Hey beck

tell it to coulter.

RW all seem to be such petty cowards

One has to wonder why they get any viewers at all...

How to shoot yourself in the foot, lesson two

Take your only base of voter support in southern florida (i.e. cubans) and call them a bunch of murdering morons who turned a once great city into a third world cesspool, thus ensuring that Florida will be a blue state next election.

Not in the same league

To compare Tancredo's death threats against him with Beck's silly "ruminating" on Michael Moore is ridiculous.....and a perfect example of what Beck is talking about. Political correctness gone amok.

Anyone knows what Beck said may be a tasteless joke, but it hardly rises to the seriousness of Tancredo's threats.

Well....

Isn't Beck comparing some anonymous death threat (which the Miami police said may just be a hoax or not serious) to government sponsored re-education camps in the Soviet Union equally ridiculous???

PC

What he is saying is how political correctness stifling real conversation and debate on many fronts in this country because people are so afraid to "say the wrong thing" or offend somebody.

Of course Beck uses an extreme example to make his point, but his point about the PC world we live in is valid and thought provoking.

Come on...

"Political correctness has its roots in the old Soviet Union"?? This is the fireside conjecture of a dullard trying to make spurious connections b/w 'liberals' and murderous Soviets with their secret police, and all the horrible things that went with it, etc...? It's nonsense.

I, for one, am awfully tired of 'translating' Beck's inane statements into something of substance. You give him too much credit I think. Is that what he meant? I'm not sure Beck even knows.

it is really hard to do too

after all to 'translate' beck's nonsense you really have to provide any real content also. glenn's musings are as information and content free as tommy-boys posts.

So when Beck

Says something ludicrous its just an extreme example that makes his point, apparantly that we OUGHT to be insulting and offending people, but MMFA uses an extreme example to make ITS point then its ridiculous and PC run amok. Yeah, we got it. OK when rightwing screechmonkeys do it, no one else gets to use the method.

What?

I don't even understand your comparison, but just in case. Beck is a talk show host who spouts his opinions all day long, they are his opinions. MMFA is a fact based organization dealing with conservative misinformation.

Wait, what extreme comment?

I don't know where MMFA has called for anyone's death. What false equivalence is being pushed here?

And their FACTS are correct

Beck DID joke about killiing Moore. Now he is snivelling that some unconfirmed death threats against a bigotted rude Tancredo are somehow equivelent to rounding people up for their opinions. Beck is full of it MMFA called him on it. You think BECK stretching his attempt at a point is ok and MMFA stetching theirs, by your standards is somehow wrong. Its always ok for you when rightwingnuts do it.

Solon

Your hatred of anything Beck clouds any reasonable judgement you have about any word he utters. And your name calling of Tancredo indicates you have the same contempt for him.

When will you start to objectively view your political opponents rather than call them names?

Your obsession

With anyone criticising someone as hating them is stupid. I dont know Beck. I dont know what hate means to you but he is far to unimportant in my world for me to hate him. YOU just have this obsessive need to regurgitate the latest propaganda parrot talking points and that liberals are haters is the fad. As usual its ok for Tancredo to slander an American city but if I call him a bigot for doing so then I am the one doing something wrong. You are tireless in you quest to stop us from criticising your wingnut heros no matter WHAT they say but its all for naught. It isnt up to you to police how I make criticisms and you will NEVER accomplish it. The man made a bigotted statement. YOU are fine with that but get apoplectic when he is criticised for it. Stalin would have been proud to have an apparatchik of your tenacity working for him.

Violence directed at Moore...

I say Save the Whales.

I think the fact that YOU don't understand the comparison....

speaks volumes about your intellect, Tommy....no offense, but many a time you come across as a...well,..., how do I say this...don't want to be shrill, don't want to be 'pc'...don't want to be too obtuse or too hysterical...well, then, I will just say it- you are dumb!

PC

"What he is saying is how political correctness stifling real conversation and debate on many fronts in this country because people are so afraid to 'say the wrong thing' or offend somebody."

-----

When right-wingers complain about "political correctness," what they mean is they cant make bigoted, racist, hateful remarks any more without being called on it. They're thinking, "Oh, for the good old "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" days when minorities knew their place and didn't get upset (out loud) about bigots killing them for whistling at white women..."

Everyone Doesn't Know

A death threat is a death threat. Beck ruminated about killing someone to his nationwide audience. Ann Coulter threatened the life of a sitting Supreme Court Justice to a nationwide audience. And now someone made a death threat to someone for saying something stupid. There is no way to quantify a death threat. All are EQUALLY wrong.

You seem to want to excuse the words of these people whenever they cross the line. It's then that we have to realize that they're joking. The other times, when they're talking national policy, politics, etc. we have to take them seriously.

A good rule of thumb would be to never take any talking head seriously, from the left, right or center, unless they make a threat. Then they should be held accountable and face legal proceedings.

We have a nation that's been fed nothing but fear by the administration and the media for more than five years now. People have already suffered because of the media inflaming different groups to vent against other groups that they perceive to be "the enemy". People in the media need to be held accountable for their words.

Your response was beneath you Tom.

Worrier

I never excused what Beck said, I was merely pointing it out in it's context. You failed to do that by comparing the two.

Of course people are responsible for their words, and some people say nasty offensive things all the time and you have every right to call them on it, if you choose.....but in the world of talk radio and chatfest TV, the more outrageous it is the more press it gets. It feeds off of itself.

But to compare some dopey radio host and the crap they spew on an hourly basis with far more serious death threats by an unnamed anonymous stranger is far worse. Beck's comments weren't cloaked in secrecy or investigated by authorities because they knew their intent and Beck didn't hide his identity when spouting off..........the same cannot be said for Tancredo's situation. And you know that.

Really? You didnt?

Because THIS

Of course Beck uses an extreme example to make his point, but his point about the PC world we live in is valid and thought provoking.

Pretty much sounds like an excuse to me.

Yurdooped nailed it---

Tommy hit a nerve when he brought up PC.

Kryptonite, the Soft Underbelly, Vampire with a cross thrust in his face.

tommy has never hit a nerve in his life

He often makes good points and just as often makes weak appologies for rightwing screechmonkeys. This was the latter. Are you ever going to post something with substance or is this jr High sniping all you are good for?

What grade level ...

is your sniping and name-calling, then?

Also, learn the meaning of CONCISE and put it to good use. One does not have to run every point into the ground to contribute to discussion, does one?

The GRADE level

Of my posts fluctuates wildly based on the posts I am responding to. YOURS BARELY inspire jr high level responses. When I SEE substance I RESPOND with substance. When I SEE snipinig I respond with sniping. Its all amusement for me

C'mon...

I thought you were saving the world, not doing this for recreation.

I'm disappointed.

Nah

I do other things to change the world, THIS is entertainment.

Re: not in the same league

Well, Tommy . . . glad to know you're inside the head of Glenn Beck {now THAT'S scary} and know exactly what he's thinking . . .

So ODD how, whenever a rightwingnut noisemaker like Beck is "thinking" about killing Michael Moore, or Crazy Annie says the only question about Clinton is "whether to impeach or assassinate", its "just a joke", or "its taken out of context" . . . yet death threats against the GOP/rightwing are ALWAYS to be taken seriously . . .

Well

If the authorities, or anyone who isn't blinded by their dislike of Glenn Beck, thought Beck was being anything other than facetious when he publicly, on his program, made the "threat" - they would have investigated it. As far as I know they did not. They took it for what it was, as did I.

So if anyone was in "Beck's head", it was not me - it was any and all law enforcement officials who apparently figured it out as bloviating hyperbole.........too bad you can't.

double standard

If the authorities, or anyone who isn't blinded by their dislike of Glenn Beck, thought Beck was being anything other than facetious when he publicly, on his program, made the "threat" - they would have investigated it. As far as I know they did not. They took it for what it was, as did I.

So it's okay for Beck to make petty death threats because nobody takes him seriously? What kind of standard are you using where it's OKAY to talk about murdering someone for disagreeing with you? May I remind you that some people, as frightening as it is, TAKE BECK SERIOUSLY, and actually LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS? Beck is like some Bizarro Spider-man: great power, great irresponsibility.

Read it again

Where did I say it was OK to issue death threats? I said that some are taken with more seriousness than others.

What does that matter?

Yes, some death threats are more damaging than others. But you're defending Beck's hypocrisy here, which is the same thing as saying it's okay for him to do it.

Yeah we get where you are coming from

Death threats, even ones not substantiated, given TO rightwing bloviators must be taken seriously. Death threats made BY rightwing bloviators are NOT to be taken seriously.

Beck, the bloviator

Let's face it, Beck is the epitome of small minded, smarmy hatred. No doubt about it, especially after the crap he flung at Keith Elison, the first Moslem elected to the House of Reps.

With that in mind, consider Beck's odd and strangely passionate desire to strangle Michael Moore. Was he seriously passionate, even lustful about the prospect? Yes. Was he actually planning to do it? Probably not. However, if Thomas a Becket were around, he'd vouch for the danger posed by a venemous fool expressing a "wish" that his enemy be murdered. So now, when the very same kind of (possibly) idle threat is flung at one of Beck's heroes, Beck's denunciation of it is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

But it's different when we do it!

Add in all of Ann Coulter's threats. Why isn't it a Soviet style attempt to threaten opponents? And isn't it absurd to consider Tancredo a victim of excessive government force when he's the one trying to use it?

Ridiculous

Tancredo is using excessive government force because he strongly favors strict border control, of OUR OWN borders?

Read the question

"isn't it absurd to consider Tancredo a victim of excessive government force when he's the one trying to use it?"

It's absurd to act like Tancredo is a victim of the government, when he is the government.

??

How is Tancredo the victim of goverment?

D'oh!

This is like the "who's on first" bit...

BECK is likening Tancredo to victims of Soviet repression. The difference being pointed out here is that it's TANCREDO who is advocating more forceful governmental control.

Duh is right

I have no clue what point you are trying to make here. What exactly is "TANCREDO who is advocating more forceful governmental control"? Explain please.

I AM NOT MAKING A POINT

I am trying to explain wht you misread.

The point was made above that it is ironic that Tancredo is being likened, by Beck, to a victim of Soviet repression. The irony relates to the fact that Tancredo, Representative of Colorado in the U.S. Congress, is in fact a member of government, rather than a dissident.

I have no dog in this fight, I was just trying to explain to you what you seem to have misunderstood.

If the right follows their pattern

They are the ones who gave us warrantless wiretapping

orly?

To compare Tancredo's death threats against him with Beck's silly "ruminating" on Michael Moore is ridiculous.....and a perfect example of what Beck is talking about. Political correctness gone amok.

So when does Beck get carted off to be "re-educated"?

That would imply

that he's ever been educated, which is doubtful.

just an observation

it seems to me that many times when a right wing idiot makes a stupid statement tommy says they are being funny but if its left wing its taken seriously just an observation

The comparison is rather weak.

Beck gets PAID to make death threats.

Beck is so brave.

Death threats = wrong? Wow, Glenn. Never looked at it that way before. Thanks for clearing that up for both myself and the unwashed the cable masses .

But, Glenn....who exactly has been hauled away into PC re-education?

Really?

Conservatives have been "debating" how the PC crowd is stifling the debate for years now. They're so stifled by political correctness, they've can't stop talking about it on tv and radio.

Wow, PC really is keeping them down.

Even beck noted

that the threat against tancredo was unsubstantiated ("his appearance was cancelled when the restaurant allegedly began receiving death threats"). Can't let that stop a good illogical rant against the non-existent problem of "political correctness" though.

Tancredo

Everyone knows how the open border, pro illegal immigration folks feel about Tancredo's tough stance against surrending the sovereignty of our country......so death threats against him would not be a big surprise.

They may be unsubstantiated, but I would imagine he would have reason to feel more threatened than Michael Moore did against Glenn Beck.

??

...the open border, pro illegal immigration folks...

Who? I wasn't aware that anybody favored illegal immigration besides immigrant smugglers.

Plenty

La Raza, for one. Not to mention the millions who took to the streets last May 1 to rally. There are plenty of groups who push for open borders.

Hmmm

I looked at La Raza's website. Looks to me like they advocate changing immigration laws so that more people can immigrate legally. That's not being "pro illegal immigration."

Rusty

Of course they don't publicly advocate it on their website, but listen to anything they say - they never even use the term illegal - it's all just immigrants to them. Look at the legislation they push in CA.

You can believe what you want, but to think they don't want open borders is naive.

Open borders?

What do you mean by "open borders"? Do you mean no immigration laws at all? I didn't see any evidence of that either.

Do they only let you know about these schemes (pro-open borders, pro-illegal immigration) when you've reached a certain level of membership?

Rusty

I said believe what you want about La Raza. They are for open borders, no borders at all. There is no distinction regarding illegals to them.

Call them up and ask them about their membership requirements, if you are interested.

You brought them up, Tommy

I thought maybe you could substantiate your comments, but I guess you can't. That's cool, you can believe what you want.

As can you

And you can believe that no groups in our country advocate open borders.......it's just a nonissue. That's cool.

I don't necessarily believe that

I just don't know of any.

Rusty, refusing to see any...

threats to this country's borders, and to put blinders on rather than see those who are for open borders... here's one you'll accept. George Bush! He is a closet open border guy. Google North American Union.

Faith based

Tommy says "I don't care what the facts are, I don't care what the group says they stand for... I believe it and thus it must be so.

I can see why you spend your time trolling liberal websites.

Exactly

Go to the Focus on Family's website and see if they display their vitriol against gays so publicly.

After all, you take La Raza at their word, then I would suppose you do the same for groups you disagree with?

I am actually a different person

I think it was Rusty that made the argument about AFA (which is Wildmon's organization, rather than Dobson's Focus on the Family).

I'm going to let him defend his own argument.

No

Rusty did not bring it up. I brought up Focus on Family as an analogy to La Raza and how some groups publicly say one thing, yet privately work towards more devious ends.

I think I understand your point

We may be getting lost in the weeds viz. Focus on the Family. Does Focus on the Family, La Raza, or MMFA for that matter have a different agenda in private than it has in public? I would want to see evidence of it, regardless of whether I agree with the group in question or not.

I don't like to see my allies slandered, and I don't want to waste my time fighting the wrong people.

orly?

From Tommy: Go to the Focus on Family's website and see if they display their vitriol against gays so publicly.

From Focus on the Family website: God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.

Considering they are claiming to speak for a God whose holy men would often have multiple wives, and are using their God to make a thinly veiled anti-gay-marriage statement, I'd say that's an open display of vitriol.

[link to www.family.org]

Fine

If you believe that Focus on Family is very clear and upfront about what they really want and advocate publicly, then fine.

Tommy...

I've given more evidence for Focus on the Family's open agenda than you've given for La Raza's secret agenda.

Tommy

"Go to the Focus on Family's website and see if they display their vitriol against gays so publicly."

That's ridiculous. Nobody on Focus on the Family has EVER displayed any kind of vitriol against gays. You think that opposing gay marriage and gay adoption is displaying vitriol against gays? If so, then I guess you believe that a majority of the American people display vitriol against gays. There are some organizations that display virtriol against gays, but Focus on the Family isn't one of them. They are as mainstream as they come. You should provide some proof next time before making such baseless and ridiculous assertions.

Truth

This topic is not about gay marriage or Focus on the Family. I only brought it up as an analogy to other groups who aren't so public on their websites or in their literature as to what their intentions are.

If you believe that F on the F has no vitriolic characteristics against gay people, that is your take. I stand by what I said.

As someone once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".

It's simple

I'm simply saying that you should provide some proof before you make statements like that. Do you have any proof that F&F is vitriolic against gays?

I agree with Truth Detector!

Never had an opportunity to say that before...

Off topic

But let me just say this - these are the antonyms for vitriolic? Flattering, good-humored, kind, nice, sweet, warm.........would you associate any of these characteristics with F on the F towards gay people?

Hmm if you read the F on the F site

then I'm a mentally ill, a S*l*u*t that canot keep a relationship together, AIDS is a gay disease and I'm going to hell... Oh yes and I'm just picking this life style for fun (because people are so nice) and I can be changed through aversion therapy.

Sounds rather sweet in the way they put it on thier site because there really only concerned about trying to help me.

F&F

Focus on the Family takes the position of "hate the sin, love the sinner." They believe that homosexuality is a sin because of what the Bible says about it, but they believe that we should show love towards homosexuals and show them that there is a better way to live. They have never demonized homosexuals personally. They have always stated that God loves everybody equally, even if he disagrees with the particular lifestyle that homosexuals to live.

Sorry

Meant, choose to live

The Bible

The Bible says all sorts of things. Why isn't F on the F so "vitriolic" in their "hate the sin" on this, just one example of many. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Tommy

Good point. I hate it when these groups use the bible to justify their bigotry and when they proclaim to love the people they work tirelessly to oppress. There are many many beautiful things in the bible, but some of the practices of biblical times were barbaric and scary and were born out of ignorance. Our biblical ancestors were still evolving and there was much of the world they didn't understand. Answers to the mysteries of life which include sexuality have been slowly discovered by human kind. Unfortunately it takes some of us much longer to discover and or accept new information when it's revealed. Those people are drawn to groups like Focus on the Family. They say that God loves homosexuals he just doesn’t approve of who they sleep with. I assume that in the after life that ALL of us will transition from the earthly carnal beings that God created and into spiritual ones anyway. Moreover, I can’t imagine a God up on high spending his time peeking into bedrooms. The God I love can’t be that petty. I feel sorry for the Focus crowd. It’s odd to be that obsessed with what two consenting adult strangers choose to do with their body parts. But I must admit it makes me furious when these bigots attempt to impose their bigoted will on others with phony smiles and words of love.

Off off topic

Could these threads be any harder to read? Let's keep replying until only one letter will fit on a line...

The Law was put aside...

in the Age of Grace.

The Sabbath Law...

that is.

OK so

They dont REALLY advocate it but with your amazing mind reading powers you have deduced that they DO advocate it. Not what they SAY which is more liberal LEGAL immigration standards. I ssseeeee.

I don't understand how the right wingers

can blame unfettered illegal immigration on anyone but themselves. They have been the majority in congress and the senate for the PAST 12 YEARS.

You're right

Bush is biggest offender of them all.

Amen...

and amen. They deserved the @$$-kicking they got for that alone, amonst other reasons.

Rusty, there have been plenty of posters

here over the past year or so, that have gotten all over posters who have pointed out that we need to control our borders, especially during the time that the Minutemen were the "topic de jour" for a period of time. If they are/were against illegal immigration, they are/were doing a darn poor job of explaining that position.

Yeah he is so intimidated

That it didnt stop him from making rude and insulting remarks about a major American city, but of course you KNOW that its his policies NOT his rude and offensive behavior that has people mad at him. Tancredo is a boor, a churlish and rude man Beck is an idiot whose re-education camp remark is pretty much par for the course and about average on his stupidity scale.

Tancredo

Tancredo is absolutely correct on his stance against illegal immigration. Your childish name calling is what is rude and churlish.

His policies

Are only relevant in this context because YOU decided THEY are what caused the anger and not what he said. Which apparantly you have no problem with. Its OK for an elected official to publicly call Miami a third world country, no bigotry there, but I am somehow crossing the line for stating that this kind of rhetoric is rude and churlish. THAT is namecalling not demeaning a major US city. You have zero credibility on the namecalling subject, for somereason its only us anonymous posters on a website that are guilty not those spewing it to national audiences

Are you for real?

Miami does resemble a third world country, that's not bigotry or rude churlish rhetoric, it's a fact. Since when is telling the truth demeaning? Just more of solon's typical moonbat logic.

So its a fact

Because YOU and Beck say so. No, its a rude slander and bigotry we all know he is snivelling about furriners and non whites. See just because YOU are also rude and churlish doesnt make ME a moonbat.

The Restaurant?

How pathetic. A congressman making an appearance at a restaurant.

Maybe someone was dissatisfied with the meat-loaf special.

At a restaurant...

among commoners. Even trailer trash.

It's not Political Correctness

It's called disagreeing with someone.

Isn't it interesting how certain positions are characterized as "Politically Correct," and so removed from the spectrum of reasonable debate?

Pot, meet kettle.

PC is evident when...

key words and phrases cause the head to tilt (almost imperceptibly, but tilt, nonetheless). The eyes glaze, and rote regurgitation of righteously indignant chastisements come spewing forth.

By THAT definition

It mostly comes from rightwingers

He's right

Beck is absolutely right here. There is a new faction on the left that has the goal of stifling free speech for anyone with a conservative view point. Media Matters is part of that new faction. They post so called "politically incorrect" comments by prominent conservatives and try to get them off the air. They create petitions to try to get conservatives off the air for merely expressing their conservative views. They also want to put the fairness doctrine back in place to try to try to silence conservatives. This is a new brand of liberalism that is trying to do away with the 1st Amendment. It is very scary and frightening. It's political correctness at its very worst.

Whatever you think

of the Fairness Doctrine, it doesn't "silence" anybody. It requires both sides of political issues to be aired.

As for stifling free speech, why don't you check out your compatriots over at the American Family Association. They are all about suppressing speech they disagree with. [link to www.afa.net]

They have the right to advocate, and so does MMFA.

Kind of

"They are all about suppressing speech they disagree with."

Not necessarily that, but they want to force the major networks to pull any material that they find objectionable. I don't agree with this faction of conservatives. I consider myself more of a libertarian in regards to these kinds of issues. I think that people should have the right to choose what they want to watch on T.V. without government intervention, and those that are 18 or older can decide for themselves what kind of material they want to look at on the internet. However, these social conservatives at least aren't trying to stifle political speech. The link that you provided provided no examples of them trying to stifle political speech.

That depends

on how you define "political." Is "political speech" limited to what politicians and candidates say, or does it more broadly include anyone's speech about political issues? I think the latter.

In that respect, AFA does seek to suppress political speech. It calls for people to boycott companies (like Ford) who sponsor media that isn't sufficiently pro-"family" (usually by not being sufficiently anti-gay).

They also screamed about NBC airing "The Book of Daniel," which AFA considered anti-Christian, until several affiliates pulled the show.

So that's not "scary and frightening"? But what MMFA does is?

Boycotts are done privately

First of all, I don't see how calling for a boycott is stifling anyone's free speech. They aren't calling for any type of government intervention in that case. Also, this particular case has nothing to do with political speech. Ford has been giving some of their profits to homosexual organizations, and the AFA is merely urging Christian conservatives not to buy Ford products. This in no way stifles free speech. This is something that is being done privately. The AFA is not urging the government to get involved.

"They also screamed about NBC airing "The Book of Daniel," which AFA considered anti-Christian, until several affiliates pulled the show."

Again, I don't necessarily agree with what they did here, but how was this show an example of "political speech?" Are you trying to say that anything that is anti-Christian is liberal and anything that is pro-Christian is conservative?

"The Book of Daniel"

was not really political speech. It doesn't matter though. The distinction between political and non-political speech is only important when we're talking about the government restricting speech. Here, as you pointed out, we're talking about private action.

AFA's efforts to punish companies that don't toe their "pro-family" line is intended to influence how those companies spend their advertising dollars, which in turn influences what is expressed in the media. Boycott companies who advertise in, for example, gay media -> companies pull advertising from gay media -> no more gay media.

That's fine, it's their right, but you have to admit they are attempting to stifle speech.

They aren't calling for any type of government intervention in that case.

Neither is MMFA.

Also

The Fairness Doctrine has been used in the past by Presidents of both political parties to try to silence those that have opposite political view points. Before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, no opinion talk shows were allowed to air on the radio. If the fairness doctrine never would've been repealed, then conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity never would've been allowed on the air. But I guess that's why you love the Fairness Doctrine so much. You can't compete in the market place, so you have to have the government come in to try to make it even.

It's wrong for the government to force a radio station to carry liberals who are unpopular and nobody wants to listen to. If they were forced to carry these liberals, the liberals would eventually have to quit their talk shows because very few people would actually listen to them. With no liberals left on the radio stations, the radio stations would not be able to air conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity, because in that case you would have conservatives with no liberal balance. Thus, the Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations to air "neutral" commentators in place of partisan commentators like Limbaugh and Hannity. This would stifle the free speech of conservatives.

Liberals can't compete?

I thought the whole media marketplace was dominated by liberals, with the exception of the brave few rebels like Hannity and Rush. That's what the righties are always screeching. "Liberal media! Liberal media! Booga booga!"

Now you say there's no liberal viewpoint in the media?

Which is it?

Talk Radio

There's hardly any liberal view points on talk radio. That's what I was talking about. That's one form of the media that the conservatives actually dominate. T.V. and the print press is a different story. The television media leans left and the print media is hard left. Also, many television personalities claim to be neutral when they are in fact liberal. Dan Rather is one obvious example. Another example is Keith Olbermann. He claims to be neutral, but he bashes conservatives on a regular basis and is obviously part of the far left. At least conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity admit who they are. The liberals on television try to disguise themselves as being "neutral" and "centrist."

You are making two arguments

1. "Fairness Doctrine has been used in the past by Presidents of both political parties to try to silence those that have opposite political view points." 2. Liberal talk radio is unpopular.

It would be helpful if you didn't conflate the two.

Your first point is a mess: first, what is your evidence that this even occurred? It seems counter-intuitive: how do your silence dissent by REQUIRING that dissenting viewpoints be aired. Some clarity here would help.

Your second point is on more solid ground, though the liberal talk radio in my town has so many ads I can barely listen to it. Would the fairness doctrine mandate one hour of, say, Rachel Maddow for every hour of Limbaugh?

Yes

"Would the fairness doctrine mandate one hour of, say, Rachel Maddow for every hour of Limbaugh?"

Yes. The Fairness Doctrine would require that every form of media be fair and balanced according to the government's standards of what fair and balanced is. Thus, when you have a liberal Democrat as president, you are going to have a liberal media, because what a liberal considers to be fair and balanced is farther to the left than what a centrist or conservative considers to be fair and balanced. The opposite is true as well. If you had a conservative Republican as president, you would have a conservative media, because what a conservative considers to be fair and balanced is farther to the right than what a centrist or liberal considers to be fair and balanced. Thus, the political ideology of the media would shift as the balance of power in the White House shifted. I think that we are much better off letting private networks decide what fair and balanced is, rather than the federal government.

Also, I just remember reading that Presidents of both parties used the Fairness Doctrine to silence commentators. I can't remember exactly where I saw that at, but I'll try to find it.

Yeah because..

"I think that we are much better off letting private networks decide what fair and balanced is, rather than the federal government." -td

Because the federal government is of the people, by the people, for the people and private networks are of the profit, by the profit, for the profit?

Sorry, my friend I'll take people over profits everytime.

BTW, the fairness doctrine only requires a portion time for rebuttal not equal time.

No they wouldnt

There was always political talk on TV. All the fairness doctrine would do is demand equal time for opposing viewpoints. Rush would be required to either have opposing views aired on his show or the network would have to allow the other side to be presented at another time. I understand why you guys are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. Our ideas are better and the only way the Rush's of this world can push THEIR agenda is with totall conformity of message. NEVER hear the other side.

What?

"I understand why you guys are afraid of the marketplace of ideas."

Uh, no were not. Our country has the market place of ideas right now. Television and radio networks put the commentators on who get the best ratings. If you think that the commentators on the radio and T.V. are too conservative, then that means that you are losing in the marketplace of ideas. People simply don't want to listen to liberal commentators. Just look at how unpopular Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are.

Well you certainly throw a fit

When someone says that since WE own the airwaves and it should provide a public service then BOTH sides should be heard. As for your silly assertion we are losing in the marketplace of ideas it cannot be supported. This venue or that cannot tell the story. Maybe liberals dont like the concept of advocacy TV or Radio. Plenty of liberal books do quite well. And THEY arent being propped up by bulk sales by billionaires like Richard Mellon Schiafe. Conservatives didnt do to well in the last election. Over time we are movin toward less bigotry and more tolerance. More individual freedom. It looks like we are winning the war of ieas.

You of course have NO POINT

There is no free speech aspect to who is and who ISNT qualified to speak on OUR airwaves to national audiences when MMFA calls for conservatives to be ARRESTED for spewing their hatespeech, lies and blatant stupidity get back to us. That is unless the first amendment allows ME to put up a liberal billboard in YOUR frontyard or I am being denied MY free speech rights by MSNBC not letting ME espouse my opinion on the airwaves.

Whatever

Once again, you don't own anything except your T.V set. If you don't want to listen to a particular commentator, then change the station to something different. Nobody is forcing you to watch something that you don't want to watch. The government has absolutely no right to regulate political speech. That is blatantly unconstitutional. These private networks like Fox News, CNN, CBC and others do not receive any money from the government, and the government has NO right to regulate what they can say.

I disagree

The public airwaves are just that. I don't think that there is an unlimited right to broadcast whatever, just because you own a transmitter.

Note that I am not signing on unrestrictedly to every opnion presented in this thread - I am still working out my own opinion. I do object to the idea that people with the most money get to dominate the public discourse and if we don't like it we can just turn the TV off.

Fox News ran at a loss for years, so I don't buy "marketplace" of ideas. The invisible hand got a big help from Rupert Murdoch's millions.

Valentinian

FOX News, CNN, CBC, etc. do not broadcast over the public airwaves - they're cable networks. They aren't using a public resource like the broadcast networks are, and are subject to far less regulation. That's why you see stuff on Skinemax that you would never see on CBS.

oops

That was dumb. Sorry.

That is not my understanding

And I dont believe it is correct. The FCC also regulates cable. It is also considered a public trust

[link to 209.85.165.104]

The FCC’s main duty is to manage the public airwaves. Their regulations affect all varietiesof broadcasting, telephone, cable, cell phone, and satellite companies. The FCC issupposed to ensure that broadcasters who use the airwaves, free of charge, are servingthe “public interest” in return

Okay

I agree with Solon!

Solon

You're right, the FCC regulates cable. However, cable and broadcast are regulated differently in some respects - for instance, allowable sexual content and profanity. That's all I meant.

I'm out of here for the holidays. Merry Christmas all!

Sorry

I actually meant CBS and not CBC. Sorry for the confusion.

You guys sure do HATE facts and reality

You repeating this wont make it true. WE DO OWN the public airwaves they are a public resource, this is NOT in dispute. Just because you refuse to accept the reality because you so prefer the delusional fantasies you have made up in your head will never MAKE them reality. N0 one wants any regulation of political speech. And you are flat out wrong as you usually are. The are EXPLOITING a public resource to make their money that gives the government every right to demand they provide a public service and to regulate them. Just because you have no idea what you are talking about wont change that.

Solon

Please see Rusty's comment concerning the public airwaves. You are mistaken.

Please see my answer

NO I AM NOT. Even IF cable were different which according to the FCC they are not, TD made a blanket statement that the government has NO right to regulate the airwaves at ALL. This is plaingly wrong. There is NO DISPUTE that the airwaves are a public resource which IS owned by the public. As per usual it is YOU who are wrong. I am sure by now you are used to it.

Truth Defector and the PC Strawman...

Please, give me a break. Conservatives have been whining about "political correctness" for years. What is so sad is that they've been imposing their own brand of political correctness through their culture war and their mindless jingoism following 9/11. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

When Christofascists force a Grocery Store Chain to stop carrying a major fashion magazine because it's "offensive", or try to ban Harry Potter from school libraries, what do you call that? Religiously Fanatical Correctness?

Irony

Nerzog, if you had a show like beck's and used the word "Christofascist" on a regular basis the network would yank you right off the air because you'd be offending the viewers' delicate sensibilities. Yet beck goes on the air day after day to an international audience, smearing everybody who isn't a right-wing Christian American, and he claims his speech is being restricted by "political correctness." I wouldn't expect him to see the irony, though.

proof please?

**Yet beck goes on the air day after day to an international audience, smearing everybody who isn't a right-wing Christian American...**

WTF are you talking about? Beck doesn't SMEAR anyone. To smear one's reputation is to make someone look like someone they are not, or to lie about them as in libel or slander.

Beck poses facts on the air and openly invites those he disagrees with to discuss the issues with him on the air. If he disagrees with someone he presents the situation, what the other person said (using quotes when possible) and then expresses his own opinion