|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yes. you need to say that the Senator was lying, not just implicit. b/c he realy couldn't have been more explicit in what he said. |
While at the same time, you and especially Inhofe need to say that the little growth on his elbow is not a new penis which is why he's wearing tighter shirts in order to conceal his abnormality.
See, these rumor games are fun. They can go on and on and on and on.....
| quote: | | this thread or subject as a whole, really, isn't about the content of Conservative talk radio. it stands up to scrutiny all the time |
The content stands up to scrutiny? Surely you jest?:
www.mediamatters.com
If there's content that your former GOP Clinton-hating bitch David Brock is incorrect about when he posts criticisms of various media figures (including Conservative media heads), by all means discuss them.
| quote: | | (i would expect it to be) it's about threats against it's freedom to express the content. |
Which really is an interesting argument considering that is exactly what the report in Think Progress is arguing - by a meltdown and consolidation of radio media to a select few corporate heads, all of the sudden the number of voices in talk radio is reduced down to a select few. This is exactly what occurred to a local radio station here in Lawrence, Kansas. It was a local AM talk show and sports radio station that broadcasted primarily local news, but got bought out by a bigger corp. I know, shit happens, and they promised to keep things local.
But then a funny thing happened - Bill O'Reilly started perpetrating in with his show, 2 hours of it. Then one day, we all got to hear Neil Boorz on before O'Reilly. Some of us wondered what was up. Some of us complained (actually, given that the voting block in our town is majority liberal and progressive, many complained). Those complaints eventually led to a listening of Ed Shultz - 2 hours of it after O'Reilly. Ratings went up, a balance was created, and everyone was full of glee.
Then Schultz got reduced down to one hour for no reason, even when the ratings were up. Next thing you knew, Shultz was reduced down to nonexistence, and then quietly replaced by a no-name local Conservative guy. Hey, he was "local" goes the argument, but now from pretty much all day until 4:00 you have nothing but Conservative radio. It defied the ratings, and it defied "balance", but the company controlled the reins and they got to choose.
And that is exactly what occurs elsewhere. The smaller outlets are gobbled up and taken over by companies that can control all messages they choose going out over the airwaves.
| quote: | | i believe it puts the implied liberal foundations under scrutiny. |
Uhh, yeah. Whatever you say there bub. So if I'm to understand you right, you don't want to discuss the content that these Conservative blowhards discuss because that's not what this thread is about, but instead you want to discuss opening up the airwaves and actually ALLOWING MORE FREE SPEECH across the board (conservative and liberal alike) with stricter regulation that gives a more even playing field for smaller businesses is somehow putting the implied liberal foundations under scrutiny?
Alright, I'll roll with that one - so allowing smaller businesses to compete with more equal footing with larger businesses is a bad thing? Hmmm, what a bummer indeed......
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Jun-22-2007 at 13:47
|
