This is an issue of "political correctness," as well as being made to take responsibility for the right to free speech.

CBS and MSNBC were "politically correct" to release Imus, and notwithstanding that he immediately became commercially persona non-grata to a host of advertisers who didn't want to be associated with any hint of racism; which the accusations exaggerated all out of proportions to reality.

I used to listen to the "Imus in the Morning" show, while driving to work a couple of years ago. He flatters himself that he is one-of-the-guys and not a racist, but rather someone who can talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk with black sports figures, rap artists, actors, singers and politicians; not realizing that it appears to be elitist patronization. Of course, the celebrities patronize him in return and they sell each other mutually, as the show intends. I've even heard him use the term, "nappy headed," before and although it seemed to be used in a fond way; however patronizing and foolish sounding it was.

In reading the transcripts of what Imus said, and listening to the video, it appears that that was his intend in saying what he did -- that he intended to brag on their strength, and fierce competitiveness as players and similar to what the street talk might infer if a hip hop artist was bragging on the courage and strength of their gang's female members; saying, "they bad," in effect.

Meanwhile, CBS continues to play rap and hip hop which contains lyrics much worse than those uttered by Imus. MSNBC still has rap and hip hop artists on contract, and who say much worse more often and constantly; even black women demeaning themselves or bragging on themselves using the same words. Words sacred to them, apparently, but forbidden to the rest of humanity . . . but profitable for CBS and MSNBC to sell; and along with their hypocrital sponsors . . .

A.L. dreams, "We've done nothing to stem the Coulters, Hannities, and Limbaughs of the world, though. Double standards are always a good thing, I suppose."

Whoa! What a leap!? I've seen Republicans get politically correct over rap, but how about Democrats? I'll bet there are a lot of them who don't care for rap or hip hop at all! As a matter of fact, isn't it the Democratic party which wants to stifle speech; e.g., issuing orders not to refer to "terrorism" or a "war on terrorism?" Anyway, you make it obvious that your ideology considers it justified to want to stop the political speech of your opponents. I'm sure no one needs reminding about what kind of ideology that is, or represents.

What would you do to stop rightwing speech? Boycott sponsors? Take "democracy" to the mob level and block the access to sponsors, or the conduct of any business surrounding whatever personality you are attacking "democratically?" Concentration/reeducation camps as a final solution? Maybe baths with pumice soap . . .?

See, and you were so coherent through the first half of that. If you had stopped before you attributed genocide to my calling out genuine racists, we could have talked. Instead, you went insane.

Can't be helped, I know. It's a sickness.

~A!

In reading the transcripts of what Imus said, and listening to the video, it appears that that was his intend in saying what he did -- that he intended to brag on their strength, and fierce competitiveness as players and similar to what the street talk might infer if a hip hop artist was bragging on the courage and strength of their gang's female members; saying, "they bad," in effect.

That wasn't the impression I got. It was a comment on their looks--he was specifically comparing their looks to the looks of the Tennessee team. With, I thought, an implied comment that they looked ghetto-ish.

I couldn't care less if he stays or goes off the air, but I've always viewed people like Imus as living barometers that measure the decency and awareness of the society around them. The more popular they are, and the more extreme their comments, the sicker the society.

I feel exactly the same way about Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc., and not because I want to censor my opponents speech. It's the nature of the speech that's the problem. Deliberate factual distortions, ridicule, and demonization of everyone who doesn't agree with their view is their stock in trade. The more successful they are, the less healthy we are as a society.

isn't it the Democratic party which wants to stifle speech; e.g., issuing orders not to refer to "terrorism" or a "war on terrorism?"

Can you document that?

you make it obvious that your ideology considers it justified to want to stop the political speech of your opponents.

That's as big a leap as you claim A` made. It isn't the "political speech" that anyone wants to stop, it's the distortions and the ridicule, etc. I don't think I'm a small step away from "pumice soap" because I think that broadcasters and/or the public might do something about people who consistently and demonstrably distort facts and personally ridicule all opponents, making actual political debate harder to achieve.

These "personalities" should be able to defend Iraq, for example without trying to paint all opponents of our presence there as terrorist sympathizers. Or, if they can't, maybe they should let the world know that.

NBC Fires Imus for Bad Joke But Will They Cancel Royal Caribbean Ads because of Threat Aimed at Sexual Assault Victim Who Testifed before Congress
Now posted at www.safecruise.blogspot.com
We agree that the comment made by Imus was atrocious and unacceptable. If NBC has the balls to fire Imus, then they should also refuse to run advertising from media or record companies that make a profit from the sale of degrading comedy and music albums and CD's. Will NBC refues to run ads for "Girls Gone Wild" which is Immensely more degrading?They should also refuse to run advertising for the Cruise Lines who actually do harm to people. This is based in part on evidence submitted during the hearing entitled: "Crimes Against Americans on Cruise Ships," held by the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. transportation.house.gov

They tried to prevent a sexual assault victim from testifying before Congress and were a party to a threat made against her. Safe Cruise: Speaking with the Enemy: Royal Caribbean Flys its True colors blogs.abcnews.com
There have been no convictions of sexual predators on cruise ships for the last four decades.Safe Cruise: Perfect Record: Not One Single Conviction for Sexual Assaults on Cruise Ships in Four Decades
They have understated the number of sexual assaults. www.sacbee.com
Their crewmembers work under sweatshop conditions. www.waronwant.org Safe Cruise: Florida Today Exposes Carnival "Sweat Ships": The Under Belly of the Cruise Ship Industry
Corporate fees paid to Liberia by Royal caribbean Cruise Lines helped finance the armies of Charles Taylor, one of the worst war criminals in history. Safe Cruise: Did Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruise Lines Help Finance Death and Destruction in Africa?

Three things:

Imus is nowhere nearly as offensive as he was 20 years ago - when he was really offensive and funny.

Firing him was a no-brainer for the PC cowardly weasels who manage networks.

He will return. His demographic has too much money to ignore.
This is America; its all about the money.
Forget your good manners and PC censorship.

~A! gets personal, "See, and you were so coherent through the first half of that. If you had stopped before you attributed genocide to my calling out genuine racists, we could have talked. Instead, you went insane. Can't be helped, I know. It's a sickness."

You don't want to face the fact that the Left are the ones attempting to restrict speech. The thrust of the post I responded to made the point that the speech of the rightwing needs to be 'fired' and attacked in the same way that Imus' comments were treated! An hyperbolic comment expressing fascist control of speech; another socialist philosophy which vilified political targets into the gas chambers for their existence and 'attacks' against the state.

Now, you try and make me into someone you and your ilk can attack because I have a "sickness," and obviously someone whose speech needs to be moderated and remain unanswered . . .

All of you reveal yourselves so easily . . . are you arrogant . . . or unconscious?!

As far as appealing to your idea of 'coherence?' A shaynem dank dir im pupik.

Lee responds, "That wasn't the impression I got. It was a comment on their looks--he was specifically comparing their looks to the looks of the Tennessee team. With, I thought, an implied comment that they looked ghetto-ish."

You can think what you want about the comments. I merely expressed my opinion based on being a regular listener and hearing similar comments from him before, and which were invariably said in the 'street' meaning he thought they meant; e.g., the term 'bad' is not bad, but actually good, strong, tough, sexy, you know what I mean. Besides, as an avid sportsman, Imus knows that the Rutgers team is strong and tough, and is obviously speaking in the rap/hip hop vernacular about them! However, again in my opinion, you seem to want his comments to be racist and enforce the belief that he intended to vilify and demean the Rutgers team. I really don't know why though, because Imus has been promoting Democrats, and has been anti-Bush and anti-Iraq going on for two years, now . . .

"I couldn't care less if he stays or goes off the air, but I've always viewed people like Imus as living barometers that measure the decency and awareness of the society around them. The more popular they are, and the more extreme their comments, the sicker the society."

You and CBC/MSNBC, eh? You completely ignore that rap and hip hop, along with Hollywood's elevation of 'good' gangsters, produces the brainwashing which makes these words and phrases popular and expressed in those ways. I don't care about Imus, either, but all of this is a gigantic hypocrisy on the part of political correctness. It actively supports suppression of speech and establishes (or tries) factions of society which *dictate* standards of speech; with drastic punishment(s) in consequence and with their own *racial* undertones.

"I feel exactly the same way about Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc., and not because I want to censor my opponents speech. It's the nature of the speech that's the problem."

You want to be the arbiter of that speech -- you want to be the 'faction' that dictates what can and what cannot be said! Well, Mr. Nice-and-polite, I invite you to go to the Drudge Retort and notice the pejorative comments issued from the Left. Then surf on over to Daily Kos or any other Leftist blog and notice the speech coming from the collective mouth's of the Left/Democrats! The comparison between them and . . . say the Freerepublic is *astounding*!

"Deliberate factual distortions, ridicule, and demonization of everyone who doesn't agree with their view is their stock in trade. The more successful they are, the less healthy we are as a society."

Air America does the same, and as you know very well! However, they actually have to distort the truth in order to mock it, while the 'Limbaughs' have the 'distortions' handed to them on a platter! No one had to invent Clinton's adulteries. The lies came already distorted, ready to mock! No one twisted Pelosi's arm to give alternate foreign policy to terrorist supporting nations, to request audience with the genocidal leader of Iran, while they scurry and hide from debating on tv they *label* rightwing. Air America can only pretend that Plame was covert, that Rove was guilty, that Bush is a dummy . . .

"That's as big a leap as you claim A` made. It isn't the "political speech" that anyone wants to stop, it's the distortions and the ridicule, etc."

I don't like flag burning, but I wouldn't dream of restricting that FORM of speech, and as you would readily restrict the FORM of speech of your opponent's. As I mentioned, you completely ignore that the Left practices that exact same form of expression, politically. Besides, on challenge, you can't find anything like the distortions issued from the Left since the 2000 election!

"I don't think I'm a small step away from "pumice soap" because I think that broadcasters and/or the public might do something about people who consistently and demonstrably distort facts and personally ridicule all opponents, making actual political debate harder to achieve."

Unreal! THEY DO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM! They reward the truth and punish the lies! Limbaugh gains listeners and Imus loses . . . but you're only interested in that point in time when you can manipulate speech to the extent that the 'Limbaughs' are deprived of their's . . . and you can't get far enough outside of yourself to see that for what it is: censorship and tyranny.

"These "personalities" should be able to defend Iraq, for example without trying to paint all opponents of our presence there as terrorist sympathizers. Or, if they can't, maybe they should let the world know that."

You don't want to take responsibility for the appearance 'your' speech presents! You want your freedom of speech and be able to utter it, too, without consequences. You seperate yourselves from those who 'should be able to defend Iraq,' but don't realize that you join with those who desire our defeat against terrorism; specifically that occuring in Iraq, now. It is so hypocritical, if you do know . . . you can be objective enough to realize the inherent anti-patriotism that failure to cooperate entails . . . and so abysmally stupid, if you don't, that I wonder if it just isn't the latter stupidity which is at fault, and not some stooge-like ends-justify-the-means tactic to elevate party over nation.

. . . but then I see how well you compose your comments . . .

Smart stooge . . .

"Smart stooge . . ."

Your usual sign of reason, intelligence, and logic.

Oh yes, political debate at its finest in the in the age of deliberate politicization (publicly advocated by Norquist and Weyrich, endlessly practiced by Mr. Rove).

You've done your partisan trolling job. Actually advocated for Limbaugh while accusing others of being hypocrites, apparently with a straight face.

Go collect the paycheck or whatever it is they give you for this nonsense. In the age of Norquist, Rove, Weyrich, Coulter, et al. rarely is there any "reason" to discuss things at all. Since everything is partisan, there's no need to look at what might actually have happened.

It must be really galling for you to realize that most of America is catching on to the great propaganda con game that you represent. Happy trolling "visitor."

I mention: "Smart stooge . . ."

Lee responds, "Your usual sign of reason, intelligence, and logic."

Smart

having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability: a smart student.

shrewd or sharp, as a person in dealing with others or as in business dealings: a smart businessman.

clever, witty, or readily effective, as a speaker, speech, rejoinder, etc.

Stooge

any underling, assistant, or accomplice.

Lee whines on, "Oh yes, political debate at its finest in the in the age of deliberate politicization (publicly advocated by Norquist and Weyrich, endlessly practiced by Mr. Rove)."

As I've mentioned, and which is obvious to anyone who has their head out of the sand, the Democratics have called this administration, Republicans and anyone else who reasons arguments in favor of Iraq, various hateful and hate-filled names; e.g., war criminals, nazis, fascists, liars, tortureres, murderers and a host of other vile and dehumanizing epithets! Yet, whine and cry when someone accurately describes them! Not a 'name' but an accurate and supported description!

"You've done your partisan trolling job. Actually advocated for Limbaugh while accusing others of being hypocrites, apparently with a straight face."

That's the ultimate insult from you, right? That I might 'advocate' Limbaugh? How would that make me an hypocrite, Lee? By associating my comments with this Leftist effort at subversion -- this effort to undermine any success of this administration? To frighten anyone who might disagree with your calumny by calling someone a 'troll?'

"Go collect the paycheck. . . Norquist, Rove, Weyrich, Coulter, et al. . . .rarely. . . discuss things at all. Since everything is partisan, there's no need to look at what might actually have happened."

I have to laugh, as you turn this thread into me being a troll, and associated with various individuals you hate with a passion! Meanwhile, you avoid that this thread is about Imus calling someone else a name, and that you follow in his egregious path by labeling me a 'troll.'

"It must be really galling for you to realize that most of America is catching on to the great propaganda con game that you represent. Happy trolling 'visitor.'"

I don't get insulted by hate mongers, Lee.

I mentioned: . . . isn't it the Democratic party which wants to stifle speech; e.g., issuing orders not to refer to "terrorism" or a "war on terrorism?"

Lee bluffs, "Can you document that?"

See: http://www.nowpublic.com/no_more_gwot_house_committee_decrees

[T]he House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and "avoid using colloquialisms."

The "global war on terror," a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the "long war," which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration's catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world."

Mr. "Visitor" claimed " isn't it the Democratic party which wants to stifle speech; e.g., issuing orders not to refer to "terrorism" or a "war on terrorism?"" and refers me to www.nowpublic.com as proof. It's proof of no such thing, of course. Except in Trollville, where words mean exactly what the trolls want them to mean.

Little troll, little troll, little troll;

what does that do to your only little soul?

End of transmission. Forever.

Lee gasps, Mr. 'Visitor' claimed[,] " isn't it the Democratic party which wants to stifle speech; e.g., issuing orders not to refer to "terrorism" or a 'war on terrorism?'[,]" and refers me to www.nowpublic.com as proof. It's proof of no such thing, of course. Except in Trollville, where words mean exactly what the trolls want them to mean. Little troll, little troll, little troll;
what does that do to your only little soul? End of transmission. Forever.

Wow! You kill the Messenger AND you kill the evil troll and . . .

. . .all by just saying so!!!

You, Lee, are some kind of genius! How did you ever manage the research and huge effort at reasoning to find such astounding support for your rebuttal?

No sense in discussing anything with a subhuman, evil and disgusting troll, no siree! You just end your transmission, forever, Lee and show this despicable neo-Juden troll, just which bridge to lurk under . . .