Without Rightwing Talk Radio Bias, America Would Vote Like New York or California

[ArmyCowboy]

The whole "consequences of speech" thing you got going there.

What don't you understand about that, it's a fairly simply concept. Perhaps Todd Aiken can explain it to you.

Ah, election consequences. Be more specific next time.

There are other consquences as well. Ask the Dixie Chicks, for example.

Speech is not done in a vacume and some will disagree with what you say. If you're an entertainer or a politician (or even a businessman) there are consequences for your speech.

Since I was referencing FREDDOM of speech, references to jails or government retribution really makes no sense, what so ever.

 

[MarcATL]

Getting the gulags ready ArmyCowboy????

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The whole "consequences of speech" thing you got going there.

That's pure claptrap you're spewing.

Are you saying that should be no consequences to your actions?

If someone yells "FIRE!!" in a crowded room, chances are, someone is going to get hurt, and possibly die by trampling, or in the event of an actual fire, perhaps by burning.

That's a consequence.

There should be a consequence associated with that if the yeller was lying, even if no one died, because it causes fear and panic.

Why are you so radical? What's wrong with you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Don't worry Marc, Public Education and Unlimited Illegal Immigration will eventually overcome the corrosive effects of Freedom of Speech.

It won't be long now.

What do you mean?

Who's attacking free speech?

Are you OK?

Oh, not YOU, Marc! You just want to get rid of the "evil influence" of right wing talk radio so that the electorate only gets the message that a liberally biased main stream media puts out!

I wonder sometimes if you actually THINK about what you're posting before you start this silly shit...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don't worry Marc, Public Education and Unlimited Illegal Immigration will eventually overcome the corrosive effects of Freedom of Speech.

It won't be long now.

What do you mean?

Who's attacking free speech?

Are you OK?

Oh, not YOU, Marc! You just want to get rid of the "evil influence" of right wing talk radio so that the electorate only gets the message that a liberally biased main stream media puts out!

I suggest you watch the Nugent Video above, and then the link I post below.

I wonder sometimes if you actually THINK about what you're posting before you start this silly shit...

Rachel Maddow Show

Then we can talk about hate vis a vis humor in getting one's point across.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The whole "consequences of speech" thing you got going there.

That's pure claptrap you're spewing.

Are you saying that should be no consequences to your actions?

If someone yells "FIRE!!" in a crowded room, chances are, someone is going to get hurt, and possibly die by trampling, or in the event of an actual fire, perhaps by burning.

That's a consequence.

There should be a consequence associated with that if the yeller was lying, even if no one died, because it causes fear and panic.

Why are you so radical? What's wrong with you?

Yelling fire and causing a panic is actually a criminal offense. poor choice of comparison.

Should thier be a consequence for believing abortion is a sin, or owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right?

 

[iolo]

And the US as a whole would vote like a normal country.

welcome to the site.

we would vote in the best interest of the most people.


Like a democracy is planned to do

Ta. If you were given the facts, I'm sure you would.

 

[Oldstyle]

What do you mean?

Who's attacking free speech?

Are you OK?

Oh, not YOU, Marc! You just want to get rid of the "evil influence" of right wing talk radio so that the electorate only gets the message that a liberally biased main stream media puts out!

I suggest you watch the Nugent Video above, and then the link I post below.

I wonder sometimes if you actually THINK about what you're posting before you start this silly shit...

Rachel Maddow Show

Then we can talk about hate vis a vis humor in getting one's point across.

Ted Nugent has his own "subtle" way of getting his viewpoint across. He's not what you would call a restrained person. To use him, however, as the reason why right wing radio should be taken off the air (and I assume that the next logical step for you progressive thinkers would be the revoking of FOX's license to broadcast?) borders on farce. Ted Nugent doesn't speak for conservatives any more than King Samir Shabazz speaks for blacks in America.

My question to you is...who is it that gets to decide what is and isn't permitted free speech? You seem to think that you should have the right to censor those that you disagree with. That isn't the way our system is set up, my friend. You have the right to publically argue against those that you disagree with and nothing more. At the moment liberals control FAR more of the main stream media than conservatives...yet you're unhappy with the few parts of it that you don't dominate. Sorry...but you're going to have to endure a few dissenting views...get over it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The whole "consequences of speech" thing you got going there.

That's pure claptrap you're spewing.

Are you saying that should be no consequences to your actions?

If someone yells "FIRE!!" in a crowded room, chances are, someone is going to get hurt, and possibly die by trampling, or in the event of an actual fire, perhaps by burning.

That's a consequence.

There should be a consequence associated with that if the yeller was lying, even if no one died, because it causes fear and panic.

Why are you so radical? What's wrong with you?

Yelling fire and causing a panic is actually a criminal offense. poor choice of comparison.

Should thier be a consequence for believing abortion is a sin, or owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right?

Is owning a gun a Second Amendment Right for convicted Felons?

Does the First Amendment guarantee absolute Freedom of Speech, Expression, the Press and Religion?

 

[martybegan]

That's pure claptrap you're spewing.

Are you saying that should be no consequences to your actions?

If someone yells "FIRE!!" in a crowded room, chances are, someone is going to get hurt, and possibly die by trampling, or in the event of an actual fire, perhaps by burning.

That's a consequence.

There should be a consequence associated with that if the yeller was lying, even if no one died, because it causes fear and panic.

Why are you so radical? What's wrong with you?

Yelling fire and causing a panic is actually a criminal offense. poor choice of comparison.

Should thier be a consequence for believing abortion is a sin, or owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right?

Is owning a gun a Second Amendment Right for convicted Felons?

Does the First Amendment guarantee absolute Freedom of Speech, Expression, the Press and Religion?

Just like thier right to freedom, due process removed thier right to bear arms, and in some states, thier right to vote. Due process being the key here, and for punishment of an individual action.

The limits on speech, expression and religion are again based on harm to others (direct harm caused by the individual, not supposed harm.) The burden is on the government to prove that the restriction is beyond required.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's pure claptrap you're spewing.

Are you saying that should be no consequences to your actions?

If someone yells "FIRE!!" in a crowded room, chances are, someone is going to get hurt, and possibly die by trampling, or in the event of an actual fire, perhaps by burning.

That's a consequence.

There should be a consequence associated with that if the yeller was lying, even if no one died, because it causes fear and panic.

Why are you so radical? What's wrong with you?

Yelling fire and causing a panic is actually a criminal offense. poor choice of comparison.

Should thier be a consequence for believing abortion is a sin, or owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right?

Is owning a gun a Second Amendment Right for convicted Felons?

Does the First Amendment guarantee absolute Freedom of Speech, Expression, the Press and Religion?

Are you making the contention that a conservative having the right to go on talk radio and making disparaging remarks about the President is comparable to a convicted felon have the right to own a gun? Or that making that remark about the President is akin to someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre? I hope that's not the point you're trying to make...

 

[Oldstyle]

Yelling fire and causing a panic is actually a criminal offense. poor choice of comparison.

Should thier be a consequence for believing abortion is a sin, or owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right?

Is owning a gun a Second Amendment Right for convicted Felons?

Does the First Amendment guarantee absolute Freedom of Speech, Expression, the Press and Religion?

Just like thier right to freedom, due process removed thier right to bear arms, and in some states, thier right to vote. Due process being the key here, and for punishment of an individual action.

The limits on speech, expression and religion are again based on harm to others (direct harm caused by the individual, not supposed harm.) The burden is on the government to prove that the restriction is beyond required.

Those rights are granted to US citizens to protect them from excesses by their government...not to protect government from excesses by citizens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yelling fire and causing a panic is actually a criminal offense. poor choice of comparison.

Should thier be a consequence for believing abortion is a sin, or owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right?

Is owning a gun a Second Amendment Right for convicted Felons?

Does the First Amendment guarantee absolute Freedom of Speech, Expression, the Press and Religion?

Just like thier right to freedom, due process removed thier right to bear arms, and in some states, thier right to vote. Due process being the key here, and for punishment of an individual action.

The limits on speech, expression and religion are again based on harm to others (direct harm caused by the individual, not supposed harm.) The burden is on the government to prove that the restriction is beyond required.

Is that your opinion or is there a USSC ruling which speaks directly to the issue? We know there are controls/regulations which 'infringe' on the absolute right to own a gun, we know laws restrict speech and expression but I'm not aware that harm to others is always a deciding factor.

 

[whitehall]

Without those pesky Bill of Rights including the 1st and 2nd Amendments Hussein could crown himself king.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Without those pesky Bill of Rights including the 1st and 2nd Amendments Hussein could crown himself king.

Okay, you've expressed your opinion. Now, go outside to play and let the adults debate.

 

[martybegan]

Is owning a gun a Second Amendment Right for convicted Felons?

Does the First Amendment guarantee absolute Freedom of Speech, Expression, the Press and Religion?

Just like thier right to freedom, due process removed thier right to bear arms, and in some states, thier right to vote. Due process being the key here, and for punishment of an individual action.

The limits on speech, expression and religion are again based on harm to others (direct harm caused by the individual, not supposed harm.) The burden is on the government to prove that the restriction is beyond required.

Is that your opinion or is there a USSC ruling which speaks directly to the issue? We know there are controls/regulations which 'infringe' on the absolute right to own a gun, we know laws restrict speech and expression but I'm not aware that harm to others is always a deciding factor.

The major restritctions on free speech are imminent danger (yelling fire in the theatre) fighting words, (a direct provocation for confrontation) and libel/slander (provable lies told in public that damages the reputation of someone).

Religous restrcitions are actually more dicey, and by court decsion, the restrictions on peyote, plural marriage, and animal sacrifices in some cases. Those you can argue harm no one, although the whole concept goes with the "damage to society" thing I do not really agree with.

No right is absolute as you said. The difference is once something is a right the burden is overwhelming in favor of keeping that right. Banning large mag clips in the "hope" it prevents or reduces gun violence is not overwhelming to me, considering that millions of these things are out there and less than a fraction of a fraction of fraction of a fraction of a percent actually do any harm.

 

[Papawx3]

So much hatred from the left. What's wrong - you can't stand it for other people to think the way they want and vote the way they want?

What part of what I stated shows you hatred?

Identify it please.

Here ya go.

All this RW claptrap and propaganda being pushed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin and all the other kooks isn't helping...it's hurting.

What you look at as "claptrap and propaganda", I look at as unbiased and truthful. IMO, the Lame Street Media are the ones pushing "claptrap and propaganda", and defending those who are out to destroy our nation.
I realize your opinions are different from mine, and your goal is to eliminate those whose opinions are different from your own. But you can never eliminate the truth. And as long as there is someone who is not afraid to tell the truth, your mission will always be a failure. Thus, you, and your hateful kind, will always be a failure.
But I'm not denying you your opinion, because I know you are as entitled to yours as I am to mine. So let's both just sit back and watch, and let history reveal who is truthful, and who are the liars.

 

[Stephanie]

So much hatred from the left. What's wrong - you can't stand it for other people to think the way they want and vote the way they want?

What part of what I stated shows you hatred?

Identify it please.

you and rdean, two peas in a pod, small hateful people

 

[Antares]

Marc is just another angry black man screaming that "whwitey" is keeping him down.

So much hatred from the left. What's wrong - you can't stand it for other people to think the way they want and vote the way they want?

What part of what I stated shows you hatred?

Identify it please.

Here ya go.

All this RW claptrap and propaganda being pushed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin and all the other kooks isn't helping...it's hurting.

What you look at as "claptrap and propaganda", I look at as unbiased and truthful. IMO, the Lame Street Media are the ones pushing "claptrap and propaganda", and defending those who are out to destroy our nation.
I realize your opinions are different from mine, and your goal is to eliminate those whose opinions are different from your own. But you can never eliminate the truth. And as long as there is someone who is not afraid to tell the truth, your mission will always be a failure. Thus, you, and your hateful kind, will always be a failure.
But I'm not denying you your opinion, because I know you are as entitled to yours as I am to mine. So let's both just sit back and watch, and let history reveal who is truthful, and who are the liars.

 

[Papawx3]

Marc is just another angry black man screaming that "whitey" is keeping him down.

And afraid to admit that the only person that's really keeping him down is the guy he looks at in the mirror every morning.

 

[Rozman]

Don't worry Marc, Public Education and Unlimited Illegal Immigration will eventually overcome the corrosive effects of Freedom of Speech.

It won't be long now.

We have freedom of speech.

What we do not have is freedom from the consequences of that speech.

This is what the smart republicans are learning right now.

Freedom of speech is wonderful and the Libs love it.
Just as long as you agree with the left.Once you move an inch to the right the lefties
want to shut down any Fox station.