Hah yeah... one of my old neighbors was a couple of gay black guys (I'm white). Last years especially hot summer I'd joke with them like "I know you a tropical people, but it's gettin too sticky over there even for you two aint it?" We would actually spend most of the time gossiping about the illegals in the building. But it's the Al Sharptons of the world that try to make good humor out to be serious just to create division.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by apc]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


Do you not remember the "Himey Town" incident? That screwed Jackson up pretty good.

No I must have missed it but one thing I know for sure, in my mind I think they are out to hang anyone they can just to get free air time.. In my opinion they are loosers and big loosers at least Bill Cosby is trying to help the African american community while many feel Sharpton and Jackson are not. I talked to one former worker today who just happens to be African American and he called them both the N word and said he feels they are hurting the black coummunity more then they are helping it.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I bet if 50 cent was hosting his own show on MSNBC
do you think they would stick with him?

I think yes, because is all about money and when a rapper use the n word or degrade women in their lyrics, is call (art and self expresion) When an old white man like Imus say something derrogatory is call racism

Comedy is art. Why then, is one acceptable above the other?

The problem, as I see it, is the only group anyone is allowed to poke fun at anymore is Christian white men. Perhaps that is because they don't pretend to be so fragile that they fall apart if someone calls them a racial, sexist, or religious slur.

this is horrible. This is beyond horrible. How come people like Eddie Murphy, and Chris Rock can sit there and be like. "white people are stingy, they hate black people, this and that" I'm sick of people flipping out over something so small. Especially Al Sharpton. That man has ruined so many good names over something that he calls racism. HE IS A RACIST. He's racist against white people. They think that they have special priveleges because of something that happened 150 years ago. The whole situation is rediculous. The sad truth is that black people are the racist ones. Yes there's the KKK but theyre not actively looking for anything to PUBLICLY ruin peoples lives.

Now now, there's racism on both sides of the monochromatic divide.

The difference here is the Klan doesn't pretend to suppress racism. Sharpton, Jackson, and others like them don't work for equality. You could say they work for supremacy. But I say they work for butchery.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Okay, I'll put it simply. When people say stupid things, especially racially charged stupid things, advertisers cant afford to risk the public equating those stupid thoughts with their product. And remember, the advertisers on BET, MTV, and the crap channels are not the same as the ones on MSNBC. So, they remove their advertising.

Studios can't risk losing money this way. It's not about punishing, or any of that crap, it's about a network's advertising revenue, which is where they make their money. It works the same for radio.

To everyone using this as an opportunity to vent their racial frustration, Learn to pick your battles!

I agree with you that the market should have the final say in what happens to people who make statements like this. I think that is the system we all buy into.

But I get nervous when people start to say that one person or another should be silenced, and that I what I am scared of here.

I would hate to think that the decisions of the sponsors were influenced by people shouting racism. That's just not helpful.

Originally posted by grover
ARE YOU GUYS CRAZY? It is about time these talk radio heads were held accountable for the hate and and division they sow. Maybe the time has finally come to hold Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage and Mush Loosebowels accountable as well.

But the problem is, who decides what is wrong? What Imus said is indefensible, I agree with you. And Ann Coulter makes my eyes want to bleed. But what happens when they try to silence someone with whom you agree, under the guise of "they're being insensitive and insulting"? Who decides what is right and wrong, and what is offensive or not? That's the problem here. It is very difficult to decide what should happen in cases like these, and we need to be very careful.

Would you support me if I wanted to throw Rosie O'Donnell off The View? Because in the past she has deeply offended me with her comments, which I find divisive and, yes, hateful. Should I also keep Peter Singer from publishing books because his statements offend me at times? Where exactly does this stop?

[edit on 4/12/2007 by Togetic]

[edit on 4/12/2007 by Togetic]

I am not advocating censorship by any means at the same time though these people have poisoned the social and political discourse in this country and they should be held accountable. I am a former chef... and if I referred to a co-worker (or a customer for that matter) publicly as a nappy headed ho I know damned good and well I would be at the very least severely reprimanded, if not fired. These people given the spotlight that is on them should be held to no less of a standard.

this is all about 2 people , the biggest racist in the world today ,
Sharpton and Jackson ! period . i even heard a black man
on msnbc say today that they were terrrorists . and in a way he's right .
all they do is go around and stir the racial pot . race plays a part in breathing to them .
i am not a imus fan , not in the least but those two boil my blood .

So when are they gonna fire all the rappers for making racist and improper comments about women?

Fair is fair.

Originally posted by grover
I am not advocating censorship by any means at the same time though these people have poisoned the social and political discourse in this country and they should be held accountable. I am a former chef... and if I referred to a co-worker (or a customer for that matter) publicly as a nappy headed ho I know damned good and well I would be at the very least severely reprimanded, if not fired. These people given the spotlight that is on them should be held to no less of a standard.

I appreciate what you're saying. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to join the Jackson/Sharpton bashing. But my question, then, is should we then silence the people whom I believe are spreading division and hatred?

I don't think Sharpton and Jackson should be censored.

I think they should be taken care of in a dark alley somewhere.

They are responsible for the murder of innocents, and should be held accountable.

There is a difference between hateful speech, and deliberately encouraging riot and death.

I am no fan of Imus, and never will be, but his firing is downright silly. The double standard in this country is getting out of hand. I am amazed that when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a Fa&&ot her job wasnt taken. Oh thats right, the only time something will happen is when Jesse "Himeytown" Jackson and Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton step in. Great idea folks. Build the divide further

. Yes there's the KKK but they're not actively looking for anything to PUBLICLY ruin peoples lives.

Yeah instead thier hanging human beings from trees, burning down churches, torturing people, and killing children. The KKK are responsible for some of the worst crimes against human beings that you could possibly imagine. Its true that thier activity has died down among the years, but they have done some trully disgusting things to blacks. Think before you speak man.

Originally posted by Blackdude

Yes there's the KKK but they're not actively looking for anything to PUBLICLY ruin peoples lives.

Yeah instead thier hanging human beings from trees, burning down churches, torturing people, and killing children. The KKK are responsible for some of the worst crimes against human beings that you could possibly imagine. Its true that thier activity has died down among the years, but they have done some trully disgusting things to blacks. Think before you speak man.

Yeah, I gotta agree here. I'm not so much for the whole defending the KKK. They're worse than Imus. They're worse than most people. Don't get so bogged down in anger that it causes you to say silly things like that.

[edit on 4/12/2007 by Togetic]

What bugs me is that these radio corps higher these types of personalities specifically for their antics and manner in which the show is presented (around my area, it's been Imus, Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, the Greaseman) then they fire them when they "cross the line". The line they cross is fear of lack of further revenue.

If CBS was so disgusted by what he said, they would have fired him last week, not wait untill all the guests and sponsers pullout.

Originally posted by Togetic


But this is a dangerous precedent: if you say something offensive, then you could be taken off the air waves. Where does it stop, and who decides who gets taken off?

Well when you say something RACIALLY offensive its a whole different ball park. Im sure thiers a percentage of blacks that listen to him, and after that comment, I doubt thier going to continue listening. Its all about money, and that comment cost the station to loss a good amount of money.

Also, I don't know how offensive the comment has to be in order for them to even think about taking the host off the air, but saying something racially offensive is 10x worse then any other offense. Basically because it brings a whole lot of bull with it.

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
What bugs me is that these radio corps higher these types of personalities specifically for their antics and manner in which the show is presented (around my area, it's been Imus, Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, the Greaseman) then they fire them when they "cross the line". The line they cross is fear of lack of further revenue.

If CBS was so disgusted by what he said, they would have fired him last week, not wait untill all the guests and sponsers pullout.

Well the point of a radio corps is to make money. And if there's something preventing them from doing that, then they will take care of it. Radio hosts say offensive, politically incorect things all the time, but most of the time they go unnoticed or undisccused. So the company will probally just give the host a warning. But when a comment is made by a host that gains a lot of negative attention and puts the company in a bad light, like the Don Imus comment, then the company will fire him as fast as possible to avoid anymore negative backlash.

First of all, this is not a 1st Ammendment issue. Congress did nothing. His EMPLOYER did. Go into work tomorrow morning and sling personal racial slurs around and see what happens. This is no different than the Dixie Chicks incident. Once again there, Congress did nothing. Consumers and their once buddies (the evil Clear Channel) did.

What IS interesting is to juxtapose the two incidents. all Lefties whining that Chick's rights were abused while all the Right defending Imus (which is odd as he was ardent Bush Basher). And vice-versa. Both groups are exposed: Everything's cool as long as it's the OTHER team getting whacked. Neither truly understand freedom.

Now are both incidents symptoms of the current, and really scary, "Hate Speech law" mindset. Yes.

I think the point I have been trying to make is that we are flippant about our hate speech laws. We want to silence the "other guy" but Heavens forfend that they silence "our guy!" So I agree with you. It is disturbing that political personalities are coming out and saying that X person or Y person should be fired or silenced for their views.