Anyone for Ann Coulter as #1 on the list?

Now available in paperback!

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:48 am

Members of which party favor the Fairness Doctrine?

A member of which party said if it were up to him, Dr. Laura Schlessinger wouldn't have a radio show? Was it conservatives or liberals who bullied the sponsors and producers of her TV show into shutting it down?

Members of which party tried to do the same to Rush Limbaugh's show only to get seriously embarrassed?

Was it conservatives or liberals who silenced Los Angeles NOW president Tammy Bruce when she was about to publicly state what a despicable crime it was that O.J. Simpson ended up murdering the woman he had abused?

Is it conservatives or liberals who won't let the voters' voices be heard when they go to the courts to overturn/avoid democratically produced legislation?

Was it conservatives or liberals who tried every tactic to deter the likes of Starr and Tripp from revealing the true (lack of) character of Bill Clinton?

Members of which party have majority control of the mainstream media, and only report enough facts of each news story to get the viewer to come to their conclusion?

Members of which party will (justifiably) denounce Coulter when she steps out of line, but (hypocritically) don't see the need to tell Michael Moore to shut it when he says even nastier stuff?

Is it conservatives or liberals who reprimand schoolchildren for saying a prayer before having lunch?
Astral wrote:Sorry man, but I think you got that a bit backwards. The Conservatives are trying far harder than anyone else to be "thought police". If they had it their way, they'd be able to regulate what was on the internet.

Evidence seems to point to the contrary. But by all means keep up with the crazy accusations. :wink:
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby Tiffany » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:13 pm

Astral wrote:
Yea Ann is a bit nasty, she is digusted with politics and the lefties. I dont always agree with her comments, but she does have 1st ammendment rights. Those same rights that the left wants to stranglehold; those that they dont agree with.


Sorry man, but I think you got that a bit backwards. The Conservatives are trying far harder than anyone else to be "thought police". If they had it their way, they'd be able to regulate what was on the internet.

Example: The whole deal with those postings on HuffingtonPost.com. Even if some found the posts about Nancy Reagan offensive, freedom of speech should still allow for it. I'm not condoning those statements, but I'm just making the point that I see the right trying to control what people say or think FAR more than the liberals.


I think there's definitely another side you didn't consider.

The Left endorses "free speech zones" on college campuses (meaning the rest of the campus is one big non-free speech zone, right?) and fights for even more hate crime legislation, w/c, just a reminder, is the completely useless and redundant legislation that gives people different punishments for actions that were already illegal based on WHY they committed them. It doesn't get any more "thought police" than that.

And if you think it does, I'd love to hear an example.

And from where I'm sitting, if the left had it their way, some govt hack would be installing monitors in my house to ensure I'm not a homophobe.

And it's too bad really b/c the left just doesn't believe in anybody. It's like they think an unenlightened person lurks around every corner. :roll: I could never live my life with that kind of negative attitude.
"If it's drowning you're after, don't torment yourself with shallow water."
User avatar
Tiffany
Mod Team
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:34 am
Location: Indiana

Unread postby StrongBadJinzo » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:21 pm

Read Bernard's most recent book. He addresses why he left out Ann Coulter. He says she just makes him laugh. He said she isn't taken seriously enough to be on the list.
StrongBadJinzo
Media observer
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:43 pm

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:58 pm

Not that I expect Astral to stay around to eat cr...I mean, keep with the discussion, but:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25935
I'll say it again, the left OWNS hypocrisy.
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Unread postby Topher » Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:53 pm

There are people on both sides who want to silence those with opposing views. The left wants to prohibit speech that they regard as "hateful" while the right wants to restrict speech they think is "obscene."

I prefer to spew hateful obscenities just to annoy those on both sides. :D

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:11 pm

Topher wrote:There are people on both sides who want to silence those with opposing views. The left wants to prohibit speech that they regard as "hateful" while the right wants to restrict speech they think is "obscene."

The right doesn't hold a candle to the left when it comes to silencing speech, especially opposing speech.
In fact, except for the Reagan TV movie starring James Brolin, I have trouble coming up with examples of the right trying to somehow limit something being expressed by the left. (In my defense, I would've had a much easier time seeing it air on CBS if Reagan had been able to step up and defend himself--to throw that kind of bomb at a widely respected president who is completely incapacitated by Alzheimer's is mind-bogglingly disgusting.)

What else have the powers that be on the right done?
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Unread postby Topher » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:16 pm

Most of the actions of the right are to limit what they consider to be obscene, which is generally sexual content, most notably the Janet Jackson incident, but the clamping down on obscene language on television and radio is a direct result of pressure from the right.

The right does much less to restrict political content than the left, and the left restricts behavioral content less than the right.

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:31 pm

The FCC is responsible for the rules that name certain words or images off-limits. Are they really a conservative organization? Or do they answer to the right's demands more than the left's?

You lost me on the Super Bowl incident. It was denounced by all sorts of people, not just conservatives. (Although the handful of people who didn't mind it were largely liberal or independant, without kids watching the show.)
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Unread postby Topher » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:47 pm

Right now, yeah, they are.

The FCC has five commissioners. Three are Republicans, two are Democrats. (Under a Democrat president, three will be Democrats.) As such, they are much more willing to listen to the right than to the left.

And the Super Bowl incident was just stupid. It was on screen for less than a second, and there was a huge "thing" covering her nipple anyway. I can't imagine anyone being traumatized by that--if someone was, they need serious psychological help.

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby ScottT » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:15 pm

Topher wrote:Most of the actions of the right are to limit what they consider to be obscene, which is generally sexual content, most notably the Janet Jackson incident, but the clamping down on obscene language on television and radio is a direct result of pressure from the right.

The right does much less to restrict political content than the left, and the left restricts behavioral content less than the right.

Topher



Actually, the right does NOTHING to limit or restrict political speech by the left. Absolutely nothing. That is 100% strictly a leftist agenda. The oft-used blanket cop-out of "both-sides-are-guilty" does not apply one iota.

The right will express outrage & disgust. They will expose the speech they deem offensive & propogandist in nature, and will use their own forums to refute or debunk it. Often times very aggressively.

But "limit" it?

Nope. The left OWNS that agenda. ALL of it.
ScottT
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:03 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:22 pm

Actually, the right does NOTHING to limit or restrict political speech by the left. Absolutely nothing. That is 100% strictly a leftist agenda. The oft-used blanket cop-out of "both-sides-are-guilty" does not apply one iota.


Scott, I'd have to take issue with that.

McCain-Feingold.

However they couched their intentions, the net result of the bill is a de factor and de jure restriction on political free speech. There may well be positive effects of the law- what they are I couldn't say- but that fact is completely overshadowed by the (what should be) unconsitutional muzzling the law mandates.

Now, if you want to argue that McCain is not representative of the Right, I'll not quibble with that much, if at all. If this is the sort of 'raching across the aisle' that we can expect from a President John McCain, then we can hope that his actions do us no real lasting damage.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby Topher » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:44 pm

ScottT wrote:Actually, the right does NOTHING to limit or restrict political speech by the left. Absolutely nothing. That is 100% strictly a leftist agenda. The oft-used blanket cop-out of "both-sides-are-guilty" does not apply one iota.

The right will express outrage & disgust. They will expose the speech they deem offensive & propogandist in nature, and will use their own forums to refute or debunk it. Often times very aggressively.

But "limit" it?

Nope. The left OWNS that agenda. ALL of it.


I'll argue that all speech is political speech, so it all needs to be protected. The right wants to regulate behavior, so in regulating depictions of that behavior they chip away at the behavior itself. Many on the right want to restrict sexual behavior, most notably homosexual behavior, but some extremists would like to punish adulterers and those who have sexual relations outside of wedlock as well. They often argue that showing violent or sexual content on television encourages that behavior, so they want that controlled. (Some on the left--Tipper Gore--have wanted the same thing.)

Regulating exposure to certain types of information will, in effect, limit the numbers of people using that information. If the only information a gay teenager gets about homosexuality is that it is an abomination, the odds are that they will repress those feelings to stay accepted in his family and community--which is probably what his family and community want, but which is likely psychologically damaging to the teenager.

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby ScottT » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:28 pm

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:
Actually, the right does NOTHING to limit or restrict political speech by the left. Absolutely nothing. That is 100% strictly a leftist agenda. The oft-used blanket cop-out of "both-sides-are-guilty" does not apply one iota.


Scott, I'd have to take issue with that.

McCain-Feingold.

However they couched their intentions, the net result of the bill is a de factor and de jure restriction on political free speech. There may well be positive effects of the law- what they are I couldn't say- but that fact is completely overshadowed by the (what should be) unconsitutional muzzling the law mandates.

Now, if you want to argue that McCain is not representative of the Right, I'll not quibble with that much, if at all. If this is the sort of 'raching across the aisle' that we can expect from a President John McCain, then we can hope that his actions do us no real lasting damage.



McCain-Feingold is one of a number of glittering "exhibits" of why so many conservatives did not want to have to vote for Senator McCain in a general election.

And in actuality, it DOES in fact serve as prime example of why the left owns the agenda of political speech restriction........because conservatives everywhere were outraged that a any Republican (let alone one who claims to have been part of the "Reagan Coalition") would support such a bill (and the president signing it with the expectation that the Supreme Court would shoot it down is exhibit #A of the importance of keeping activists off the bench).

The left? They're just FINE with it. You don't hear Alan Colmes, Ed Schultz, Bill Press, David Corn, or Frank Rich complaining about McCain-Feingold. Neither do you hear any of the liberal icons in our congress complaining about it, either.

That's because they DO own the issue.
ScottT
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:03 pm

Re: Anyone for Ann Coulter as #1 on the list?

Unread postby MikeInConnecticut » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Ann needs to be on the list, for sure. What she said about the wives of the men killed in the WTC attack of 9/11 is about as insensitive as it gets!
MikeInConnecticut
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:13 pm

Re: Anyone for Ann Coulter as #1 on the list?

Unread postby steve1633 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:09 pm

how about the protest cages at the RNC this year? Or the massive group arrests of peaceful protestors at the same RNC? Once again the truth is that both sides (which is of course the single side of mainstream politics) work to limit political speech and expression to a narrow mainstream pool of ideas.
Just remember, CWNelson is crazy and you don't have to buy any of his bibles. Hopefully if we ignore him he will go knock on another door.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to 110 People who are Screwing up America... and Al Franken is number 37!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron