CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 10, 2007 12:03 AM UTC

Gunny Bob: Muslims Should Wear Tracking Bracelets

  • 81 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


We normally don’t pay much attention to anything KOA’s “Gunny” Bob Newman says on his radio show, not the least because we’re not inclined to listen to the radio when he’s on the air (“Gunny” is on the air from 7:00 – 10:00 p.m.)

But if Don Imus could get fired from his radio show for calling Rutgers women basketball players “nappy headed hos,” then it’s hard to see how Newman is going to get away with this. As Colorado Media Matters explains:

Discussing the breakup of an alleged terrorist plot to attack U.S. soldiers at New Jersey’s Fort Dix, Newsradio 850 KOA host “Gunny” Bob Newman said on his May 8 show that “every Muslim immigrant to America who holds a green card, a visa, or who is a naturalized citizen [should] be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times,” and that the government should “bug their places of work and their residences” and monitor “[a]ll mosques and community centers.” Newman added, “If they don’t like the idea, or if they refuse, throw their asses out of this country.”

Newman also suggested refusing Muslims entry into the United States by imposing a “moratorium” on visas for them. Speaking directly to the Muslim community, Newman warned, “You better get control of your own people. Once you get control of them, then come see us again and we’ll think about — however many decades down the road it is — we’ll think about maybe opening our doors to you again. But you are doing absolutely freaking nothing to help … this nation.”

Um…yeah.

Tweet
Share

Comments

81 thoughts on “Gunny Bob: Muslims Should Wear Tracking Bracelets”

    1. And let me give you some advice about your fellow Republicans.  You better get control of your own people.  Once you get control of them, then come see us again at ColoradoPols and we’ll think about maybe listening to you again.  But you are doing absolutely freaking nothing to help this nation.

      1. think you are?
        My mommy died a long time ago. And I surely don’t need you telling me what to do and who to do it to.
        So mind your own business, jack………….

          1. You, of all people making that complaint. If it’s so liberal, then tell us why you post here. (And it better be good, no “I just gotta show you libs up” lame-o BS.)

          2. You are quite correct.
            This site has turned to shit.
            Mostly only designed for liberals to spread their trash out for each other to enjoy anymore.

            But I find that setting fire to their garbage really gets their panties in a bunch.

        2. The words written there were taken directly from the original article, clearly intended to point out how utterly unacceptable they are by placing them into a more local context.  Obviously, Oscar wildly succeeded at this attempt; but you appear to have missed the point.

    3. Knee-jerk anti-American leftists make fun of Gunny’s suggestion, but, given the unapologetic racism of Muslims in America since 9/11. it makes some sense to me. While it’s a bit extreme, the politicians should listen and act before the public turns on them and the Islamofascists in our midst.

      Not all Muslims are terrorists, but they sure seem to be afraid to express their support for America and anger at the terrorists. This creates tremendous paranoia among Americans who are paying attention and fear for national security.

      CAIR and similar groups do their constituents no favors by defending terrorists, imho.

      2. And neither are all white male far right wingers. The fact that no one called for tracking devices or rounding up all such people after OKC bombing in ’95 is exactly the proof that this is a racist proposal.

        As I’ve said before, if you want to be sure your argument is reasonable, swap one basic part of your argument for another and see if it still sounds good.

        Furthermore, I knew the muslim proprietor of a middle eastern grocer and deli in Seattle where I was living on 9/11. He proudly flew the American flag before the attacks and doubled up afterward just because some dopes would still dare question his patriotism for his new home.

        Your statement “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but they sure seem to be afraid to express their support for America and anger at the terrorists” is frighteningly reminiscent of antisemitic propaganda used during Stalin’s time in the Soviet Union.

        1. Why don’t a vast majority of Muslim, if they are a supposed peaceful lot, stand up and denounce their counterpart’s role in global terrorism?
          Kind of funny that they are all bery bery quiet……..

          But they all jump through their collective asses screaming when their prophet is shown in a bad light. Or the Israelis say or do something that they think is wrong.

          You have to admit, their religion is pretty fucked up if that kind of behavior is common and accepted.

          1. A majority of American muslims have done what all the rest of the non-muslim Americans have. Why should they jump through more hoops? They’re American. That’s the important point.

            I don’t remember any hoopla in America when those cartoons you’re referring to were published. But so what if they do? It’s called the First Amendment. Check it out.

            As to the whole religion of Islam being or not being fucked up, judging it on the basis of guys like Osama is like judging all of Christianity on the basis of abortion clinic bombers.

  2. cho.

    Psycho.

    Big-time psycho. And a racist. And just plain krazy. I’ve heard this guy say that Chuck Hagel should burn in hell because he didn’t support the “surge.”

      1. To be a conservative, do you have to sign on a line somewhere promising to leave your conscience at the door?  I’d assumed anyone would take a look at this and immediately condemn such hateful speech; apparently, I’m wrong.  I’d like to make allowances for context, but there is simply no possible context that could justify such a thing.

        Gunny should go hang out with Mr. Tancredo.  They could debate whether to order the ankle bracelets before or after nuking Mecca.  For God’s sake, will somebody point these idiots toward a heart?

        1. Will they be made in China, or assembled in Mexico from US parts? We could save on shipping if the nightly illegal migration carried some of them north to Tancredo’s office.  It’s a sanctuary now.

      3. Remember this the next time you are about to tell everyone what a great American you are:

        Although it is extremely possible the historical reference would be beyond you.

        1. are not “us.”

          When the other guy loses his job, it is a recession; when you lose yours, it is a depression.  You can count on people to be remarkably insensitive to the plight of the other guy, whether he has been victimized by our police, our courts, or corrupt bureaucrats.  But injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and we all have a vested interest in the fair and just treatment of others. In defending his decision to defend white separatist Randy Weaver to a Jewish friend, Gerry Spence put it this way:

          In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people’s master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.

          That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them. We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely, the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But we were eaten just the same.

          -Gerry Spence From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993) at 5-6.

            1. Someone wrote into my Tancredo site a while back saying that all illegal immigrants should get “at least” life in prison and “probably the death penalty.” The writer also wanted all Border Patrol guards to “shoot to kill.”

              I was going to say “unbelievable” but it’s all too believable.

          2. That’s why Gerry Spence is such a maverick. Oops, a western expression, just like his analogy of flocks and wolves.  This guy is definitely Wyoming!

  6. remember Gunny Boy calling for a limitation on freedom of movement of caucasian males following Tim McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma City?  Perhaps limitations on US mail priviledges of caucasian males following Ted Kaczynski bombing spree?

    In fact, here is a link to a whole site of primarily caucasian males and their terrorist activities.

    http://www.splcenter…

    1. I think that’s LIAS on the magazines cover.  Poor kid though – he’ll grow up just as ignorant as his daddy and hell be damned proud of it.

  7. On last night’s Independent Lens (PBS) was a documentary film about an 80-year old Japanese-American artist (Jimmy Mirikitani) who had been imprisoned in one of the WWII internment camps.  He was living on the streets of New York and drew cats and — everyday — a different picture of the Tule Lake internment camp.  Worth watching if you did not see it.

    http://www.thecatsof…

    The film drew the obvious parallels between what was done to Japanese citizens in WWII and what folks like Gunny Bob want to do to Muslim-Americans in a post 9-11 world.

    Ironically, Colorado’s WWII Governor, Ralph Carr, a Republican, was one of the very few politicians during WWII to oppose internment of Japanese-Americans.  Standing up for the right thing killed his political career.

    My ancestors are Germans/Danes who settled in Nebraska.
    My European relatives participated in the Holocaust.  Tracking bracelets sound a lot like yellow Stars of David.  The accepted German belief of the 30s & 40s was that Jews undermined the country and were collectively responsible for all sorts of ills and sabatoge that befell Germany.

    In more recent times, the Rwandan genocide was fueled in large measure by the kooky radio broadcasts of the Radio TГ©lГ©vision Libre des Mille Collines.

    20th century history seems to littered with episodes of “mark ’em, round ’em up and kill ’em.”  Let’s leave that legacy behind in the 21st century, OK.

    1. The Japanese-American internment camps in the US were brought to us by the Roosevelt Administration in the Golden Age of Democrats.  Neither liberals nor conservatives can claim a monopoly in this area.

      1. “If you harm them, you must harm me. I was brought up in a small town where I knew the shame and dishonor of race hatred. I grew to despise it because it threatened the happiness of you and you and you.”

    1. and one must walk past the appropriate sensing device. 

      Bracelets will work where cellular signals reach. 

      I say, bracelets.

      🙂

  10. Tell me, is it just that convervatives failed to show up for their civics classes – assuming thos clases haven’t been converted into NCLB training courses?  Was all of American and World History lost on y’all, Sandman and LIaS?

    Wake me when we’ve evolved.  Oh, wait… nevermind.

  11. Gunny bob is frightening because he was in the military and I wonder where his right wing views come from and if he was possibly indoctrinated during his peacetime service in the peacetime army…..he does not either understand or else does not support the constitution of the United States….and when we debate his viewpoints, we give them credence.  I like to think his is merely a mercantile motive… he sells security products and so he promotes terror and domestic fear as a marketing device…..He is an excellent argument for the return of the Fairness Doctrine…

    Now, I thought that retired militry had some constraints on what they could say….anyone know for sure?

    1. Frankly, I’d hope that there aren’t “constraints” on what retired military can say, that would affect this.  I mean, the guy’s obviously a heartless loon, but we still have the right to free speech around here.

      Now, I’m not arguing that free speech rights should save this guy’s radio program.  It should be cancelled in a heartbeat; no second thoughts about it.  I just seriously hope there aren’t legal government-enforced restrictions on free speech rights of veterans.

    2. so that they could speak truth to that idiot currently residing in the White House.  Did you catch that item a few days ago where he advised everyone to be sure to exercise??????

      This is the guy doing so four hours a day while the world blows up at his behest. 

    3. By which this former Marine explicitly swore to uphold the Constitution. All immigrants have civil rights in this country and naturalized citizens are just that — citizens.

      It’s a sad day when a former Marine decides to side with the terrorists by rebuking an oath to uphold the Constitution.

        1. I guess once you’re an ex-Marine, all bets are off. Although Newman does like to parade around his Marine Corps service and call himself “Gunny” so one could argue that if he wants to keep wearing the mantle, the oath still stands. Or, he can admit that he doesn’t care about defending the Constitution. Either way, it’s ugly.

    4. How is the fairness doctrine going to help in this situation? You want someone who makes such an obviously dumb point silenced by the government? The market will make that adjustment for you much better and more efficiently.

      Who would make up the ‘fairness deciding panel’?  Political appointees?

      I think you’re opening a Pandora’s box with this one…

      1. There is no market place when there is a monoply. Rule one of Econ 101. Right wing radio has a monopoly on the public airwaves and there is not a free EXCHANGE of ideas….if we had the Fairness Doctrine in place….after gunnybob made his comments..then KOA would have to give equal time to someone from the other side to refute what gb said….any of the posts here on constitutional rights would be excellent..  What’s wrong with that?

        Public airwaves, public debate.  Theorectically anyone can print a newspaper or set up a blog…those MEANS of communication are not finite….but the public airwaves are FINITE…ultimately they can only carry so much activity and that is why the government already regulates them……Cable and satillite radio are not broadcast OVER public airwaves and that is why they are NOT regulated…except subject to the ususal laws of business and commerce…

        As for vets and free speech…..When men and women are in the military, they are subject to the Constitutional provision that we have civilivan control of the military and so their 1st Amendment rights are subjected to that control.
        People enlist for a certain amount of time and then get out and I am not talking about them… Career military retire and I wondered out loud if they ever had any obligations to that career in terms of subsequent free speech….

        For example, gb said, last night, that after 9/11, he had “access” to information that the public did not have….what the h…l did that mean?
        If it were because he was retired military, then doesn’t an obligation not to misuse that information exist?  Or not?  I don’t know. That is why I asked.

        1. That’s a terrible idea.  Who gets to decide the ‘fairness’?

          Also, how do conservatives have a monopoly?  Because more people choose to listen to them. If Air America had programming that appealed to more folks, they wouldn’t be in Chapter 11. 

          Do we get to apply the fairness doctrine to each individual website?  OK.  Let Lauren or I write half the headlines on Coloradopols.  What’s the difference? It’s privately owned, just like a radio station. 

          1. Radio have to have a PUBLIC LICENSE issued by the federal government because radio run on PUBLIC AIRWAVES……The airwaves belonged to the people of the United States, not Clear Channel………There currently is a MONOPOLY ….dominated by right wing radio…..when there is a MONOPOLY, there is no FREE MARKET PLACE…..capice?

            1. How can you say there is a monopoly on the airwaves just because far more people listen to conservative radio than Air America?
              I don’t get that line of thinking.
              Nobody forces me or anybody else to listen to Mike Rosen or the looney toones on Air America. I choose to listen to Mike. So how can that be considered a monopoly?
              Seems to me that since this is a free nation, you, me, and everyone else can listen to whomever we want. How can you possible say it is a monopoly?
              If the crap being spread by Air America was worth a hill of beans there would be dozens of other channels just dying to get some air time. But since nobody want to hear their lies, it is a dying station……
              Right?

          2. for some 50 years.  It kept things much more “fair and balanced.”  BTW, it was the fledgling broadcasting industry that wanted the gummint to step and and regulate the airwaves.  Before the FCC, broadcasters would use any frequencies and power that they wanted.

            1. and no disrespect, but it sounds like one of the fictitious laws aimed at leveling the playing field out of Atlas Shrugged.

              The most important part of this is who would decide ‘fairness’ and I haven’t heard anyone answer that yet.

              Clear Channel carries Air America in some markets.  I’m absolutely not a fan, but if they thought they could make money broadcasting it, Rush would be out on his ear.

              The free market is the greatest invention in the history of mankind.

              1. …and Dwyer – spank it down a little. This is a civil discussion between you and I on this so far so don’t treat me like I’m stupid.  I have a feeling you wouldn’t feel very comfortable giving me a faux econ lesson in person, so just tell me what you think without all the snottiness.  Otherwise, good luck.

                1. What am I supposed to think about someone who calls himself (?) Laughing Boy. Hard to keep a straight face.  However, you have issued a legtimate challenge and I will respond.  I will debate economics with you.

                    First of all, the monopoly is NOT about who listens, it is about who BROADCASTS. It is about WHO controls the MEANS of communication. We are talking about only TWO means of mass media. Those two media are radio and NON cable TV.  Those two media use PUBLIC AIRWAVES as a  means of Broadcasting.  Airwaves are a finite resource and that is why the Supreme Court has ruled that they are subject to government regulation because these resources BELONGS to the AMERICAN people and should be used in the public interest.

                    Cable, internet, blogs, paper media, etc.  are NOT part of the discussion because the processes to distribute the communication product is  NOT the public ariwaves.

                  In a debate, the first thing to be done is to define your terms. I have done that.  Accept them LB?

                  1. But PLEASE stop SHOUTING.

                    Again, you’re skirting the $64k question.  Who gets to decide ‘fairness’?

                    Let the market decide.  The original point of my question remains:  What are you so afraid of?  A radio talk show host makes a really dumb statement at 10 o’clock at night.

                    Why do you want to stifle his free speech?  Let him be as dumb as he wants, and nobody will listen to him anymore.

                    I think my tag has created the wrong impression of me.  I think I’ll change it.

                    1. used to be settled simply by equal time. Side A got X amount of time to say their piece, Side B also got X amount of time. There was no arbiter. I believe this system inherently ensured fairness because no one was going to get away with any of the whoppers you typically get on talk radio these days, not with someone there to answer you right away.

                    2. …but who decides who is A and B?  What if it’s not clear cut?  I think what Gunny Bob said in this case was stupid, but I might agree with him on other issues.  Does he get “A credit” against his “B issues” if he breaks rank on certain topics?

                      Do you see what I’m getting at?

                    3. But I don’t know how it would work, or if that would be a consideration. To the best of my recollection (and the, uh, more experience posters here can speak to this) there weren’t a whole lot of radio or TV hosts like Gunny Bob (people who routinely made inflammatory remarks) when the fairness doctrine was in place. If it were to come back it would be a bit of an adjustment. We couldn’t magically recreate the radio and TV of the 70s just by bringing back the rules in place then. Still, I believe the rules helped ensure more fairness in the media than exists today and regardless of opinion shows like Gunny Bob, Rush Limbaugh, or Air America the actual news would be improved by a return.

                    4. This has been an ennaresting string. My minor and late contribution will be to point out that, no matter how logical or detailed a response is to the right wing fringe is….it never gets through. They won’t admit they’re wrong, even in the face of overwhelming factual and logical presentation.

                      Its a waste of time.

                      I want to congratulate dwyer, parsing and canines for their excellent rebutalls and impeccable logic. Keep up the good work.

                      But….they’ll never get it. Something missing in the frontal lobes, perhaps? Or is it something missing in their souls?

                    5. but I wouldn’t classify Laughing Boy as such. He impresses me as someone who wants to engage in an exchange of ideas. He brings up valid points and keeps it respectful.

                      Keep in mind that very few of us are going to persuade anyone else of anything. The individual who posts here with that as a goal is going to be disappointed. But it’s a good way of keeping the mind sharp and to encounter fresh perspectives.

                    6. You didn’t even add anything to the debate, except that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. 

                      And none of you have put forth any answers to the most important question:

                      Who gets to decide “fairness”?

                      All of you Democrat civil libertarians should be cringing at the censorship overtones you’re buying into just because it would temporarily muzzle your political opponents.

                    7. How shall we define “Fairness?”  I can’t defend  a “fairness doctrine” unless we know what fairness means.  I don’t want the government determining the “fairness” of content. I don’t that is possible or healthy in a democracy.  But, I think we can talk about  fair time shares and equal access.

                      So let us take gunnybob’s comment.  He was broadcasting over 50,000 watt station and at night. He reached into 38 or more states and probably could be picked up sporatically in foreign countries…probably is routinely heard in Western Canada. His statement was heard by millions of people.

                      So, I think it would be fair if someone refuting what gunnybob said, should also have the same opportunity on the same station at the same time of night for the same amount of time.  The best way to do that would be to have a registered Republican talk show host one night and a registered Democratic talk show host the next night.  That would provide equal access to the public airwaves by the two main political parties.  That would be fair.

                      Now, I concede that there are problems making sure that independents and third parties also get a fair shot at the public airwaves. But once we accept the premise of equal access, we can work on those details.

                      Would such a regulation impact broadcasting? Absolutely. I think it would be much duller.  But,  I think we would see a growth in satellite radio and that the rich right wing would move over there….which is fine.  Satellite radio is not broadcast over the public airwaves and so is NOT subject to the same regulation. Of course, listeners would have to pay to subscribe to satellite radio….hey, there you go….there is your market place…..if people liked what they heard from right wing (or left wing for that matter) they would pay for it…..if they didn’t, then those shows would go off of satellite radio. I mean you do believe in a free market, don;t you?

                      I think this would be fair. What do you say?  I am enjoying this exchange. I will check back after the mother’s day celebrations…..

                    8. I can’t think of anything more annoying than equal time.  That is when I reach for the remote.  If a TV or radio show can get the ratings, it should survive.  If not, it doesn’t deserve equal time.

                    9. The alleged* reason for right wing dominance of the airwaves is that the broadcast corporations are run by conservatives who take advantage of the rules to air viewpoints they agree with and not bother with the ones that don’t. I don’t believe that’s necessarily the market at work.

                      You might point to Air America and their financial hardships as proof that the market is alive and well and that the shows that are making it are a reflection of that, and there’s something for that. But what does it say about the market? I think that conservative listeners tend to enjoy the in-your-face style more than liberal listeners do, and that has more to do with Air America’s troubles than, say, the idea that Americans as a whole find conservative commentators more believable than liberals. (Of course I can’t recall any Air America shows getting on the big talk radio stations – at least they didn’t when I gave them a shot back in Seattle – and I sure don’t recall any big ad blitzes like those enjoyed by Limbaugh and Hannity, so it can be argued that Air America never got the chance to get a foothold. Their chances have been further hampered by the defection of early big name commentators like Chuck D, Janine Garafalo and of course Al Franken…)

                      * I say “alleged” because hard proof, such as board meeting minutes where they discuss broadcast policy, typically is not something we can access. I personally believe this to be true but accept that I don’t know it for a fact.

                      Sorry, I didn’t mean to write such a long rambling post in response to yours, Lauren, but you got me thinkin’…

                    10. I think that conservative listeners tend to enjoy the in-your-face style more than liberal listeners do.

                      Randi Rhodes? Locally, Jay Marvin?

                      I think you’re incorrect on this point.

                    11. Didnt Mike Malloy get canned due to low ratings? He was very brash, in your face.

                    12. The market place is not about WHO listens, it is about WHO controls the means of broadcasting over public airwaves.  I challenge the assumption that ratings, alone,  determine who stays and who goes….let me explain, LB (This addresses  both Lauren and Laughing….interesting covergence…like PR for parsingreality and phoenix rising…what does this mean? I don’t have a clue)

                      However, my point is that rightwing radio media is promoting, always, a certain political agenda…..so-called ” free market place economy,” “ridicule for climate change”…contempt for “government bureaucracies,” anger at “trial lawyers”  and as a consequence, deregulation of industries, reduced regulation of and reduced accountability for corporations.  It may well be that advertisers are not buying time  to sell their commercial product but rather buying time to promote a political message which benefits them….

                      The way to break this monopoly is simply to award equal time slots to each political party.  I say political party because that is easily identifyable….I know that the terms being tossed about are conservative and libertarian and liberal and progressive.  This is much harder to define and would get the government into evaluating politcal discourse.  I absolutely agree with LBs that this would not be good.  However, a slot for the democrats and a slot for the republicans….and let the parties hire their own hosts.  It would probably be boring…..

                      But what a boast for satellite radio….we should all promote my idea and go out and buy stock in whatever is the current satellite radio company…..Let gunnny bob rant and rave for people who are willing to pay him to hear it… …..ditto rosen….let mikey put his free market ideas to a real test…..and so on…..I bet boyles would broadcast in spanish if it meant money in the pocket…..

                    13. How popular are those hosts compared to Limbaugh, Hannity, and company? How many stations proudly advertise the Randi Rhodes show?

                      I wrote a generalization. Of course there are some liberals who enjoy that style, and some conservatives who appreciate the NPR approach better.

                      As far as who gets to decide what’s fair, EACH SIDE gets to decide. That’s how it worked before. If you said something, the other guy got to respond. It was self policing that way.

              2. Hello, the Fairness Doctrine was part of the FCC rules until RR got rid of it.  Some would say with the absolute intention of opening the doors to un-challenged radio, i.e., propaganda. 

                It was there, check your history.  Nothing to do with liking it or not, just the historical fact.

  12. Gunny Bob and the rest of the fringe nut cases distract us from the real battle at hand.

    The American constitution is being undermined. The treasury is being raided. Our children’s blood is being spilled for oil and illegitimate profits in an illegal war. Our standing in the world is severly undermined. Our coutry has been divided, but the rift is healing….November 2006! The whores and murderers in the press and on the right defend corporate american transgressions.

    The trolls on this site only distract from the real work. In your own heart, decide what is worth fighting for! In my Heart of Hearts, it’s not debating some flack fuck with a dwindling market share on an obscure radio station. His justice will come.

    Stay focused Patriots!

    1. It’s all about not losing sight of the big picture.  I am reminded of an old protest song from the early ’70s; the lyrics are as resonant today in our lawless modern police state as they were then, if not more so: 

      The spirit was freedom and justice
      And it’s keepers seem generous and kind
      It’s leaders were supposed to serve the country
      But now they won’t pay it no mind [CAR 31?]
      ‘Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
      And now their vote is a meaningless joke
      They babble about law and order
      But it’s all just an echo of what they’ve been told
      Yeah, there’s a monster on the loose
      It’s got our heads into a noose
      And it just sits there watchin’

      Our cities have turned into jungles
      And corruption is stranglin’ the land
      The police force is watching the people
      And the people just can’t understand
      We don’t know how to mind our own business
      ‘Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
      Now we are fighting a war over there
      No matter who’s the winner
      We can’t pay the cost
      ‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose
      It’s got our heads into a noose
      And it just sits there watching

      Steppenwolf, “Monster,” lyrics available at http://www.steppenwo…

      Not unlike its Soviet counterpart, our government can break into our houses, rummage through our correspondence, listen to our private conversations, and even imprison or otherwise injure those it deems “dangerous” or “subversive.”  And no one can hear their cries, amidst the constant din regarding  the foibles of Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole.

      “It is obligatory that Helsinki signatory states not manipulate the minds of their citizens; that they not step between a man and his conscience or his God; and that they not prevent his thoughts from finding expression through peaceful action. We are all painfully aware, furthermore, that governments which systematically disregard the rights of their own people are not likely to respect the rights of other nations and other people.” Hearings on Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., 106 (1983) (Remarks by Max Kampelman, Chair of the U.S. Delegation, to the Plenary Session of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe).

        Australians say they want a Bill of Rights; we might as well give them ours, as we obviously aren’t using it.  As for me, I’m willing to live with a greater risk of Muslim terrorism (as the chances of my being a victim are far smaller than they are of being a victim of home-grown state-sponsored terrorism), if it means that I can live as a free man.  The timeless words of Ben Franklin are worth revisiting: “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security, and in due course shall have neither.”  [from memory]

      End of rant. 🙂

      1. When I was in high school and the Cold War was in full swing, we had a class called Americanism vs. Communism.  It was mandatory to graduate.  The very things that we were warned about what it was like in the Soviet Union have happened right here.  At least the citizens there mostly knew they were being shafted.  Most Ahmurikans don’t have a clue. 

        Yes, the probability of being hit by a terrorist is close to zilch. But every time I go through the line at DIA I get the cavity search and most of hte time, my luggage is checked by the TSA.  I would rather die free than “be safe” and secure.  BTW, have you seen that DIA has a terrible track record of catching contraband?  Even after looking up my ass. OK, I exaggerate.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

40 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!