Talk Radio = Hate Speech?
by Brian JenningsI have been accused of promoting hate speech more than once as a talk radio programmer. In fact, I’ve been accused of it for over 25 years. Who defines hate speech? Many who accuse talk radio of promoting hate want the FCC to regulate it. To suggest regulation suggests censorship. As Voltaire said: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
In researching my book “Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio,” to be published May 5th by Simon & Schuster, I used excerpts of what some groups claim is hate speech. So, I throw this out for discussion. Is the following excerpt taken from the “Michael Savage Show” hateful? In the general context of on-going terrorism, beheadings, car-bombings, and other atrocities by radical Islamists, Savage exploded on October 29, 2007. In challenging Muslims to demonstrate their religion is one of peace, Savage issued these words:
I’m not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I’m not gonna put my daugther in a burqa. And I’m not getting on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don’t wanna hear any more about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.
Hate speech? The Council for American Islamic Relations thought so and worked to boycott Savage’s advertisers. CAIR posted his remarks on its website and stated, “Michael Savage obviously cares little about the safety or civil rights of American Muslims, but the stations that carry his hate – filled rants do care about listeners’ attitudes toward advertisers who pay to air commercials during the program.” Savage is one of the highest rated talk show hosts in America and his syndicator, Talk Radio Networks, stood by him. CEO Mark Masters told me, “They tried to intimidate us, but we didn’t take notice.” Masters also said Savage gets “many Muslim callers who thank him for speaking out against radicals.”
Hispanic groups are also targeting conservative talk radio. The National Hispanic Media Coalition is asking the FCC to probe hate speech and conservative talk radio. Alex Nogales, President and CEO of the NHMC told a news conference on January 28, 2009, “We are very respectful of the first amendment and free speech, but the hateful rhetoric, particularly against the immigrant minority communities, espoused by irresponsible TV and radio talk show hosts on American airwaves needs to be addressed and today we will present a three-prong strategy to do so.” Using the UCLA/Chicano Studies Research Center, the group claims to have isolated 334 instances of hate speech in eighty minutes of radio programming. They looked at John & Ken’s show at KFI, Los Angeles, the Michael Savage Show, and the Lou Dobbs show.
When I was programming radio stations across America, I witnessed hate speech charges first hand. Whenever a conservative host used the word “illegal” in talking about immigrants crossing our border, he was automatically labeled a “hate monger.” But who defines hate speech and can it be defined under the First Amendment? It seems groups like the NHMC and others want to redefine what is and what is not acceptable on our nation’s airwaves. The reality is clear – conservative talk radio and conservative values are under siege in America. The intent is to quash free speech by convincing everyone this is hate speech. Speech is only free on their terms. What do you think?
Many liberal Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine, or its new equivalent under consideration, agree that conservative talk radio is hateful. Speech isn’t always pretty, but it must remain free. To set aside protected classes free from criticism is the first step toward tyranny.
Take a look at Canada – and that nation’s many Human Rights Tribunals. In Canada, pastors have been fined and told to never criticize gays again. Best-selling author, Mark Steyn who wrote “America Alone,” and his magazine publisher Maclean’s were brought before many of these tribunals and charged with “Islamaphobia” for suggesting the Muslim world is overpowering the west by sheer numbers of reproduction. The cases were eventually dismissed, but it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend free speech. And, there are cases here in America. But, more on that later. Thank you.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
180 Comments
The concept of hate speech itself is stupid. It presupposes what is in a person's heart.
Who can know that?
Good article.
This quote, however, would be completely acceptable in our Enlightened, Advanced, 21st-Century Society With New Ways Of Thinking™:
I’m not gonna [go to church]. And I’m not gonna put my daugther in [Sunday School]. And I’m not getting on my [knees] and [praying to Jesus]. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don’t wanna hear any more about [Christianity]. I don’t wanna hear one more word about [Jesus Christ]. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.
See? All fixed! ::nervous laugh::
Censorship in general disgusts me to the bone. Whether it's to stop blasphemy or to stop what some powerful group deems "hate speech" and thus closed to discussion under penalty of law, such notions can perish in a woodchipper. And I don't give a good gun-damn WHAT century it is — 20th century, 21st century, Universal Century, it's nothing but a number anyway. Censorship of this kind is wrong. As much as I disagree with leftists, I would not want them criminally prosecuted merely for stating their views.
Where does it end? You do not have a freedom from being offended. I am enormously offended by Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart and I consider them hateful in many of the things they say, but I have many available chaices on my TV to watch instead of them. I would presume that leftists are likewise able to listen to a plethora of radio stations. They have no need to listen to conservative talkers.
It isn't about hate speech; it is about controlling what people think rather than about defeating our ideas and exposing them as wrong.
Schools and media help to in promoting the PC way of talking/thinking. They tells the us to celebrate diversity – but don't point out any differences.
How do you do one without the other? There are differences between all people, why not explore and discuss them?
What do all these groups fear?…they fear the truth. This is America. The land of the free! Go back to where ever you ran from…go back home if you fear people expressing their own thoughts. We speak freely here. We don't fear the truth. We are willing to learn, to listen, to change. We don't need 'special' anything. We stand on our own legs. Stop asking the government to take care of you…and join us. Or, go home.
We have the First Amendment here. No matter how much it costs or how much time it takes, every single instance wherein the politically correct "hate speech" monitors attempt to silence free speech MUST be met with strong opposition. Never give up and never give in. This is a new tactic; the liberals have found that conservatives are easily embarrassed and shamed, so they use those techniques in silencing them. I have noticed, on the other hand, that our new president seems incapable of experiencing either embarrassment or shame, so those same tactics don't work in the other direction. In this country, everyone has a right to be heard. I recall first hearing of rallys by the American Nazi party when I was young, and I was aghast. I could not believe we in America had or would tolerate Nazis. But my teachers explained to me that as bad as these people were, they had a right to state their opinions, and that American democracy was founded on this right.
As for Voltaire, he did not actually say those words; he was first misquoted in the Reader's Digest by Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "They are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance — "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
We are at a cross roads here. We have to thwart this attempt to muzzle us. In any form.
The sickening hypocrisy is that the left has said and continues to say truly terrible and vicious and defaming things about the right ALL THE TIME. Straight up naked and unfettered hate speech. Bush, Cheney, Palin, etc… were and are constantly being ravaged. But because the left AGREES with those comments, it can't possibly be hate speech. It's only hate speech when the left doesn't agree with it. These are truly scary times, that will get dramatically worse if we let these PC, soulless psychotic ideologues get their way.
We must fight this.
The "fairness doctrine", also known as "the fix is in".
Where does "foment anger" stop and "schtick" start? Worse yet, vice-versa?
Michael Savage is Michel Alan Wiener. Choosing "Savage" for a radio name over, say, "Johnson" or "Stevens" should tell you something right there regarding his formula. But add a log on the fire: the guy's VOICE. Take the same paragraph and have it uttered by the mellifluent John Gibson or psuede pipes of Dennis Prager? Different brand of potency. Somehow, the "fire power" of the message changes when the messenger has a bulldog NYC accent given to sudden empassioned rants. He gets so jacked up that I swear beads of sweat actually project out of my car's speakers. Savage parodies hate. A Gibson or Prager? Perhaps a greater outrage if they would ever parallel that content (they wouldn't.) And so, to me…Savage is in the category of the WWE; another highly successful entertainment organization that fashions itself on fake violence / fake hate. And makes boatloads of money.
Personally, I cannot stand Savage. So I do the thing lefty libs should have done from the first. Reach for the switch, and turn it off.
And every time someone lights off over this, the above principle should be applied. To elicit that response, I use encouragement. Mine is, "I don't like what you say, so, I will have you thrown into prison for holding that idea I find unpopular. Every time when you make speech I dislike, I will take your law you used to muzzle others, and I will apply it to you for your ideas, pal, because that sword cuts both right and left with the swing. And trust me, I WILL raise whatever hell I have to raise when the time comes to put you in the cell right next to the Islamoterrorist. You can negotiate with him as to your future in this world." Sometimes, being the mean-spirited person you are accused of being is useful.
If anything, it gets lefty libs to shut up around you, no mean feat in itself. On occasion, someone figures it out, and stops whining about needing censorship.
The reality is that talk is cheap and talk radio is even cheaper.
Everyone's opinions mean nothing — even the opinion of hack Brian Jennings; whoever he is.
Furthermore, the heart of the matter is this – the GOP's media conglomerates and tentacles in attempting to
sway public opinion with propoganda ( family values….or exploiting Christianity as if it were only a GOP religion…weapons of mass destruction…Iraqis involved in 9/11….No child left behind….gun worship …y'know… the entire platform…) is all lies! Yet this agenda has been repeated over and over and over for 20 years on talk radio.
ENOUGH!
Tald radio is one-sided and thie GOP vacuum deeply affects our US culture of Monkey-see Monkey-do.
The GOP (RAygun) replaced hardcore news issues — in which people can take action — with endless commentaries, commentaries, commentaries and, at the end of the decades — it's all hot air.
Look at today's 'top story' – a man got fired for geing fat?? C'mon!
But guaranteed this is hot button on 500 talk radio stations this weekend!
Can anyone imagine what would happen if someone tried to release a movie on the Assassination of President Obama? You can can't you, but when some complained about the movie made on GWB they were howled down as "attempting to quell free speech" – yeah right.
G.
“We are very respectful of the first amendment and free speech, but…"
No, you are NOT respectful of the first amendment and free speech, Alex, because there is no "but," only butt-holes like you who pay sphincter service to free speech, and then crap all over it.
The more PC leftards pressure me to be, the more un-PC I become.
Has anyone here ever listen to 1 minute(I swear that is all you would be able to handle) of Air America. Hate magnified many times over.I also believe the craddle of BDS.
Phocus, I don't think they're afraid of the truth anymore, at least the way you and I might see it. They have their own 'truth'. It's about domination and subjugation . . . you know, winning the next election.
I was always taught that whoever uses the term usually is the one with the Hate in them…Nice try Libs but once again there is two much evidence against your theory to warrant any truth.
Voltaire was correct and so are most committed talk radio hosts when we use truth to bang these knuckleheads on the left over the head with it. Check the ratings!!!
I look forward to the book Mr. Jennings when once again we will demonstrate the fairness doctrine as it was meant to be used.
The leftists – it's all about being two-faced and hypocritical (albeit in a pathological way). Honestly, though, the right is not above the same tactic.
As you look at the comments here – the reason talk radio is hate radio…is because the US (the GOP talk radio
factory…a la that true idiot, Rush Limbaugh) has groomed society to communicate only in anger (the first sign of
being dysfunctional).
Honestly — look at all that is written here – IT AIN'T LOVE, FOLKS!
This is why Talk Radio = HATE Radio…because, when a media outlet opens its airwaves to The Public,
this is what you get: Lunacy.
imagine all of today's comments were read aloud – that;s what Talk Radio is…
and Talk Radio is evil to the core because:
1. It is 98% anger.
2. Noboby can do anything about their gripes but whine away…adn this is tedious beyond words!!!!
3. Nothing expressed on talk radio is EVER resolved !
They use mean words, and you don't like it…so they should be criminally prosecuted for "causing offense"?
Why does talk radio exist? Because the left owns so many other areas of discussion. Colleges, TV shows, All the news organizations except for a few. The entertainment industry. Hollywood. Music. And much much more. To the left, evil was not the Soviets. Evil is not radical Islam. It's those evil Republicans and right wingers and Christians. That stands in the way for the left to get there liberal utopia. They don't fear God. Or they want to achieve a goal to where life on earth is without the fear of God. That way there will be no judgment on peoples behavior. And liberals won't have to worry about the end of the world or judgment day. Liberals are called flaming liberals for a reason. They are the ones full of hate and derangement and rage. Their focus is always on the right. They don't see real evil. They make it up to justify their belief system. Ever since the Vietnam war, we've had to listen to the left and all their lies and distortions. Then talk radio came into existence. Fighting back against the left was now possible. The left are the one's that are intolerant. The left is the one full of hate. God's propaganda is the truth. Satan's propaganda is "The Left".
I listen to people on the radio try to DESTROY this country.
And then I listen to people on the same radio that want to DEFEND this country.
I agree with the defenders much more than the vandals because I LOVE this country.
And now those vandals in charge say I'm hateful and don't want me to speak up about the rape taking place??
No way!!
Ditto the "Fairness Doctrine". It assumes there are only two points of view on any subject.
http://www.alistz.net
I concur. They don't fear the truth, they just don't allow it to interfere with their goals. To them 'truth' is just a subjective construct. If they spin hard enough, they can confuse enough people that truth and facts are irrevelant.
http://www.AlistZ.net
Brian, I do not consider the instances you mention to be hate speech. But then I'm bothered by the concept of hate speech. Hate speech is a liberal construct intended to make us believe that there is some category of speech that is indefensible, and thus should be subject to government regulation. It is the camel's nose under the tent. I will NEVER agree that the government has the right to ban any form of speech or to punish anyone for engaging in speech (except of course calls to violence).
That said, any speaker must be prepared to bear the consequences of their speech. You have a right to speak, yes, but you do not have a right to be heard. If your speech is "hateful" then your employer is within their rights to terminate you or cancel your show, your fans may abandon you, people may picket you, they may mock you, criticize you, and ostracize you… and they are within their rights to do so.
Time to take a reality check. When Rush, Beck, etc. criticize the lunancy of the left(and there's tons of it,) it's hate speech, but when Air America does the same – it's inciteful commentary. Who created this standard? The libs, because nobody wants to sit through hours of "bush sucks," and the "republicans are lying nazis" crapola. Reality; they have a lousy message that cannot find an audience. So they go cry to their bretheren in Congress, who can't stand the scrutiny, because the truth makes them look like a pack of complete jackasses.
It's not enough that they own every broadcast network, newpaper, cable channel pounding away with their perceived enlightment. They want to destroy the last thorn in their shoe, and with that – the last check and balance.
Rush Limbaugh (or as Barney Fwank calls him, Wush Wimbaugh) has more humour in a 3 hour period then an infinite number of Al Franken's stealing an infinite number of ballots has ever produced.
Now, Before Barrack Obama came along the United States had a 3 trillion dollar Federal Govenment (and another 3 trillion dollars in State & Local Government). 3 Trillion dollars is the GDP of China incidentally.
Liberals spent eight years telling us the the Bush Administration was running "Giant Deficits". Barrack Obama stood up in debates and talked about the huge deficits of George Bush, and how he would cut taxes for 95% of the American people. He then got elected and immediately ripped off the future for an extra 9 trillion dollars. If you had just had three times the Gross Domestic Product of 1.6 billion Chinamen ripped off from you, wouldn't you be a little pissed-off?
http://www.AlistZ.net
If they want to hear hate speech, they should listen to Keith Olbermann on Bush. However, if you criticize them, that's hate speach. If Muslims riot in the streets with effigies of Condoleezza Rice that's ok. If you point it out, that's hate speach. If people want to leave school/work and protest in the streets about the US upholding it's laws, that's ok. If we point out they are flying the Mexican flag, that's hate speach. If they call black Conservative politicians "oreo" or "Uncle Tom" or throw oreos at them, that's ok. If you criticize Obama's policies or how he's voted in the past, you're racist. It's just a distraction and they shouldn't be responded to.
Lefties should think twice about threatening conservative talk radio. Remember, all conservatives do is talk (preach) to each other. If you threaten to pop the bubble they live it, they might rise up and actually take action! Leave them alone. You may think their so-called "hate speech" could lead to action, but conservatives are not people of action. They've failed to keep any major promise they've made in the last 50 years, and their actions contradict everything they say they believe. Let 'em talk.
aharris
That is the problem for the thought control crowd. You have many other choices than Olberman and John Stewart.. Worse than that you actually exercise your right to not listen to them. If they get away with this the next step is to allow nothing but government sponsored news from the hours of sven to nine pm just to make sure you watch it. Don't worry they'll use the Stewart mock news approach so that you don't go to sleep.
Partake in mass indoctrination protocals citizen it is DoublePlusGood.
A crime is a crime, a word is a word, and freedom of speech, means I have the right to determine what is hate and what is not, the Government has no place in doing it for me or for anyone. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from offense.
Andrew – exactly right and well stated.
Savage is not my cup of tea, and I seriously think he should start taking anti-depressants.
But I have never heard him suggest that Muslims should be thrown into the sea, or pushed into ovens, or beheaded. I've never heard him suggest that Muslims are the descendants of apes and pigs.
Yet those so anxious to brand his commentary "hate speech" will stroll past Muslim demonstrators openly making such suggestions and excuse their vile outbursts as justified by "a concern for justice" in "the occupied territories of Gaza."
And they say that we see in black-and-white.
Pardon me if I did not gather your meaning, but I think you were trying to express that these boards are filled with hate, and that they hate displayed here is a reflection of the way that talk radio has groomed "society" to communicate.
I don't see any hate on these boards. I don't see any hate coming by way of any conservative posters, and I do not see hate in either of the two inept liberal opinions. Many of the responses to this story are frustrated certainly, and several are a little silly, but calling any of these people hateful is a little much, and I think that is the point of the article: the word hate is thrown around like a light label of sorts, but we're expected to believe that it still carries its heavy connotations.
If everything labeled hate truly was hate, then hate wouldn't mean much anymore. We would need a new word to take the place of what hate used to mean. Hate is, more or less, the opposite of love, another word we like to throw around. We are desensitized to the terms of love, and therefore understand when someone is using the word to express something they merely "really really really like." As of yet, I believe we are still relatively sensitive to the term hate, which is appropriate given that words are supposed to mean what they are defined as. Soon leftist hyperbole will render the word "hate" as inert as the word "love" is as used 90% (no citation required as I'm making this number up for effect) of the time.
Now, just to be a jerk, (note: I'm being a jerk, not necessarily a "hateful" jerk.) I am going to poke fun at your response. To begin with, Rush Limbaugh is not, as you say, "a true idiot." Even if you can not stand the guy, that does not make him an idiot. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that can be levied at the man, and if you're truly drawing a blank please tune in to one of Mr. Gibbs' press conferences and simply follow the script.
I'm not going to address the logical black hole in the center of your post, so I will skip to your numbered (for whatever reason) points.
1. For 98% of talk radio to be angry, 98 out of every 100 seconds would have to be filled with anger. Talk radio would not have an audience if this were the case. Clearly you should listen to what you are criticizing prior to any attempt at making a point.
2. Not only do you interpret any caller with an issue or "gripe" as a whiner, but you assume that it's the only thing they can do. Talk radio acts as a public forum for those who get on air. Some people have complaints. There is a difference between stating a personal issue and whining about it. Certainly some people whine, but you, again, are incorrectly characterizing something you have limited experience with. You go on to describe the process of taking calls as "tedious." Many people would disagree with you. As a venue for entertainment, AM radio shows that become "tedious" do not last very long, let alone thrive. Call screeners are employed by talk-radio programs to keep things from becoming tedious. It is a very controlled process and those that work in the industry are typically very good at what they do, especially if they are available to a national audience.
3. You say nothing here that you didn't say in point 2, but you make the point to use language that will guarantee your argument is nonsense. Nothing expressed on talk radio is ever resolved? Seriously? If Sean Hannity goes on the air and complains about an unfair traffic ticket he received and then, months later, beats that ticket in court, your point is moot. You should stay away from absolutist language, it's hard to be correct when you use gigantic terms like "nothing… is ever…"
I'm throwing this wall of text at you because your ignorance or laziness or both pissed me off. That's right: I'm angry because Rush Limbaugh has programmed me that way. I don't hate you though. I can't hate you: I don't know you. There are a handful of things I hate, but nothing of consequence and none of the things I hate are individual human beings. One of the things I hate is the insufferable combination of ignorance and intellectual hubris: please do not make emphatic arguments with gigantic labels if you possess no more logic than can be poured into the thimble game-piece from Monopoly.
Azawi was an Iraqui intelligence officer who met with two of the 911 hijackers at an air port in Kuala Lumpur where the Iraqui government got him a job as a greeter. He got into the cab with the terrorists and left Malaysia four days later. On his way back ti Iraq he was arrested and detained by the Jordanians and only pressure from thew Iraqi government. This is not open for debate. This happened and is supported by the 911 commission. We did learn that Azawi was not a Fedayeen Lt. Colonel with a similar name however the facts above are not changed.
Exactly! "Hate speech" is the way to con the public into accepting censorship. By creating something called "hate speech", the left is creating a category of speech that most people won't defend because they've been trained to believe that "hate" has no legitimate purpose. Once they get approval to ban "hate speech", they can expand that umbrella to cover everything they want banned.
Thank you. By the way — welcome to Big Hollywood. I've really like your articles!!
But hey why use facts when I can use accusation by inferece just like you do so bear with me as I adjust my tinfoil hat:
And as far as the monkey see monkey do comment why should I not assume that this is just one more racist attack on Condaleeza Rice. Just look at the extreme bigotry that comes out of the democratic party especially from the South. It was not until Southerners abandoned the democratic party for the GOP that they denounced the KKK. Just look the DNC still lauds a former Grand Dragon of the KKK from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. Oh I know he supposedly apologized but how can I not know they are just words. I mean really when you see his smirking on the house floor you just know he has it in for people
ENOUGH is ENOUGH sir! Condaleeza Rice is a stunningly smart and brilliant woman and I am tired of you racist leftists denouncing her with your use of the term "Monkey". After all that is the only possible reason to use the word Monkey. It is a Secret Code word designed to get Condaleeza Rice. It is hateful and I demand that the word Monkey itself be replaced by the more beneficial Portuguese word "Macat".
Yes, I did once. I thought it would be funny! I mean Al Franken and Jeanine Garafalo are comedians, right? I lasted a little more than 5 minutes and I was appalled! BTW, has Al bought that Minnesota Senate seat yet? I got a call last weekend from someone begging for money on his behalf. I laughed and said "Boy, are you barking up the wrong tree!" They hung up on me…pity.
Thank you very much. The upcoming book has some great stories about the left trying to shut down conservative talk – all from my personal connections with the hosts. I had no idea I would ever write a book, but this opportunity came up with Simon and Schuster. I'll have more to share in the weeks to come.
You forgot Ford. Also, John Lennon wasn't a politician, and MLK wasn't elected to anything. Come on Vince, step up your game.
Hate speech is defined by the Modern Liberal powers as ANYTHING that supports the good, right and successful (so patriotism is "xenophobia" and "nativism") and anything the questions the evfil, failed and wrong (so the leftists will not use the words Islamic terrorist because that points just who is evil, failed and wrong.) The reason for this is simple (and pardon the shameless plug, but explained in more detail in my two talks to the Heritage Foundation), as Professor Bloom writes, to them "the opposite of indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated." Anyone who RECOGNIZES and speaks on behalf of the good is discriminating and anyone who recognizes and speaks against the evil, failed and wrong are equally discriminating and this makes anyone except the brain-dead Liberal — the indiscriminate — spouting hate speech no matter WHAT they say.
Great! And good luck with the book. I look forward to reading it!
Ah, Mr. Sayet! Good to see you're hanging around here. Your talks were excellent — I have both of them on my iPod!
As one of my many girfriends (you believe that don't you?) in college said, there's nothing as invigorating as a little good, healthy hate. My mom had always told me that hate was too strong for the devil. Girlfriend, mom, girlfriend, mom. Hmmmm. Screw you, mom.
Well said. I also laugh out loud at the term "hate crime." Imagine an aggravated form of theft called "envy theft" or "hate covetousness" that carried increased penalties. The concept of "hate crime" is equally ridiculous.
In my mind this is the single most important issue facing our country. Economies can be rebuilt, home prices will eventually go back up. Jobs will be created again. The markets will find an equilibrium and stabilize. But freedom of speech, once lost, may never be regained.
"This is why Talk Radio = HATE Radio…because, when a media outlet opens its airwaves to The Public,
this is what you get: Lunacy"
Golly hmmmmm…, You libs really LOVE the little people, don't you?
Rush Limbaugh is seldom angry, often funny, and puts callers who disagree with him to the front of the line, because it is good radio to have discussions and disagreement .
Were you to call into his show, he's likely let you rattle on like you did in your post, because your own words would reveal you as a bigger idiot than anything he could contribute.
Really, we don't hate you. We just wish you'd do your homework like the rest of us.
Hey, Andrew: Michael Savage is a Cal alum. David Horowitz is a Cal alum. They're famous. They're vicious. I'm vicious. I'm a Cal alum. So how come I'm not famous? Savage particularly is one of the attack dogs I said we need so badly to counter the vicious lefties. He has the good sense to bring a gun to a gunfight.
Like Alice I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast! LOL!!
The old liberal therapy mantra is "I don't hate you, I hate what you did." Well, I hate what the far left does, says, thinks and writes. If this be hate speech, make the most of it (apologies to Patrick Henry).
Know any good Stanford alums? Ha ha.
Savage isn't my cup of tea — too gloomy. But I'm glad he's out there. He says things that need to be said. He's a plain speaker and I respect that.
If that's the old liberal therapy mantra, then the new one must be: "I hate what I think you're thinking, and I want you punished for it."
Is that the Alice from Alice's Restaurant?
Wow, on the air,
Hate really makes you stupid.
Being liberal apparently means never having to do your homework. Sneer out some ad hominems about conservatives, and then focus on the really important issues that the MSM instruct you to do, like cheering on dismantling the constitution in order to punish some mid-level execs at AIG who took bonuses that Chris Dodd (D: Countrywide) pencilled into the Swindulus package. They are the desiganted target of this week's official hate.
I gotta respect the man that has the good sense to bring a gun to the gunfight AND brings plenty of bullets…no patience at all for those that shoot talk radio blanks.
There aren't any. Good Stanford alums is a tripartite oxymoron.
I feel the same way you do about Savage, and I rarely listen to talk radio. You can tell from my posts that I prefer everything to be high-tone and intellectual (that's your second thing to believe before breakfast). But for every Kos, Huff and Air America, there needs to be a Michael Savage. As we've said before, being nice just doesn't cut it in that world.
Ditto Johnny, you're my hero of the day!
Hmmmmmmmm… A fascinating characteristic of talk radio is the credentials of the hosts; specifically, the higher education of so-called "conservative" hosts vs. "liberal" hosts. No joke: it's clearly lop-sided. Truth: Lib talk leaders ain't as edjakated. This explains why listening to "conservatives'" arguments is compelling and motivating. They typically bring solid facts and hard-hitting truths that makes me wanna go home and Google, versus the "easy talk show content" of smears and pot-shot/character assasinations that are typical of "liberal" hosts. BTW: I was front/row center when Air America came on. I'm in the industry & wanted to hear what they could offer. In those early days, Franken and Lizz Winstead's lightweight content slammed the coffin-lid down tout de suite! Sheesh! Oh! And Zogby Int'l did a study in '07. "Liberals" statistically enjoy MUSIC on their radios more than news talk. The rest? NPR, baby, NPR.
What I find interesting is that even with that much control the left gains little ground against conservative thought. Even when they appear to have it their way they lose ground big time. That's encouraging!
My greatest fear is that The One's controllers may already have such a strategy on the drawing board as Plan B should his approval continue to drop. Assassinating O would elevate him to unassailable martyr status, and allow those who have greased the skids (Soros?) to his electoral victory the freedom to push whatever agenda they have in mind by "waving the bloody shirt."
I will continue to pray daily for his continued health and safety until we can pack him off into retirement on 1-20-2013.
To the point Andrew! One of the many reasons I always enjoy reading your thoughts.
Dude! I just hate attempts to kill freedom of speech! So, uh, like, is that statement itself "hate speech"?
Man, I'm sorry if I'm offending open-minded people who are just, like, trying to keep anyone from being offended.
I mean, like, I thought this was the United State of America or something. My bad?
I am sooooo looking forward to reading your book!
If you don't like something on the radio, just turn the dial. It's pretty simple. If the Fairness Doctrine passes should certain movies never be made because the content is disturbing? The same with television. And magazines. And books. Where should the Fairness Police stop? I really don't want Nancy Pelosi and the Congress deciding these things.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the liberals in power don't have the bravery to go after talk radio. Not at this point, not with what they have already done. They are going to lick their wounds and let it go with occasional jabs at the right's talkers like Limbaugh and Hannity and all the others that keep these left wingers on edge. They know the people can rally and they know they can take a beating in 2010 as well as 2012…
Are their efforts alarming? Yes, but they are also revealing. Their fear has become palpable, and this at a time when by all appearances (or so they would have us believe) the left is in control. Really, then why the fear? In war there is always the struggle to maintain the ground gained. Those that oppress are always at war with those that seek freedom, and so there will be many battlefronts. Sooner or later the oppressors overreach and the people become engaged if for no other reason than the weight of the oppression. Well look around, what do you hear coming from your friends and neighbors, even very liberal ones. They are not happy with what they see happening. This is a good sign!
Yeppers!
Shhhhh,…you're not supposed to give out the secrets!
"Good Stanford alums is a tripartite oxymoron."…ooh, well done LawhawkSF! Applause!!
That's similar to, "I hate what you might think, so I want you punished before it becomes possible." I call it PAP = Possible Attitude Profiling
Thanks. I aim to please. Calling Stanford alums good is a cardinal sin (OK, I'll stop).
Interesting point, SupernaturalCat. And by keeping talk radio, it always gives them something to poke at when they have to take the attention away from whatever current thing they're messing up. The constant allure of "going after Talk Radio" probably keeps their contituents happy, too.
Well maybe just a mere bishop sin then?!
Thanks. It makes me happy that people like reading my stuff! I almost hate to admit I'm just stealing it from a pile of fortune cookies I ran across…
By the way, your lucky numbers today are 4, 17, 39 and 1.2 Trillion.
Ok, that's two… one more for today!
I wish that high-tone and intellectual debate would be enough to convince people, but history shows that's not the case. Different people are influenced by different types of messages, delivered through different media. The left knows this, the right is only now catching up.
It doesn't matter if it's hateful. The First Amendment doesn't stipulate either that speech needs to be loving or cannot be hateful. It's free speech. As soon as we start debating the emotional qualities of speech we've ceded this most important point.
I think you're right but not seeing the whole issue. Labellling any speech hate speech is an attempt at censorship. Anyone trying to censor speech in any way wants the gov't to make their opponent shut the hell up. It is always groups with an unreasonable agenda that attempt this type of censorship, because if people knew what they were up to, they would be laughed right out of the discussion. They axiom is…If they can't discuss it, they are stealing, lying, stupid, or all three.
But don't you see, that means that they do fear truth. If they can't hear the word illegal, then they know that when you hear the word illegal, it shoots down ther argument. They can only win by not letting you fight. If you let them shut you up, then you have given in and deserve to live under their the heels of their boots.
Yeah, to them its like having a cookie jar and they get to dig in every once and awhile.
Then turn off your radio. I don't watch MSNBC because of the same reasons you do not like talk radio. If there was not a desire to listen to limbaugh "righties", they would be out of business. It just so happens that the liberal progressive thinking is a bunch of whinning and crying about how things should be fair and equal. As long as the progressive agrees. Liberals should try and give people some truth every once and a while and they may get an audience. They should try and "think" instead of vote on feel. Obama, frank, dodd, geithner, pelosi,reid. What a bunch of feel good BS. They have pulled the wool over your eyes if you think they are out for you. Take my money and give it to some lame ass that thinks he should have what I have earned. Thats why we like our guns. Do some research on Jennings. He has a hell of a lot more experience than you….unless you have been consulting and broadcasting for "all types" over the past 30 years.
I listened to it when it first started broadcasting in NYC. I lasted a couple of weeks, but they were so damn angry & blame- america- first that I had to quit. No sound bites like most talk radio, because sound bites are what people actually have said. Can't have that on air america. No reality allowed.
Jonny, you're right on every point. Hmmm… is quite obtuse, and projects all of his own shortcomings onto people he disagrees with. He doesn't agree with Rush, therefore Rush must be hateful & stupid. You know, the same way grade school kids that have difficulties in math say "math is stupid". This is one of the main reasons that talk radio is predominately conservative. Only arguments that can be defended civilly can survive in this medium. Hmmm…has trouble understanding anything longer than a bumper sticker. And if he can't understand it, it must be stupid and/or hate speech.
That's a very insightful connection. (applause)
Exactly right Andew, people must live with the consequences of their speech. That is what happened to air america…no listeners = no sponsors = no more air america. Seems too simple to misunderstand. Rush allows all opinions to be heard, then he shoots down the ones he disagrees with. Rush is heard on over 600 stations…apparently he too is living with the consequences of his speech.
This is America and We have something called First Amendment!!!!
Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
I have lots of people say pretty crappy things about my faith almost everyday. You don't see me crying and complaining about hate speech. Call the babysitter and quit you waaaahhhhing.
If you don't like it, go live somewhere else and pound sand all day long!!!!!!!!
Hate speech? Like the Quaran? Koran, whatever the f###.
Well you can call it HATE all day long but I still have the right to speak what I think.
The First Amendment has not been repealed the last I looked……..
Notice I didn't call you HATEFUL for you negative comments…… That would be a TLWR (Typical Left Wing Response)……..and if its so hateful to you why dont' you exercise another God given right (The free will to turn it off)……………..
Man you libertards love to throw the HATE word around….
Hey TBM, I keep meaning to ask, why don't you sign up? You can hit the little thumbs up and down thingies — show us some love man!
Hate is a constitutionally protected freedom.
open minded people welcome being offended, so they can explain why the offender is wrong. It is the closed minded who are afraid of dissenting opinion. Don't ever let them stop you from offending. It is the only way to keep freedom alive!
Yeah I prob should…I really enjoy reading what you all have to say !!!!!
It's typical hypocrisy on the left, when a conservative says,"This movie/song/TV show is offensive to my values." the left comes back with,"Well if you don't like it turn it off." But when the roles are reversed, in the case of talk radio, that logic doesn't work for them. Instead they feel the burning need to legislate what they find offensive out of existence, for all practical purposes.
It's a good deal. And I won't even try to sell you a membership, like certain people tried with that poor Brazillian guy!
Serious, you can edit comments (correcting for typos), you can track your comments and others, and it's fun to see everyone's avatars and the little descriptions they give of themselves. There are some very clever and funny people here (as you know).
It's a good deal (free). And I won't even try to sell you a membership, like certain people tried with that poor Brazillian guy!
Seriously, you can edit comments (correcting for typos), you can track your comments and others, and it's fun to see everyone's avatars and the little descriptions they give of themselves. There are some very clever and funny people here (as you know).
Ha…just gave you a thumbs up…lol. I can vote now. Thanks Brother Price !!!!!!
The thumbs up and down thingies were a big reason I decided to unlurk, so I could give a virtual pat on the back to people who make good points and/or make me laugh.
I agree, I understand the concept behind it, but it's a really stupid term in my opinion. I mean if someone assaults someone are they assuming that in most instances they liked them? Most crimes against people, not property, are motivated by at least a momentary flash of hate. So the verbiage itself makes no sense.
Exactly, the left ignores the old adage that "the customer is always right" when their product is the one not being bought by the public at large while the opposing product is through the roof.
You must be logged in to post a comment.