NationStates Jolt Archive

Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

Wow. So if people aren't willing to tune in to listen to your ideas, and people start listening to ideas you can't stand, it's best for the government to step in and "fix" it.

Probably the most outrageous thing I've heard so far this year...

Probably the most outrageous thing I've heard so far this year...
You obviously don't listen to your own mutterings then.
Not to worry - we don't either.

Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

Is there some sort of source for this?

Your brief "synopsis" hardly gives us much in the way of actual information.

Wow. So if people aren't willing to tune in to listen to your ideas, and people start listening to ideas you can't stand, it's best for the government to step in and "fix" it.

That's a pretty big leap of logic to make, considering that you have presented us with absolutely no concrete information whatsoever.

Probably the most outrageous thing I've heard so far this year...

Someone isn't paying much attention.

Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

Wow. So if people aren't willing to tune in to listen to your ideas, and people start listening to ideas you can't stand, it's best for the government to step in and "fix" it.

Probably the most outrageous thing I've heard so far this year...

Objection! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2021765)

I can't help it if you can't Google the news... the source is Sen. Inhofe.

I can't help it if you can't Google the news... the source is Sen. Inhofe.

Well I googled him

Did not know about him before but the guy seems like an idiot

Ifreann says he overheard Remote Observer saying that he used to enjoy molesting collies.

See? I can do it too. :D

Ifreann says he overheard Remote Observer saying that he used to enjoy molesting collies.

See? I can do it too. :D

http://www.cybersalt.org/cl_images/1zzzzya/cats/catsurprise.jpg

Is Mel Gibson involved?

http://www.cybersalt.org/cl_images/1zzzzya/cats/catsurprise.jpg

I get the oddest feeling that I'm being watched... perhaps by those chaps that are backing away from me slowly...

Ifreann says he overheard Remote Observer saying that he used to enjoy molesting collies.



Doesn't everyone? :eek:

Doesn't everyone? :eek:

But are we talking flowers, or dogs?

Ifreann says he overheard Remote Observer saying that he used to enjoy molesting collies.

See? I can do it too. :D

It's only true if a liberal says it.


See? I can do it too.

Is there some sort of source for this?

Your brief "synopsis" hardly gives us much in the way of actual information.



That's a pretty big leap of logic to make, considering that you have presented us with absolutely no concrete information whatsoever.



Someone isn't paying much attention.

I heard it on talk radio last night, but Inhoff said he was in the elevator with "two really liberal ladies" or something, didn't mention names, and the way he phrased it, I was waiting for one of those penthouse type stories........but, no such luck.

It's only true if a liberal says it.


See? I can do it too.

Don't quit your day job. :p

Doesn't everyone? :eek:

I've always been more of a beagle man myself. *nod*

Many people on the far left are incapable of adequately competing within the free market; the failure of Air America illustrates this deficiency quite nicely. However, some of them also happen to be "cry-babies" who can't stand losing. Thus, they run sobbing to their "mommy" (government) and beseech her to help the mean kids who bully them (pass special anti-capitalist legislation).

I've always been more of a beagle man myself. *nod*


http://www.giacomolicata.co.uk/scans/jb.jpg

It was the tiny left hand that always put me off.

But are we talking flowers, or dogs?

Both *nods*

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

there spammers

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

there spammers

Just when we were starting to have fun. :(

Just when we were starting to have fun. :(

I just don't want you guys to get banned. ;)

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

there spammers

First of all thank you for posting real information rather then the OP calling for us to google for a source

That being said this guy seems like a idiot from what I have read of him, personally I would not trust his hersay

First of all thank you for posting real information rather then the OP calling for us to google for a source

That being said this guy seems like a idiot from what I have read of him, personally I would not trust his hersay

I really dislike Inhofe because he is one of those people, you know.......what do they call them? gossipers? instigators?

everything he ever says is to put down someone else to make himself feel better, even in person, I have met him in person numerous times......(now I sound like him right?)

anyway, I wouldn't trust anything he says.

As far as Oklahoma politicians, they are all a little nutzoid, however, if I had to choose between Inhofe and Coburn I would choose Coburn every single time, and if any of you know anything about Coburn......you know what that means for Inhofe.

I really dislike Inhofe because he is one of those people, you know.......what do they call them? gossipers? instigators?

everything he ever says is to put down someone else to make himself feel better

Remote Kimchi Deep Observers kind of guy. :p

You are the NationStates Soccer Mom. :)

((That's meant as a compliment))

And if mom threatens to spank LG? :p

EDIT: TIMEWARP!

I just don't want you guys to get banned. ;)

You are the NationStates Soccer Mom. :)

((That's meant as a compliment))

Remote Kimchi Deep Observers kind of guy. :p

to comment would be akin to the kind of gossip I deplore.

and I am totally sigging the soccer mom comment/compliment LG

So... let me ask a question. Would anyone here support a measure enacted by the Government to enforce the "equal time" or "fairness doctrine" concept?

Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

Wow. So if people aren't willing to tune in to listen to your ideas, and people start listening to ideas you can't stand, it's best for the government to step in and "fix" it.

Probably the most outrageous thing I've heard so far this year...

Tell me something...what exactly constitutes a legislative fix on talk radio? That could mean anything from censorship of conservative radio to government-encouraged diversely political radio(that is, able to show all sides of political debate.) That second one is one I'd really like, because that way people can hear more about what they want to hear. I know I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh proving himself to be stupid once again.

On that same token, I wouldn't want most of the people from Air America, as they were equally stupid. Randy Rhoades was basically an American Liberal version of Ann Coulter...the idiocy--and hatred--that spew forth from her cavernous jaw were astounding.

If it's true it's deplorable, but since it's probably not in an fashion true it's just pathetic.

Honestly, why would two senators discuss that in an elevator with one of their partisan opponents in earshot unless to fuck with him?


Granted I wouldn't put it past Clinton, she is a rather fascist bitch.

Granted I wouldn't put it past Clinton, she is a rather fascist bitch.

she is.

she wants to take away people's profits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Tell me something...what exactly constitutes a legislative fix on talk radio? That could mean anything from censorship of conservative radio to government-encouraged diversely political radio(that is, able to show all sides of political debate.) That second one is one I'd really like, because that way people can hear more about what they want to hear. I know I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh proving himself to be stupid once again.


What do you mean by "Government-encouraged?" Is that some sort of enforced airtime for opposing views? Because if you go down that route, you're asking to tear up the 1st Ammendment.

Think about it: Right now, there's absolutely no obstacle for liberal talk radio. Nobody's holding them back, nobody is telling them they can't be on. The problem is that when it's been tried, it doesn't make money. Whose fault is that? The market. If people were interested, they'd listen and money would be made. It's that simple.

If you're going to get into the business of forcing a talk radio station to air both conservative and liberal points of view equally, how long before other views start demanding their own share of radio time? Libertarians? Communist supporters? Socialists? the list goes on and on.

Oh and incidentally, you've now introduced Government controlled radio. Nice job.

So what happens then? People will quit listening because, well if they wanted to hear all that there's plenty of room in the market for it if it were wanted. So they'll quit listening because there's not enough of what they want to hear. Then the conservative stations go away, too.

...which is obviously the intended goal.

this thread, and incidentally, anyone who believes this shit, is made of fail.

she is.

she wants to take away people's profits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

The Hot Coffee™ fiasco really pissed me off.

Anyone notice that Busheviks like Whispering Sierra Deep Eve Remove Legs BTHP Kimchi Online Observer and F.A.G. who laugh and celebrate Air America's "Failure" also have a doublethink belief in the existence of The Liberal Media?

Seems to me if the Media was truly Liberal Air America ought to have been a national hit.

Anyone notice that Busheviks like Whispering Sierra Deep Eve Remove Legs BTHP Kimchi Online Observer and F.A.G. who laugh and celebrate Air America's "Failure" also have a doublethink belief in the existence of The Liberal Media?

Seems to me if the Media was truly Liberal Air America ought to have been a national hit.
Their ability to reason short-circuits well before that point. Inability to come to logical conclusions prevents them from committing seppuku.

Seems to me if the Media was truly Liberal Air America ought to have been a national hit.

Unless it failed because it was redundant.

Randy Rhoades was basically an American Liberal version of Ann Coulter...the idiocy--and hatred--that spew forth from her cavernous jaw were astounding.

That's Randi Rhodes you're talking about. Don't insult Ozzy Osbourne's guitarist (Randy Rhoads).

Unless it failed because it was redundant.

If that was an issue would we really have 5 different 24 hour talking head channels?

In all seriousness, and I know how much people hate to hear about liberal media bias but bear with me for a second.

Liberal thinkers tend to be vocal as hell. It's one of their strengths. It's the advantage they have over Conservatives who tend to be much more quiet (on average).

Why is it then, that Conservatives dominate the talk radio industry? I woul dhave thought liberal talk radio would be much more prolific. Instead we see the opposite.

I honestly believe it's because there is a left leaning bias in mainstream tv news that satisfies that need.

What really got me convinced of this was early on in the Iraq war. I was working on a military contract and had interaction with army personnel who had been over there and could offer first hand accounts of some of the things that were happening. What they told me differed wildly from what I was hearing on NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. The networks painted a much bleaker, less optimistic picture. As I began to pay attention I saw more and more of that sort of thing. I noticed Katie Couric would interview Republicans in a very much harsher and more critical tone than when she'd interview Democrats, who typically got away with comments or evasions that no Republican would get away with, as another example.

The honest truth is that there IS a left slant in the news media. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. The networks are all competing with each other in major markets. What's a major market? A big city. If you look at a demographic map you'll find that the highest concentration of liberal voters is in the cities while rural areas are conservative. If a new network is going to cater to somene to increase viewership, who do you think they're going to cater to?

Objection! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2021765)

lolz...you win

In all seriousness, and I know how much people hate to hear about liberal media bias but bear with me for a second.

Liberal thinkers tend to be vocal as hell. It's one of their strengths. It's the advantage they have over Conservatives who tend to be much more quiet (on average).
With that level of bullshit, you might as well apply to be a conservative pundit on some radio station near you.

With that level of bullshit, you might as well apply to be a conservative pundit on some radio station near you.

Have you ever checked out NSG? It's a pretty good forum...

Liberal thinkers tend to be vocal as hell. It's one of their strengths. It's the advantage they have over Conservatives who tend to be much more quiet (on average).

So does that make Bill O'Reilly a liberal?

So does that make Bill O'Reilly a liberal?

Looks like you and PH both may have misunderstood my meaning. When I say Conservatives on average tend to be quieter, I refer to the average person, not TV or radio pundits.

Look at protests in the US. More often than not they're in support of a liberal cause. The only really big conservative ones are pro-life rallies but compared to all the others, like anti-war, world bank protesting, gay rights, pro choice rallies, etc they're hardly in the majority.

So does that make Bill O'Reilly a liberal?

As well as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Chick-with-a-dick Coulter.

Last I saw, Air America was still in business. What caused their financial difficulties was a poor business plan, not poor ideas or shows. Lately, they've made some bonehead moves, like replacing Sam Seder with that idiot Lionel, but they're still in business, and in fact just signed a distribution deal with Westwood One.

But what's more important is that liberal talk radio isn't just Air America. Two of the biggest liberal voices on the radio in terms of stations and listeners are Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, and they work for the Jones Radio Network, so even if Air America does eventually fail, it doesn't mean liberal talk radio failed.

Lastly, I'd just like to point out that even if Inhofe isn't full of shit and Clinton and Boxer said some approximation of what he claims they did, Inhofe better look to his own side of the aisle (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/washington/15immig.html?_r=1&ei=5099&en=0fadcc32e711981d&ex=1182484800&adxnnl=1&partner=TOPIXNEWS&adxnnlx=1181927333-P5hPmYu7q38uxSRhO18Guw&oref=slogin) if he's gonna bitch. Trent Lott (R-MS) said, after the immigration bill fiasco, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” Well, Inhofe? What did your colleague mean by that?

What about you, Remote Observer? What did Lott mean by it? He certainly wasn't talking about Air America.

Looks like you and PH both may have misunderstood my meaning. When I say Conservatives on average tend to be quieter, I refer to the average person, not TV or radio pundits.

Cop-out. You were specifically referring to Liberal Media Bias when you made your generalization (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12800096&postcount=41):

In all seriousness, and I know how much people hate to hear about liberal media bias but bear with me for a second.

Liberal thinkers tend to be vocal as hell. It's one of their strengths. It's the advantage they have over Conservatives who tend to be much more quiet (on average).

Why is it then, that Conservatives dominate the talk radio industry? I woul dhave thought liberal talk radio would be much more prolific. Instead we see the opposite.

Not surprising to see you resort to another tactic of Right Wingers who get caught. "I Was Misquoted."

Have you ever checked out NSG? It's a pretty good forum...
For what? Examples of outspoken hypocritical conservapunditism? Please point out all the threads made each time the Republican Congress dropped in approval rankings.

When I say Conservatives on average tend to be quieter, I refer to the average person, not TV or radio pundits.
I didn't misunderstand you, I dismissed that as irrelevant. Especially since your example was Katie Couric :rolleyes:

Last I saw, Air America was still in business. What caused their financial difficulties was a poor business plan, not poor ideas or shows. Lately, they've made some bonehead moves, like replacing Sam Seder with that idiot Lionel, but they're still in business, and in fact just signed a distribution deal with Westwood One.

But what's more important is that liberal talk radio isn't just Air America. Two of the biggest liberal voices on the radio in terms of stations and listeners are Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, and they work for the Jones Radio Network, so even if Air America does eventually fail, it doesn't mean liberal talk radio failed.

Lastly, I'd just like to point out that even if Inhofe isn't full of shit and Clinton and Boxer said some approximation of what he claims they did, Inhofe better look to his own side of the aisle (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/washington/15immig.html?_r=1&ei=5099&en=0fadcc32e711981d&ex=1182484800&adxnnl=1&partner=TOPIXNEWS&adxnnlx=1181927333-P5hPmYu7q38uxSRhO18Guw&oref=slogin) if he's gonna bitch. Trent Lott (R-MS) said, after the immigration bill fiasco, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” Well, Inhofe? What did your colleague mean by that?

What about you, Remote Observer? What did Lott mean by it? He certainly wasn't talking about Air America.


didnt he mean

"i love talk radio when it supports the things that i support but gdammit when they get a bug up their ass over something i want, they have to go"

didnt he mean

"i love talk radio when it supports the things that i support but gdammit when they get a bug up their ass over something i want, they have to go"

Yeah, pretty much. He was actually complaining about Limbaugh's ranting against the immigration bill. And of course, RO will never want to address the fact that a conservative Republican said the very thing that Inhofe accused Boxer and Clinton of saying.

One conservative politician claims he heard two liberal politicians talking about a fix for talk radio.

Therefore, all liberals are evil and out to destroy or convert everyone who doesn't agree with them.

:rolleyes:

Look at protests in the US. More often than not they're in support of a liberal cause. The only really big conservative ones are pro-life rallies but compared to all the others, like anti-war, world bank protesting, gay rights, pro choice rallies, etc they're hardly in the majority.
Why hold protests for what you are getting your way with?
Implying some nice neoconservative logic short-circuiting there.

Yeah, pretty much. He was actually complaining about Limbaugh's ranting against the immigration bill. And of course, RO will never want to address the fact that a conservative Republican said the very thing that Inhofe accused Boxer and Clinton of saying.

of course not.

then he might have to make a more mature analysis that includes the possibility that ALL politicians want to control the public discourse so that they can pass whatever they want in peace.

i may hate those conservative radio hosts (and i dislike pretty much every one of them) but at least they encourage their listeners to pay attention to what is going on. if people like trent lott had their way, there would be no discussion at all.

of course not.

then he might have to make a more mature analysis that includes the possibility that ALL politicians want to control the public discourse so that they can pass whatever they want in peace.

i may hate those conservative radio hosts (and i dislike pretty much every one of them) but at least they encourage their listeners to pay attention to what is going on. if people like trent lott had their way, there would be no discussion at all.

I think you give the conservative radio hosts a bit too much credit, but the overall point is a good one. My guess is that Boxer and Clinton were talking about reviving the fairness doctrine, which has its own problems. A better solution would be to stop media consolidation and encourage not only more local ownership, but also low power radio stations.

I think you give the conservative radio hosts a bit too much credit, but the overall point is a good one. My guess is that Boxer and Clinton were talking about reviving the fairness doctrine, which has its own problems. A better solution would be to stop media consolidation and encourage not only more local ownership, but also low power radio stations.

it does give them too much credit. but i do love it when the rare occasion comes around where they disagree with the president and the republican party in general.

Here’s a glimpse into Hillary’s operational style.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, ” A Woman in Charge,” Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present “comprehensive” health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton’s purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

“No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would ‘demonize’ members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration’s plan or otherwise stand in its way.”

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, “with disgust and distrust.” Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Ah, so someone will now say that Bradley and Moynihan (two liberals) didn't hear this either...

Here’s a glimpse into Hillary’s operational style.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, ” A Woman in Charge,” Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present “comprehensive” health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton’s purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

“No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would ‘demonize’ members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration’s plan or otherwise stand in its way.”

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, “with disgust and distrust.” Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Ah, so someone will now say that Bradley and Moynihan (two liberals) didn't hear this either...
Which proves what? That she didn't know how to kiss Congressional ass in 1993? What does that have to do with this overheard conversation? And how does that change what Lott said?

Here’s a glimpse into Hillary’s operational style.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, ” A Woman in Charge,” Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present “comprehensive” health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton’s purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

“No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would ‘demonize’ members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration’s plan or otherwise stand in its way.”

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, “with disgust and distrust.” Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Ah, so someone will now say that Bradley and Moynihan (two liberals) didn't hear this either...

What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Tell me something...what exactly constitutes a legislative fix on talk radio? That could mean anything from censorship of conservative radio to government-encouraged diversely political radio(that is, able to show all sides of political debate.) That second one is one I'd really like, because that way people can hear more about what they want to hear. I know I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh proving himself to be stupid once again.

On that same token, I wouldn't want most of the people from Air America, as they were equally stupid. Randy Rhoades was basically an American Liberal version of Ann Coulter...the idiocy--and hatred--that spew forth from her cavernous jaw were astounding.

Also note that none of these liberals have their own show on a major news network. The only real 'liberal media' characters I can think of are Al Franken, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore - one's on a radio station many people don't get, one's on HBO which many people don't have, and the last is only on a few documentaries which come out every half decade or so.

Compare that to the mountain of conservatives everywhere you look - I can turn on the talk radio channel and I won't find liberal radio station -one-, but I'll find some guy talking about how they took our jerbs or black people smell for damn sure, being in Virginia.

The Hot Coffee™ fiasco really pissed me off.

QFT. It's a perfect example of how much of a pandering bitch she is - she doesn't really care about the truth or what's right, she just wants to take advantage of whatever particular situation might be within her reach. She's True Neutral, and I want to stab her in the foot.

Here’s a glimpse into Hillary’s operational style.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, ” A Woman in Charge,” Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present “comprehensive” health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton’s purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

“No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would ‘demonize’ members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration’s plan or otherwise stand in its way.”

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, “with disgust and distrust.” Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Ah, so someone will now say that Bradley and Moynihan (two liberals) didn't hear this either...

I'm not sure there are many Hillary supporters here, so your post was kinda redundant. It's like "Here, look, she's a stupid bitch!" "We know. What's your point?"

Which proves what? That she didn't know how to kiss Congressional ass in 1993? What does that have to do with this overheard conversation? And how does that change what Lott said?

Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Man), absolutely nothing.

Here’s a glimpse into Hillary’s operational style.
<SNIP>...

so the point of this thread is "hillary clinton sucks"?

what else is new?

so the point of this thread is "hillary clinton sucks"?

what else is new?

I think he's trying to convince us Hillary is a bitch. Which I believe everyone who's been paying attention for the last decade or so already knew.

I think he's trying to convince us Hillary is a bitch. Which I believe everyone who's been paying attention for the last decade or so already knew.

he is so behind the times!

besides, how could a woman who is NOT a bitch possibly be president of the united states?

*snip*
Most right-wingers abandon their threads when they get destroyed by logic and common sense, not erect straw men in the assumption that liberals, like crows supposedly, would be scared away by them.

I'm not sure there are many Hillary supporters here, so your post was kinda redundant. It's like "Here, look, she's a stupid bitch!" "We know. What's your point?"
Funny thing is, the more that people like RO (and the media whores) harp on this kind of inconsequential stuff, the more they make Hillary Clinton look sympathetic by comparison, and that's tough to do. I have lots of reasons to not support her in the primaries, but the fact that she was a hardass in 1993 when it came to universal healthcare isn't one of them.

Don't quit your day job. :p


Indeed, the Islamophobic pot needs its stirrers.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

there spammers
I don't think it's spamming to ask for the hand that's up RO's butt, I mean it was word for word in his post, the least he could do is credit the hand.
Last I saw, Air America was still in business. What caused their financial difficulties was a poor business plan, not poor ideas or shows. Lately, they've made some bonehead moves, like replacing Sam Seder with that idiot Lionel, but they're still in business, and in fact just signed a distribution deal with Westwood One.

But what's more important is that liberal talk radio isn't just Air America. Two of the biggest liberal voices on the radio in terms of stations and listeners are Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, and they work for the Jones Radio Network, so even if Air America does eventually fail, it doesn't mean liberal talk radio failed.

Lastly, I'd just like to point out that even if Inhofe isn't full of shit and Clinton and Boxer said some approximation of what he claims they did, Inhofe better look to his own side of the aisle (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/washington/15immig.html?_r=1&ei=5099&en=0fadcc32e711981d&ex=1182484800&adxnnl=1&partner=TOPIXNEWS&adxnnlx=1181927333-P5hPmYu7q38uxSRhO18Guw&oref=slogin) if he's gonna bitch. Trent Lott (R-MS) said, after the immigration bill fiasco, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” Well, Inhofe? What did your colleague mean by that?

What about you, Remote Observer? What did Lott mean by it? He certainly wasn't talking about Air America.
Good question that will not get an answer.
I think you give the conservative radio hosts a bit too much credit, but the overall point is a good one. My guess is that Boxer and Clinton were talking about reviving the fairness doctrine, which has its own problems. A better solution would be to stop media consolidation and encourage not only more local ownership, but also low power radio stations.

Also good. End the Clearchannel nation (though that's a little dated, I think Clearchannel just dumped whole sections of its empire)

This is a great thing for America!

The politicians are elected and since they are elected then the people support them 100 percent always and regardless of anything, will agree to everything they say and do. Why? Because they were elected by a democratic election!

That is what they think and that is what I think.

We all know that the radio is filled with crazy gun nuts who are too much of 'loose cannons' to have on. They make America feel good about the war in Iraq, they make America feel good about things like toll roads, economic anarchy and most of all, deciding things without regard to greater society!

Like look at that over sized cowboy we kicked out the other day! Yeah, so maybe he was insulting to everyone who came onto his show, and yeah, maybe the same amount of democrats came on his show as Republicans, and yeah, maybe he wasn't the highest fined by that one board the government made back in the day, but he got what he deserved.

They are the government, they just want us to be happy, they don't want these over-optimistic feelings coming in. They don't want alternate forms of media that aren't quite as controlled, no control = less authroity which equals social collaspe!

So, let them regulate radio, come on, less information never hurt anyone, did it?

This is a great thing for America!

The politicians are elected and since they are elected then the people support them 100 percent always and regardless of anything, will agree to everything they say and do. Why? Because they were elected by a democratic election!

That is what they think and that is what I think.

We all know that the radio is filled with crazy gun nuts who are too much of 'loose cannons' to have on. They make America feel good about the war in Iraq, they make America feel good about things like toll roads, economic anarchy and most of all, deciding things without regard to greater society!

Like look at that over sized cowboy we kicked out the other day! Yeah, so maybe he was insulting to everyone who came onto his show, and yeah, maybe the same amount of democrats came on his show as Republicans, and yeah, maybe he wasn't the highest fined by that one board the government made back in the day, but he got what he deserved.

They are the government, they just want us to be happy, they don't want these over-optimistic feelings coming in. They don't want alternate forms of media that aren't quite as controlled, no control = less authroity which equals social collaspe!

So, let them regulate radio, come on, less information never hurt anyone, did it?

lol

you better be careful or someone will believe you!

I heard the other day, from some posters on NS, that RO was really a troll with no guts nor brain. I reckon it must be true since I said that I heard it.

I heard the other day, from some posters on NS, that RO was really a troll with no guts nor brain. I reckon it must be true since I said that I heard it.

I reckon.

Going back to the original purpose of this thread (about two senators wanting a "legislative fix" for talk radio), I am going to ask the question that Kyronea asked that was never answered: what does that mean? Censor pundits? Give government support for liberal talk? Have a disclaimer before every "O'Reilly Factor"? My second question is, in what context was the statement made? Did one senator say, "Starting tomorrow, my minions and I will prepare a bill that will keep Limbaugh away from a microphone for the rest of his life" or "Man, I really wish there was something we could do about those darn talk show hosts"? Right now, all I know is two senators discussed, to an unknown degree of seriousness something whose definition remains enigmatic. I'm surprised it's managed to generate five pages of discussion, considering I (and I suspect many others) have no idea what it's about.

Going back to the original purpose of this thread (about two senators wanting a "legislative fix" for talk radio), I am going to ask the question that Kyronea asked that was never answered: what does that mean? Censor pundits? Give government support for liberal talk? Have a disclaimer before every "O'Reilly Factor"? My second question is, in what context was the statement made? Did one senator say, "Starting tomorrow, my minions and I will prepare a bill that will keep Limbaugh away from a microphone for the rest of his life" or "Man, I really wish there was something we could do about those darn talk show hosts"? Right now, all I know is two senators discussed, to an unknown degree of seriousness something whose definition remains enigmatic. I'm surprised it's managed to generate five pages of discussion, considering I (and I suspect many others) have no idea what it's about.
This is typical of the stupidity on NSG. You've churned for who knows how many posts and never come close to discussing the issue.

If the government was going to intervene and "...deal with that problem" of talk radio "running America" then most likely they would turn to the darling of the Right and Left -- The "Fairness Doctrine". Nixon made great use of the doctrine to badger left-leaning broadcasters and I'm sure that our next Democratic government can use it to make the right-leaning broadcasters all but disappear.

Other misconceptions that should be discussed along with the idea of "fairness" should be how the airwaves are public property in the same way that the public owns the roads and sewers of this country. You should also discuss how newspapers can be protected by the First Amendment, but radio and TV stations are not.

This is typical of the stupidity on NSG. You've churned for who knows how many posts and never come close to discussing the issue.

Being as you are on the same side as the poster, you will refuse to admit that there never was an issue at hand. It was just another right-winger pissing and moaning about hearsay by a crackpot conservative senator about supposed fascist moves by teh ebil liberal senators that would do something unknown about their rightwing biased radio that leaves millions of Americans ill-informed and biased.

For there to be an issue in this thread, it had to be introduced by a third-party poster.

Being as you are on the same side as the poster, you will refuse to admit that there never was an issue at hand. It was just another right-winger pissing and moaning about hearsay by a crackpot conservative senator about supposed fascist moves by teh ebil liberal senators that would do something unknown about their rightwing biased radio that leaves millions of Americans ill-informed and biased.

For there to be an issue in this thread, it had to be introduced by a third-party poster.
Another of your typically trite analyses ...
http://www.millarblog.com/images/out-out-demons-of-stupidity.gif

This is typical of the stupidity on NSG. You've churned for who knows how many posts and never come close to discussing the issue.

If the government was going to intervene and "...deal with that problem" of talk radio "running America" then most likely they would turn to the darling of the Right and Left -- The "Fairness Doctrine". Nixon made great use of the doctrine to badger left-leaning broadcasters and I'm sure that our next Democratic government can use it to make the right-leaning broadcasters all but disappear.

Other misconceptions that should be discussed along with the idea of "fairness" should be how the airwaves are public property in the same way that the public owns the roads and sewers of this country. You should also discuss how newspapers can be protected by the First Amendment, but radio and TV stations are not.


if you had paid attention to the thread, you would have found that the topic really was that hillary clinton is a bitch

and perhaps that mr inhofe is a gossip.

there isnt the least reason to believe that mrs clinton said anything and thus there is no way to know what she would have meant if she had said it.

Being as you are on the same side as the poster, you will refuse to admit that there never was an issue at hand. It was just another right-winger pissing and moaning about hearsay by a crackpot conservative senator about supposed fascist moves by teh ebil liberal senators that would do something unknown about their rightwing biased radio that leaves millions of Americans ill-informed and biased.

Hey, being the socialist/lefty, overly sarcastic demagouge is my job!

All mighty bearer of all knowledge and wisdom, please enlighten us poor humble mooks about where in the topic post was there an actual issue raised.

This is typical of the stupidity on NSG. You've churned for who knows how many posts and never come close to discussing the issue.

If the government was going to intervene and "...deal with that problem" of talk radio "running America" then most likely they would turn to the darling of the Right and Left -- The "Fairness Doctrine". Nixon made great use of the doctrine to badger left-leaning broadcasters and I'm sure that our next Democratic government can use it to make the right-leaning broadcasters all but disappear.

Other misconceptions that should be discussed along with the idea of "fairness" should be how the airwaves are public property in the same way that the public owns the roads and sewers of this country. You should also discuss how newspapers can be protected by the First Amendment, but radio and TV stations are not.


Actually if you'd read the thread you'd see that RO's original point has been shot so full of logical holes that he abandoned the cause in disgrace. Not to mention that no one thinks the "fairness doctrine" is a good idea. But hey, I guess reading the thread before bitching is too much to expect from the likes of you. Better to show up late and lambaste the damned liberals!

Another of your typically trite analyses ...
http://www.millarblog.com/images/out-out-demons-of-stupidity.gif

http://www.millarblog.com/images/out-out-demons-of-stupidity.gif

Isn't it great when a person actually posts to correct response to their post?

Did noone else bother to follow the links that were attached to the clip of that dork's comments?

From ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/talk-talk-talk.html)

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okl, claims he overheard Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barbara Boxer, D-Calf, chatting about how out of control talk radio had become.

"They said we've got to do something about this," Inhofe told a talk radio host. (LINK) "That 'these are nothing but far right wing extremists, we've got to have a balance, there's got to be a legislative fix to this.'"

I'm still waiting for comment from Clinton's and Boxer's offices….but this comes on the heels of a new study by a liberal group (LINK) that claims that in Spring 2007 "of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative."

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has complained about talk radio as of late, saying last week "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem" and “I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk-radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

(Lott was complaining about the immigration reform bill being scuttled.)

“The people that he’s actually complaining and whining about now are the ones that tried to defend him when everybody else was throwing him overboard when he made those joking comments at a tribute to Strom Thurmond,” groused the omnipotent Rush Limbaugh (LINK)

What do you think?

--jpt

UPDATE: Boxer's and Clinton's offices got back to me.

"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened," says Natalie Ravitz, the communications director for Boxer.

"Jim Inhofe is wrong," says Philippe Reines, Clinton's press secretary. "This supposed conversation never happened - not in his presence or anywhere else."

AFTERNOON UPDATE: Even though Inhofe prefaced this story by saying "I was going over to vote the other day," the Oklahoman this afternoon told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that this alleged conversation took place "about three years ago."



He's trying to make hay on something he now alleges happened three years ago, he wouldn't even name names, but he's trying to insert it into the debate as if it were a current issue being discussed by candidates.

That is so far beneath the dignity of his office that it is disgusting.

Did noone else bother to follow the links that were attached to the clip of that dork's comments?

From ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/talk-talk-talk.html)



He's trying to make hay on something he now alleges happened three years ago, he wouldn't even name names, but he's trying to insert it into the debate as if it were a current issue being discussed by candidates.

That is so far beneath the dignity of his office that it is disgusting.

That puts a fork in it...

He's trying to make hay on something he now alleges happened three years ago, he wouldn't even name names, but he's trying to insert it into the debate as if it were a current issue being discussed by candidates.

That is so far beneath the dignity of his office that it is disgusting.
This is what? two for two?

Another of your typically trite analyses ...
http://www.millarblog.com/images/out-out-demons-of-stupidity.gif
And for you.
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/265/shutuphonkyjy0.jpg

That is so far beneath the dignity of his office that it is disgusting.
This is Inhofe we're talking about here. He wouldn't know dignity if it slapped him in the face with its dick.

This is Inhofe we're talking about here. He wouldn't know dignity if it slapped him in the face with its dick.

Nah, I'm sure he's learned Dignity's name by now.