Real intelligent debate Beck CNN why is he allowed on your once considered respectable news channel?  You were never FOX. Now you are the channel of Nancy Grace and Beck and hate.

Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "[link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" On the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little [link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" -- then added, "But she's so fat."

Personally, I find if Rosie wants to get up and say hateful lies and speech about Trump, and that 911 is an inside job, then she is fair game to Beck.  I didn't see the View kicking her off the air. 

Attack Rosie's views, not her personally.

What does Beck get out of calling her a "fat witch"? Nothing. That's 2nd grade school yard taunting. If he wants to attack her, start with her viewpoints, and not her personally.

She attacked Trump personally.

The send Rosie a nice message asking her to stop.  What does that have to do with Beck?

Since you asked for this info continuously throughout this discussion, here it is:

http://www.themediareport.com/sep2005/malloy.htm

looks like liberal hate speech to me.

I suggest, if you are offended, to write the sponsors of the show and tell them that you are going to boycott.  Stand up for your beliefs!

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing or debating Rosie, but why resort to calling her "fat" and other childish names?

Because they are unable to debate at a higher level.

I'll remember that on the next Limbaugh thread.

Well there is fat and then there is drug addicted, hate mongering, sexist, racist, lying, piece of crap fat.

Same for Rosie as she attacked Trump personally.  In your world lefties could throw around all the hate and personal attacks they want but the right would have to keep silent.  Nice Try - not gonna happen.

What does the  Rosie / Trump spat have to do with Beck calling her names again? 

Rosie and Trump are two peas in a pod if you ask me.  No class and they will do anything to be in the spot light. 

Hateful lies about Trump are the issue?

Like what?

"Left the first wife, had an affair, left the second wife, had an affair. Had kids both times, but he's the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America," the comedian and actress said to roars of audience laughter. "Donald, sit and spin, my friend."

No lie there. The truth is painful sometimes, but the truth is not a hateful lie. Lies and the truth are two different things. Too bad you and Trump apparently cannot figure that out.

"I think everything that Donald does is a ploy to promote the Trump business. That’s the bottom line. I don’t think he really cares about this young girl.”

No lies there. No name calling.

She continued, “I just think he’s [Trump] a hot bag of wind, frankly, with bad hair.”

Well, he does have bad hair, but it's still name calling to mention it like that.

Reality bites, don't it?

Rosie: “He inherited a lot of money,” she said. “Wait a minute, and he’s been bankrupt so many times where he didn’t have to pay. ... I just think that this man is sort of like one of those, you know, snake oil salesmen in ’Little House on the Prairie.”’

Trump has never been personally bankrupt. 

Now what's that you said about reality ?? 

Have any of Trump's establishment ever been bankrupt?

Not true.  Trump is very proud of the fact that he has never been personally bankrupt.  His businesses have but that is very different from being personally bankrupt.  Personal bankruptcy means creditors can come after your personal assets, with a corporation going bankrupt they can only come after the corporations.

So if Trump never declares personal bankruptcy that is OK? And if a Trump held corporation files for bankruptcy and "sticks" it creditors which ultimately trickles down to the average Joe would you call that a brilliant move by the CEO. NOT IN MY BOOK!!!

He has been bankrupt. He is responsible for the Trump empire, and the Trump empire was bankrupt.

You lose. Trump has no justificatiion fow what he called her, and it's off topic anyway. Did you comment on how inappropriate Beck's comments were - you seem very determined to condemn Rosie when she wasn't very inappropriate, so you must be aghast at what Beck has said in the past, right?????

There is a difference between personal bankruptcy and having a business you own go bankrupt.  They are two different things.  It is a lie to say "he's been bankrupt".  He has not been bankrupt, his businesses have been but not he.

Anyways why I bring up Rosie in the first place, is because if a person goes around calling people names and making outrageous comments , don't be surprised if someone starts calling you names.  

Like if I said something outrageous like the white race is genetically superior to all others - I shouldn't be surprised if people call me an idiot and a hate monger rather than point me to some study that goes against my claims.  

It's like on this board if I start going around calling people names, then don't feel sorry for me if someone starts calling me names.

Thanks for proving that you are either genetically unable or politically incapable of fairly addressing an issue by refusing to comment on the topic of this posting by Media Matters! When you show your true colors like you did in the post above, it enlightens all who might have doubted your mendacity and sleaziness.

Like I said above "He has been bankrupt. He is responsible for the Trump empire, and the Trump empire was bankrupt."

He is clearly the Trump empire, and the Trump empire did go bankrupt, and so he was bankrupt, and it was not a lie from Rosie or an unfair smear. You cannot keep on topic, and you lie, and that's been proven.

Sorry - being personal bankrupt is different than having a business of yours go bankrupt.  You should take business 101.

"Sorry - being personal bankrupt is different than having a business of yours go bankrupt.  You should take business 101."

You infer that Rosie O'Donnell said "personally bankrupt", but she didn't. She said "he". And when you say "he" in reference to Trump, of all people, you mean the entire Trump organization. No less a person than Trump himself would wholeheartedly agree with that.

Exactly. He did go bankrupt, since he is the Trump empire.

She wasn't wrong, and it wasn't a lie, and Skettle is incapable of addressing reality.

Trump is no more the Trump corporation than Michael Dell is Dell Computers.  Last time I checked my Dell computer didn't look too much like Michael Dell.  Like I said please take business 101 before making silly statements.

Technically you are correct.  Trump's businesses went into bankruptcy and Trump himself narrowly avoided personal bankruptcy.  Rosie should have been more precise.

That said, Trump's splitting hairs about the difference is pretty childish and smacks of his not taking responsibility for what happened to his companies while he was in charge.

Really ? Trump would agree with that. That's pretty funny that you say that considering Trump's very own words:

“You can’t make false statements,” Trump tells PEOPLE exclusively. “Rosie will rue the words she said. I’ll most likely sue her for making those false statements – and it’ll be fun. Rosie’s a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie.”

hmmm... I thought you said Trump would agree with that ?

You guys dig yourself deeper and deeper all the time.

I had to say personal bankrupt because you guys don't seem to know that the word "he" is a personal pronoun.

Those comments about Rosie O'Donnell are mild. She deserves much, much worse. She's a nasty human being.

In your often completely wrong opinion.

Why is she? What has she done that you disagree with that makes her such a bad human being? Or do you just follow the line and not know what you're talking about?

She attacked Trump personally.  I guess you are silent about that.

Who cares? Trump and Rosie are big people, when they go after each other they have equal access to media.

What is wrong, and why Imus deserved to be canned, is attacking private citizens. Imus abused his power and vilolated the public trust with his comment.

I don't give a rat's uh, tail about Beck's BS PC argument. When public figures use their media bullhorn to demean private citizens that is wrong and accountability is rightfully brought to bare.

I agree.  Rosie,Trump and Beck have access to the media.  They are big people.  If you use the airways to attack others, don't be surprised if you yourself get attacked.  Similarly, if I attack someone on this forum, I should not be surprised if I myself get attacked.

What has she doen that is worse than Back or Hannity or Savage?

Rosie is not the topic, Glenn Beck is and  his hate .

You are wrong - Glenn Beck does not hate. I listen everyday and I am always entertained and informed. Why can't you understand that he is expressing HIS views? Views that are shared by millions of people including me. The examples sighted by MMFA above are either taken way out of context (Muslims behind wire fences), are clearly jokes (Hillary Clinton sounds like to bi***) or he's...well...correct (Muslin extremism / global warming / Katrina victims behaving badly).

I 'll repeat this until the keys fall off my computer keyboard: If you don't like it - TURN THE CHANNEL. That is the best way to take someone off the air. If the ratings are low, he's out. 

Beck does hate, and his ratings aren't good.

Funny how he's still around, eh?

I listen to Beck and Rush and believe Beck does get a bit of a Bad Rap.  Rush usually deserves it but Beck not so much.  Like Beck did march at a rally with Sharpton, and has cried for Sharpton on the air.  Though Beck is not the poster boy for being nice. 

He didn't really cry on the air did he?  If so, I wonder was it sincere.  Sounds like something out of a movie.

He like paused for 40 seconds on the air and then started crying saying that he is trying to be a better man!  And he said he did not want to be hateful towards Sharpton, rather he said he felt sorry for him.  He broke his old record of 30 seconds of dead air time.  He really gets emotional sometimes.  It's just how he is sometimes.

Not trying to be funny, it sounds like maybe he's being abused in a way by his bosses, like a freak at the circus.  He shouldn't be allowed to embarrass himself on the air like that IMO.   He shouldn't have been hired if this is indicitive of a really disturbed mind. 

I would say that if I was his doctor I would consider taking him off the air.  He is loaded up on ADD drugs on the weekend so he can actually talk to his family without his mind jumping from subject to subject.  

During the week he goes off the drugs because he thinks having ADD makes him better at radio. 

Oh sure, there was no hate involved calling former President Carter a waste of skin. Its always just a good joke when a rightwingnut slanders someone or says something outrageous and you guys know it is because of those amazing mind reading powers of yours. Beck is a low class, hatemongering bigot without a shred of human decency. THAT on a good day.

These "shock jocks" have been around for years, this is nothing new.  And now it's getting more into the political arena than before, and since the Imus flap, it's getting scrutinzed anew. 

And there will always be the finger pointing as to "he's more offensive than him", or "she crossed the line", or whatever........the point is with the freedoms we have this stuff happens.  Of course there needs to be some basic standards set, but they need to very broad and liberal as to not allow the government too much control or over-policing.

If you don't like it or it's too offensive, bottom line is turn it off.

the OTHER bottom line is to get these racist, misogynist, bigoted liars OFF the airwaves when their spiel goes from 'shock', which has its own niche, to commentating about politics and denegrating certain individuals and groups of people...

And how are you proposing to "get them off the airwaves"?

by continuing to show and re-air and write down the hateful stuff they are saying so that MORE people will be exposed to their garbage... hopefully, after enough people realize what they are doing, appropiate actions will ensue... such as pulling ads from their shows, public humliation, lawsuits, etc... it boils down to this, for me- anyone has the right to say what they want, but if you are going to disparage people on airwaves, with an audience of millions, you are to be dealt with harshly...

"by continuing to show and re-air and write down the hateful stuff they are saying"

Should we do that with the far left hosts on Air America as well who say hateful things on a regular basis? Should we just make it to where nothing controversial can ever be said on the radio? Should we just create a Stalin like atmosphere where controversial political speech should be censored simply because some are offended?

Show us some proof of the "hateful" things that Air America folks are saying... Please, I dare you. Along the same lines of what Beck and his ilk are saying. I'm betting you don't have anything.

Here you go:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8805

But I guess for liberals personally attacking Rush Limbaugh is the same thing as breathing, and isn't really a personal attack at all.

IF your trying to make a comparison to any of the right's screeching monkeys it's a pretty week at best. Mentioning Rush's drug Problem and calling Bush a spoiled child is the best you got?

Beck has called President Jimmy Carter a "waste of skin," Mexican immigrants "dirt bags" and "lawbreakers," Katrina victims "scumbags," Cindy Sheehan a "prostitute," and suggested using nuclear weapons against parts of the Middle East and Venezuela. (Right from MMFA's archives and that's just a sample)

Just look over on the ride hand side of the home page. THis doesn't even hold up.

Has Beck ever advocated that a major political figure be assassinated?

He did make a joke about choking the life out of Michael Moore with his own hands .  hehehehe 

If the answer is "yes," do you believe he should be held accountable for it?  If the answer is "no" then don't even bother pointing at other people.  We can point at each others' crowds all day.  Don't excuse bad behavior with others' bad behavior.

I don't think so...what's your point?

That link was really lame, rino. The only example that even approaches hate speech that could be considered on par with Coulter or Savage was the gunshot ad. In fact that particular segment, which the dummy who posted it misattributed to Franken, was apologized for over and over by Randi Rhodes. What's more and the true test of character is that no such similar segments have been aired since.

Anyway, some conservatives have no sense irony as exemplified in the following sentence from your stupid, stupid link: "They (libs) spew hatred for the war effort, anyone who respects the sanctity of innocent life, Christians, and of course President Bush"

How can you take seriously any person who talks about war and the sanctity of life in a single sentence?

"How can you take seriously any person who talks about war and the sanctity of life in a single sentence?"

Because many times war can end up saving more lives than are lost. The Bible makes it clear that war is often times justified. But it also makes it clear that life begins at conception and must be protected.

The Bible also justifies kicking an unfaithful wife in the stomach to abort a fetus. But how do you make the jump that the phrase 'sanctity of life' is constrained only to abortion? I take the phrase to mean that life is sanctified. Period.

Furthermore, the Bible may justify war in some cases, and I would agree that it is at times as the last option; however, I don't believe the current occupation of Iraq is justifable. No doubt, that guy from your link was talking about the current foreign policy debacle in Iraq. What we are doing in Iraq serves no purpose of national security and is as well an immoral imperialist adventure.

Still, your link fell short of its claim to rampant hate speech coming out of lib radio. Sorry, try again.

"The Bible also justifies kicking an unfaithful wife in the stomach to abort a fetus"

What verse is that exactly?

As it turns out I was not completely right, so I can accept that I was wrong. I was remebering this passage:

Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

In this story, Judah mistakes Tamar as a prostitute and orders her to be burned to death, despite the fact she is three months pregnant. If her twin fetuses had been considered persons, the law would have delayed her execution at least until her twins were born. (The execution order was later lifted, not because of this consideration, but because Judah learned Tamar's true identity.)

Anyway, hate speech is the topic we were discussing and you still have failed to make any substantial argument on the topic. You claimed your link proved liberal hate speech, it did no such thing. You have done little more than say it is so because you say so.

If life is so sacred, why is it okay to take it, ever?

And if the Bible is your, well... Bible, do you also believe in slavery?

As I said, war is often justified because going to war can end up saving more lives than are lost in war. Also, where does the Bible condone slavery?

The Bible says to turn the other cheek as well, does it not?  The Bible also commands "Thou shalt not kill," and says it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man get to heaven.  Later in our discussion, you told me that you would keep your money in things with good ratings even if you didn't believe in them. Why?

You are making another in a long string of strawman arguments. Just because there might be such a thing as a justifyable war in no way means ANY war is justifyable. Most of the liberal arguments against THIS war are against THIS war and the ways IT is unjustifyable. Its like saying because its morally justfyable to kill someone in self defense then obviously all killing is justfied. Your illogic is overwhelming.

Whoa Rino, stop!  What about when he breathes life into Adam, was Adam merely conceived?  This one is at least debateable....

"But it also makes it clear that life begins at conception and must be protected." --Rino hunter

I want chapter and verse for that one. 

The only people in the Bible who specifically and notably received their soul (or the beginning of life) at conception or sometime before birth were prophets and other divinely inspired people (e.g. Jesus, John the Babtist, Jeremiah, etc.).  This is part of the Bible's mythology.  It is a literary device or indicator that these are indeed special people who receive the life-giving spirit earlier than the rest of us.

The Bible often refers to the body as merely a vessel for the soul or spirit.  Considering that the words for soul and spirit come from Ancient Greek words (psuche and pneuma - respectively) both literally meaning "breath", one can easily infer that the spirit does not enter the vessel until birth -- as a fetus obviously doesn't breathe for itself.

Whenever you read "soul" or "spirit" in the Bible, the sentence makes just as much sense (and usually even more) if you substitute "breath" instead.  That is because the ancient people of the Bible probably literally meant "breath", but more mystical terms have been preferred in translations over the centuries.

It is also noteworthy that the only significant difference between a fetus and a baby is that a baby breathes.

People have used some Biblical verses that point to the Holy Spirit (Pneumatos) entering the body of special people and prophets before their birth as the rule, when it is in actuality a significant exception.

The sanctity of life argument seems to come out at stange times. RINO could you give an example, from the people your standing up for, where they've effectivly done so? Statements aren't good enough.

That's all you got?  An inaccurate obscure opinion piece?

Okay, so the author has a problem with Ed Shultz pointing out Rush Limbaugh's admitted drug addiction 10 times in lieu of an argument (according to the author).  That is "hate"?  This is no way comparable to the slew of logical fallacies and misinformation that regularly comes from right-wing talk shows.

Secondly, the author misattributes the social security bit to Al Franken.  It was on the Randi Rhodes show -- not Al Franken's show.  This author doesn't even have his facts straight.

The author also only presents one interpretation of what that bit was about.  Rhodes apologized profusely about it, even though it appears she had nothing to do with its production.

That is probably the worst example of "hate" on liberal talk-shows and it is nothing.  It simply doesn't compare to the things Ann Coulter says and claims she means with no apologies at all.  In fact, it is rare to see a conservative back-track or apologize after making such remarks.

Thank you, rino hunter for demonstrating (albeit unwittingly) the stark difference between right-wing hate and your supposed liberal examples of it.

I have one:

Just after the 2004 Republican Convention, Al Franken and a guest were discussing Tom Delay's plan to rent a cruise ship for conventioneers to stay at a pier in New York Harbor (a plan that never materialized). At one point, Franken said to the guest that if there was such a criuse ship, "One well placed torpedo would have done so much good".

Now THAT's hate speech - wishing the death of thousands of people because you don't agree with their views. I can't think of any legitimate  conservative talk show person that has ever advocated that kind of violent death for differing political views. 

If Franken said that then that would qualify as hate speech, on that we can agree.

Now, if you don't think that that statement is equaled by Coulter talking about putting rat poison in a liberal Supreme Court Justice's salad or that using baseball bats on liberals to make a point then you're just being insincere.

These incidents are so frequently misrepresented by the right, I won't even consider his anecdote until goodfellas can provide a legitimate link to demonstrate the case.

You're right. And as is indicated below by, notthatgeorge, Franken would make a joke and move on. Limbaugh makes a joke and later reasserts it as a position and restates and reasserts until the lines are blurry between his true intent.

You don't listen to enough right wing radio then. You have to dig to find an off color comment from Al Franken, a well known comedian btw, not a newsman or wanna be journalist.

He didn't wish they were dead.

It was  joke. He didn't mean it. He doesn't harbor those feelings.

Rush, however, says something, tries to excuse what he says because he claims it's a joke, then repeats the same political position because he really means it, and that means it's not a joke after all. Beck has clearly exposed himself as a Hillary hater, and he has made personal attacks. That's hate speech. A joke, when there is no hateful feelings behind it, is not hate speech.

"He didn't wish they were dead.

It was  joke. He didn't mean it. He doesn't harbor those feelings.

Rush, however, says something, tries to excuse what he says because he claims it's a joke, then repeats the same political position because he really means it, and that means it's not a joke after all. Beck has clearly exposed himself as a Hillary hater, and he has made personal attacks. That's hate speech. A joke, when there is no hateful feelings behind it, is not hate speech" - NotThatGeorge / Tuesday May 15, 2007 06:40:35 PM EST

George,  I know Franken didn't really want those people dead, but don't you think you're letting your own politics, or at least your dislike of Beck and others cloud the fact that he was joking, as well? Look, I heard the Hillary comments on Beck's show and I can tell you, he didn't mean her any harm and harbors no 'hatred' toward her. He vehemently disagrees with her politics (as do I) and was pointing out her way of speaking sounded "like a typical bit**" (which it kinda does). Clearly, he was joking.

I would like to take you at your word, but I have been burned so often by trusting conservatives in the past.  Could you please provide a legitimate link that quotes Al Franken?

"I would like to take you at your word, but I have been burned so often by trusting conservatives in the past.  Could you please provide a legitimate link that quotes Al Franken?"- open_mind / Wednesday May 16, 2007 01:28:31 PM EST

Well, no I don't have a 'legitimate' link. Only that I actually heard it - not "someone told me about it".  

After giving it some thought, It wouldn't do much good to have a link because it would be giving legitimacy to the idea that conservative radio hosts engage in hate speech. If I say, "See? Franken does engage in hate speech ",  it would infer that I believe that Beck engages in hate speech. I think you call it a "strawman" argument. 

 And FYI, I realize Franken was joking and I wouldn't advocate he be fired for saying it.  

No link then?  I realize you heard it with your own ears and you may believe you are providing an adequate representation, but it would be nice to either hear it with my own ears or read it with my own eyes to see if I agree with that representation or not.

I understand your point, but I am disappointed you did not provide a legitimate link so the rest of us could evaluate what was said independent of your observations.

"Should we do that with the far left hosts on Air America as well who say hateful things on a regular basis?"

-----

You wingies have made this type of accusation many times, but when you are asked for specific, concrete examples, all you come up with is someone who disagreed with Bush, or called him a "dry drunk," or some other comment, which isn't hate if it's true.

Please provide examples of this left-wing "hate." If it's done on a "regular basis" you should have hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. Perhaps you can be the first to back up the claim with evidence.

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. 

That's strange rino. I'm listening to Thom Hartmann right now and he just a civil discussion with a conservative who wants to bomb Iran back into the stone age. You don't find that on right wing radio. You simply can't back up your charge AirAmerica hosts even come close to the personal attacks Beck and others engage in. It's just nonsense. And incidentally the content on AA is far more accurate too. The facts actually check out. 

Hartmann is a gentleman and a scholar.

Air America has really good programs these days, folks should give 'em a listen.

Go for it. If it's out there call them on it too, it's your right to doso if you choose.

Most of what I see on MRC is bunk anyway.

LOL! The answer is quite simple actually.  Democrats and Liberals should NEVER advocate the removal of Rush from radio. He actually provides a valuable service in that he reveals which businesses in any town or city in which his show airs to be very hostile to Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Women, African-Americans, Hispanics and practically anyone that isn't white, rich or a brainwashed moron. I believe that if Democrats would simply organize local efforts to inform people of what Rush says about them and which local advertisers support Rush, you would see Rush recede.

Folks, be CAREFUL of the link in the comment by RINO - the link to American Daily :

I keep everything defensive up full, updates and setting; but that one seemed to trigger a drive-by installation of some sort of Trojan, a flurry of complaints by all five of my alway-on status defenders, and required a brief off-line and shut-down for removal. I cannot PROVE that it came from that site, but had only two windows open at the time, the MMFA host window, and a daughter window to the link.

Good lookin' out, Conley. Thanks.

Hey, don't try to pin this on me!

Kidding. Thanks for the warning.

The "trojan" is a garden variety active X internet explorer ad on. If you have your brower security settings set to at least med high you will get a warning asking you if you want to run the active x content. Like all material coming from a way right web site , just say NO!

Feel free to try with Air America but until they call for beating conservative with baseball bats or poisoning a Supreme Court justice or making torture a telivised sport ya got nothin. No one anywhere is trying to censor political speech, that is a strawman argument. Let pundits call for this to become a communist country or coronate GW Mcshortbus king for all I care. However there is nothing wrong with offensive, racist or bigotted attacks having consequences. They are OUR airwaves and we have a right to a say in how they are used.

Tommy - "If you don't like it or it's too offensive, bottom line is turn it off."

Does this apply to you as well?  The next time you come to MMFA with a complaint about one of the items you don't like, should we tell you to shut your browser? 

You are free to tell me anything you'd like.

Then I'll tell you you're a hypocrite. Heed your advice to yourself sometime.

Just an honest question Tommy.  This seems to be another example of a  "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy and I wanted to give you an opportunity to expound on that.  I'm not sure why your telling people that instead of voicing their opinion the discourse that takes place on a political commentary shows like Beck or Imus they should just shut the offending program off instead.   

Please tell me where I have ever said that you, or anyone, should not voice their displeasure?  Just yesterday on the Sunday Shoutout thread, I specifically said to you that boycotting those you dislike and their advertisers is your perfect right, and I encourage you to do so, if you choose. 

Some may boycott and let certain shows know of their dislike, while others just turn it off - to each his/her own.

It seems to me that people are taking note of what is being said and voicing thier displeasure to the radio stations, advertisers, etc   

What's the point of your first post on this topic then amd why did you state your "bottom line" comment? 

Because that is the bottom line - if you don't like what's being broadcast, then turn it off, ultimately.  There are many options such as boycotting advertisers, or promoting competitor's shows - but again, the bottom line is turn the dial to another station, or flip the on/off button to off.

The point of my first topic is there for anyone to read again.  Bottom line, keep the government out of it, for the most part.

But if it's being used to advocate the policies of the government while trying to pretend to be news organization, it opens itself up to be controled by the government.

We, the people, own those airwaves. The FCC, which is paid for by our tax dollars, regulate those airwaves. The government is already involved — it's just too cozy with the corporate media, which does more harm than good at this point. 

How is Glenn Beck's tirade against some individual "advocating government policies"?  And if that's not what you are referring to, please be specific as to who is advocating these policies and in what context?

If your initial argument in this thread was clear, then you wouldn't need to reference our conversation from yesterday.

I just don't agree with  people turning a blind eye to political discourse or hate speech.  Our country is already woefully ignorant on political issues and very apathetic.  

You're right, normally when you ask a ridiculous question I don't answer......my bad for indulging your lack of comprehension here.

Your right Tommy, what was I thinking, I should have known that in order to get to the heart of what your really meant I was suppose to read through all of your posts from the last few days to get the hidden message.  Are you posts like a word search now?  

I'm thinking this is yet another demonstration of how you constantly change your argument to suit your needs at any given time.

You do have a short memory, apparently even for your posts on this particular thread......to "suit my needs?".

Funny, most of my responses here have been direct answers to your questions.  Thank for you asking them to "suit my needs"

Until you suggested it yet again, NO ONE here said anything about having the government censor anyone.  You do this every time and it's boring every time.

The Fairness Doctrine is specifically mentioned in this piece, which is government monitoring/level the playing field.  

And I agree, it's usually promoted by liberals who are losing in the free marketplace of ideas, and it's constant drumbeat is very boooooooring.

DJs are always fired for saying stupid things. One pair was canned for getting a couple to have sex in the confession booth of a Catholic church. They weren't free speech heroes though because the right didn't like their method of ruffling feathers.

I find that hard to believe... unless the couple wasn't married. If they weren't married, then the Right was justified in getting those DJs fired. If the couple were married they were doing what the Bible told them to do. Besides, sex can be a religious experience as either party may call out to God. So, I don't see the harm.

In what way was the Right justified in getting the jocks fired?

I'm not defending them one bit.  I personally find something like that way unfunny and horrible radio.  (Sex on the radio?  Ya-awwwn.)  But I can't see how the Right was any more justified than anyone else with taste in asking for these people to be fired. 

It's one thing to be a shock jock. It's another to be political commentator. You can be a shock jock and do occasional commentary, but if you're a political commentator on a NEWS channel or station, you can't try to be a shock jock. I'm perfectly fine for labeling Limbaugh, Savage and Beck as shock jocks, and it would mean that MMFA wouldn't have to cover them anymore.

To do that (pretend to be shock jock when you're a political commentator) only diminishes the effectiveness of the arguement or the point you wish to make. 

It's amazing that Beck would label himself a shock jock only after a joke backfires. Howard Stern (the King of shock) would never apologize for a joke backfiring, but we wouldn't expect Stern to apologize (or backtrack as fast as Beck). 

...'This is all about special interest groups...'- Ummm, Yeah, ok.... And Beck has it all wrong- it's not a leftist Witch hunt... it's a leftist NAZI hunt. Hmmm..., maybe the neocons have changed the wording for this week- this week, liberals are witches, next week they are traitors, next they are hysterical wimps, then they are nazis again... nice little loop there...

MMFA complained about Michael Smerconish calling people "sissies" on the air - something about it being a homosexual slur - although he was not talking about homesexuals.  He was talking about how America has become a bunch of sissies with regards to everybody complaining about hurtful words.  Funny thing is later on "Bill Mahar", of all people, took offense with MMFA and called MMFA a bunch of sissies. 

No he didn't.  I saw that episode, I recall his comments, and he NEVER called MMFA sissies.

Sir, you are incorrect.  Here is the video:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/15/video-bill-maher-rips-media-matters/

Both the left and right - stop listening to propaganda !  Do your own research.

ok... but hotair can't even get their own transcripts correct- he said 'if you are complaining about this, you are a sissy'... and let's be fair to the man- he obviously knows nothing ABOUT MMFA and what it stands for because he doesn't even know what side of the political spectrum MMFA comes from and just referenced it to make a little point about 'gotcha!' politics...

>>CNN Headline News host [link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">Glenn Beck appeared on the May 14 edition of CNN's American Morning to discuss the dismissal of radio host [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] color="#0052a3">Don Imus and New York shock jocks [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] color="#0052a3">JV and Elvis and claimed that there is a "leftist witch hunt" against shock jocks.

Is there a heck of a lot of political commentary in "nappy headed hoes" and "me like fried rice" lines? I thought Imus was supposed to be liberal? Or at least not conservative? 

The market adjusted itself as it pertains to Imus, and anyone else who gets booted off of the air. If these guys say something that is outlandish, and awful, if people still tune in, guess what? They get to keep their jobs. If there is an outcry, and sponsors start pulling ads and revenue, then guess what? They don't get to keep their jobs.

Imus was yanked for the mere fact that sponsors were dropping him like a hot potato. Not through anything that MMFA, or anyone else did or didn't do.

Deck da hars with bows of horryfa ra ra ra rah, ra rah rah rah

Such hatespeech. What a racist movie.

Such illogical reasoning. What a stupid post.

"In fact, Beck himself has a history of controversial comments"

Oh, boy. The Thought Police is back. I've never seen such a large group of those on the left who are so adament about ending free speech rights for those with whom they disagree. Of course Beck makes controversial comments. So does every single successful radio talk show host out there. Hardly anybody would listen to any of these shows if they were boring and didn't generate any controversy at all. Controversy gets ratings, and every successful talk show host knows that. Seriously, why would anybody want to listen to some boring host who didn't generate any controversy? There's controversial talk show hosts on both the right and the left, but it's just that the left wing talk show hosts bash the U.S. on a regular basis, and most people actually like this country and don't want to listen to this Anti-Americanism. The bottom line is that if you don't like Beck, then change the channel. Nobody is forcing you to watch him. This is a free country where political speech is constitutionally protected, and the censorship that is being promoted by those on the left only proves that they can't compete with conservatives in the arena of ideas.

This is not about free speech. Again. Same as before. Not about free speech. Not everyone is entitled to a radio and a TV show. But Beck, and others, are more than free to say what they want anywhere that they would like to, but they don't need to be paid for it. They can get a blog for free, just like everyone else.

I agree it is not about free speech.  It is about a political agenda to get the right off the air.  They don't like the fact that there are some many people tuning into these shows.  These shows are a threat to their political power.  They masquerade it as removing "hate speech" but that is a facade.  The real goal is political power.  Kuchinich and friends are trying to tie the radio stations down in red tape so they will not put on Rush because it causes them too much work under the fairness doctrine.  Rush will be effectively silenced.  It is like taking the offensive speech out of Saturday Night Live - nobody will watch it anymore.

So, then, what exactly are you saying?  That no one will listen to talk radio without right-wing conservatives?  Or that their offensive speech is what makes it so popular?