Audio: Radio talk show hosts Opie and Anthony talk about forced sex with Condoleezza Rice Updated with a correction/retraction Update: Correction
posted at 2:40 pm on May 10, 2007 by Ian
Strong content warning:
Radio talk show hosts Opie and Anthony — yes, the same Opie and Anthony made infamous by a church sex stunt in 2002 — talked about raping the Secretary of State on their XM program this morning. The two went in an in-depth discussion describing the would-be situation. Quite disgusting.
Here’s how Breitbart.tv describes the skit:
Warning: Extremely Vulgar Language. Shock Jocks Opie and Anthony engage in discussion about forced sex with the Secretary of State. A studio guest begins describing the scenario as the hosts laugh and encourage him. Anthony talks about the horror for Rice as the guest is “holding her down” and assaulting her.
Well XM, is this the kind of filth you want to be known for?
(bp)
Update (Bryan): To our Hot Air readers, we apologize. We got this one wrong. We relied on the description of Opie & Anthony’s stunt as it appeared on Breitbart.tv, and that description turned out to be erroneous. The segment aired yesterday, not today, and wasn’t a pre-planned skit. Brietbart.tv has changed its description of the segment to reflect the facts. We apologize for our error.
Update (Ian): I’ll inject my two-cents here. It doesn’t matter if the words came from O&A’s mouth or “Homeless Charlie’s,” the fact remains they facilitated and humored this garbage that doesn’t belong on the airwaves, public or private.
Correction/update from Breitbart.tv:
Please correct the item on your site that says the information
on Breitbart.tv was erroneous.The time stamp of our posting has not changed since we put
it up and at no time did we indicate that it was from Thursday’s
broadcast.And at no time did we indicate that it was a pre-planned skit.
So both of the assertions in the posting now on your site are
incorrect.Thank you,
Scott Baker
VP Business Development/Breitbart.com
Co-Founder/Breitbart.tv
We stand corrected and apologize for the errors/confusion. (bp/mm)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
What Imus did doesn’t rate getting railroaded like Imus did.
The Media Matters folks have put blood in the water, and the sharks are circling. If you disagree with what two dopey guys on the stupid radio say, clearly in the context of humor and not incitement, then boycott them. The market will fix it.
What seems to offend those calling for more than that is that some of us find it (and humor like it) funny.
Humor is subjective. Its contextual as well. Get over it. There is something you find funny that another finds personally offensive. The PC movement has been a consistent slippery slope, and we all lose out for the sake of not being offended.
That ol’ Franklin chestnut that Kerry likes to misquote about giving up essential liberties applies equally here.
I should note that the same bordering-on-tasteless to provide humor is why i enjoy HotAir and other sites (Ace, Wuzz, Slub, JT etc…)
Every person who makes their living with words is currently in jeopardy from the left’s feeding frenzy.
coondawg on May 10, 2007 at 9:11 PM
THANK YOU.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I only hope the right doesn’t go to that level. Generally when some idiot on the left, like Rosie, spouts off 9-11 conspiracies or some other such rot, I may not like what they said and also may complain about it, but I want them to stick around so they can continue to be spotlighted and so the rest of America can see firsthand just how far off a cliff the left has fallen.
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 9:24 PM
“All about free speech”? So describing the rape (whether the word ‘rape’ was used or not has nothing to do with it, a rape is clearly what is being described here) of Condoleeza Rice and using the f-word repeatedly is an expression of free speech as far as you are concerned?
You are truly a fool.
Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Good God – holding someone down – horror on her face – that’s not rape? Well it is unless you’re some slimy defense lawyer. What’s wrong with some of you people? Between this and “the 15-year old who was assaulted by Akon was asking for it” creeps, this is a worrisome trend.
Wow, I really hope one of my daughters never comes near a sicko like E5infantry.
I guess you can go back to watching women on leashes on MTV, or drunk girls being victimized on Girls Gone Wild. Sick.
reaganaut on May 10, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Right now in southern California there is a porn-production company searching out a Condi look-alike so they can start shooting this weekend. America. You gotta’ love it.
Griz on May 10, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Oh wait, they said the f-word? Never mind, then.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Joking about rape = Rape. Welcome to the left.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Freedom of speech is not freedom from offense.
coondawg on May 10, 2007 at 9:43 PM
“All depends on your definition of rape.” *Bill Clinton*
Mojave Mark on May 10, 2007 at 9:43 PM
I think we’re being played.
Anyone who is a listener of Opie and Anthony, especially on XM, knows what their humor is like, and they cross what a lot of people see as a line in the sand, but I think that people on the right are being frothed up into a frenzy because it’s Condoleeza Rice, and I think this is being put out there by the same people (Media Matters and the like) who took Imus out. No one said boo until Condi was brought into it, because for those of us on the right, it strikes a chord. So guess what…the hosts that rail against the liberals, the ACLU, the Sharptons, the Farrakhans, the Gores, and the rest who think they know what’s good for this country just got us on their side…because while they were allowed to do this for 3 years, once you throw Condi into the mix…then we’re on the Soros side.
Again anyone who listens knows that while they might not support Bush (most of the time), 2 of the 3 hosts are predominantly right leaning. Free-speech, right to bear arms, government spends too much, etc. They’re not even of the “9-11″ conspiracy ilk…this really hurts my heart. They have very dark humor, and very offensive, but context is everything. They don’t advocate violence, and their fights are done verbally…
So here are people who are upset because it’s “harmful to the children”. It’s an adult station, not on public airwaves, that can be blocked, and if your kids hear it, you’re not being a responsible parent.
I’m really lost on this quote, because free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being offended.
StoutRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Heh. That’s happened to me before. (I’m the one whose father came over on the same
boatplane as Obama’s father, which is why I don’t use the term ‘African American.’)On topic: They *were* talking about rape, but weren’t advocating it, i.e. suggesting that it should happen or that it would be “fun” for Dr. Rice. The fact that they imagined the horror on her face under such imaginary circumstances makes both plain. They were making fun of the homeless person’s rather improbable fantasies.
Two problems with the bit, however: it was less than universally funny and these characters have a history of erring too far on the side of offensive when it comes to the border between offensive and funny.
But, as someone else opined, the market can decide as, you all may recall, it did with Imus: he didn’t get his walking papers until his sponsors bailed.
baldilocks on May 10, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Not only are O&A not of the 9/11 conspiracy ilk, but they had one of the Loose Change guys on the show last year and destroyed him with facts.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I don’t think anyone here claims that a rape actually occurred, but it is a useful strawman to put up when you want to win the argument.
“Let’s pretend the other posters are claiming a rape occurred, that way I can denounce their comments as being ridiculous, whereas if I limit myself to the reality that people are objecting to extreme vulgarity and description of the rape of a public official I won’t have a leg to stand on”.
Strawmen = reality. Welcome to the left.
Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 9:58 PM
imus’s sponsors didn’t bail
they bent over
to soros-funded attorneys whipped into a frenzy by race-baiting hack pseudo clergymen
terror by litigation
be careful what you wish for, you just might get it
if the joke is that orwell was right, the punchline is when rush et al get thrown off the air ‘cos the corporate sponsors caved to left-funded attorneys
you wanna take to the streets and torch someone, don’t torch o&a, torch the attorneys
you wanna whine to our elected (hah!) “leaders” about something, how about tort reform?
(not that it will do any good…)
sgbrown68 on May 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM
…and I should mention Sean Hannity is a friend to the show, and regular and random caller, and while he doesn’t agree with what they do or say all the time…even he supports their free market choice.
StoutRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM
My comment on 9-11 conspiracies was a general comment and wasn’t related to O&A, but in response to another poster’s comment about the left’s feeding frenzy on people who made their living with words. That’s why I said I hope the right doesn’t go in that direction, and mentioned my personal opinion about how I felt about how ‘bats like Rosie shouldn’t be forced out no matter how offensive but kept on. The left (aka the Mike Starks of the world) wouldn’t feel the same if it was someone on the right.
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Hey, Ian, you’re in good company.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 10:05 PM
But:
If you say so.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Agreed, but in that particular case, bailed=bent over.
However, the Imus case was different. Race-baiting hack pseudo clergymen weren’t the only ones who were offended and the Rutgers women weren’t public figures. (IMO, the ‘ho’ part was far more offensive than the ‘nappy head’ part. And, no, I don’t buy rap “music.”)
baldilocks on May 10, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Also, I don’t think that race-baiting hack pseudo clergymen will be up in arms about this perceived insult to Dr. Rice. They never were before; and of course we all know why.
baldilocks on May 10, 2007 at 10:11 PM
I was responding to StoutRepublican. Although I think it’s also relevant that they don’t do rape jokes all day every day. They really made that Loose Change guy look like an ass. Not tough to do, I realize, but it’s always nice to see.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM
StoutRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Firstly I don’t think these guys should be given a pass just because normally they are right-wing.
Secondly, I don’t see where I said that free speech meant freedom from being offended. Perhaps you could point this out to me. I’ll try again using an example.
Let’s say I state “Islam is a religion of hate, a death-cult”. This is an expression of my opinion. Let’s say I state “I’d love to take a woman in a Burqua, hold her down and f* her.” That is not an expression of my opinion, but a vulgar description of a criminal act. I’m all for free speech, but one has to begin to understand the difference between free speech and advocacy of criminal acts and vulgar language on a public channel (the fact that the channel is open only to certain parts of the public does not mean it’s not public).
Too many people equate the notion of free speech with “I can say whatever I want about whoever I want”. This is false, patently so.
Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM
If you say so.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Ok I’ll respong to this with an equivalent level of thought and reasoned argument:
If you say so.
Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Ok. My bad.
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I have a feeling that people are reading this as rape because they were told at the top it was about rape. I listened to the show live and rape didn’t even cross my mind. Stop the PC witchhunt crap.
Bodhi on May 10, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Thanks for responging.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 10:19 PM
If you want to get techincal…you’re not advocating anything. It is an opinion, and nothing in their inherently is a criminal act.
Anytime someone says, “I’m all for free speech, but….”, then they’re not “all” for free speech…just free speech that doesn’t tweak their own morality. I’m also not advocating a free pass, because there’s nothing that requires a “pass”. By your logic, “the fact that the channel is open only to certain parts of the public does not mean it’s not public”, R movies are also a violation…so what if it’s in a theater…does this line of reasoning mean that people still have an opportunity to ignore warnings, purchase a ticket, then complain when they see a zombie rip a head off?
StoutRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 10:23 PM
It’s not about giving them a pass, it’s about refuting the idea that they’re left-wing wackos who want Condi Rice to get raped. I mean, they would have run with it the same way if this kook had said he wanted to have sex with Minnie Mouse. But no, he likes Condi better, and so some people who like Condi thinks that makes this some kind of exceptional circumstance. Disclaimer: I like Condi and I think the creeps who say stuff about her in all seriousness (that she’s a house n-word and such) should go jump in a lake of razor blades. But that’s not what this was.
Jim Treacher on May 10, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I’ve got to say, this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with HotAir to the point of head-shaking (*shaking my head right now*).
StoutRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Me too.
Bodhi on May 10, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Complaining about satellite radio could have the same effect it had with cable tv. You pay once to get the basic service, which is censored (not to mention ridden with commercials), then you have to pay again to get uncensored shows. Cable/satellite tv is just a huge ripoff at this point, and it would be a shame to see satellite radio go the same way.
forged rite on May 10, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Wow. So complaining about people laughing and making jokes about rape is considered being “PC”? I guess I didn’t get the memo on that one.
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Mmmmmm, delicious publicity.
SouthernDem on May 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Sister…so the problem is you don’t think the subject matter is funny? (See: Gallows Humor, or Black Comedy). It’s a pretty popular genre…especially among those in law enforcement, and people who deal with tragedy every day. And yes, I find a lot of it funny, it’s a way to laugh at ones own misfortune…but for it to be a reflection of the person, or my morality? I think not.
And the fact it’s basically the radio equivelant of HBO stand up (which has a stand up special of one of the hosts…Lil’ Jimmy Norton) doesn’t make a difference?
StoutRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 10:46 PM
It’d be nice to see some dignity on the part of media creatures, but that concept has long withered and died. Consider for a moment that Condi Rice is America’s Secretary of State, who is the face of America in dealing with foreign nations.
Not once did these big mouths realize that this can be used by our enemies to humiliate our Secretary of State during negotiations of important issues that affect our national security.
Free speech isn’t the issue here, it’s have some respect for the office and the person tasked to the position so that she or he can conduct the business of the American people from the strongest position possible.
By feeling free to drag Condi’s name down so grossly they proved they do not respect her, and displayed their ignorance of the difficulties that Secretaries of State have to manage. No … mouth and exposure are far more important – short term selfish gains and long-term losses.
naliaka on May 10, 2007 at 11:48 PM
No, I don’t think it’s funny.
“Popular”? Oh well. To each their own.
You don’t think O&A laughing about the subject of rape bears some reflection on their person and their morality? OK.
No more than the fact that Bill Maher is on HBO, and that doesn’t keep anyone from complaining about him, either, as has been done at this blog and numerous others. Or do we just make exceptions depending on who the ‘offender’ is?
If you’re defending someone’s right to say something stupid, I’m with you. But if you’re trying to hold up O&A as the standard bearers for ‘good humor’, you’ve lost me.
I’m sure there are things (very few) O&A have said or done in the past that I would probably laugh at. But I didn’t find the joking about rape funny, and it makes little difference to me who that type of humor is popular with, nor does it matter with me who said it – whether it be O&A, Rush, or whoever. The difference between me and some people though is I’m not advocating anyone be fired over it. People do have a right to say and do stupid things, and I have a right to criticize them in turn. Ain’t America great?
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Heh. While I’ve often been a critic of what we say here at home and how it influences and emboldens the enemy, I seriously doubt Islamofascists make it a habit of tuning in to O&A ;)
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 11:53 PM
But they’ve gotten more exposure now, haven’t they? :(
(I was appalled at the treatment Condi got at the hands of the N. Sudanese – blocking her motorcade, shutting out her security … ugly. Some countries have people tasked to cruising the news looking for useful/embarrassing tidbits, so things like this do show up at the most inopportune moments.)
naliaka on May 11, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Now this is something with which I agree, regardless of whether the two should be fired or not. Zawahiri’s recent words regarding Dr. Rice and General Powell were simply a result of the climate which exists here in the US: one in which anything said about a Republican is okay. It doesn’t matter whether the denigration violates the Left’s “hate speech” codes against women, blacks, etc. After all, there is no such thing as “hate speech” when it comes to Republicans of any “persuasion”–even moderate ones like the general.
baldilocks on May 11, 2007 at 12:40 AM
I agree Sister. We can criticize all we want…my concern was in the orginal post:
I don’t want to see “my peeps” turn into the rabid willy nilly career crashing right wing equivelant of the speech stoppers on the left….plus I enjoy the show, and once something gets on Drudge (as it was earlier), the faux offended come out of the woodworks to make themselves relevant by attaching to the latest sinking party boat of “what about the children” causes.
It’s fun to disagree with people who don’t resort to calling you a hatemonger and a fascist…
I love being “right”…politically of course.
StoutRepublican on May 11, 2007 at 12:45 AM
I don’t like their garbage and certainly on public airwaves I would hope for that to be smacked down with hefty fines fast!
However, on a private network like XM I must agree with others who realize we should not say what “can’t” be allowed regarding speech on a private network. If they are actually conspiring to commit an actual crime, then that’s already against the law regardless of where it’s done, but vulgar speech and it was pretty nasty is not something that government should touch at all on private networks. Certainly people can protest, boycott or whatever, but the subscribers pay for that content and trying to stop it via government force would be the wrong solution.
IndependentConserv on May 11, 2007 at 1:20 AM
I’m with Carlin. (WARNING: Adult language and ideas that might make you uncomfortable.)
Jim Treacher on May 11, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Glorifying and joking about raping someone and forcing them is out of bounds…that is not free speech. Those two need to be fired.
Highrise on May 11, 2007 at 1:36 AM
for the love of heysus….
The hobo feller said and described how he wants to have sex with Condi. Anthony made an offhand crack that it would have to be rape, basically, since the guy is so repulsive.
It isn’t advocating or even joking about rape. its and sarcastic insult to a nut-job homeless guy.
Seriously, step away from the car guys (and sisters).
In case you haven’t noticed there is a real, honest to goodness witch hunt underway. Rush with his “magic Negro” problem, Imus…fill in the blank, I’m willing to bet that there are dozens of similar, more local cases brewing even as we speak.
First they came for the I-man, and I did nothing, then O+A and still I did nothing, then they came for Rush….
coondawg on May 11, 2007 at 5:27 AM
Well say what you like about the MSM, blogs and cable give these guys exposure. The best plan would be to ignore these clowns. It’s a bit hypocrital to deride this garbage but then cover it compulsively.
honora on May 11, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Guys, I hope we can come together and realize that this sort of behavior should result in a firing.
Oh, and the Ace of Spades blog should be shut down too. Can’t that guy get through a day without the whole potty mouth thing? Seriously, most of his jokes go over the line, lets get him banned.
And Treacher, of course you’re worried. I’ve seen you “Hot Girl News” and it surely won’t pass the filters being proposed here… You’re going to have to go too.
Once we’re done with XM Radio, lets ban all the pornography on the internet. Lets ban everything we don’t like. shut them all down…
Oh, yeah. ^^^^^^^ = sarcasm. Jeez guys, when you have to pay to get the Playboy channel, don’t complain about it being naughty.
gekkobear on May 11, 2007 at 1:14 PM
coondog you obviously didn’t listen to the entire thing. I’ve heard it now 5 times..there is no mistaken that they thought this rape thing was funny, holding her down, wanting to see the shock on her face…oh yeah…what fun. You have free speech down wrong. Free speech doesn’t mean *anything goes*.
Some of you sicko people who post on some threads here not seeing the seriousness of this and akon really…make me understand some of these muslim asses more that like to rape. It’s treating women horribly…and you just don’t get it. Some of us see it, you obviously don’t because you are a sexist pig.
I thank ALL the men out there that are decent that DO see the harm and indecency towards women going on and ARE calling it down. It will be a decline in civilized societies if this is allowed to be excused. Much respect to you.
Highrise on May 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM
And when the homeless guy got cut off, those two sexist pig morons had no problem filling in the blanks either to carry the degradation forward.
Highrise on May 11, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Agreed. I’ll take the Reading Comprehension…and you can take a typing class. (I’d say “spelling”, but I’m pretty sure it’s just your typing that sucks. :)
snark.
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Ok, then your disgreement was more with Ian than with me .. whew! ;)
As far as the “what about the children” crowd, well, I’m not joining in on that front because I know it’s a pay channel, which is harder to access than just your freebie channels.
Yes, it is nice to disagree and not be called the usual names that the ‘usual suspects’ throw out there :)
I guess that means the right should cease complaining about Bill Maher, then, because he’s on a channel we have to pay to see, too. Alrighty.
SisterToldjah on May 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and agree with Honora completely for once.
RobertCSampson on May 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Just when you think the bar could not drop any lower.
Hening on May 11, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I’ve never heard these guys before, but it sounded a bit like three tourette’s victims locked in a toilet together.
I’m going through the comments here and there are a lot of people saying “You shouldn’t call for them to resign.” But I’m not seeing too many comments where people are actually saying that.
It seems that a very important part of being “PC” is learning to tolerate increasingly more horrifying statements from sick loons and simply accepting that they have the right to speak their mind. Well, yeah, they DO have that right, but don’t the rest of us have the right to at least throw up occasionally?
Maybe I heard it wrong, but didn’t one of them talk about hitting Condi in the face?
And what about the comment: “George Bush’s wife? I’d f–k that b—ch to death!”
Someone might be getting a phone call from Secret Service after that …
boru on May 11, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Well, I don’t generally complain about Maher. Because I don’t see him, because I don’t pay to do so. I also don’t tune my XM radio to whatever station these two yahoos are on, or to Rush, or any of the other talk stations. Am I surpsied when Maher says something leftist stupid and condescending? How is that news, that’s his schtick. Alrighty?
And you for all intents and purposes are complaining about the Playboy channel being naughty, or did you not realize that shock-jocks are trying to say something shocking? It is in the job description, and I think they succeeded. When their goal is to offend, don’t be surprised when they succeed.
Water is wet, porn is naughty, shock-jocks are offensive. If you’re really surprised about this I can’t imagine why; if you’re “acting” surprised for effect, do you expect to have people believe the act?
gekkobear on May 11, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Late, but what is so humorous about pulling in a homeless guy off the street to put him on a radio show? It’s to mock him, isn’t it? Most of these guys belong in a residential care unit for mentally disturbed or mentally incompetent people, but the Left shut those facilities down and dumped people on the street, rather than improving the facilities.
It’s rather cheap “edginess” to make fun of someone who’s not all there, isn’t it? To put it mildly?
So, the whole thing started with mocking a man who’s “out of it” and it degenerated into other things, including a form of denigration of one of the highest achieving women on the planet … ? Would they have run with that “ball” had it been Hillary Clinton being bandied about?
Wouldn’t something like, “Whoa! I’m not going there!” have been more appropriate?” followed by, “So, understand cattle prices are rising again… what’s your opinion, being on the street and all?”
No sense that dignity has value.
naliaka on May 11, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Okay, I have to admit that it took Boortz to remind me of this…but…
Freedom of Speech protects the citizen from Government, not from business or other citizens.
These guys have only the rights that their employers allow them to have on the airwaves. Where that might make some of us jump to defend them, we’re forgetting that governement’s ultimate desire is to have control of ALL forms of broadcast media. There is a bill up there now, just waiting for legislators to support it. If we allow idiots like these two to give legislators a reason to complain, WE ALL FREAKIN LOSE.
Oh, and by the way, those that compare these two morons and what they do, to talk show hosts like Boortz, Limbaugh and the like…your head is firmly up your a$$. Please pull it out and come back to see us. There is a difference between political speech and this impractical stupidy of an entertainment. You’d never heard the kind of nastiness, crassness or inanity out of the legit talk show hosts.
Subscription service may give one the ability to be a crass, vulger idiot…but just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
gekkobear, where I agree that we shouldn’t be shocked…I think we should be vigilant on Government’s drive to control the information that we get over the airwaves.
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 6:31 PM
To REITERATE:
US Constitution/Bill of Rights:
Refer ONLY to the limits of GOVERNMENT action. Not PRIVATE.
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I think most people on this site are just saying that joking about this is distasteful. They are also saying that they won’t listen or pay for that sort of thing. Just don’t get sucked into a debate with insincere people whose minds you will never change and who come here to try to have fun at the conservative’s expense. They want to bring us down to the level of the left liberal blogs. Don’t waste your time with trolls, ignore them and they wont’t get what they want I say…
CCRWM on May 11, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Thank you. I am repulsed by some of the commentators here. Ask Allah, I disagree with HA on several matters, but this is not one of them. And to make that stupid link to the feminist website and tell Ian he’s in good company? Are you saying because feminists are against rape, then rape is okay? I know, I know, a rape never took place. They were only joking about how freaking funny it would be if it had.
You people defending this as free speech are fools. People like you and your ilk are the reason I go to the shooting range. I want to prevent anything funny from happening to myself or loved ones.
wytammic on May 11, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Because he’s a disgusting homeless bum. They weren’t saying she should get raped, they were mocking his sick fantasies because no woman would want to have sex with him. Is that a nice thing to say? No, but it’s not advocating rape. That’s a 60-second clip of a longer conversation, and it’s completely out of context.
Jim Treacher on May 11, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Now see, if I was to go along with your mindset, I’d interpret that as a threat of violence. But I’m a rational person, so I understand that it isn’t. Just like the O&A thing isn’t.
Jim Treacher on May 11, 2007 at 9:15 PM
So, what possessed them to bring in off the street a “disgusting homeless bum?”
To make fun of him on radio.
There’s just not much that’s right that these guys did. Not illegal, just very, very wrong.
naliaka on May 11, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Your revulsion is understandable, but it shouldn’t dictate policy. I assume that since you agree that they were making fun of him, you agree that they weren’t advocating her being raped.
Jim Treacher on May 11, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I don’t recall saying you specifically ever DID listen to Maher. My comment was on the right in general
What a crock. That’s like saying that when Democrat politicians do something stupid, it’s their schtick, and because of that it’s ‘not surprising’ nor is it news, nor worthy of discussion. Michael Moore’s “schtick” is being an a–hole. Do I know this about Moore? Yes. Does it make me less inclined to complain about him? No. Alrighty?
?? I haven’t said a word about Playboy. That’s your thing, apparently.
Let’s get something straight: The assumption that has been implied in this thread is that the people are offended by this ‘obviously’ don’t have a sense of humor. That’s a load. I used to watch some of the Howard Stern shows they’d play on the E! channel. Some of it offended me, while other bits I laughed til my stomach hurt. I used to watch Beavis and Butthead, which a lot of people I know thought was an offensive show. I have the first season on VHS. So, yes, I do have a sense of humor, and laugh at things others probably would not laugh at, but I don’t think joking about raping someone is funny – again, no more ‘funny’ than some crack a person makes about assassinating the President. And some of the comments I’ve read about this across the blogosphere make me believe there is a little selective condemnation going on here, because some of the same people defending O&A’s ‘humor’ slam Bill Maher up one side and down the other. It’s odd how the ‘pay to see’ arguments don’t come up in those threads.
Who said anything about being “surprised”? Are you striving for the award for most strawmen brought up in a Hot Air thread or something?
See above. There’s no “surprise” here and the only “act” is you acting like the people who are offended by O&A don’t have the same right to criticize them as they have to make their little ‘jokes.’ Get real.
SisterToldjah on May 11, 2007 at 11:25 PM
If they’re calling for him to lose his job, then let’s talk.
Jim Treacher on May 12, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Thank you Sister Toldjah. You are a voice of reason.
wytammic on May 12, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Treacher’s has been the best-informed voice I’ve read here on this subject.
And his logic is unassailable.
Opie & Anthony peaked with the W.O.W bumpersticker. I’ve seen that thing work.
Good times.
Stephen M on May 12, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Would anyone have sex with Condi if they weren’t forced to?
CountAgion on May 12, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I noticed that the only reason to drag in a derelict on to a radio program is to humiliate the fellow. That’s despicable in itself. Not illegal, just rotten. They egged him on, so they were complicit in the insult to Dr. Rice, who deserves better treatment, but these guys don’t think that anyone deserves decent treatment, except probably themselves. Just another dismal and typical example of how crappy our culture has become, especially the media people who have helped drive us all into the decline.
naliaka on May 12, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Don’t ever listen to a Don Rickles record.
Jim Treacher on May 13, 2007 at 3:33 AM
any of you who try to say these thugs have the right to speak of rape..the way they did…you are thugs yourselves.
Yup I said it…thugs yourselves.
Icko..gross…not enough soap around to clense thyselves.
Highrise on May 13, 2007 at 3:55 AM
Humorless moralizing rules!
Jim Treacher on May 13, 2007 at 4:57 AM
ST: “And some of the comments I’ve read about this across the blogosphere make me believe there is a little selective condemnation going on here, because some of the same people defending O&A’s ‘humor’ slam Bill Maher up one side and down the other.”
That isn’t the only time we should talk. The blogosphere, including this blog and my blog and plenty of others, write almost daily about provacative and in some cases offensive comments made by others, and invite their readers to respond to those comments. There are a few different arguments going on in this thread, with some people saying it should be ok for O&A to be fired, while other people – lik me – are talking about the offensive nature of the comments in a general sense but not calling for any firing. People are lumping those two groups into the same argument and saying things like “if you don’t like them, don’t pay to listen to them, etc” and my point was that you don’t hear those same responses in threads about Bill Maher and other ‘comedians’ who you have to pay to hear/watch, whether someone is calling for the ‘offender’ to be fired or not.
It is no more wrong for me to complain about O&A than it is for me and others to complain about Bill Maher. O&A and Bill Maher, and others provacative ‘entertainers’ have the right to say what they do, and in turn I have the right to complain about them. True, I don’t have to ‘pay’ to listen to them (and I don’t) but these guys deliberately say stuff that gets them and their show attention and ratings so eventually something they say is going to get national attention and thus invite people to comment on it.
As I said before, I’ve laughed at Stern and some other humor that some people would find offensive. For that matter, Jim, I laugh at stuff you’ve said on your blogs that other people would find offensive, so this isn’t a case of only humorless people not seeing the humor in laughing about rape.
I don’t find Bill Maher calling our troops a bunch of low-lying fruit funny. I don’t find O&A’s laughing about rape funny. I don’t find Rosie O’s little conspiracy theory segments on The View insightful. But I’m not calling for anyone to be fired, either. Just commenting on how offensive these people can sometimes be. It’s as simple as that.
SisterToldjah on May 13, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Ugh. Where’s that spellcheck button when you need it? :)
SisterToldjah on May 13, 2007 at 10:06 AM
First, SisterToldjah; I misunderstood your position. I thought you were calling for them to be fired for this stunt. Seeing as my sarcastic post was calling for firing (given several here calling for a firing) and your arguing it, I misunderstood and misrepresented your position. Sorry, I made an assumption based on where you seemed to be arguing form without re-reading your previous posts. You were quite clear previously, but seeing as you weren’t calling for a firing I don’t see why you latched onto that statement.
I’m not contesting a right to complain about O&A, Maher, etc. being stupid, obnoxious, offensive, or downright wrong. I’m just worried about those who believe that they should be shut down for the crime of being offensive (despite any market forces, etc.).
Tickled, I e-mailed Boortz back on this as a counter-intuitive and idiotic plan. Boortz’s plan (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html scroll down to the O&A section) is that we need to forcibly self-censor in order to stop the Government from violating the Constitution and censoring… meh, I’lll quote the relevant bits.
Should we also willingly disarm if the Government threatens to pass a law disarming the populace? Heck, they don’t even need a majority, a vote, or to avoid a veto; they just need a threat and Boortz is willing to throw in the towel and start shedding rights as fast as he can.
Since when does caving to a threat immediately and giving in to every demand made from a group reduce or end irrational demands? I didn’t think that was how the world works, but maybe the concept of Danegold is forgotten.
I’ll hope you aren’t agreeing with this side of Boortz’s argument. Sure we should watch the Government, and be concerned about their possible actions. But that doesn’t mean we should give up our rights to avoid having them taken away; which seems to be the exact goal of Boortz’s rant.
gekkobear on May 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2