Added: 3 years ago
From: axeqt123
Views: 2,210
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (60)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • David Axelrod's mother wrote for a communist newspaper in New York. I also believe he may be a descendant of Russian Marxist Pavel Axelrod.

  • Mitt Romney Will be PresiDent in 2013......

  • This is what communists do, they centralize speech so they only they may speak.

  • OMG am I sick of these this smug, arrogrant POS asshole. He doesn't rule out the Fairness Doctrine? Guess what ALexrod...FUCK YOU AND OBAMA, YOU FUCKS

  • If AM/FM radio, which has a limited number of frequencies that are licensed to the public, were to be regulated, would you not have to do the same with other forms of media? Network television requires a license and has a limited number of RF, which means ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, WB... all of those guys. Then the internet - there are only a certain number of domains that are provided to the public to be "rented". The internet should be regulated as well like in China? Who will do all this...

  • Barry Hussein, who else? He thinks he's the President of the World now. This will only apply to conservative media, since the Demoncraps are afraid of the truth being told-the networks you mentioned are part of the Barry Hussein propaganda machine.

  • He has the answer and just won't say it. He knows the evil plans and that the government isn't going to stop until they destroy our economy and take all of our liberties and freedom away. They are all on a huge power trip.  At what point will all Americans wake up?? How bad does it have to get? Can't everyone see the writing on the wall? We're getting change alright ... change I doubt anyone really is going to want at the end of the day.

  • The Demoncraps are afraid of people learning the truth instead of what the Amercia-hating media tells us. If the people learn the truth, then the Demoncrap Party becomes irrelevent.

    Liberals only believe in free speech when they are the one's doing the speaking.

  • if someone doesn't want to hear what conservative radio hosts have to say, they can change the dial on their radio or just turn it off. what kind of moron needs a law to protect them from listening to a radio show? get a life people. politicians should be more concerned with real issues in america.

  • The Demoncraps are afraid that people will learn that America isn't as liberal as they want you to think it is. Remember, if you tell the lie enough times, it becomes the truth.

  • Amen!

  • The fairness doctrine is just a way of limiting our first admendment rights. If you dont belive than why is it that only those shows with conservative views are affected? Why shouldn't Oblerman or any one else on MSNBC have make time for conservative views.

  • Maybe if the fairness doctrine was in place..we might have not gone to war..then if we didnt go to war we would have spent 100's of billions of dollars and would have been able to handle this housing collapse much better

  • If Clinton didn't inact the "Community Redevelopment Act", we wouldn't be in this mess. If the Demoncraps had listened to the Republicans in the House of Reps hearing on 10-06-04 (lots of video), the mess wouldn't be so bad. (Did you know Maxine Waters was married to a former Fannie Mae CEO? Isn't the conflict of interest?).

  • I want to punch this ferret-faced scumbag in the face. Who's with me?

  • If we had true fairness , we would never have to see this liberal rodent on TV again.

  • You put your finger on it. He IS a rodent in disguise!

  • I see it 2!

  • Haha!

  • It's a one-way street. Liberals only believe in free speech when they are the one's doing the speaking. LIke I said earlier, they are afraid of people learning the truth.

  • They hide from truth and facts like a vampire fears the sun! Oh , and truth , that's only a campaign trick. This administration is on pace to make Carter look respectable. Any odds on how many hours till the next scandal pops up?

  • Exactly, its already beginning to happen everywhere around. Its like if you don't agree with liberal ideas, then they attack you with slander. Already its beginning to happen, even on YouTube. Its becoming so that they want to publically humilate those who are conservative or desiring to be conservative.

  • Not only that, but when you confront them with facts, they cuss, yell, and scream because deep down they know you're right but they can't admit it to themselves. The country is more conservative than the "media" lets on to be-why do you think so many people voted down the gay marriage bills?

  • The problem is why aren't more people opposing those gay marriage bills? I was quite surprised that California was against it, considering its known history.

  • Once you get away from L.A. and San Fransicko, the people start getting consevative. Demoncrap wackos like Nazi Pelousy, Diane the dragqueen Feinstein, and Babbwa Boxer depend on voter fraud to get elected (dead people voting, illegals voting, felons voting, people voting multiple times). Why do you think the Demoncrap Party is so against us having to show on ID in order to vote? Without voter fraud, most Demoncraps couldn't get elected.

  • Fact is, it is 100% censorship if the govt is going to decide whats "fair" speech.

    We can all agree against slander, libel, public obscenity. After that, it is 100% censorship for the govt to get involved.

    Anyone with any respect for our US Const accepts this.

  • Democrats are the new Nazis.

  • I wonder if this applies to the tv airwaves as well.

    I doubt it since the liberals control most of that.

    They just cant stand the fact that conservative radio is far more popular than liberal radio.

    Sometimes its like the liberals are 5 year old, whining, children.

  • Hate to say it, but conservative radio brings more harm than good, because its tendency to embrace extremism and collective narrow-mindedness and ignorance exploits the people that tend to listen to it. These are Americans who unfortunately lack an adequate level of education, and the ability to think critically. This leads them to believe much of the drivel they hear from people like Hannity and Savage, who are in it only for the money they make exploiting these people. It's a vicious cycle.

  • You couldnt be more wrong.

    I could say the same thing about the liberal mainstream media, but I still wouldnt want the government stepping in.

    Your comment is a blatent example of liberal hypocracy.

    Its sickening.

  • I'm not a liberal Democrat. I'm a recovering Republican and a registered Independent, and a veteran of the United States Army to boot. I'm far from being a hypocrite, and I don't share in this anti-government hysteria that all you Righties like so much. However, I think that lying to the American people, and preaching falsehoods as truth, (like most conservative talk show hosts do), is despicable AND sickening. The airwaves were meant to be used in a more constructive manner, don't you think?

  • I dont care what banner you vote under.

    You have a liberal mindset.

    If you truely felt that way you should be EQUALLY as outraged at the mainstream media.

    Airwaves are meant to be used in any fashion THAT DOES NOT INDUCE VIOLENCE.

    Other than that, the airwaves can and should be used for whatever the people want.

    Are you outraged at the mainstream media?

  • Yes, but for different reasons. I think they waste a lot of valuable air time on stupid items that have no true relevance. But they don't cause the damage that extremists on conservative radio cause. I remember judges at all levels of the judiciary receiving death threats when Hannity and Savage irrationally and without knowledge of cause attacked them during the Schiavo case in Florida. What makes you think that airwaves should be used for WHATEVER people want? That's a very suspect statement.

  • How about the death threats conservatives get after being portrayed as evil in the mainstream media?

    Are you upset about that as well?

    Or does your anger only arise when it involves a democrat?

    See what I meant about liberal mindset?

  • Someone being portrayed as evil is not the same as a judge being threatened for performing his/her constitutional duty. There are all kinds of whackos out there who will threaten me or you if we look at them the wrong way. That's not the point. I think Hannity, Savage, and Rush do incite troubled people to follow their baser instincts through the use of inflammatory rhetoric. The Far Left is just misguided and confused, but they don't induce people to follow their baser instincts like that.

  • Its funny how a liberal person, like yourself, describes Hannit el. al. as inciting trouble and the far left as misguided.

    There have been far left personalitys who have advocated the killing of conservative government officials.

    is that the confusion youre talking about?

    Im glad you commented.

    It shows the blatent liberal hypocracy that is rampant in the u.s. today.

  • You keep calling me a liberal, and that's OK with me. If being a liberal is the opposite of behaving like anti-American retrogrades such as Hannity and Savage, you can call me a liberal all you want. I think the Far Left is just as harmful to our country as the Far Right is. People such as Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Dennis Kucinich, and the crazy bitch from "Democracy Now" are very dangerous as well in my book, and I think their agenda could seriously damage this country too. I'm a Centrist, bud!

  • It took you about 5 comments to actually admit that the far left is harmful to the country.

    You started out as saying otherwise.

    I think my job here is done.

    And for the record you are a liberal.

  • I admit to the fact that extremes are harmful, and yes, in some instances I am a liberal, and on others I am a conservative. A glance at my profile should have told you that much. I never said the Far Left wasn't harmful. I said they were misguided and confused, which they are. And I do think their rhetoric doesn't rise to the vitriolic level that Hannity and Rush have reached. There are more moderate leftists than moderate right-wingers, and that's a fact that cannot be denied. I'm not arguing.

  • Its funny how you label the conservatives as dangerous adn the liberals as misguided and confused.

    In reality its the left wing hosts who encourage civil disobedience, not so civil disobedience, and outright violence toward conservatives.

    Yet you insist on claiming the right wing hosts are more harmful.

    I, truely, have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

  • I'd say that some liberal TV personalities are downright dangerous, like Amy Goodman from "Democracy Now". She is one of those you're talking about, who encourage unlawful behavior, and to be honest with you I can't stand her. I dislike her as much as I dislike Hannity and Rush, because in my book they're all the same: extremists that seek to incite people into acting badly by igniting their passions instead of calling on them to think critically. And the Huffington Post is not far behind...

  • I would love for you to go back and read your earlier posts.

    You have changed your tune, a lot.

    LOL.

    Given all that, would you still want the government to censor these people?

  • I did, and to a certain extent I have, LOL };-). That always happens, because I've got a foot on both sides of the fence most of the time. That's what happens when you're a Centrist. I don't fully subscribe to either viewpoint, but I'm deeply bothered by extremism and the refusal to go beyond partisanship in order to compromise. That's why I get so mad at people like Rush, Hannity, and Amy Goodman. They advocate for division and strife, and that's the last thing our Country needs right now.

  • Well you didnt start off as a centrist.

    Were you as mad with the democrats througout his administration, when they refused to compromise and be bipartisan?

    There are no bigger advocates of division than the democratic party. i would think someone who is so opposed to that would be aware of it, I guess not.

  • I didn't start from a centrist viewpoint because currently I'm more pissed off at Republicans than I am at Democrats, but I'm sure that will change eventually, as it always does with me. To be fair, I think both parties are guilty of it. I was a little bit more mad at Bush than I was at his opposition, but both pissed me off royally, because neither rose to the occasion as our Country demanded throughout the past 8 years. They both refused to compromise and be bipartisan in a vicious cycle.

  • Given all that, would you still want the government to censor these people?

  • I'm not in favor of government censorship, but I'm in favor of the government encouraging those who are heard and followed by our society to behave responsibly and lawfully. Censorship never brought about anything good, on the contrary. I think an intelligent government could positively influence the process through which the American people get our information, by protecting freedom of expression and fostering a climate of fairness and responsibility at the same time. Hard to achieve, though.

  • Well censorship is exactly what this fairness doctrine amounts to.

    You may want to rethink your view of it.

  • If this "Fairness Doctrine" amounts to forcing the likes of the people I've mentioned here to start behaving more responsibly and to start being more accurate, I'm all for it. But, like I said, the last thing we should be engaging in is censorship, because censorship is simply unconstitutional, and contrary to our American values. Like I said, if the Obama administration acts in an intelligent manner, censorship should not be resorted to. It would be wrong.

  • What you are "all for" is cencorship.

    You may want to rethink your position.

  • ""because censorship is simply unconstitutional, and contrary to our American values.""

    Really? Thats funny. Because you censored people off your pro-Obama videos, just for expressing anything less and abject Obama worship.

    So, youre all in favor of censorship, just as long as you're the censor.

    Thanks for admitting that your attitude toward free speech is against the OUR American values.

  • I blocked them because they were not interested in engaging in reasoned debate. They just wanted to slander and lie without regard for accuracy or truth. That's why I blocked them. I can have a dialogue with people who have differing views, but I do not tolerate irrationality and extremism. Particularly not now, when those are the last things we need to be engaging in, in view of the situation our Country faces. I'll listen to you as long as you remain rational, reasonable, and coherent.

  • What makes me think the airwaves should be used for whatever people want is that this country is OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

    As long as people dont induce violence or break laws, and the shows are profitable, I dont see why the government should step in.

    And that goes for liberal radio as well, as much as it sickens me.

  • I disagree. There's no such thing as total and unlimited freedom. What you're advocating for is called libertinism, and it involves a disdain for moral restraint and conventional traditions. Abraham Lincoln's words are sometimes used to twist the meaning of these terms, and as justification for engaging in libertinism at one's own convenience, and THAT couldn't be more wrong. Talk show hosts have a responsibility to the public to conduct themselves in healthy, reasonable ways on the air...

  • I guess you decided to glance over the point i made about the far left personalities.

    Yet another example of liberal hypocracy.

    I never said I wanted total, unlimited freedom. Nor do i have disdain for moral restraint.

    Do liberal talk sho hosts have a responsibility to the pubilc?

  • Of course they do! And I absolutely didn't mean to imply that you personally are morally deficient. If that's how my point came across, I apologize. I'm of the view that we ALL have a responsibility to be rational, reasonable, and fair, regardless of whatever our political affiliations may be. I am an equal-opportunity, very harsh critic of extremists, both from Right and Left. To me, Rush and Hannity are neither reasonable nor fair, and the same goes for the Far Left people I mentioned...

  • No need to apologize. I dont take to heart what people say about me here on youtube.

    I think putting equivalence to rush and hannity and far left sites like huffington post or media matters is outright wrong.

    While you may not agree with rush and hannity they are neither unreasonable nor extremists.

  • Tyrannical tendences.

  • Himmler in a red diaper

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more