MOVIE.RttP{retard, retard, retard, retard, retard, retard, retard, retard}

contagion said

Dankill said

contagion said

ORGYMFATWORK said

this is what happens......i predicted this after Imus was fired.

this is what happens
Jemelle Hill - who screamed for Imus to be fired (even after he explained that his comment was meant to be an ugly joke and not racial, and apologised) - compared Boston Celtics fans to the Nazi party, and then, when she got suspended, she got angry, and said "i apologised, what else they want??"

fucking hypocryte

there are untalented black men on stage in comedy clubs, making a career out of spewing racial hatred towards white people and saying "it's just a joke"

but then Michael Richards is an "evil man" and a member of the KKK
none of these assholes would admit that he was not racist, but rather just snapping at some hecklers, and "hittin em where it hurts" by screaming "The Dreaded, Evil N-Word"

so now, because the liberals and blacks got away with pretty much ruining the life of anyone who dared to make a black joke or say "The N-Word", they have set a precident (sp?)
now, we are not supposed to say Faggot....it is the "F-Word"
we are not supposed to say Cunt, it is the "C-Word"
and brand new to the line-up, Retard is now the "R-Word"

funny thing about that, retardation is a word that described the slowing down of something......someone who is mentally retarded is mentally slow....calling them a retard is like calling me fat....it's not a slang word, it's the actual fucking word to describe what you are witnessing!!!!

but regardless, people in this country are whining little bitches who get offended way too easily, and we need to stop letting P.C. special interest groups run the country, and scare us out of saying whatever the fuck we want.....or we will be a nation of slaves.

NO MORE BANNING OF ANY WORDS.

if any word in the nglish language offends you, i hope your death is painful, and i hope it occurs soon

imagine what will happen if obama gets elected and the liberals finally have the power to act on this shit.

Then you should fear them trying to bring back the fairness doctrine next year like the apocalypse. Only now it would also have parts of it added to control and regulate the internet.

the fairness doctrine isnt a bad idea, its just a little too broad. i think it would be legitimate if it were only applied to media outlets that claim to be unbiased. there are tons of outlets that are open in regards which side they are on, but when you watch fox news and all that other crap it would be nice to hear the other side of the argument occasionally. i dont think michael moore should be required to argue both sides (he should just be skinned alive) but the mass media needs to get back to facts and stop trying to put so much spin on everything. look at our current presidential election. ithe country is being forced to choose between two candidates whos policy and ability play second fiddle to nicknames and slander. campaign ads are used primarily to demonstrate why you shouldnt elect the other guy and all the media has to talk about are scandals and allegations. im all for objective media but when their only opinion is about photo ops and off the record quotes its like reading us weekly instead of the boston globe. the fairness doctrine would make columnists have to report facts instead of paraphrasing speeches to the point where ever other word has three periods before it. id like to know who im actually voting for and not have to rely on the biased opinion of columnists.

Dude, your idea is basically having the government force networks to tell the truth. In a way, that doesn't work out as well as you'd like to think. Who says they won't abuse that, as opposed to a free press that isn't regulated by the government like China or Russia. Besides, this isn't about news networks or newspapers. This is about forcing radio companies to alter their programming in the name of "fairness" So, for a talk radio station that has mostly conservative talk shows (which most do predominantly) they would have to change to have half of their shows be liberal, regardless ratings or $$ issues. These aren't news shows. They are entertainment/opinion shows, just like the op-ed page of a newspaper. If it was hard news, you MIGHT have a point, but for opinions, it's harder because that can straight up ruin businesses. Case in point, the reason that are hardly any successful liberal talk radio shows is because they mostly sucked, got crap ratings and failed. If you are forced to do something that fails and you lose money from it, don't you think that's nothing but counterproductive for an industry? When Reagan got rid of the original Fairness Doctrine in '87, that triggered the modern explosion of talk radio because stations could put on programming strictly based on what got ratings and made money as opposed to government regulations.
I find it ironic that I've seen the same people who bitch about the FFC trying to control so much content of the radio and TV, while trying to exert their power on the internet, but seems to think it's fine and dandy for a bill like the fairness Doctrine to do the same thing. Besides, who knows how broadly this could be used for pure content, even if it has nothing to do with politics? What about "fairness" involving music, demographics, ect?