys were passing out

the brownshirts and jackboots?

:eyes:

[yurbud]

114. at the very least, some degree of factual accuracy should be required--but we can be more generous

than they were to Dan Rather.

[depakid]

125. How about people who repeatedly lie and use hate speech?

Seems like a reasonable standard to me- though I expect that the libertarians and other types of far right enablers here wouldn't think so.

[bliss_eternal]

126. The ones that don't need to stand on minority shoulders...

...to get their messages out to the public.

If they can say what they have to say without slurring women, gays, the transgendered, lesbians, bi-sexuals, liberals, ethnic peoples including--bi-racial, multi-racial, multi-cultural peoples, atheists, Jews, legal and illegal immigrants,the disabled,the plus-sized and vegans then as far as I'm concerned they can be on the air.

Anyone that can't say what they have to say without slurring any of the above populations (and any I've inadvertently missed mentioning) doesn't have anything intelligent or of substance to say to begin with, and shouldn't have a public forum to do so.
They should face who and what they are--put the hood and the robe back on, and return to their KKK rallies and immediately commence burning crosses on minority lawns.

:hi: