Russert still welcoming CBN reporter who called male blogger Thompson's "angry girlfriend"

Yeah, so what? Is MMFA suggesting Brody be blackballed?

Interesting...

I would suggest that Brody and other people laden with propaganda and misinformation crawl back to their underground lair and stop clogging up OUR airwaves. 

Suggest, not order.   But this is their hour, and the power of darkness.

Mary,

MMFA seems to be concerned here on this thread with the idea that because Brody referred to a blogger as Thompson's girlfriend that this should somehow eliminate him from being a future guest on Meet The Press.

I find that a tad extreme.

Jeter,

I don't think that's the case at all.

I would suggest some balance.  Having a hack from CBN and another hack from the Wall Street Journal is hardly what you could consider "responsible journalism".

I do not get it either , I guess we want the guys livelihood to be destroyed?

 Would you care to explain on not being on Meet the Press is going to destroy his livelihood?

No because I was asking a question. Do you know what "?" means ? 

 I'm not allowed to ask you to clarify your question with a question? 

You are but I do not know, that is why I was asking. That is like me sasking you, Is it raining now, is that why you do not want to go to the park? And you reply "Give me examples it is going to rain ?  If I knew I would not ask.  Seems like you may have been trying to start a conflict?

Jylons,

Since the way you phrased your question suggested that you thought that was going on, I think it's reasonable to ask you to clarify it.

And it is reasonable for me to respond the way I did, nice and civil.

"I guess we want the guys livelihood to be destroyed?"

I asked you the question so you would connect the dots.

How is not being on Meet the Press going to destroy his livelihood in the first place Jlyon?  He isn't getting his pay check from Meet the Press and unless something is different on the CBN it unusually isn't part of a reporters "job" to be on shows like this in the first place.   

Thank you, again I did not say it , I asked it based on the presumed argument of some of his supporters.

Jylons,

Do you care to answer the question then?

What is the question?

Why do you think this would strip him of his livelihood?  And don't go into that stupid "I didn't say that garbage".  You implication by phrasing the question in that manner is that you believe banning him from the show would ruin his livelihood.

Why do you think this would strip him of his livelihood?  And don't go into that stupid "I didn't say that garbage".

You just do not read do you? Please save your energy and anger for someone who is really against you .

Then please answer the question!  I'm trying to figure out where you got that phrase.

I don't care if your aginst me or with me, I like to understand a question when it is presented and you can't seem to explain it.

Also Jylons,

I'm not angry, I'm just frustrated at someone who can't even admit their own motivations.

I do not have any motives, I am not sure what your point is. I wanted to know if that was why others felt who support this guy? I am not sure what you want me to say. 

Would you explain why MMFA seems to want Brody blackballed from Meet The Press?

IMO there is a certain level of professional discourse that should take place on shows like Meet the Press. If you can't meet that level of discourse you shouldn't be asked back on a show.

I guess that rules out James Carville then.

I'd love to see the whole lot of them go.  Beltway insiders are too clique-y in my view. 

The Sunday shows would be much better if they'd invite real journalists in.  Naomi Klein, Thomas Ricks and Greg Palast spring to mind. 

Jeter,

They aren't!

Skep,

Then what are is MMFA doing? Seems to me they are surprised/shocked/disturbed that Brody is being invited back to Meet The Press after referring to a blogger as Thompson's GF.

Maybe they aren't coming straight out and saying Brody shouldn't be a guest, but just by posting this they are implying it.

That's at least a suggestion of blackballing to me.

Jeter,

It appears to me that MMFA is pointing out that a major news program is having a person on the show that has a problem with making inappropriate comments and is wondering why a respected news program would do such a thing.

This is a means for establishing a conversation.  No where do I see anyone advocating any action.

The only thing I see is people such as your self making things up (straw men) to suit your agenda.

Jeter, I agree the implication of an article calling out his being invited on the show again and pointing to his comment about the girlfriend thingy as signficant in why this is a problem suggest they think based on his comments he should not be a guest.  Gotta say don't agree with MMFA on this one. I don't think the comment was a big deal and don't see what the great offense is other then some may not agree with his analysis of th situation but not agreeing with a person's opinion would cancel out just about everyone.

Lost,

That isn't the case though.  I don't see how you can decide what the motivation of this organization is, maybe you and Jeter are mindreaders.

I take it on it's face value and they are simply pointing out something that has occured.

Why would they just waste time pointing out "something that occurred"?  Doesn't MMFA post this article to state that they disagree with Meet The Press having this guy on their program?  If they didn't think having him on was a bad idea, I don't think they'd waste the time writing an article about it.

Well said Portnoy. Thank you.

So you're saying that MMFA only posts items that they disagree with.

Then why do they post Keith Olbermann's Worst person items?  Do they disagree with Keith?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Nice try, but I suggest you read what I wrote again. 

"Doesn't MMFA post this article to state that they disagree with Meet The Press having this guy on their program?" 

I would assume that MMFA is questioning Russert and MTP more than the CBN gadfly.

MMFA has demonstrated time and again a bias on this particular program. This is their latest effort to document the alleged bias.

If he were on along with a someone from the "far left" then perhaps it would be more balanced and real debate? His guest are right and far right. Is that balanced? There will be no real debate and that's a problem.

Skep, that isn't the point being made.  The point is they don't post these items without a purpose. MMFA has a purpose in posting KO's WPITW.  Do you honestly believe MMFA does this with no purpose???

Stop it Skep.

You know they don't post Olbermann threads to take him to task.

They post them to pat him on the head.

Every other thread about a person and/or organization that's featured here is MMFA pointing out alleged Conservative Mis-information or the promoting of a Conservative agenda.

Or in this case implying that Brody shouldn't be a guest on Meet The Press because MMFA would like to dictate who gets on the guest list.

Please don't be disingenuous.

To Lost, Jeter, Port and Computer?  You are correct, I was being disingenuous.  Please read my post below.

I apologize, it's Friday and I'm just in one of those moods!

Aren't we all. 

No problem Skep, we all have our moods.

Skep, I don't see where you get mind reading from.  I said the implication I got was they had a problem with him being on the show.  Seems this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this article and with my additional knowledge of MMFA's stated agenda and purpose.  If you want to believe that MMFA posts these articles for no other purpose then simply posting an item thats an alternative implication I guess one can draw but I don't think it is very reasonable to think that MMFA who has a stated agenda posts for no reason.

Huh!

Let me try to explain something to you, Jeter and Port.

Obviously MMFA finds this to be a problem.  What you guys have stated is that they want him banned, that is an extreme interpretation.

You all are assigning an irresponsible motive to this article.  Nobody is advocating banning, blackballing or anyhting even closely resembling those stances.

MMFA is pointing out that there is something wrong with a "Respected" Mainstream "News" program having a person on multiple times that has made inappropriate statements.

It is not reasonable to assume that they want this person removed from the airwaves.  It is reasonable to say they disagree with the decision to have him on multiple times.

Skep, I didn't say anything about black balling or banning.  I said MMFA doesn't think he should be on the program.  How is your saying they dsagree with him being on any different. If one disagrees with something it means they don't think it should occur. I am not sure why you are so outraged by this concept. 

inappropriate statements according to MMFA

And they are implying this person shouldn't be a guest on Meet The Press.

That's blackballing.

I don't think you'll be convinced otherwise, so there's no point in arguing.  But, I think it is pretty obvious that mmfa does not want this guy to appear on Meet The Press.  Basically, that means that they want him banned from Meet The Press.  If he was scheduled as a guest on Face The Nation, they wouldn't want him to appear there either.  It's pretty clear to me that mmfa doesn't want this guy to be on any TV program that discusses politics or current events.

Again to Lost, Jeter and Port.

I don't think they want hm banned, I think they are questioning why he is on multiple times. 

My opinion is that they believe this promotes a biased agenda which isn't befitting a National News Program.

I agree skeptical. Your detractors are assuming facts not in evidence and apparently being deliberately obtuse. MMFA's mission is to expose conservative misinformation, as in to spread awareness of conservatives spreading a conservative agenda.

Also, the posters who are making the leap of logic (that this post about blackballing or silencing Brody) should notice what is missing from the body os this MMFA posting...the take action/ contact Meet The Press/Tim Russert legend is absent.

I would challenge the folks who are browbeating you to take a look at the right hand margin of most any Matthews, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly posting and take note of the blaring red take action icon and contact info column, they're present on those threads for a reason. Just as the contact info is absent from this post for a reason.

Folks can disagree with the merit of MMFA's POV, but this is simply a posting that spreads awareness. Any other conclusion is speculation.

"It's pretty clear to me that mmfa doesn't want this guy to be on any TV program that discusses politics or current events."

I wouldn't agree with this statement.  To me,  I believe MMFA is stating that Meet the Press is a more respected current events/politics show (as opposed to current event/politic shows where people frequently yell over and interrupt each other). Therefore, Meet the Press should be more picky about the guests that they invite on the show.  That's my interpretation. 

I find this type of political discourse to be beneath Meet the Press.  It's un-professional.....  if I wanted commentary like this with my punditry I would watch something on Fox.   

MHK- Exactly. Russet is sinking, sinking, sunk. There are still some rel live journalists, policy watchers, and political pundits what have a reasoned opinions that are interesting to hear and consider.

Having this "bomb thrower" from the Christian Broadcasting Network "balanced" with a parrot form the Wall Street Journal is just more tabloid TV.

There was a time when I enjoyed the interviews and panel discussions on "Meet the Press."

This is more out of the same crayon box claiming to be journalism, crapolla.

Oh yeah, the liberal media, NBC skew the airwaves alright. Pathetic really.

Exactly J, Besides it gives more ammuntion to MMFA when it hauls out one of their comprehensive studies on how the Sunday talk shows are riddled with rightwingers, while the left can't get their foot in the door.

I wonder what would happen to me if I call a gay man at my work an "angry girlfriend"? 

He might laugh or he might be offended?  

Why don't you try it in front of a group of your co-workers and let me know how that turns out for you?

Again. I think we have the "?" problem ?

If that gay person acts like a girl, whats the problem?

Wow. Just… wow.

Stop it Tommy...bean counting is very important ;-)

 How long we've heard the "Liberal Media" canard  void of evidence?

You should thank the bean counters J, their doing it so we don't have to.   

I don't think anywhere in this item is anyone suggetsing that he be blackballed!

That rumbling sound you hear is Lawrence Spivak (the originator and first host of Meet the Press) spinning in his grave.

So this guy is an "angry girlfriend"?

Are Religious Conservatives going to vote for Thompson now that he's been "outed" by CBN?

Certainly it's just the luck-of-the-draw that Brody is appearing for a third time in two months. Correspondents from anywhere all over the globe, from Muslims to African-Americans to Asian Women, right-wing Christians to left-wing agnostics, all had an equal chance. Yes indeed.

To add: not to mention Lane Hudson himself. Or not to mention even mentioning Hudson on MTP.

Maybe when MTP gets to Brody's seventh MTP appearance (probably soon, at this rate), the show will have 10 seconds air time to fill while Brody sneezes, and they'll note the lawsuit.

Don't go there? Seriously, what the eff is he talking about? Is that some kind of swipe at Rock Hudson being gay and Lane Hudson having the same last name? Where is it we are being urged not to go? Who shares the joke with this clown and how could someone who takes refuge in gay baiting be given national air time? Does Tim realize people are back from summer vacation and may accidentally watch this tripe?

My suspicion is that this is one of the only guys they could hire to come on who can guarantee he will not discuss the Larry Craig story.

Why does Russert welcome James Carville and his dopey wife? They are some of the most "hateful" people around today?

Wasn't saying "angry girlfriend" an extension of the simile?

Con, I agree with you it was an extension of his full comment and I didn't take it as gay bashing (as another poster said) at all.  I am not sure why his comments are being made such a big deal...I just don't see any thing to get worked up about except maybe his questionable use of a literary tool.  I thought it was a stupid comment that really didn't say much but thats about the extent of it in my opinion.  Although I must say I really didn't understand the "don't go there" comment.

Lost,

If you don't understand the "don't go there" part then you don't understand the implications of the comments and therefore miss the whole point.

Skep, are you always this inconsistent in a thread.  You claim my drawing an implication is "mind reading" then chastise me for not drawing an implication.  Whatever.  I am not able to draw a reasoned implication from the statement because I have no additional information on the statement and as far as I know the author has not clarified what "don't go there" was referring to.  Seems you are the one trying to mind read--unless you have additional information about this comment that I am not aware of.  If oyu do I would certainly consider it and perhaps reach a like conclusion.  But without it you are speculating without information.

I give up Lost.  Either you are purposely confusing or this is your natural state.  I have a hard time following your post.

I will try to explain my comment though.  It is fairly well accepted that the comment was a swipe at a gay male blogger.  The "Don't go there" was regarding the blogger's name (Hudson) which can only be taken as an additional swipe equating him with Rock Hudson (A gay man).

If you didn't know this, then you are either very naive, uninformed or feigning ignorance.

Skep, I take it based on this post you do not have any additional information about the "don't go there" comment then I do.  Therefore, you are making a wild leap to draw some farfetched conclusion as to the nefarious meaning behind the words.  Ii is amazing you can make such a crazy leap but you can't seem to foolow the road from disagree with him being on a show to thinking he shouldn't be on a show.  Sorry but you are really inconsistent in how you view things.  ANd while I agree at times I can be confusing I do make every attempt to clarify when asked.  I think I and others have clarified numerous times but you have closed your "ears" and choose not to "listen".

Wow, I guess you didn't go back and read my other comments.

Anyway Lost, if the blogger was gay and his name is Hudson and the comment is he is the "angry girlfriend" and the "don't go there" refers to the man's name, what conclusion are you having trouble coming to?

It's just so much fun say "don't go their" and call men "girlfriend" ..... Maybe next time that funny little man from the CBN can do a routine with a lisp and make the limp wrist gesture.

Your right it's purely a coincidental that the blogger in question happens to be gay.  I bet that hilarious reporter from the Christian Broadcasting Network cracks jokes like this towards men all the time!   

MHK, you may very well be right about the hidden meaning behind the stupid analogy the writer used to make his point.  You and skep may even be correct that the "don't go there" was an obscure reference to Rock Hudson ( a bit of a leap in my opinion but who knows).  I choose to base my opinion on what was said and not jump to conclusions that I personally do not think were reasonable inferences to draw from his comments.  Perhaps it is because upon first reading the comment I wasn't thinking about the bloggers sexuality so I didn't read it the way you all have.  I still think it is a leap you can not prove and I don't think it is fair to make unless you have additional information to back up that this man was trying to slur gays with his comments.  If he had delivered the line with the lisp and limp wrist you talk about then I would say his intent was clear...but he didn't so I can't.

Lost,

You accuse me of being all over the place.  You can't admit you were wrong so you say that you can't see how we can come to our logical conclusion even after we repeatedly point it out to you.

Really Wow!

Not one other person denies that this was a comment about being gay, and we are illogical?

Now you are being disingenuous!

Skep, you are inconsitent and you apparntly have a reading comprehension problem.  I don't have to admit I am wrong because there is no right or wrong here in trying to read into what this guy meant.  Obviously I understand how you reached your opinion since I pointed out that the bloggers sexuality wasn't in my mind when I read the comments...thereby acknowledging that it played a part in your opinion.  I simply am pointing out that I didn't think it was fair to make that kind of leap when in my opinion there is no way to prove he meant anything other then what was there on paper.  I have read many a bad analogy and this writer just used one more to make his point in my opinion.  You may want to  believe you are Karmak the Great and can read the writer's mind and declare your opinion is right and I am wrong but frankly that ain't a reality based conclusion. 

Lost,

If there is no other possible explanation for what he said (please provide one if I missed it) then you are wrong.

There is no shame in being wrong.  I admitted it earlier.   Just admit it and move on!

I agree with Skeptical that the bloggers intent was to draw a comparison between Lane Hudson and Rock Hudson with the (don't go there) insinuation.  However, I didn't originally read it that way because I didn't know that Lane Hudson was gay.  In fact, I've never heard of Lane Hudson until this thread. 

You know, the Rock Hudson stuff was a long time ago and it's not exactly on the forefront of everybody's mind anymore.  So it was a rather veiled reference.  Wasn't that the 80's?

Skep, you have some serious I'm right, your wrong issues to deal with.  There is no saying which one of is right because neither of us are inside the writer's head, period.  I explained how I reached my opinion, you explain how you reached yours and we decide if the other has a point thats how this thing works--get it.  You can keep saying your unsubstantiated opinion is "right" till your blue in the face but it won't make it any more true then Fox's repeatedly claiming to be fair and balanced.  I don't have to offer an alternative hidden meaning because who knows if there is even a hidden meaning--which is my point.  The explanation for the analogy is right there in black and white--he was trying to make an analogy defending and praising Thompson's decision to hold out on entering the race and trying to belittle those who are complaining about it.  COuld the writer have had a hidden agenda about gay people--as I said in my previous post to MHK of course but there is no way to know.  I don't know how many more ways to clarify this for you--so if it makes you feel better to carry on with your nanna nanna boo boo I'm right your wrong nonsense go right ahead.

Lost,

Maybe I missed it, but you never explained anything.  What else can the man be refering to?

Please answer that question!

Skep, you obviously missed it.  I explained it was a literary tool.  He was making a whole analogy of the whole flirting, highschool jock leading on the girls and the analogy flowed through the whole piece.  You obviously think he picked this analogy tomake a dig at the sexuality of the blogger he mentions in the article.  As I said now numerous times you may be right but I personally don't think it is fair to make the leap at a hidden meaning without more information.  I don't even know if the writer was aware of the blogger's sexuality or even considered it when making up the analogy.   I know I didn't consider the bloggers sexuality when I read the piece. 

Okay Lost,

Everybody but you got the point!  I take it you're a little slow on the uptake sometimes. 

What would lead any person to use a "girlfriend" analogy when describing the actions of a man?  Why choose the whole high school jock/girlfriend thing when no "girls" are involved.

It appears that you are the one making an illogical leap.  Fine, you didn't know the blogger's sexuality, but after it is pointed out to you, how can you deny the link?

How can you say my interpretation is a giant leap even after I've shown you how logical a conclusion it is when you are informed of the actual situation and no tthe one in your head.

Who has turned the deaf ear to logic?

Yur explanation doesn't make any sense unless the subject of the ridicule is gay or at least feminine.

So, you can continue to deny that you are now being irrational in the face of the facts to save face with your original ill informed opinion, or you can admit that in light of these new facts being presented, it is very logical to conclude that this man was being denigrating to the blogger.

Skep, I won't deny that I may be slow at times but it won't change the fact that in my opinion it is wrong to ascribe hidden meaning to some writers creative writing (or attempt at creativity) without more to go on then that a person mentioned in the writing happens to be gay.  You are wrong about me making an illogical leap because I am making no leap at all.  I am taking it as is.  You may feel I am worng for not making the leap and atempting to read the writers mind as you are but you can't accuse me of leaping.  I disagree with you that analogies are only used if gender specific to the subject and if not it means a gay slur.  I use to have to do these types of writing assignemnts all the time when I took creative writing classes.  The writer actually stayed true to the theme throughout the post so I guess since he referred to others as the object of Thompson's flirting and teasing he must have been making gays slurs on everyone.  Sorry I can't say what you want...I do not agree with your conclusions...which again doesn't mean they are wrong...I have no way of knowing and frankly either do you or anyone else besides the writer.

LL

I didn't attribute "don't go there" to Rock Hudson, that was skep. 

"Don't go there" or "Don't go their girlfriend" is a pop culture reference.  Bitchy Diva "talk to the hand" kind of trash talk that is usually ascribed to black women or flamey gay men with attitudes. 

Maybe I'm a being too skeptical of the motives of the reporter from the CBN.  Thompson was in violation of a campaign law, so instead of addressing this issue, the reporter attacks the person that told on him in a personal manner.  The manner of the attack has nothing to do with the case in question as the blogger isn't an ex or a girl and didn't work for Thompson.  Acting like an "angry ex-girl friend" combined with the "don't go there" reference and the person happens to be gay......   hmmm....     

MHK, sorry didn't mean to put someone else's opinion on you.  As I said you may be right and maybe he created the analogy to make a personal dig at the bloggers sexuality.  I just read it as a piece that was trying to put Thompson in a good light and those who take issue with his actions in a bad light (the jock and the angry rejected ex).  When I read the entire piece he used he kept to his analogy throughout so I didn't really see it as a personal attack on the blogger mentioned but rather a writing style choice.  The fact that you have a differnet opinion on what "don't go there" referred to then Skep, and I didn't get the comment at all sort of goes to my point that we are just making guesses and there is no right answer just opinions.

Lost,

Forget how you originally read the piece. 

With the additional knowledge and insight, can you at least admit that it's not "far fetched" and a "leap" to conclude that he was deragatory?

Skep, I don't know what more you want me to say.  I have said perhaps you are right.  I personally don't believe in searching out hidden meanings and presenting them as fact without proof.  I have seen analogies used like this all the time and feminie analogies used to describe all sorts of non-femine things.  I don't know if you read alot but I do both fiction and non-fiction and frankley this stuff is used all the time to make the writing more interesting to read.  Personally, I think his analogy was stupid but I am sure he though it was very creative.  Obviously, things are open to interpretation but yours isn't the be all and end all.  For example Bruce agrees with you about what "don't go there" referred to, MHK did not he had a different interpretation of its use, I didn't get what he meant by it--see differnet opinions and interpretations based on our own experience...no right or wrong here.  By the way I did read it as denigrating but just not a dig at his sexuality but rather trying to make it look like his complaint was frivoulous and spiteful.  Why is it so important for you to be labeled right about this do you not understand that opinions can differ.

I give up once again Lost,

You are right, I made a completely illogical "leap" (by the way that was your word, not mine) by my be all end all opinion that calling a gay man an angry girlfriend and making fun of his name was in some way meant to make fun of his gayness.

Sorry, I must be completely off my rocker to think somehting as foolish as that.

You ascribed no hidden meaning to his words though, except to say that it was a poor analogy.  I wonder how you know it was an analogy and not factual writing though.

Maybe Lane Hudson is really a girl and is Fred Thompson's girlfriend!  Maybe Lane is really angry.  Although, that doesn't accounbt for the "Don't go there" statement.

By the way, where does that fit into your "analogy" opinion?  What does that have to do with HIgh School and Jocks and Angry/Jealous Girlfriends? 

Wow, you are really reaching now.  SO I am making a leap by saying it was an analogy and not fact.  Are you nuts???  I can actually prove it is not fact can you say the same about any of your conclusions...let me help you out here...you can't it is your opinion about a writers hidden meaning.  And yes I used leap and I would still use leap because that is what it is when you ascribe hidden meaning to someone'w writing the way you did.  Could your leap be accurate--for the gazillionth time now, sure it may be an accurate leap...you may have hit the hidden nail on the head.  Sorry, I am going to end my part in this discussion with you because your last post proves you are going off the deep end with your argument.  I have stated my opinion and how I reached it--you are entitled to your opinion and neither of us ever has to agree with the other and the world will still go on.

Yea,

You ended the discussion because I couldn't prove my opinion but you could.

Then please prove it.  Prove that you know what the writer meant, even though you telkl me I can't because it is impossible.

Lost, I once had respect for you, but now it's evaporated like your logic!

LL, you wrote: "I personally don't believe in searching out hidden meanings and presenting them as fact without proof."

I've noticed this to be a pronounced trait when engaged in debate with conservative fiends . . . I mean "friends."

Subtext is a basic literary device. For example, Shakespeare was brilliant at using subtext as a device (think Hamlet).

Exploring actions, words and circumstances allows one to determine the underlying meaning of a statement or question -- SUBTEXT.

Remember Trent Lott's statements about Strom Thurmond? Repubs acted as if they couldn't understand what the big deal was. Lott resigned in shame.

Most high school graduates know these basics.

Krom, I do see a purpose to the use of this analogy but it just isn't the gay bashing one some see.  As I posted later in this thread I do think the analogy had a purpose and I think it was to set a framework to look at the situation.  Thompson was described as the jock evryone wants and the blogger was portrayed as the spiteful ex.  I think it is an often used literary tool used to frame how the writer wants you to look at things.  I just didn't see some deeper hidden meaning that this was a gay slur.  Frankly, I don't see what difference the bloggers sexuality has on his complaint but I can see how a writer would use the spitefule ex to make the complaint appear frivolous--like that of an ex acting out.  As I said previously (numerous times) perhaps there was a deeper hidden meaning and it was a gratutious dig at his sexuality but personally I didn't read it as such. 

"extension of his full comment "

Yes because I'm sure he would have used the same "full comment" had the blogger in question been a straight man.

JETER2/JLYONS:

I don't understand why you feel MM simply MUST be calling for some action against Brody. MM's mission is to INFORM. You can take the information they provide and act on is as you see fit.

The problem with so much of the commentary on television is that the agenda of those commenting is not usually clear unless someone -- like Media Matters -- compiles this kind of information.

What part of that don't you get?

This topic illustrates (once again) the left's totalitarian tradition of trying to silence those with whom they disagree. (cite: Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao)

Thank God that conservatives are here to fight for the first amendment and freedom!

I would not go that far , but lately some on the lar left  (and as always right) seem to want to go to far extremes to silence dissent. We are a beautiful diverse society, why is it that all opinions and views should not be tolerated? 

OK, maybe the reference to Mao was a little gratuitous.  But still, a good case can be made that the left want to control all media.  Why else are so many on the left wanting to silence Limbaugh by bringing back the "fair"ness doctrine?

John,

How would being fair silence anyone?

Please, not the Fairness Doctrain.

Look, I'm not suggesting that most left/libs want to silence critics in the same way as the clinton crime family.  

But lets be honest - the left equates "fairness" with holding a liberal opinion.  To the left, a conservative opinion is, de facto, UNFAIR! 

John,

You are truly crazy.  Can you present an argument without stupid comments and dumb generalizations?

"To the left, a conservative opinion is, de facto, UNFAIR!"

Where's your factual evidence of this site or any poster here saying that "a conservative opinion" on the radio, web or tv, is, by definition, automatically "unfair"?

So all of this was just an excuse to revive the Hitlery Killed Vince Foster With Her Lesbo Super Powers myth?

But I thought the Liberal Media was already controlled entirely by The Left?

Few in congress truley want the fairness doctrain.

There are those crazy lefties that would like to silence people. IE: Those idiots on the Board of Supervisors in SF trying to ban Savage. Edwards wife said she would like to see Savage's ""Hateful Speach"" removed. The fight over the FD is a joke. Simply a right wing ploy.

Nice try but your own link to a Google search (below) of all things proves that the Supervisor in San Francisco isn't trying to get Savage fired, banned or otherwise. He introduced a resolution condemning Savage's hate speech, that's it. Seems to me it's you "crazy righties" that have a problem with reality and apparently reading as well.

Come on. They wanted him sileced from the SF airwaves. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

Maybe you need to actually read what you linked to instead of yammering on about something you already proved yourself wrong about. The resolution condemned his hate speech, period. It didn't ban anything. Reality doesn't exist in your head where whatever you say is true. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

Once agreed in a resolution that what he spouts is "Hate Speach", what would be the logical next step for the board? Hmmmm 

Sue can you define far left? Just seeking clarification.

John,

Where is anyone calling for anyone to be silenced?

Why else is the left calling for the "fair"ness doctrine to silence Limbaugh?

But more to the point, there are several topics right here at MMFA that are simply aghast that a conservative is even allowed to be heard in the media.

This topic qualifies - after all, the complaint is that a conservative voice is being allowed on the program.

Oh my LAWDY!!! 

Please describe in detail how the fairness doctrine silences anyone.

Please describe in detail how this article tries to silence anyone.

Please provide a single example of the left actually trying to silence someone.

If given the choice between giving equal time to opposing viewpoints and giving up broadcasting, people like Limbaugh would choose the latter.

They'd be silencing themselves, though.

I'll be glad to respond in detail - but can you honestly say that having the government regulate the content of radio talk shows is not a major restriction on free speech?

I'm a conservative and care about free speech, you know. 

That's not what the fairness doctrine does, so now maybe you can provide the details.

How about if such a doctrine gave the opposing side equal time, in similar time slots in comparable markets? One side dominating an entire bandwidth is not balanced use of public airwaves.

John,

To give credit where it's due, I would say this website is very welcoming of poster's comments from all sides, so their tolerance for opposing opinions and points of view are on full display.

On the other hand, many posters from the left can't stand it, their tolerance level is nonexistent.

Tommy,

I think you doth protest too much!

Do you see me worried about it?  I wear the wrath and disguist from some of the posters here as a badge of honor, believe me........makes me know I am on the right track.

Tommy,

And you treat everyone who disagree's with you with respect and you never attack them, is that your stance?

I will answer your question when you pose the identical one to those in disagreement with me. 

Let me know when that happens.

Taking that as a "no".

Tommy,

You made the statements, I am asking you if you avoid doing what you accuse others of doing.

You told me I protest too much.  I made a generalized statement about intolerance among posters, I did not personally accuse anyone of anything, and if you disagree with that assessment, fine.

When you apply the same standards to all posters with the same request you have of me, specifically those that share your viewpoint, on their posting etiquette, then I will oblige your request.

As I said, let me know when that happens. 

Tommy,

I don't know what you mean now.  You said that many posters on the left are intolerant.

I'm simply asking you if you are tolerant of other posters.  It's a simple question to you, no-one else is involved.  You brought up the subject so you and I are having a conversation.

Why is this so difficult?

My opinion of my posts is obviously inherently biased, so you are free to read them all, along with the responses, and decide for yourself who is, and who isn't intolerant.  

I'd still like to hear your biased opinion!