Comments on: Now this is offensive

By: Reverend Flash

Reverend Flash — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:24:46 +0000

Kat, I don’t even know where to begin with you. First of all, though I may be about to give you flack for what you posted, my name is ‘Flash’, not ‘Flack’ (or was that supposed to be some kind of intentional quip that got by me?). Your comments were all over the place, both illogical and inconsistent. First you say, “hate speech is everything that does not conform to (the left-wing) agenda”. Then, in your very next sentence you describe hate speech as “judges banning nativity scenes, retailers renaming Christmas trees ‘Holiday trees,’ schools forbidding children from singing Christmas carols and banning the colors red and green”. Wouldn’t those actually be the things that supposedly DO conform to the left-wing agenda? Then you go on to say “Bibles are banned while children are forced to read korans.” Where? The Middle East? Tell me where in this country you will find a federally supported institution banning bibles and forcefeeding children the Koran (what a switch THAT’D be!). Then you say “The Christmas story in Christmas parades is replaced with rainbow flags and men dressed as women”. Again, where? San Francisco? Greenwich Village? I tune into parade coverage once in a while, but this sort of thing I’ve never seen. What are we supposed to believe from this – that Christmas parades nationwide are now celebrating the day that God left a transvestite at the end of a rainbow? Next, you say “Jesus is banned while NAMBLA members are welcomed.” One more time – WHERE? At the NAMBLA meeting where you have to where shirt and shoes to get in? (“Sorry, Mr. Christ, but you’ll have to come back wearing something more than that shroud and sandals.”) Your next gem is “Reltaliating against 911 is war mongering while jihadism is a culture we must appreciate.” Mm hm. I guess I must have forgotten THAT big Hilary Clinton speech. “My fellow Americans, it’s time to end this war and return the Middle East to the jihad-imposing cesspool for which we’ve all been hungering.” Then you say “The FCC is evil while the ACLU is good.” Well, yeah, that’s the first thing you’ve said with which I agree. But something tells me that you shifted gears here and clumsily entered the realm of sarcasm without warning. If so, how can you support a non-elected government body whose job it is to impede free speech and expression while putting down an organization whose mission is to protect those very rights which are under attack? Would you prefer the FCC go all willy-nilly with censorship with no ACLU to keep them in check? Your big closing line sounds like something poorly translated using Babelfish: “Your idea of free speech is think as I tell youâ€“the left way.” I think you’re trying to say that MY idea of free speech is only the speech that I support – leftist speech. No, and I’ve explained this before. First of all, this comparison between free speech and hate speech is like comparing apples and oranges and is, if you’ll excuse the pun, fruitless. Hate speech IS free speech. All speech is free, or should be. I support a person’s right to speak freely no matter how crazy, evil, or stupid it may make them sound. I would never deny anyone this freedom. The right-wing can spew anything they want that conflicts with my beliefs, and I would defend their right to do so. Likewise, I don’t expect to have my speech curtailed. It just seems that while the left will often condemn speech it deems hateful (the condemnations being another form of free speech), the right will occasionally try to actually CENSOR speech it finds unfavorable (definitely not ‘free’ anything). That’s just my observation. Your opinion may differ. And if so, you go ahead and express it ! (But, Kat, you may wanna go here first: http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/ .)

By: Reverend Flash

Reverend Flash — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:49:07 +0000

“I voice support for domestic partnerships but oppose gay marriage. Thatâ€™s not Free Speech, thatâ€™s Hate Speech gay-bashing.”

“I voice agreement that the Ten Commandments provides guidance in a chaotic world. Thatâ€™s not Free Speech, thatâ€™s Hate Speech bible-waving.”

No, Chico, that’s not the hate speech I was talking about either. A good combined example of gay-bashing hate speech and bible-waving hate speech would be The Westboro Baptist Church, a ‘family-oriented’ church whose motto is ‘Fags Must Die’. Granted, they are an extreme example of hate speech, but merely opposing gay marriage or finding the good in biblical passages does not necessarily constitute hate speech.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. My quote was “Hate Speech is what gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservatives do when theyâ€™re abusing their right to Free Speech. ” Now, unless you’re ready to define yourself as a ‘gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservative’, then I wasn’t criticizing your views.

By: Shitdick

Shitdick — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000

Why would you be offended by the person that showed Howard how to do it?

By: Doris Konn

Doris Konn — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:58:10 +0000

What a bore your blog is. I linked into it today because I had read some good things about it. I think it is awful and won’t be back.

By: Ben's Hog

Ben's Hog — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:20:24 +0000

OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!!
OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!!

By: Northcoast

Northcoast — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:47:11 +0000

Progressive: let me see as many facts as I can find, and as many opinions as I can find, and I will draw my own conclusions. God gave me a brain for a reason and I’m damn sure gonna use its analytical capacity. I’ll listen to Stern and Imus and decide which one is fake.
Conservative (today’s kind, not the classic): my brain hurts, please tell me what to think and leave out anything confusing because I am afraid of anything I don’t understand. Intellectual capacity is too powerful to trust and must be suppressed at every opportunity. A strong, small ruling class makes this ever so much easier. I’ll write letters to the FCC and anyone else I’m told to but I won’t listen to Stern because I might not agree with the opinion I’m supposed to agree with; and that will cause intellectual stress, which I avoid at all costs.

By: chico haas

chico haas — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:48:35 +0000

“Hate Speech is what gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservatives do when theyâ€™re abusing their right to Free Speech.”

Thank you, Reverend, for illustrating my point.

I voice support for domestic partnerships but oppose gay marriage. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech gay-bashing.

I voice agreement that the Ten Commandments provides guidance in a chaotic world. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech bible-waving.

I voice support in removing Saddam and his sons from power in an attempt to stabilize a volatile region. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech war-mongering.

It continues to amaze me how progressives believe they own phrases like Free Speech, activism and, particularly craw-sticking, tolerance.

By: kat

kat — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:55:26 +0000

No, Mr. Flack, Free Speech is everything leftists condone and hate speech is everything that does not conform to their agenda. Hate speech is judges banning nativity scenes, retailers renaming Christmas trees “Holiday trees,” schools forbidding children from singing Christmas carols and banning the colors red and green! Bibles are banned while children are forced to read korans. The Christmas story in Christmas parades is replaced with rainbow flags and men dressed as women. Jesus is banned while NAMBLA members are welcomed. Reltaliating against 911 is war mongering while jihadism is a culture we must appreciate. The FCC is evil while the ACLU is good. Your idea of free speech is think as I tell you–the left way.

By: Reverend Flash

Reverend Flash — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:35:29 +0000

This is how progressives actually differentiate between Free Speech and Hate Speech. Free Speech is what everyone has the right in which to indulge. Hate Speech is what gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservatives do when they’re abusing their right to Free Speech. However, progressives will not attempt to censor it, but rather fully defend the neo-cons’ right to express it. How else can we keep tabs on who all the jackasses are?

By: tony

tony — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:09:07 +0000

That moron has been #1 around the country for the last decade.

So if he’s a moron, “Bob”, what does that make you?

By: chico haas

chico haas — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:20:33 +0000

This is how progressives determine Free Speech: if it’s left-wing, it’s Free Speech; if it’s right-wing, it’s Hate Speech. Progressives, sadly, squander their ideals supporting “the rights” of people like Stern. Stern’s a capitalist. He’s only interested in Profitable Speech. I’m good with that, but the rest of it’s bullshit.

By: nerdster

nerdster — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:47:12 +0000

Howard is so offensive. He is so infantile. I never actually listened to his radio show. Etc. etc.

By: Andi

Andi — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:03:18 +0000

Imus is supposed to be offensive, it’s his job and he’s good at it. His outragousness often coaxes candidness from his important guests. Though he sometimes makes himself look like an idiot while doing so…

Stern on the other hand is just offensive, infantile and only coaxes nudity and lesser things from inconsequential vapid guests.

By: suprfancy

suprfancy — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:05:01 +0000

Noted BL Show’s fawning over you — Howard’s invite yesterday to march uptown on the 17th blew me away. I can’t even read the comments above blahblahing about Howard but this just to give you the STREET CREDS you deserve, Chrs

By: Bob Axles

Bob Axles — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:49:48 +0000

What is this fascination with Stern? The guy’s a moron.

By: Tish Grier

Tish Grier — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:23:21 +0000

Imus and Stern are the Yin and Yang of what’s bad about radio in general–and neither is much of a poster boy for the First Ammendment. Why is it that two individuals who are all about marketing and advertising–mostly of themselves–are seen as defenders of anything Constitutional. Both remind me of the advertising executive depicted in Larry Niven’s great send up of Dante’s “Inferno” who was spewing from something other than a mouth, which had been strategically placed on his face….

By: Fen

Fen — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:25:08 +0000

Stern? Everyman? LOL. I used to watch him – every episode was some bimbo stripping on set with Stern making lame passes at her. What a joke. At least Imus abuses his staff instead of the bimbos. Stern appeals to the Jerry Springer crowd of radio.

By: Marianne Powers

Marianne Powers — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:58:49 +0000

I like Imus.

By: blowback

blowback — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:27:06 +0000

Gray, I guess when you cannot argue the point, just like some of the western pro-Islam reactionary leftists, you have to revert to insults and ad hominem.

And as if Stalinist interrogation and hounding for confession of guilt makes you any better than a troll.

By: Dennis Mosher

Dennis Mosher — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:04:07 +0000

What is it with Howard Stern and his 1st Amendment martyr complex?

There are certain lines you can’t cross on broadcast TV & Radio.

This lesson was well understood by Chris Rock, George Carlin, Dennis Miller, Bill Maher and any number of others who moved their act to HBO to avoid FCC limitations.

Finally, Howard is moving to Sirius — the radio equivavalent of HBO.

I actually prefer Imus. I’m a political junkie.

Howard can be very good, and very funny, but the day he featured a man drinking his own urine on a dare — I realized life is too short to waste time with this.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:45:25 +0000

Blowback, someone told me not to feed trolls like you. I guess that’s a good idea.

By: blowback

blowback — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:04:19 +0000

Gray, how is that you are not DENOUNCING Juan Cole the intellectually corrupt blogger who BUFFERS and BLOCKS critical comments to his blog? If you really cared about open discourse, then you should DENOUNCE Cole for his censorship. Or is your outrage truly selective?

You were demanding that JJ denounce Allawi of Iraq with your incessant Stalinist witch hunting. Now is time for you to DENOUNCE Cole and get a taste of your own medicine. Or are you a BIG SUPPORTER of intellectual corruption?

You know that you cannot critcize Cole on his blog as he will delete it. So do it here.

By: Eric Logan

Eric Logan — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:57:42 +0000

I’m sorry but Stern stopped being “Everyman” a long time ago. A real “Everyman” wouldn’t charge his listeners $12.95 a month and take every Friday off.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:41:35 +0000

Gerard, you’re old fashioned.

To be honest, as much as I can see how Howard Stern rubs people the wrong way, it amazes me how no one sees the need to point out truly offensive other radio personalities are. Michael Savage makes it a point to verbally berate groups of people every week on his program, yet no fine. Rush Limbaugh spews hatred every time he opens his mouth, yet there is no fine.

So what is it then? Poop jokes and lesbians are offensive, but calling for the execution of homosexuals and heads of state is not? Clearly, something is wrong here.

And I know Savage and Limbaugh act that way because I have listened to them. And that’s the thing. If you are going to attack someone, you have to be sure you know what you are talking about. No one has pointed out that Stern has given a voice to the voiceless. Sure, we may think its wrong to have retards and KKK members be given a forum, but he was ready and willing to do that.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:14:11 +0000

Call me old-fashioned, but Howard Stern is crude, crass, fill-in-the-blank. I spent 20 years in radio during a time when a Howard Stern would have not been welcome anywhere. To think so many like to listen to such trash shows how our culture has declined in a frightningly similar way to ancient Rome.