More "politcal correctness/censorship" gone wild. What a crock of shit. Though I strongly
disagree with Buchannan on vast majority of issues, he's one of the few conservative commentators that I respect; a true intellectual.
Al Sharpton has an MSNBC show; how about firing him over the Tawana Brawley incident ?! ( & other outrages that some of you may remember, that I can't recall at the moment ).
-- Modified on 10/26/2011 10:12:23 AM
If you want to get rid of Al Sharpton from MSNBC, get a bunch of crackers together and do the same thing that black American advocacy group is doing! 
The idea of trying to ban people from the public forum is fairly new. It used to be, "If you don't like it, turn the channel or don't support it."
In fact, this is more likely to be the view of the conservatives. How often and who are there any other than fringe groups demanding Sharpton or Maddow or Schultz be taken off the air? In contrast, there was a movement to get Larry Elder off the air in Los Angeles a few years ago, and it was supported by a lot of community leaders.
In the old days no one demanded that Walter Winchell be taken off the air because they did not like his views. There was never a movement to remove any of the Hearst commentators.
The accepted view used to be that the "free market place of ideas" would play itself out and truth - or the best version - would convince.
What made the country great was not everyone gathering in their little groups to kick commentators off the air, further polarizing society.
What made the country great was people trying to convince, and if people didn't like it they had they power of censorship by changing their dial.
cable news, specifically cable news more for entertainment purposes vs. news and information purposes.
There is nothing inherent in cable that would make people demand censorship.
If anything, the increase in the number of sources just allows more people to have a say.
The fact that there is a entertainment factor doesn't change this.
At least you agree that what I described did exist before cable. That is the most important thing. The "American Way," the thing that made us great, in your words, was the fact that we didn't urge boycotts.
The new hideous trend is to boycott cities and states that have policies you don't like. I never remember that. We all used to be a country that allowed for different views. I never knew of a business to be boycotted because of the way the owner voted. (There were boycotts because of they way the business was run, such as segregated facilities, but never because of the fact that the non-discriminating hotel owner donated to a particular political organization.)
You say: "The fact that there is a entertainment factor doesn't change this." Wrong! It changes the nature of the whole thing! News is news! Entertainment is entertainment. I know perfectly well which I want, and when, and for that reason I never watch cable news.
Then you say: "At least you agree that what I described did exist before cable. That is the most important thing. The "American Way," the thing that made us great, in your words, was the fact that we didn't urge boycotts."
No, what I'm implying is, one thing that makes America great is that everyone can use any means of power at their disposal, within the law, to try and get their needs or demands met! They may succeed, and they may not, but at least they are exercising their freedom of speech.
Yes, or the colloquial "yup" is agreement.
I said, it was a recent development and before X it did not happen.
You say, "Yup, that was before ....."
That is an express agreement that "yes, it was like that before, then something [in your scenario, cable] happened."
Which was exactly what I was saying.
My primary position was this was new. The characterization of that was secondary. You didn't give a "you are partly right."
In fact, in the past, when you seem to think it was great, we did not use "any means" at their disposal. They did not urge taking people off the air for views they didn't like. THey did not urge boycotts of other states. Those were means at their disposal, but they were not used.
I think one of the things that made us great was that we didn't use "any means of power" at our disposal, but rather we moderated our behavior - NOT asking for boycotts or people to be removed.
Then you say: "At least you agree that what I described did exist before cable. That is the most important thing. The "American Way," the thing that made us great, in your words, was the fact that we didn't urge boycotts."
No, what I'm implying is, one thing that makes America great is that everyone can use any means of power at their disposal, within the law, to try and get their needs or demands met! They may succeed, and they may not, but at least they are exercising their freedom of speech.
I concede that what you said was true as applied to the dynamics at one's disposal used against a news organization, in the past (apple). However, though you don't accept my premise that cable news is no longer an apple, but rather an orange, I do not agree with any of your premises past that point.
End of discussion!
Yes. I am a lawyer, but I was rational before that.
I made a certain point, and you replied, "Yup, but..."
I said you were agreeing, and you said I was wrong in implying that you were agreeing.
I explained why it was agreement, and now you say that you did "concede that what you said was true ...in the past...."
I was talking about the past in ALL my posts. So, I mentioned the past, you agreed, denied you agreed, then concede you agree about the past.
If your premise applies that Fox or MSNBC isn't news, I think that is silly. The New York Times ALWAYS had commentary and satirical pieces. Most papers always had comics, entertainment, society.
No news services were ever "pure news," and none are now. To somenow say that CNN or Fox or MSNBC isn't "news" because it is cable is a pretty narrow restricton of "news," in a manner to which it was never limited before.
And now I get to say, "End of discussion."
PS. Who died and made me God where I can declare the end of speech?
Kind of silly to say, "That is it. Discussion ended."
End of discussion!
You'll find you're the only one there!
Reverse affirmative action has brought us to a place where the intellectually inept can affect which direction this country moves, and we're paying dearly for that failed policy. If only we were a true meritocracy from our inception, you'd be working in a coal mine instead of typing shit and clicking the send button.
disagree with Buchannan on vast majority of issues, he's one of the few conservative commentators that I respect; a true intellectual.
Al Sharpton has an MSNBC show; how about firing him over the Tawana Brawley incident ?! ( & other outrages that some of you may remember, that I can't recall at the moment ).
-- Modified on 10/26/2011 10:12:23 AM
I can't believe they want to fire Buchannan from MSNBC. Can't they even handle a dissenting voice on their own network. Faux Fuck News has panels with divergent views.
Of course, even calling Fox "Faux" or "Fuck" shows the degree of tolerance of dissent. Did you ever see anyone on this board call MSNBC "Crap" or "Cunt" News? I don't think so.
Nowhere in the article does it say MSNBC wants to fire Buchanan. In fact, there is no comment from the network in the article at all. All it says is this group is pressurng them to do it. I'd be surprised if MSNBC fires him. As repugnant as I find some of his views, which are not only anti-black at times but borderline anti-Semitic, Buchanan has been talking like this for years MSNBC knew exactly what they were getting with him. So saying they can't "handle a dissenting voice on their own network" is flat-out wrong. If they do actually fire him, I'll be as disgusted as you prematurely are at the moment.
PS: I got sick of MSNBC's predictable and biased left-wing coverage a long time ago. I don't watch either that network or its right-wing parody, Fox "News."
It isn't MSNBC that wants to fire him. It is their viewers who can't handle the dissenting voice.
The people who want him fired are an outside group I've never heard of, and who knows how many people they represent. I have no idea of how many MSNBC viewers have weighed in on this, and neither do you. So how do you know the viewers as a whole "can't handle a dissenting voice?" Most likely it is a tempest in a teapot. If the network feels he's bringing to the show what they expect him to, he'll continue.
who sponsored Glenn Beck's show. Seems like they had some effect.
The story is that Murdoch and Ailes got sick of him because he was too looney even for them. The last thing either of them would do is cave to Color of Change. But I guess if you're a righty it's good to have someone on the left to blame stuff on.
The group claims that they were able to put enough pressure on the sponsoring companies, that they dropped their sponsorships. Can't say if that's true or not. If it's true, in that business, money talks.
launching a campaign to get him disinvited from participating ABC's election night coverage a while back, and shitcanned from HuffPo later. There have been other campaigns in which they've been effective, and I don't suspect they'll be going away anytime soon. Priapus may have another group to whine about in his moronic lamentations of white man's hardship. Should be fun to watch.
...since his book was published. That's unusual because they always push the books of their contributors when they're published.
BTW, Phil, Morning Joe Scarborough is a true conservative Republican with a 3 hour daily show on MSNBC.
As for the divergent views of Fox News, the liberals and conservative commentators on Fox could be compared to pit bulls vs. French poodles. Take Michelle Malkin vs. Kirsten Powers. Guess which is which and who usually wins the argument in the minds of Fox viewers..
BP, I'll admit I don't watch Scarborough but the clips I've seen of him don't portray him as a true conservative. Sometimes he is and sometimes not. As to the Fox "house liberals," you are mostly right and should also include the spineless Alan Colmes in that crowd. Bob Beckel is usually better.
Oooooo, I'm so very very angry. They want an unapologetic racist off the air of a major cable news network. What about my goto scapegoat Al Sharpton? He said or possibly did some things that are just as bad (that I can't really remember right now). What about him??? Insolent negroes!
lol. Dude, you're a real dumbfuck.
But get used to me. I will be around for awhile.
PS: No one manipsmanates me! (who am I?)
PS: No one manipsmanates me! (who am I?)
He talks about African-American Democrats being "black pawns", while you support Al Sharpton who made anti-semitic remarks stirring up the Crown Heights race riots in NY in 1991. Just shows that racists come in all colors.
I previously mentioned the false rape allegations
of Tawana Brawley that Sharpton spread through the media in the late 80's; or did your Alzheimer's kick in & you forgot that one ?
Lemme guess------you have a swastika flag in your bedroom.
I have no urge to remove Sharpton from MSNBC, but you want Buchannan removed because his philosophical ideas are over your head, as are many other political concepts; but, Zorff, that's the perils of you being an uneducated, racist dumbfuck.
-- Modified on 10/27/2011 5:39:21 AM
I did call you a racebaiting POS though and there was a considerable amount of agreement with me.
I also exposed you as a coward and a weasel. Still trying to sell the wrong side of a longshot bet?
What a dope.
someone voted you to take a hiatus on a OP you initiated---whassa matter------can't live w/out this board ?
Lastly , I correctly ammended my above post to merely call you a racist------happy now ?----
-- Modified on 10/27/2011 5:41:30 AM
Can't go back and change what has already been written. If there is ANY doubt go back and check...it's still there.
I'm going to shove that in your fat stupid face forever Mr.NoHonor.
-- Modified on 10/27/2011 6:28:58 AM
you need to change the spelling on "amended" or else the self-appointed "Spelling Police" -- I think it is a buffet-lover from Vegas -- will be all over your ass!!!!! lol