It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

College Students Sign Phony Petition to Ban Conservatives from Radio

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


It's the same line of thinking that Rand Paul seems to have about the right to health care. That if you have a right to health care we can just start breaking down a doctor's door so that he can treat patients.

Apparently I have the right to free speech, where's my multi-million dollar radio show that I'm supposed to have?

90% of commercial talk radio is conservative commentary. Where's the liberal's right to free speech? Is Rachel Maddow's freedom of speech being infringed upon because Air America is gone?




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Ridiculous. I bet you could do the same with republicans banning liberals from radio and tv while saying they support the constitution.


Yup, and you'd get the same reaction from 'em; "that sounds hilarious, I'll sign it for the lulz" - which is exactly what everyone in the video does.


Please, do not confuse a philosophy (liberalism) with a political party (Rep/Dem).

Regardless, I think I speak with some knowledge, having evolved over the years from liberal Democrat to conservative Independent. Republicans would have welcomed the competition, and most likely would have debated the hypocrisy evident in the conflicting idea of signing a petition to ban free speech. They would have pointed out the fact that liberal talk radio has been an abysmal failure because most people don't buy into the liberal philosophy. Advertisers know that, and when the money from George Soros dries up, libs can't pay the electric bill.


Know what's really funny, though? If this were real, then the people signing the petition are engaging in their right to free speech. if the station the petition went to (presumably the college station?) heard the petition and agreed, they are engaging in their right to free speech. Know who's right to free speech would not be involved one way or another in this? Glen Beck's. He maintains his right to free speech, even if a station decides it no longer wishes to carry his show.


Yes, it's ironic all right! And that's where your principles come into play - when you can resolve any conflict by using logic and reason. For example, you may hate Glenn Beck but that is NO reason to sign the petition.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 



Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Some of these replies make me think a few posters think that the right to speak is the same as the right to be heard


Yeah, I have to say that this entire story seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to have a 3 hour AM radio show daily. There is no constitutional right to airtime that I can find and it seems like signing a petition is as much free speech as anything else. I would kind of like to know when this shift happened. When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues. I know that when I turn my radio off, Michael Savage continues to be free to talk.


Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march. And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.

You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.).



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 



Originally posted by mishigas
He's probably remembering that famous quote by Winston Churchill:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”


So we know that each of these people is a liberal because of a cute saying? Suddenly I feel like an idiot for asking for anything factual. I was only asking because I genuinely wanted to know.


You can believe whatever you want. You can ask dumb questions if you are that confused. You can put lie to the notion that "There are no dumb questions". As a matter of fact, there are such things.

He never stated that ALL signers were liberals. He merely inferred that willingness to sign the petition was typical behavior of hypocritical liberals. But you knew that, at least I hope you did. It's the same as knowing that all muslims are not terrorists, though most terrorists are muslims.


I went to college in a very red are. The thing I noticed most about college kids though was that most had not even voted for a president. Most had no real party affiliation, just ideas. Where I went to school, most of the ideas I heard were pretty red. I was not looking to disprove or prove anything. I just do not like watching videos on ATS and being expected to just take everything they claim or is written about them at face value.


College is the time where most people begin to apply their principles to reality, and many questions arise and need to be answered in their young inquisitive minds. But if your principles are based upon faulty premises, it's as dangerous as building your home on a shifting base of sand.
edit on 23-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
do people need anymore proof that colleges teach people

what to think instead of how to think.

just goes to show a degree is worthless.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
You can believe whatever you want. You can ask dumb questions if you are that confused. You can put lie to the notion that "There are no dumb questions". As a matter of fact, there are such things.


Before you decided to call my question dumb, it might have helped if you read it. I asked how they knew any of the students political affiliations.


He never stated that ALL signers were liberals. He merely inferred that willingness to sign the petition was typical behavior of hypocritical liberals. But you knew that, at least I hope you did. It's the same as knowing that all muslims are not terrorists, though most terrorists are muslims.


I never said he did but the thread kind of speaks for itself anyway.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Ridiculous. I bet you could do the same with republicans banning liberals from radio and tv while saying they support the constitution.


Originally posted by ZindoDoone
This is the second or third time this guy has put one over on the 'so called' enlightened student Liberal!


Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Liberal college students are some of the dumbest people to have a conversation with.. sooo ... not very surprising. They just believe what the Professor tells them to. Monkey see, monkey do.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march.


I know what they are and you do not have a right to them. The right to speak is not the same as the right to have a newspaper or a radio show and I would hope you would know that.


And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.


Explain my logic to me then because you do not seem to be able to respond in a manner that fits with what was said. You can burn the flag all you want as far as I am concerned but you do not have the right to a one hour cable show where you do it.


You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.).


Actually that seems to be what you are doing. You are trying to say that the right to free expression is the same as the right to an AM radio show. It is not.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
Apparently I have the right to free speech, where's my multi-million dollar radio show that I'm supposed to have?


Exactly!
This seems to be another symptom of our entitlement society. People think they have a "right" to all kinds of things they do not actually have the right to on any document in US history.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I wouldn't mind Beck or O'reilly being banned from TV, just like we ban other explicit and inappropriate content from mainstream television.

That's not being against the First Amendment, that's just common ground etiquette.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 



Originally posted by mishigas
Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march.


I know what they are and you do not have a right to them. The right to speak is not the same as the right to have a newspaper or a radio show and I would hope you would know that.


*I* would hope that you would admit that I never said we had a right to a radio show.

So why are you saying that?


And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.




Explain my logic to me then because you do not seem to be able to respond in a manner that fits with what was said. You can burn the flag all you want as far as I am concerned but you do not have the right to a one hour cable show where you do it.


Oh I can respond just fine, thank you.
You're just confused. I will try to explain again.

Once again I repeat: You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.).


Actually that seems to be what you are doing. You are trying to say that the right to free expression is the same as the right to an AM radio show. It is not.


No, bunky, I never said that. One of them (freedom of expression) is a RIGHT and one of them (AM radio show) is a MEDIUM, i.e., means of expression. That's what I said, and I don't know how to explain it any clearer. If you know of a way, please tell me.

Thanks - good discussion.

edit on 24-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


You asked a pretty foolish question about my post. Simple answer is,logic, would dictate that very, very, few Conservatives would bother to sign ANY document like that. Secondly I never said 'ALL' college Student were liberal just the majority otherwise there wouldn't be such a large movement to silence any an all Conservative voices by and in academia today. Nearly every week we read how some administration does their best to shut down the conservative voices on campuses all over the country!

Zindo!


edit on 5/24/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


*I* would hope that you would admit that I never said we had a right to a radio show.

So why are you saying that?


I am hoping you can explain why you brought those things up then.


Oh I can respond just fine, thank you.
You're just confused. I will try to explain again.

Once again I repeat: You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.).


What are you reading? I am the one pointing out that freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of access to media. You are not making any sense.


No, bunky, I never said that. One of them (freedom of expression) is a RIGHT and one of them (AM radio show) is a MEDIUM, i.e., means of expression. That's what I said, and I don't know how to explain it any clearer. If you know of a way, please tell me.


Stop arguing with me over radio shows and just agree with me when I said you do not have a right to a radio show. How are you this confused?


Thanks - good discussion.

edit on 24-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)


Not really. My responses show I actually read your posts.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


You asked a pretty foolish question about my post. Simple answer is,logic, would dictate that very, very, few Conservatives would bother to sign ANY document like that. Secondly I never said 'ALL' college Student were liberal just the majority otherwise there wouldn't be such a large movement to silence any an all Conservative voices by and in academia today. Nearly every week we read how some administration does their best to shut down the conservative voices on campuses all over the country!

Zindo!


edit on 5/24/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)


In order for your point to be valid then people have to fit into one of the two categories you listed. Real life does not work that way. Most kids 18-22 rarely chose a philosophy at that point and I know many many many many independents that feel Mark Levin and Michael Savage are bad for political discourse. You go ahead and label people you do not know based on your own preconceptions then. Funny how you had to add "I never said all." Then I guess everyone one of those students that is not an "all" completely destroys your story. If any of the people signing that petition could qualify as "not liberals" by your own admission, they they all can.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


This whole off-track discussion started when you said



When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues.


That comment was so out of left field that it made absolutely no sense. *Nobody* said that or even inferred it, not here nor in the article. Maybe you just felt the need to state the obvious. But I tried to help you thru your confusion by explaining the issue to you. Then there was this you said:


Yeah, I have to say that this entire story seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to have a 3 hour AM radio show daily. There is no constitutional right to airtime that I can find and it seems like signing a petition is as much free speech as anything else. I would kind of like to know when this shift happened. When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues. I know that when I turn my radio off, Michael Savage continues to be free to talk.


Huh? Once again, I tried to help you thru your fog of confusion:



Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march. And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.

You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.)


You even threw in a comment about Sarah Palin along the way.

But I finally realized that either you are creating a straw man argument, you are trolling, or you are hopelessly thick. So Ima get outta here.

Oh, and btw: I *know* it wasn't a good discussion. I was just trying to be civil and polite.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


This whole off-track discussion started when you said



When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues.


That comment was so out of left field that it made absolutely no sense. *Nobody* said that or even inferred it, not here nor in the article. Maybe you just felt the need to state the obvious. But I tried to help you thru your confusion by explaining the issue to you. Then there was this you said:


You could not be more wrong if you tried. It started when the OP said in his opening post

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I don't think they know what freedom of speech means.


And then others added


Originally posted by freedish
But I'm not about to go ban their freedom of speech.

and

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Students who support free speech want to ban an opposing viewpoint from speaking?

Hmm, they do not support true free speech then.


So you obviously just want to argue but have no idea what you are arguing about. Maybe you will want to rewrite that last post after having reality kick you in the head like this. Sorry but just because you did not read the thread does not mean those words are not in it.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join