Skip to main content

View Diary: Rip Up Their F@#king Cartoon Reality One KSFO at a Time (232 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This Is Ridiculous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, NYFM, thirtyplus

    Out of one side of your mouth, you claim these radio stations have no listeners, out of the other, you grant them the magical power to sway minds. If no one is listening, how can they be swayed?

    And KSFO influencing anything? In the Bay Area, where Bush polled what, 20 something percent against Kerry?

    Rush Limbaugh has decent ratings in Boston on WRKO. How many Republicans are serving in Congress in that area now? Or in Portland, Seattle, near DC, the Tri-State area?

    However coordinated and contrived talk radio is, ultimately, reality trumps all. For all the gum-flapping about the power of the mystical Wurlitzer,  Die Partei Republikkanische was destroyed in 2006.

    I think that (not unlike your alleged enemies on the Right), too many people here really believe that their opponents should be shut down by any means necessary. Even if that means that Melanie Morgan's or Dennis Prager's or Limbaugh's staffs lose their livelyhoods.

    That is censorship. It is not "live and let live", it is not America. If you don't like what's on a radio station, turn it off or change the dial, period.

    •  FIRE! KILL! DESTROY! MAME! TORTURE! (33+ / 0-)

      Things free speech does not protect. The KSFO debacle is about hate speech. Let them be, if they stop talking about targets and killing people. I'm all for letting racist pigs stand on the street corner and say they're superior, but when they start espousing genocide, well...

      Furthermore, as you well know, trying to argue with a FAUX news viewer is, well, impossible, because they're brainwashed about REALITY. We have to agree on semantics before we can debate. When they believe god created the world 5000 years ago, you can't convince them otherwise. When they believe global warming is just a blip in the stats, how can you argue with them? Their minds have been made up already.

      As Bill Clinton put it, it's the difference between ideology and philosophy. We need shows that espouse our philosophy. But we ALSO need to attack their hateful ideology. We can't just say live and let live to someone who wants to kill us.

      •  Like Fire in a Crowded Theatre? (0+ / 0-)

        Hardly.

        And why would you waste your time arguing with a ditto-bot, they're hopeless.

        I got Media Matters missive on this and laid into them.  Melanie Morgan is an idiot and a fraud and if you can't figure that out by her verbal spew, you're probably likely to be bamboozled by someone else. But as long as she abides by FCC regs, so what? If I can't stand her idiocy and it raises my BP, off she goes. Life is too short to bother with such pestery.

        If KSFO is shut down by running to their advertisers and screaming bloody murder, what's to stop SF RW nutcases from doing the same to KQKE or to KGO's overnights?

        •  The question is HATE (26+ / 0-)

          These people are telling ditto bots to kill liberals. It's hate speech, and it ain't protected, dude.

          They want to run and cry that some liberal is being mean to them, fine, but I don't see any left leaning advertisers pulling ads because Al Franken pointed out that there were no WMD. It's about reality vs. violence. It's about the fact that if you argue with a ditto bot in public, other people get to hear what ranting lunatics they are by comparison to the non bot. But when they have the air to themselves, to mass communicate with their violent fans, then they are incinting violence, and it is our duty to point that out to the authorities, the stations, and the advertisers.

          Finally, it is a question of FCC regs. I agree with you there. If she is abiding, the yes, so what?

          But there is a tactical question at work here. The wing nuts do attack us all the time. This is just some fighting back that is overdue, IMHO.

          Did you disagree with the attempts to stop ABC from LYING about Clinton's responsibility in 911?

        •  No First Amendment issue (12+ / 0-)

          The First Amendment protects against governmental action, not private action.

        •  Free speech in a free market... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snakelass, shaharazade, Allogenes

          ... entails letting speakers, stations and advertisers know exactly what you think and want to hear more of.  

          I don't want them taken off the air because of their opinions.  But if the vast majority of people in a market decide that they don't want to listen (and let the broadcasters know that they don't want to listen) why should they be forced to continue to have to have that pap broadcast on their airwaves?

          "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

          by gsbadj on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 05:04:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But it's not a free market (2+ / 0-)

            Okay, it's been a looong time since I took an undergrand class on this, but as I recall, the whole point of TV and radio regulation is that the broadcast market is NOT a free market.

            Basically, there is a limited amount of broadcast - waddyacall it? Bandwith?  Air space?  Whatever, there is only so much of it. Or only so much of it that consumers can acces for free, anyway.  Therefore, the government needs to regulate it, because it's a limited resource that can't really function as a free market.  (There used to be some "equal time" doctrine that Reagan got rid of that had to do with this too.)

            I don't remember the details, but I do recall very specifically my professor explaining that talking on the street corner or distributing printed matter was not regulated the same way because there is, in theory, enough street corners and enough ink and paper for everyone to "compete" in a free market of ideas, but broadcast is somehow different because there is only so much airspace to go around.

            Someone who knows more, please jump in.

            It is no worse, because I write of it. It would be no better, if I stopped my most unwilling hand.

            by ChaosMouse on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:32:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Johnny- (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          supak, rhetoricus, shaharazade

          You have your own show on KTLK - if your advertisers felt that having their spots run on your show was a detriment to the consumer's perception of their product, doesn't the sponsor have the right to pull it's advertising?

          THAT is the complete picture - Melanie Morgan and any other host of any show run on commerical radio and TV can say whatever they like, but don't expect a sponsor to pay you for saying things that the sponsor finds offensive.

          Remember - the sponsors pulled ads because of listening to the actual, unedited audio files from the shows, and the advertisers were offended. I'm sure people can send audio clips to sponsors on KGO, KQKE, or KTLK, but I don't think you will find the same reaction from the advertisers.  These people are just finding out that sometimes accountability is rough.

          "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

          by Rico on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:19:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It doesn't actually matter. . . (27+ / 0-)

      . . . too much how many people are "listening" to them.

      It matters that (for the most part) there isn't anything else.

      This creates a  dispiriting atmosphere where our casual citizens are led to believe that "everyone" is listening to, and believing, this crap.

      The idea is to neutralize moderates and liberals through aggressive propaganda - thereby moving the Overton window so far that the unthinkable becomes acceptable.

      And, to completely leap past Godwin: How many everyday Germans really thought Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread? And how many thought, "Well the National Socialists are better than those ineffective people we had before, and all that stuff about the Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, etc., well, those aren't my favorite people either, and we  won't actually do anything to them, right? And I don't hear anyone else complaining, so there's no point in my saying anything. . ."

      So, it's OK to tell people to "change the dial" to another radio station - but only if there are other radio stations, and lots of them. The airwaves are public property, and it's our duty as citizens to make sure that they're not taken over by extremist propaganda. The alternative is chilling to think of.

      The "everywhere" that flattery will get you is a stark and terrible place. - James Ernest

      by Robespierrette on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:08:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In England it's known as (11+ / 0-)

        the "Daily Mail effect". Polls show that the majority of Daily Mail readers consider themselves to the left of the Mail's editorial stance, but they think all the other Mail readers are in line with it. So they think they're in a minority, and keep their mouths shut.

        Meanwhile the right, who actually are in a minority in trivial terms of "number of voters", are persuaded, by this injection of profit-losing cash, to believe they are the voice of the people, and talk themselves up loud and obnoxious, which multiplies the effect throughout the country. Money well spent, as far as the corporations are concerned.

        •  Corporations...money well spent. (0+ / 0-)

          ...nothing could be further from the truth. Corporate America is about profits and getting high marks on the measurement scale..."share-price". Any bad or negative or even potentially negative issues impacting investors desire to buy shares is quickly addressed by the vast majority of profit motivated companies. This is potentially our greatest weapon against the insideous practice of right-wing tactics to create fear in the american public. Fear of terror, fear of speaking out against the criminal govt policies subjected on us. Most of these radio and television radical right wing publicity talking heads are supported by publically traded companies advertising. More than half the voters are against this administration. We must bring them to action against these fear/hate machines using the publics airwaves.

          Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

          by kalihikane on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:49:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your post is ridiculous (9+ / 0-)

      It is called the free market, and in the marketplace of ideas, there will hopefully be no room for ideas that you apparently like quite well.

      I hope Melanie Morgan, Dennis Prager, and Linmbaugh lose their staffs etc.....

      Free market can be a bitch, no?

       

      •  You hope... (0+ / 0-)

        That people that earn ten bucks an hour lose their jobs because you dislike their bosses politics?

        How do you know what "ideas I like"?

        I like the idea that I can make up my own mind and don't need babysitters on the left or right dictating to me what I should or shouldn't listen to.

        Do you really believe that shutting down Melanie Morgan or anyone else like her is going to magically eliminate irrational right-wing lunacy? If it's "preaching to the choir", someone else got to the choir long before Melanie did, or maybe they're just wired that way.

        That you'd want working people to be unemployed because of their perceived ideology is sick--no different than the righties that fire employees for having Kerry stickers on their cars.

        •  They will find other jobs (11+ / 0-)

          The station can hire other hosts who will still need employees.

          It is way past time taking grief from the wingers without responding.

        •  GMAFB (23+ / 0-)

          That you'd want working people to be unemployed because of their perceived ideology is sick

          Utter. buncha. crap.

          So, in order to be an okay person, I must not speak my mind freely on an issue I consider to be very important?  Or at least, not if it includes any kind of communication to advertisers who, at their own choice will discontinue or continue their advertising?  If I do exercise my right to self expression in these ways, it must be because I want people to be unemployed?

          What planet is that bullshit from?

          What was that old thing about free markets working best when information flows freely?  So it's somehow wrong for anyone to communicate any concerns to a company -- wrong to flow some potentially relevant information their way?

          Let me turn it around.  Is it therefore always right to either 1) simply shut up, or 2) cheerlead incitement to violence?

          You are of course welcome to your opinion, and welcome to share it with anyone.  

          Guess what? SO IS EVERYONE ELSE.

          Including, yes, the yoyos at KSFO, within the limits set by a couple of centuries of case law.

          Go ahead.  Be sick if you need to be.

          It's time to get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to win the oil endgame.

          by by foot on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:35:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sure, let 'em all keep their jobs (22+ / 0-)

          the Klan members and the abortion clinic blockers and those who spit on gays and who mock the funerals of dead soldiers, and all the rest who enable and encourage and finance the denigration and destruction of all that is decent in America.  We wouldn't want them to endure any hardship as a consequence of the ideas that they thrust upon our society.  We wouldn't want there to be any accountability, just because they're filled with hate and are proud to support the outlets that spread it.

          So let me ask you a question.  If there are two coffee shops in a town you're visiting, and one has a Peace Sign in the window and the other has a Nazi swastika, at which one do you buy your coffee?  Do you give them equal amounts of your business, switching between them each day?  No??  How dare you!  Don't you know that your "ideological" choice could cost someone his job?

          Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

          by dnta on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:14:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Simply. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't care what their ideology is as long as it doesn't advocate coming after me and stringing me up because I am a "liberal."  If that is their ideolgy then hell yes I want them off the air and digging ditches for a living.  Ok?

          •  What if they are only after gays? (0+ / 0-)

            Would that constitute grounds for refusing to patronize them?

            •  I don't need "grounds" for personally (0+ / 0-)

              "refusing to patronize" anything.  

              However, to answer your question as I perceive it. Personally, I would not "patronize" any talk show or program that talks incessantly about painting bull's eyes on people (including gays), or regularly dehumanizes them into targets for destruction.  

              I understand that it is hard for human beings to resist such talk especially about those they hate or whose actions they deplore. But seeing how destructive it can be when blasted continuiously over the air waves (think Rawanda), I am glad of any constitutional means of limiting it as much as possible.  

              The actions of Spocko and of the advertisers are in no way counter to the constitution since advertisers have a perfect right to advertise or not for any reason and Spocko has a perfect right to apprise the advertisers of what their advertising dollars appear to support.

              Given all that and the fact that I, as a liberal, feel particularly threatened, I say, hurrah, go get em Spocko! Meaning go get em in a perfectly legal, non-lethal, civilized and yet effective manner.  Yep.

    •  Not "by any means necessary" (20+ / 0-)

      "Any means necessary" includes a bunch of stuff that is covered in the criminal codes, and which would be both Wrong and Unproductive.

      Disney flogs its brand to advertisers as an uncontroversial, family-friendly place to hawk their stuff, while part of their network promotes the murder of public figures on the airwaves.  TAdvertisers who thought they were getting boy bands and The Little Mermaid instead got gleeful descriptions of black men having 50,000 volts applied to their testicles associated with their names.  Advertisers don't like that;  some for reasons of conscience and some for fear of boycott.  

      As for freedom of speech, it was Disney that demanded Spocko remove clips from their show posted in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine, plus reproductions of the letters that he wrote to advertisers.  It's Disney censoring and Disney threatening.

    •  Well, Johnny, what did you say to Melanie... (18+ / 0-)

      ...when she was trying to convince theaters not to show Fahrenheit 9/11?  No doubt you spun a most convincing sob story of the dozens or hundreds who would lose their jobs if Michael Moore was not allowed to show his movie and sell as many DVDs as possible, right?

      For that matter, what about Spocko's rights?  Melanie's masters have EFFECTIVELY denied him his 1st Amendment rights, by convincing his ISP to shut down his Web site.  Or does he not have any free expression rights worth protecting?

      You are defending an utterly disgusting person who has done much the same things you accuse us of doing.  Why are you unwilling for Melanie Morgan to get a taste of her own medicine?

    •  actually, no it's not censorship (16+ / 0-)

      the advertisers are simply being advised what the true nature of the messages they are paying for. If they want to advertise on a station that has a host telling caller he must say "Allah is a wh&*e", they can do that if they want.

      What is being endorsed here is an informed marketplace.

      If you are in favor of hate speech, I suggest you send them a donation or patronize their advertisers.

      Keep it Lit.
      Mike Malloy is on the Quake, KPHX and on Nova M Radio

      by shpilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:37:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rightwing vs Insane Rightwing (19+ / 0-)

      First, to the extent that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are what they seem to be: great. Good for them. I just wish the Democrats and progressives had a better media machine.

      Second, to me, it looks as if, to some extent, the "success" of the rightwing media machine and the nature of its message has a lot to do with creepy secret flows of payola and creepy efforts to suppress voices on the liberal side. To the extent that that stuff is illegal and/or unethical and can, at least, be exposed, I would like it exposed. If that costs jobs, sobeit.

      Third, the talk show hosts at the center of the current controversy here have repeatedly, consistently been saying truly insane things while employed as talking heads for an arm of the Disney corporation. It doesn't sound to me as if Spocko is talking about the kinds of unfortunate slips of the tongue that can happen to anyone or the kind of stuff that Limbaugh would normally say. And Spocko wasn't using any mechanisms of government to shut them down. He was simply warning the advertisers what these people were actually saying. Then DISNEY was the one that used a mechanism of government (a lawsuit) to shut down Spocko's blog. If Disney is absolutist enough about freedom of expression to want the right to employ modern Nazis as talk show hosts, why isn't it allowing Spocko enough ability to make fair use of its programming to make his case?

      Fourth: I've often posted here that I believe that the rightwing hosts and networks and even political parties would, essentially, go dark if all the closeted progressives working for them walked away.

      If you or normal people you know are really making $10 an hour working in the media for genuinely awful people -- not simply conservatives, but people who repeatedly, intentionally say brutal, neofascist/plain old fascist things such as, "It's wonderful to think about what awful things will be happening to liberals now" or, "All liberals ought to be shot," or "Members of Congress who voted for bill X should be shot and killed on sight" -- wouldn't it be better to go work at McDonald's or go work at Wal-Mart? Or just go work for some normal conservative organization?

      I'm not thrilled with the Republican National Committee, for example, but it doesn't go around saying liberals should be shot. The governor of California is a Republican, and he seems to be a polite, upbeat guy. And, of course, there are all sorts of corporate organizations that support icky positions but aren't out there openly, aggressively promoting Fascism Lite. If you really have to sell your soul to feed the kids, why not just work for regular propagandists who say that global warming is good for the flowers, rather than creeps who go on air every day and call for progressives to be shot?

      Finally, I'm sure the defeat of Nazi Germany led to layoffs of many nice file clerks who were using their earnings from being filing clerks for the Nazis to support large broods of grandparents, children and grandchildren. But that kind of unemployment was an extremely necessary thing, and not particularly evil.

      To extent that KSFO is employing people to promote genuinely brutal, violent, neofascist or fascist views, any unemployment that results is a similarly extremely necessary thing.

      This is about Rwanda. We like to think that Rwanda can't happen here because we're rich North American people and Rwandans were poor African people. But Rwanda can happen here. The more extreme KSFO hosts might be saying what they say simply because it helps them get decent ratings and keep their jobs, but, if there's some way to use private means, rather than government censorship, to prevent people from laying the groundwork for an American Rwanda, or Yugoslavia disintegration, we ought to be doing that.

      And, if you Google me, you'll find that I repeatedly object here when I notice people saying particularly rude things about conservatives and Republicans. To the extent that any liberal talk show hosts are saying, repeatedly and sincerely, and not in an occasional stupid, tasteless remark, that Republicans and/or conservatives ought to be shot or otherwise physically mistreated, I object to that sort of thing just as much as I do if that sort of thing comes from the right.

      •  Thanks for mentioning Rwanda (0+ / 0-)

        This is a possibility people really resist, but the groundwork is laid every day with these violent, divisive shills. AND I THINK IT'S THEIR INTENION.

        Our own civil war war bloodier than any other war we've fought (I think bloodier than the rest combined), and I wonder if the rhetoric then was much worse than it is now.

        Our president already has no fears of Congress, the Constitution, the rule of law, or his critics. What do you think would happen if we tried to impeach and he said "This is all the work of anti-American liberals. Know any? Patriotic Americans, this is a call to you. Take out a liberal whenever possible." What do you think would happen then?

        The media shills would be the first in line to promote this travesty.

        The GOP IS Daffy: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --Bill in ME

        by rhetoricus on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:50:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh sob, limbaugh's staff might lose their job (7+ / 0-)

      oh, excuse me, that was "livelyhoods."

      How many tears did you shed over liberals or progressives losing their livelihood to the wingnut takeover of our airwaves and media?

      Does it bother you that some people would actually like to listen to some quality programming on our national airwaves and it's a no-man's land out there?  Death Valley. It's as dry as a bone and mind-numbingly boring.

      No, I don't like what's on the radio. And the only dial I'm going to "change" is the one that has complete control of our airwaves. Damn straight we're going to work on freedom for our airwaves.

      "Live and let live?" Their hatred has inflamed our nation.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 03:47:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I refer you to Fascism 101 (10+ / 0-)

      In case this doesn't attach to the right comment, this is to Johnny Wendell's post dismissing the necessity for action against right-wing funded, coordinated and targeted hate-speech

      I understand concerns about free speech, but this is a different animal. Right-wing radio is coordinated ideology being funded outside of commercial considerations, for political purpose.

      Propaganda is a basic requirement for the dissemination of rhetorical hatred required for power-mad politicos to hand society over to the thugs among us. Yes it sounds incredible. It is also unbelievable and incredible that so much of Europe, then the most civilized nations on earth, could have been reduced to fascism. Hard to believe. You can read about it. Especially pay attention to a man named Joseph Goebbels.

      Of course there were many of that time who didn't bother countering the propaganda--but how many would speak out AGAINST countering the hate, as you just did? Why in 2007 would you nay say an effort to confront hate radio in our own country?

      Did you miss the right-wing takeover? Maybe you are you unaware that the right-wing media had much to do with installing a Dictator in the presidency who is escalating a war in hopes of it "catching fire" again with the American people. And that those flames will be fanned by the right-wing media, if it is not countered.

      I'll tell you this, if it is censorship to stop a frothing anti-Semite to demonize Jews, then we need another word. Your use of censorship implies that the politically purposed propaganda should get a free pass.

      Maybe you don't get it. Maybe you didn't read the diary before posting. Maybe you didn't read what the diarist told you about feeling isolated, alone, bewildered, in pain. Perhaps you don't understand this is why the propaganda is done in the first place--?

      Yes, YOU can indeed turn the dial. But others who should, don't. And having a cozy cocoon of media-fed hatred serves to embolden the worst among us. It's a proven tactic, you don't have to accept it on faith. Read something about Mao. Please. Your ... inexperience on this is making you hold a ridiculous position.

      Please understand that propaganda works, and not only on Germans and Japanese and Italians and Rwandans.

      Or maybe you think we should not counter the problem, but wait until their are militias at our door. Well thanks, friend, because if you are an immigrant, they may already be. So when WOULD the exact right timetable be for resisting the overt brainwashing that is destroying our nation? When they are targeting you?

      Thanks for your concern. YOU don't have to do anything, so don't worry. But don't try to dissuade others who actually can see the problem.

      "The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance my deride it, but in the end, there it is." Winston Churchill

      by J Royce on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 05:31:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  listeners included our armed forces... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA

      so our tax dollars are paying for Rush Limbaugh to spew hate speech about anyone who's not a rightwing nutjob... towards our troops - many of whom are from Democratic, liberal families. Until recently, our troops didn't even have the choice to switch the channel... stuck far from home, stuck listening to what's available from home. And, now, even with a couple of liberal voices to choose from, they may still find themselves stuck listening to what their buddies or superiors may choose to listen to, which may be the likes of Limbaugh.

      What kind of message are we paying to spread? What kind of negative effect might this have on morale?... spreading messages of hatred very likely to make our soldiers with loved ones at home who are Democrats or liberals feel even more isolation when the radio messages incite hate-talk towards Democrats. It's not a simple matter of free speech since we're paying for it whether we like it or not. That's a problem for me.

    •  it's not a matter of free speech (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m, DaleA
      it's a matter of free markets.

      all spocko did was alert the advertisers to the content of the shows they were sponsoring.  it was the sponsors who decided to pull their $$$.

      and, for the umpteenth time, kids, look up the definition of "censorship."  it's when the government disallows viewpoints from being disseminated.  

      it's not when your peers tell you to shut up.

      so shut up.

      ok, just kidding on that last part, i couldn't resist a good punch line, but a smarter man than me once said "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" and they made it a supreme court decision (of course, it helped that the man was chief justice).

      hate speech is not protected speech.  the ksfo personalities regularly called for the killing of federally elected officials.  now, i am not up on my federal statutes, but i'm guessing that's probably against some law or another.

      besides, the diarist is not calling for the silencing of the other side, he/she (probably "he," as the sn is based on a male character from orwell oevure), only the struggle to regain control of (or at least input into) the national discourse.

      upon further examination of other comments i see i am only repeating what everyone else has said, so let me take this opportunity to blogwhore.  be sure to stop by skippy and enjoy the clever photoshop of spocko being crushed by an angry mickey, as well as firedoglake at the libby trial.

      .

      .

    •  Lies. Outright Lies. (0+ / 0-)

      Give me a break. What strong voice in this debate has called for "any means necessary?"

      This is simply about letting the marketplace work, and advising sponsors and listerners about what-all they've been supporting, and letting them review that decision. If KSFO can't stand behind their words, then they have a bigger problems than Spocko and friends.

      Were you screaming about the mass-advertiser boycott of Air America? Do you call that "censorship?"

      These right-wing blowhards don't have a God-given RIGHT to airwaves and sponsorship. The airwaves are public airwaves, and there are standards. Sponsors get to decide what kind of speech they pay for.

      Or do you think sponsors should be forced to subsidize messages they disagree with? How is THAT free speech?

      The GOP IS Daffy: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --Bill in ME

      by rhetoricus on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:53:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site