Video: How would the Fairness Doctrine deal with Holocaust documentaries?

posted at 4:29 pm on July 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

Exactly as you expect it would. Via the clip-cutting samurai of BTN.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

To be even more absurd – a science program states the sky is blue, so they need to put on those who claim it is red, or green, etc.?

mikeyboss on July 20, 2007 at 4:38 PM

How come TUcker never brought up the salient point that the Fairness doctrine will force radio stations to pull conservative voices in order not to spend money on liberal voices nobody needs to hear because they already hear them on the MSN? Thereby silencing the only venue for conservative voices?

Why didn’t Tucker talk about the liberal views dominating public radio, and public TV?

Why didn’t Tucker mention that the liberal side of any issue is available on the MSM?

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM

He tiptoes up to the edge in that clip, to assert that the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented the war in Iraq.

Wow, is he delusional.

Bryan on July 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Does anyone believe that the [un]fairness doctrine will be applied to the MSM? ABC / NBC / CBS / CNN / etc…..

If you do I have a bridge in New York City I can sell you real cheap!

“Its not that we want to dominate what people say…”

Bullshit! This is to squash any opposition to his view that ‘Bush Lied’. Even though the right is the majority in talk radio their audiance is dwarfed by those of the MSM ( ABC / NBC / CBS / etc….) who will most likely be exempted from the doctrine.

CrazyFool on July 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM

I can’t wait for the fairness doctrine to come back. I would love to stick to Couric, Obermann and all the other lefties and drive them nuts having to voice the other side. This is going to be fun.

mustng66 on July 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Next on Black Entertainment TV, KKK hour, featuring a salute to the Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd.

AndrewsDad on July 20, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Tucker was in good form there.

Meanwhile, the Democrats could make their case more succinctly by simply invoking one of Stalin’s timelessly progressive sayings: “Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?”

Some things never change.

Blacklake on July 20, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Does Tucker not understand the true motive of the Fairness Doctrine? Sounds like he does not. The true motive is to silence conservative talk radio. Thereby silencing conservative opinion across the entire broadcasting spectrum as the only place it really exists is on the radio.

And why pray tell, did Tucker not tell this leftist stooge that the government does not own the airwaves. The airwaves are owned by nobody. The airwaves are ethereal. It is only the right to broadcast that is granted by the government. No article gives them the right to control political content.

Tucker really fell down on the interview.

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 4:44 PM

He’s abusing adjectives.
Sorry but when he talks about the Bush administration ….he goes over the top! His underwear is showing on that.
And yes the (un)fairness doctrine would require a Holocaust denier on. These people only want ‘their’ views heard.
When are they going to represent the people instead of themselves and thier ‘special interests’?

Suz on July 20, 2007 at 4:44 PM

If this was 1781, this guy would have been shot.

WisCon on July 20, 2007 at 4:46 PM

What a smug, condescending human being.
How does a guy like that get elected to Congress?…oh wait, he’s from NY…nevermind.

WillBarrett on July 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Funny how Hinchey agreed about the Holocaust denier being provided time, but then a few minutes later denounced the idea as ‘absurd.’ Shame Tucker didn’t pounce on that at all.

In effect, nothing could be said (as Mikeyboss correctly points out) without each and ever other opinion being given the same amount of air time. Ergo – nothing ever gets said. Not like broadcast media says all that much, anyway…

TinMan13 on July 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM

I can’t wait for the fairness doctrine to come back. I would love to stick to Couric, Obermann and all the other lefties and drive them nuts having to voice the other side. This is going to be fun.

mustng66 on July 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Except that will not happen. Those who interject liberal opinion into their programming will be depicted by the Democrats and the FCC as simply presenting objective fact, not commentary. Only conservative perspectives will be labeled as “opinion” and subjected to mandatory “balancing”–which, of course, will prove too logistically onerous to provide. Hence, the desired end result: Broadcast media permitted to present only unchallenged liberal propaganda.

Blacklake on July 20, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Next on Black Entertainment TV, KKK hour, featuring a salute to the Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd.

AndrewsDad on July 20, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Funny, and illustrates the absurdity very well.

mikeyboss on July 20, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Tucker is awesome, he always lets his guess hang themselves.

His Holocaust reference is spot on, and it’s just a step away for 9-11 commentary must be matched by 9-11 Truthers.

Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I can’t wait for the fairness doctrine to come back. I would love to stick to Couric, Obermann and all the other lefties and drive them nuts having to voice the other side. This is going to be fun.

mustng66 on July 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Sir (madame?), this isn’t how it will work.

The MSM will just do what CNN does: get complete RINOs, who essentially agree with Democrats on any given issue (but may just stop short of the line of agreeing with the ideologies of the nutroots, but those people are hardcore crazies anyway), and present that as the “conservative” viewpoint.

I once saw someone – I think it was Lou Dobbs – label Andrew Sullivan as the right kind of conservative. It made me ill.

But that’s who they would get. “Conservatives” who basically agree with the positions of, at the least, moderate Democrats, if not the hardcore lefties. You will NOT be getting individuals who actually represent YOUR viewpoints, if you’re solid conservative, and you especially won’t be getting someone representing traditional or social conservative values.

Vyce on July 20, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Broadcast media permitted to present only unchallenged liberal propaganda.

Blacklake on July 20, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Why not? Most of them do that anyway right now.

Vyce on July 20, 2007 at 5:04 PM

CNN, BET and Olbermann, except when appearing on NBC’s broadcast news, would not be covered by the Fairness Doctrine.

rw on July 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Another NY-D Senator or Rep, I forgot, but the point is NY.

Ch 2: Sunday morning church shows along side atheism shows.
Ch 3: Teaching of the Torahs along side teaching of the Quoran. I’d watch this one.
Ch 4: Medical breakthroughs and Todays Voodooism
Ch 5: Submitting to Islam or die trying.
Ch 6: Americas got talent and worst acts on Prime time.
Ch 7: Abstinence and Larry Flint’s Hustler
Ch 8: Your choice like it or or not
Ch 9: Welcome to America History channel rewritten

Kini on July 20, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Kini on July 20, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Ch 6: Americas got talent and worst acts on Prime time.

What? Play the same show twice in a row?

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 5:24 PM

His carny barker views aside, the congressman is starting to look really insane, too. He is all pink, and his hair — what color is that, exactly? He’s sweating and grinning, and looks a little like he’s had a serious heart attack and is trying to bluff his way out of the hospital ER.

Jaibones on July 20, 2007 at 5:26 PM

“Fairness” is semantics for the Socialist contempt for competition. Get used to it. Individualism and incentive are being destroyed – because that’s what built this country, and the Socialists know it. Look for anything which will reduce every American to nothing but a cog in the Socialist machine. The foundation for Socialism is the incremental [and generational] indoctrination of the children. The children are the target – and “fairness” will be the destruction of any voice, other than the Socialist voice. When the only “voice” heard is that of the Socialists, the children will be won.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 20, 2007 at 5:29 PM

One of the most obvious things that I have noticed from the beginning is, why does Tucker or anyone else that is interviewing a FD advocate allow them to talk about only TWO sides.

There are hardly EVER 2 sides to one topic of discussion. I would have liked to have seen Tucker make the guy give an example.

If someone wants to talk about Iraq, then they have to have a liberal, democrat, conservative, soldier, libertarian, code pink, NAACP, Islamist, Moderate Muslim, etc… on ONE show? What???

Make them give an example of what they are talking about? I bet they would choke on the answer!

nottakingsides on July 20, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Congressman, read the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t give us the opportunity to express our opinions. Let’s read the First Amendment, shall we:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, in my opinion, Congress would be make a law abridging the freedom of speech. They’re telling me that I can’t just present my view point. No. I have to present everyone else’s, too. So, say there are 40 different view points on a situation. The network is going to be required to carry every single one?

Congressman, the people get their news from Liberal-leaning sources. They say they do. Are you planning on forcing Keith Olbermann to equally present a Conservative view point? How about PBS? PBS is perceived as Liberal by the general public. They’re funded by taxpayer dollars, and are apparently on public airwaves. You’re going to regulate that, too? I’m not holding my breath.

amerpundit on July 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM

This all looks very messy to me, if one commentator puts forth a story, then you have someone else on to dispute that, I can see any shred of fact or truth getting lost in the race to “show both sides”. What a farce!

4shoes on July 20, 2007 at 5:37 PM

What? Play the same show twice in a row?

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Have to be fair to the loosing acts.

American Idol and Idiots! You wanna watch, right!

Kini on July 20, 2007 at 5:38 PM

And how about if someone thinks Israel should be wiped off the map? How about a citizen that is an al-Qaeda sympathizer? They’re going to get equal time with the President?

amerpundit on July 20, 2007 at 5:38 PM

The Free Market and The Virtues of Socialism

Kini on July 20, 2007 at 5:40 PM

How would the Fairness Doctrine deal with Holocaust documentaries?

I’m sure we will be able to come up with all kinds of exceptions to the rule. Selectively, of course, and not equally applied by any stretch.

Lawrence on July 20, 2007 at 5:50 PM

If someone wants to talk about Iraq, then they have to have a liberal, democrat, conservative, soldier, libertarian, code pink, NAACP, Islamist, Moderate Muslim, etc… on ONE show? What???

Make them give an example of what they are talking about? I bet they would choke on the answer!

nottakingsides on July 20, 2007 at 5:34 PM

This is reminding me of Monty Python’s Election Night Special (“silly party”, etc.)

mikeyboss on July 20, 2007 at 5:55 PM

And how about if someone thinks Israel should be wiped off the map? How about a citizen that is an al-Qaeda sympathizer? They’re going to get equal time with the President

They won’t of course. That is the idea behind the legislation. And because few radio stations will give equal time to a holocaust denier and such, the Fairness Doctrine now says that a holocaust survivor can’t be on the air, or host the program.

It also means that if Rush limbaugh is on the air in every state, which he is, that would then mean that those radio stations must give equal amounts of expensive airtime to a lefty talk radio program, even if no one wants to listen to it – which they don’t – Air America bombed financially for lack of listeners. Those radio stations won’t do that, won’t go there, if it bad for ratings and it is costing them advertising dollars and programming dollars. So Rush will have to go – by law. They will replace his program with non-political commentary. Maybe comedy or sports, or cooking, or whatever. That is how they get rid of Rush and Hannity and all the rest.

That is the tactic behind the Fairness Doctrine. It is Stalinism by stealth.

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM

What a friggen minute. If we had the fairness doctrine, Bush wouldn’t have been able to start the war with Iraq because his intel reports wouldn’t get the opposite view?

Isn’t that his job a congressman? Don’t we send them to Washington to look at sensitive intel and make the right decisions?

Uh, hello congressman? The congress authorized the president to go to war. It was your job to study the information!

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Kini on July 20, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Damn I am glad I finished my beer before reading that, I might have needed a new keyboard and monitor…

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Fair for who?

If you give a report about how to prevent a terrorist attack, should you then highlight the Anarchist’s Cookbook’s best ‘recipes‘ for those on the other side who want to stage a terrorist attack?

If there is a Gay Pride Parade, should this be countered with a Fags Will Burn in Hell Parade …to be fair to those ultra-fundmentalists who think otherwise?

They should let the tastes and common sense of the audience sort this Free Speech issue out.

Government was not allowed to exist in order try to onstruct our exercise of the inherent liberties we own by birth, but is supposed to work to guard them.

Plus, Life ain’t Fair.

The better argument survives.

Setting up social incubators to try to preserve nonsense is folly.

profitsbeard on July 20, 2007 at 5:58 PM

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 5:57 PM

But dude, if they actually did that when would they find the time to visit the D.C Madam, or accept $90,000.00 or hang out with Marion Berry and smoke crack, or god forbid drive off bridges to get rid of pesky pregnant hanger on political groupie young girls?

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 6:01 PM

He just accepted the fact that Holocaust deniers SHOULD be on the air. What a stupid tool. And he’s running things. God help us.

Tucker Carlson (of T.V.’s Dancing With The Stars) actually makes sense here.

Mojave Mark on July 20, 2007 at 6:03 PM

I meant Obstruct. Not “onstruct

Onstruct is a neologism with no definition yet.

Feel free to create one.

profitsbeard on July 20, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Mojave Mark on July 20, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Meh…I think once we started electing fools and traitors like him God pretty much said we were on our own.

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 6:22 PM

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 6:01 PM

How long does it take, for regular Americans who go to congress to serve the country, to become so totally disconnected with the reality of life in the American home? If we could put a time on that, we could set term limits.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 6:25 PM

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 6:25 PM

How long does it take to fly from your home state to Washington D.C.??? Because as near as I can tell thats about how long it takes…

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Heads they win, tails we loose. They get to put their views out there for free or they force Rush and the other conservatives off the air.

SIJ6141 on July 20, 2007 at 6:31 PM

The airwaves are owned by the people and differing viewpoints are entitled access to those airwaves to express their different opinions. I have no problem with that. However, we also have freedom of speech and a market driven economic system. There should be balance. There needs to be acess, but no one should be required to listen to anyone or anything — that should be left to the market place of ideas.

The solution is not to force all varying viewpoints onto the same frequency, but merely to grant access to all viewpoint to some frequency on the spectrum. So, you can have conservative talk radio, so long as Air America also has access to some frequency on the spectrum. There should be no guarantee of listener, advertisers, or even the ability to pay the rent, but access to a frequency cannot be denied. If I wanted to throw my money away on Al Franken’s annoying voice, but for some reason the FCC refused to allocate me any portion of the spectrum — that would be unfair. That is what I would consider the fairness doctrine.

What the Dems are talking about is big government thought police.

tommylotto on July 20, 2007 at 6:33 PM

I think they all pass through mind experiments by Kane and Kodos.

Kini on July 20, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Wow, is he delusional.

Bryan on July 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Liberal, delusionsal; reduntant.

- The Cat

P.S. “Demented” hehe

MirCat on July 20, 2007 at 6:39 PM

If this Fairness Doctrine ever goes through (and it won’t be implemented until after Hillary is inaugurated), I think I’ll start a foundation whose only activity is suing stations who carry NPR, Pacifica, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Radio for Peace and other content, who will refuse to comply with the Doctrine, because they feel that they are – of course – exempt from the Doctrine, the purpose of which was to get rid of all those right wing haters. I’ll also spend some time learning how to construct better sentences.

eeyore on July 20, 2007 at 6:43 PM

How they would show a documentary about the holocaust? Would they need to follow that broadcast by a ‘documentary’ made by Goebbles (or Michael Moore)about how Jews control the world?

How about a documentary about Christianity? How many other documentaries would you need to show? How many other religions are there?

Hinchey is laughing like he is just goofing around, but it is the laugh of someone who has evil intentions. This guy is a thought criminal.

Abu Daboo Doo on July 20, 2007 at 6:51 PM

What a freakin’ jerk.

oldelpasoan on July 20, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Tucker is awesome, he always lets his guess hang themselves.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 4:56 PM

He has his own moments of jackassery too, like last week when he said one out of every three women in New Orleans was a prostitute. Still, could be worse… could be O’Reilly, who contorts himself into the most amazing positions in order to appear fair.

Laura on July 20, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Laura on July 20, 2007 at 7:45 PM

I’ll take your word. I used to watch him daily, now I don’t have the time. I do appreciate how he calls out CAIR and I remember how he bet his car way-back-when that Libby would never be indicting on leaking.

And as for O’Reilly, his ego alone is to much for me to deal with nightly.

Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 7:52 PM

You bow-tie wearing Zionist punk!!!

aengus on July 20, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Seriously though, I love the Hugh Hewitt show and to muss it up with some Alan Colmes-type idiot is really going to chafe. I don’t know if anyone here has been following the Conrad Black trial in detail but Patrick Fitzgerald stitched up a Canadian media baron on laughably “criminal” charges. The celebrations of the part-guilty verdict (most of the charges were thrown out) in media circles focus on how he was “right-wing” and “arrogant” as if that were a crime.

aengus on July 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Wow, I don’t know how I missed the definition before, it’s right in it’s name “Fairness Doctrine”. It doesn’t matter if it the view point is right or wrong, as long as all sides are fair. I can’t wait to see how the weather channel complies. I’d love to see the multiple view points on whether the weather is in fact sunny out or rainy out while I have a flood going down my street.

I loved the part where he says “I don’t think that you think it’s demented.” Just proving the point, the libs want to tell us exactly how to think, because we cannot think for ourselves. I see shades of 1984 thinkspeak and doubletalk in the interview as well. How did these people get elected again?

Tuari on July 20, 2007 at 8:20 PM

I’d love to see the multiple view points on whether the weather is in fact sunny out or rainy out while I have a flood going down my street.

The jettisoning of fact is what is so pathetic about postmodernism, multiculturism etc. There’s no agreed objective reality so anyone can come up with whatever bullshit suits their lifestyle. The Fairness Doctrine goes against everything America stands for. I can put up with The New York Times on its own terms, hell the Chicago Tribune was so anti-FDR they wouldn’t let up even during WWII. What I can’t stand is government interference in what is supposed to be a free press. Media insanity is one thing but government-regulated media insanity is an insult to free men and women.

aengus on July 20, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Tuari on July 20, 2007 at 8:20 PM

I agree, the most disturbing thing in that interview is two different times, after Tucker says what he thinks, this politician proceeds to tell him I don’t that is really what you think.

Resolute on July 20, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Ok so they want to force their propaganda onto the airwaves. Isn’t that what Hitler did?

boomer on July 20, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Plus, Life ain’t Fair.

profitsbeard on July 20, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Not to sound like Forrest Gump here, but it’s like my dad always says, “a fare is what you pay to ride the bus, kid.”

I don’t know how it would even be possible to present EVERY opposing viewpoint on EVERY issue and I agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that that would make it hard for anything to ever really be said. Wouldn’t everything just become circular? The Congressman didn’t say that there should be the same amount of liberal stations as conservative ones, but that the opposing viewpoints should take place on every broadcast no matter what kind of nutball thing any average joe has to say. Am I right on that?

The FD just seems to be another hypocritical stance taken to shove liberalism down everyone’s throat. B/c there is just no way they are going to start policing all the liberal media, which for the most part is every TV news program.

hollygolightly on July 20, 2007 at 10:48 PM

I used to think the villains in Ayn Rand novels were hyperbolic caricatures, then I saw this guy.

In the 1930s Fascism was heralded by Wagnerian marches, military precision and fierce oratory. Now it’s delivered with smug condescension by a greaseball New York liberal.

And I dare say the Nazis were at least honest about their plans.

Hannibal Smith on July 20, 2007 at 10:50 PM

This is TOTALLY off topic….

Laura on July 20, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Laura, this is O/T, but I have to take you to task for this video on your blog.

How long have you been following fred?? Did you happen to see his speech at the Lincoln Club in Orange County? Well, in that speech, fred? had the gall to take credit for part of a speech that Reagan gave many years ago. He said that RR asked him something backstage and he, RR, used freds? words in his speech! Now this is the epitome of using RR in the way your video derided EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE FOR! And to make matters worse, freds? claim CANNOT BE PROVEN! How damn stupid does he think we are anyway? At least the other candidates are clearly giving credit to Reagan and not trying to take it upon themselves. The pertinent part starts at 3:23 in.

So, please amend your blog to reflect the truth.

PS…He flogs his TV personality from the get go and continues throughout. He even trys to attach himself to John Wayne (in JW’s old stomping grounds). This was my first clue he was on his own agenda that was all about him.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Well, 58 posts in, on a thread that has nothing to do with Fred Thompson, where Fred Thompson was never mentioned once, and csdeven has to post – just to go on another anti-Fred rant.

You know a man has to be good, when the people that hate him, are not the rational ones who comprise the majority, but the rare, obsessive, stalker-like crazies.

When Fred wins the election in 2008, the secret service will have to keep a look out just for csdeven. I’m beginning to think that csdeven has a candle-lit room in some shoddy apartment devoted to Fred, with the walls plastered with Fred photos, Fred movie and TV memorabilia, kind of like a shrine, except they are crossed out with red Xs, knives stabbed in each one, and lipstick scrawled on the dirty bathroom mirror, “FRED? MUST DIE!”

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 11:56 PM

How many time did the Hinchey say “fair, honest and open.” I guess he thinks if people hear that long enough, they think it’s a good thing. Well it was MSNBC. So who knows what the people watching think?

PowWow on July 21, 2007 at 12:10 AM

doriangrey on July 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Maybe we should make them go by covered wagon? If we have them do some work for us on the way, we might get some stuff done that benefits us for a change?

csdeven on July 21, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Well it was MSNBC. So who knows what the people watching think?

PowWow on July 21, 2007 at 12:10 AM

We do know what the watchers nurses are saying….”Line up fools! Time for your Thorazine!”.

csdeven on July 21, 2007 at 1:06 AM

I was under the impression that the FD only applied to radio and only applied to political speech. Am I seeing it wrong? Let’s face it; the USA is one of the few if not the only country in which the media is not controlled by the government..

jmarcure on July 21, 2007 at 8:03 AM

I had no idea president Bush was that pawerful and the Congress is that neutered.

These ‘progressives’ have no clue how close they are to Hugo Chavez and how regressive that really is to freedom.

Maurice is completely convinced in his naive idiocy.

Americans left, center and right must be very vigilant on this item. From here socialism, and then communism or other dictatorships, flow.

Entelechy on July 21, 2007 at 11:20 AM

“powerful” of course…

Entelechy on July 21, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Found this on AP’s link to the Economist’s bald-bashing link

All free peoples appear glorious to themselves; but national pride does not manifest itself among all in the same manner.

Alexis De Tocqueville

Entelechy on July 21, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Tucker is awesome, he always lets his guess hang themselves.

Umm, except when that guest is John Stewart. This is the only clip of him I’ve seen where he didn’t make me want to punch my monitor. He didn’t, but that other buffoon did.

“I believe all opinions need to be counter balanced by other opinions.” Apparently not his opinion though; the one he’s setting into law.

deesine on July 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM

AP, this is a subject best dissed by the likes of a Mark Steyn or Dennis Miler. They would be aruing on a false premise like dickhead carlson is. He’s to schumcy to be taking on this subject. Call on the heavywieghts. Just the heavyweights.

auspatriotman on July 21, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Personally, I’ll wear this as a badge of pride. When the opposition is trying to silence you, you know you’re on target.

Entelechy on July 21, 2007 at 2:44 PM

This is the only clip of him I’ve seen where he didn’t make me want to punch my monitor.
deesine on July 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Heh. I suggest you not watch him then!

I like him because doesn’t insult my intelligence and he talks people right into displaying their hypocrisy, as opposed to yelling at them or whatnot. He watches politics like an insider but not with the continual drumming of talking points like a pundit. I like it, but I can sure see why he isn’t for everyone.

Spirit of 1776 on July 21, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Shirley Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church is going
to get lots of freeeee air time to posion the well if the
F.D. passes. The Wacko’s will be lining up.

Texyank on July 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Next on Black Entertainment TV, KKK hour, featuring a salute to the Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd.

AndrewsDad on July 20, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Hillarious.

The Race Card on July 22, 2007 at 11:09 AM

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:08 PM

You and I agree on many things, and we’ve had some interesting discussions and disagreements on this blog since it started – I believe we both registered in the first week or at least very early on. I’m not going to engage with you on this. It would be completely pointless, and could build unnecessary animosity between us.

Laura on July 22, 2007 at 11:20 AM

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Give it a break you friggin’ stalker.

omnipotent on July 22, 2007 at 2:10 PM