RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice"

RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Ok, I guess were talking about Jane Fonda? Actually, we were talking about an attack on free-speech but I've enjoyed the flow of this thread.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:48:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: xssve In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut". Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk. Peace and comfort, Michael I'll call North a good marine. He sacrificed himself to save his commander. It was the figurative 'dive on a grenade to save your squadmates'.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:49:34 PM)
quote: let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut" Ring a bell? quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr she committed the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I'm not sure about "comfort" *although, I'd wager she fucked a few of 'em just to prove what a humanitarian she is* but, propagandizing is certainly giving aid. Michael True, you never specifically said "slut." Seriously, Dude.

xssve -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: xssve In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut". Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk. Peace and comfort, Michael Doesn't matter, as I said, as denouncements go, it was much more lukewarm and heavily qualified than passionate.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: xssve In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut". Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk. Peace and comfort, Michael Doesn't matter, as I said, as denouncements go, it was much more lukewarm and heavily qualified than passionate. This really bothers me, Farmer xssve. We're done here, "sir". Michael

xssve -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:58:48 PM)
Well it's pretty much what I said, isn't it?

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: xssve In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut". Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk. Peace and comfort, Michael I'll call North a good marine. He sacrificed himself to save his commander. It was the figurative 'dive on a grenade to save your squadmates'. Yeah, that's what I meant and I explained it (long form) already but the farmers are out, in force, today; putting words in my mouth, purposely mis-understanding and reading my mind. Anyway ... The fact that the 1st amendment is guaranteed to come under attack because of the nature of what it is is a given. It's almost like the controversy is built right in. What I don't understand is how someone can claim to be for freedom of speech while looking to silence someone else. It boggles my mind. I fully expected that palin, Maher to "defend" Rush. In one way, he kind of has to. Like it or not, he's becoming something of an unofficial "spokesperson" for the DNC and his and Rush's fortunes are closely tied together in that regard. I'm shocked at other people who depend upon freedom of speech to advance their own agenda, though and can't seem to understand that discourse is one of the first steps to change. Peace and comfort, Michael

SternSkipper -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 1:59:05 PM)
quote: quote: I think Gen./Sec. Powell blew a chance to enter the history books No, he made a choice not to. Right on! And I saw him say as much in a 60 Minutes interview. It wasn't about blowing anything. And yeah, he had a fair chance of winning. Though many think that 2k was his real window as opposed to 09

xssve -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 2:07:51 PM)
George H. could have practically walked into Iran back in the early Nineties, they had been bled White during the war with Iraq - towards the end, Iranian religious leaders were running out of soldiers, and were justifying sending women into combat because "their brains are smaller", which seems to be a common refrain for them.

hlen5 -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 2:41:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam IMO, Powell would have been a great one. I wanted Powell/Keyes just to "balance the ticket" in certain ways to try and insure a win. Forgetting the bottom of the ticket, I think Gen./Sec. Powell blew a chance to enter the history books instead of the current POTUS. I think Gen./Sec. Powell would have won with something like 70% of the vote. I mean that. I think it would have been the landslide to end all landslides. When I realized that he wasn't just playing coy and really wasn't going to run, I was very disappointed. ETA: Hell, I would have volunteered my time to help get him elected; something I haven't done since Reagan '80 Peace and comfort, Michael I think Powell decided to leave when he realized Bush II shot him in the back with that "yellow-cake uranium" BS. He used up Powell's credibility. I don't believe the Bush II administration believed the WMD snake-oil they were selling. But back to whether or not Rush should be on the air.... if he can't get enough sponsors to stay on the air, I'll feel so sad. NOT!!

Fightdirecto -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 2:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr The fact that the 1st amendment is guaranteed to come under attack because of the nature of what it is is a given. It's almost like the controversy is built right in. What I don't understand is how someone can claim to be for freedom of speech while looking to silence someone else. It boggles my mind... I'm shocked at other people who depend upon freedom of speech to advance their own agenda, though and can't seem to understand that discourse is one of the first steps to change. Peace and comfort, Michael Getting away from "Chickenhawk" Limbaugh for a moment, actor and Religious Rightist Kirk Cameron is a good example of this. He goes on TV and attacks gays, saying he has a 1st Amendment right to speak his mind on the subject in a public forum... And then complains about "hate speech" when others use their 1st Amendment right to criticize what he said in a public forum... He seems to believe that he has a 1st Amendment right to say what he wishes - and everyone else only has a 1st Amendment right to agree with him...

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 3:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Getting away from "Chickenhawk" Limbaugh for a moment, actor and Religious Rightist Kirk Cameron is a good example of this. He goes on TV and attacks gays, saying he has a 1st Amendment right to speak his mind on the subject in a public forum... And then complains about "hate speech" when others use their 1st Amendment right to criticize what he said in a public forum... He seems to believe that he has a 1st Amendment right to say what he wishes - and everyone else only has a 1st Amendment right to agree with him... I haven't kept up with that in any way, shape or form. I think I saw a headline on Yahoo one day but, once it's "X involved in anti-gay (anything)" I can't even be asked to bother looking. And with that guy, especially, people (I would think) have already dismissed his bias as being from a fundementalist Christian point of view. How Fundementalist Christians feel about homosexuality hasn't been a secret since ... well ... a damned long time. Having said that, I am not sure what he's said or hasn't so I can only comment on your characterization. If that's what he's done, then he's one of the enemies of the 1st amendment that I am speaking out about. Peace and comfort, Michael

Musicmystery -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 3:00:17 PM)
quote: Powell decided to leave when he realized Bush II shot him in the back with that "yellow-cake uranium" BS. The Bush Administration marginalized him from the start. He was a fantastic choice for that job, but they treated him as the token n-word.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 3:11:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 But back to whether or not Rush should be on the air.... if he can't get enough sponsors to stay on the air, I'll feel so sad. NOT!! Actually, I would feel sad but not for the reason many would like to think. I have said, many times, that in order to effect real and meaningful change many different angles of a view point need to be brought to light and examined. I'll give an example? Many years ago, when I was writing on a regular basis, I was out and about, in my car listening to the radio (it might have even been Rush, back then but, this was during a news break) and I heard a story that was teased as: "Al Sharpton Opposes Guiliani's Stance on the KKK" then, they went to commercial. When the news presenter came back, he went on to explain that Mayor Guiliani had approved a permit for the KKK to march in NYC as he was, pretty much, required to do. The fly in the ointment was; Mayor Guiliani had written in a caveat that they had to march without their hoods. Obviously, the KKK objected. It was Rev. Sharpton who insisted that they should be allowed to wear what was their "standard uniform" and by not allowing them to do so, it was an infringement on their rights. He went on to call them cowards for having to hide their faces in the first place and said something like: "I will be doing something else that day. I encourage people to join me and ignore the KKK" or words to that effect. As I am about to do now, I applauded Rev. Sharpton for defending free speech and I excoriated Mayor Guiliani for being the lesser of the two degrees of "coward" in that particular fray but a coward, none-the-less. Rev. Sharpton, to me, in that small moment of time, showed that he understood what the principle of the 1st amendment was all about. He was brave, considering that there must have been some back-lash in the black community and I said so in just that way. Now, when I hear a "headline" that involves Rev. Sharpton, I'm not so quick to tune out and dismiss him as the guy that backed a false accusation, all those years ago. Because there was a public discourse, my opinion was changed. Peace and comfort, Michael

Owner59 -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/14/2012 4:23:41 PM)
It`s you cons that are making a real stupid mistake on rush`s part into a left/right culture war narrative......and pushing this thing farther than it would otherwise go.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/15/2012 6:45:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess FR I don't like Rush's message, but I do believe in the First Amendment which protects his right to say what he wants to say. What the First Amendment does NOT protect is someone's right to say whatever they want to say on the radio. SCOTUS upheld that the 'right' goes to the individual to speak and to listen via radio in stating that individuals are not 'carriers'. Carriers are restricted in certain aspects and there are differing levels for 1st protection. Individuals are not held to those differing standards and are protected in any media and on the Internet. The 1st is still there for carriers, just at (3) differing levels. "In CBS, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, for example, the Court examined the legislative history of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 and found that Congress “firmly … rejected the argument that the broadcast facilities should be open on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues.” It found great significance in the act’s command that a person “engaged in radio broadcasting shall not … be deemed a common carrier.” (my bold) Here is the standard for a common carrier: "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage." Broadcast radio is limited in the protection offered by the 1st but talking heads are not as it is considered personal preference rather than policy of the broadcasting station. Examples: A telemarketer calls you on the phone and goes into the spiel.. he is then acting as an agent of policy and not as an individual so his 1st protections are at a differing level and must adhere to the Communications Act of 1934. Unscripted talk shows would not be an 'agent of policy', radio commercials would be an agent of policy. Being a guest on David Letterman - not an agent of policy, trying to sell advertising for David Letterman.. agent of policy. Your statement has some merit when it comes to agents of policy.. you can't just say anything you want without violation. Rush doesn't fall under the same level of scrutiny in 1st protection as far as SCOTUS though. Thanks for this. I thought that radio broadcasts are still subject to obscenity laws, and that kind of thing (which presumably would affect any given show) - or is that just no longer the case?

xssve -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/15/2012 7:22:39 AM)
Obscenity is still defined by the Miller test - if the audience doesn't find it obscene, it isn't. And calling liberals a bunch of sluts isn't obscene to Rush's audience, denouncing and demeaning liberals in any way he can think of is pretty much what the show consists of in it's entirety. He's been going on like this for over 20 years now, though it's usually stupid commie, elitist feminazis, etc., but the slut thing has been a regular feature. Dr. Laura carried the torch on that one for the most part, Rush mostly engaged in reinforcement by inference, there was a bit of a tag team thing going on between clear Channel and Fox, Hannity, Coulter, etc., I suspect AEI is the architect that keeps the rhetoric consistent, Murray, De Souza, etc., most of this stuff is consistent with AEI agitprop.

xssve -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/15/2012 7:29:43 AM)
Right after the mortgage debacle, AEI started the "Black people did it" meme, and it appeared almost simultaneously across the entire spectrum of conservative media in less than 24 hours.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/15/2012 10:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Thanks for this. I thought that radio broadcasts are still subject to obscenity laws, and that kind of thing (which presumably would affect any given show) - or is that just no longer the case? Yes. They are bound by obscenity laws but, there's a couple of loopholes, there. There's a "community standards" thing that some people accept as a measuring stick and some people don't. The FCC sometimes does. Even based on CS, the word "slut" isn't really considered obscene. It's not nice but, it's not specifically a sexual word, per se. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: The Unholy Trio Demand "Justice" (3/15/2012 10:39:17 AM)
basically the only thing that the FCC could do about the obscenity thing is put him on a night show, not prime or daylight (the children, you know). That's about the limit of their power.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02