Clear Channel censors ads for Harry Shearer’s new Bush-mocking CD.
Filed Under: Media
By on Jun 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Clear Channel censors ads for Harry Shearer’s new Bush-mocking CD.
Comedian and actor Harry Shearer’s new album, Songs of the Bushmen, pays comedic “homage” to current and former Bush administration officials like Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. But media giant Clear Channel doesn’t want people to buy it. The New York Post reports today that the “notoriously conservative” company’s outdoor advertising arm has banned signs for the album “because the cover depicts the president with a bone through his nose.” Here’s what they don’t want you to see:
Before the Iraq war, the company banned music by the Dixie Chicks from their radio stations after lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Expect a CD titled “Songs of the Obamaniacs” and all hell to break lose.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:20 amrogerse:
June 27th, 2008 at 11:26 amDid you just say what I just read?
rogerse hates the First Amendment.
Clear Channel is “clearly” part of the librul mass media. Exactly how much of the broadcast and billboard industry do they own again?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:27 amIs this what they mean when they say freedom isn’t free?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:30 amIt was controversial, it had to go…
By that logic, Bush should have been gone long ago.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:31 amrogerse Says:
It was controversial, it had to go…
Considering the troll’s meager output, this one has proven to be a very expensive addition to the RNC payroll at $.10 a post.
Wait…didn’t Mr. P terminate the troll’s employment?
Stop hiding in your cubicle and go home rogerse. There are no more paydays.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:31 amBill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, Glen Beck, et. al. are controversial. Can we wave good-bye to them now? Please?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:32 amrogerse Says:
gummitch Says:
so it should stay because of the 1st ammendment?.
According to “conservatives” for many years, the first amendment applies to commercial “speech.” So, yeah.
“Controversial” is no reason for repressing anything.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:32 amHey, as long as they were quick to pull the horrific Swift boat ads, as well as the unsubstantiated bogus docu-drama “Path to 9/11″…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:33 amOh wait
(cough)(cough)(blowjob)(cough)
I thought censorship was unamerican ?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:33 amMapleStreet Says:
“I thought censorship was unamerican ?”
So is roger the reality dodger.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:35 amrogerse Says:
——————————————————————————–
It was controversial, it had to go…
Then why haven’t they pulled Limbaugh’s show? He’s certainly controversial.
Seems like you have a bit of a double standard…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:37 amMore evidence of our fascist state.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:38 amHow PRAVDAesque!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:38 amDigDug:
Limbaugh isn’t so much controversial as he is stupid.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:39 amdoes that apply to all material.
—
June 27th, 2008 at 11:39 amAh the old bait and switch. Did someone misplace their scissors and glue?
One of King George’s better shots, I think.
And, after all, hasn’t George tried to run the country and his administration a lot like a tribal lord might? You know, one mighty authority who can supersede all, silences anyone with an opposing opinion, attacks other nations, takes care of his friends - the list goes on, but you get the picture even if it is a bit of a stereotype. And if those actions aren’t/weren’t controversial, then this picture isn’t either.
A very fitting image, I would think.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:40 amSo rogerse:
June 27th, 2008 at 11:41 amMight you explain just what makes this “too” controversial?
rogerse Says:
gummitch Says:
“Controversial” is no reason for repressing anything.
does that apply to all material.
rogerse believes he’s on to the Socratic method. Tough question, rogerse. Hmmm.
Yes, obviously, “controversial” is no reason for repressing information. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment.
You should try reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights someday, or have someone walk you through it.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:43 amI guess Clear Channel is now owned by the government since they won’t air anything that bashes the White House or the President? WOW didn’t know that.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:44 amgummitch:
Perhaps there is a “Constitution for Dummies” we could direct rogerse to.
Better yet, perhaps someone could get Bush to read it.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:45 amlol covering Bush’s ass has worked out so well!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amTrippleKick Says:
It amazes me how quickly “conservatives” are willing to dismiss the First Amendment, as long as they agree with the result. They’re always the first to screech about “censorship” when the shoe is on the other foot.
Listen, bozo, Clear Channel and all the other media outlets are using public airwaves and are subject to public control. Censoring ideas they don’t like is just a heinous when they do it as when the government censors and often has a greater effect because they have so much control over what Americans hear and read.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amYeah, that’s absolutely correct, TrickleDick; it’s only censorship when the progressives scream about the hatemongering from the right.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amIf we want a world that’s tolerant and respectful of the differences in cultures, races, and ideologies; it should be universal.
We wouldn’t tolerate Obama depicted like this. We shouldn’t tolerate Bush depicted like this.
There’s a lot of good arguments to oppose Bush on policy. There’s a lot of good arguments to compare and contrast ideologies. But, characterizations like this are a step in the wrong direction, regardless of who the targets are.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:49 amThere has always been a tension between the right of free speech (1st amendment guarantees freedom from the government and not from private individuals) and the right of an individual or corporation to limit what it will publish or display. The consolidation of mass media led to rules limiting consolidation of ownership of licensed airwaves. We have seen the Republicans and their corporate allies continually loosen the rules on ownership. This is just one mores example as to why strict limits on ownership need to be imposed. Without such limits, media will be consolidated and diversity within our country’s media will be destroyed, eg. Rupert Murcoch.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:49 amrogerse,
bait and switch,
like hannity?
dbadass is right.
stick to copying ‘n pasting.
original, socratic thinking
is beyond you.
+
good luck.
*
June 27th, 2008 at 11:49 amrogerse Says:
gummitch Says:
this is material, not info…I guess the yes/no question was tough…
You don’t understand much, do you? WTF is “material”?
The photo is an expression of an idea, and it is ideas that are protected by Freedom of Expression and Speech. Like I said above, you really need a remedial course in the Bill of Rights.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:49 amWhat a moronic and offensive image.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:50 amThis is supposed to be funny?
Fail.
Yes, it applies to all material. “Controversial” is not a reason to suppress speech.
Now, you’ll probably come back with something childish and poorly reasoned like, “so you think hard-core porn or sedititious lies ought to be on billboards?” and I’ll have to point out that, no, the reason for some material being banned is not that they’re “controversial”. It’s that they’re damaging in some way to the common good.
(I know I took a few liberties constructing an argument for rog. He wouldn’t have used the word “seditious, for instance. But the gist was the same.)
June 27th, 2008 at 11:50 amS Mart - Free market indeed. So Clear Channel, that conservative bastion of non-controvery, is probably fine with something that would bash Obama…but as for Der Fuhrer, it has to remain off limits. It isn’t small minded to get mocked and reduced…it’s as American a trait as apple pie. If you can’t stand a little ridicule, you must be very thin skinned indeed. If it had been Clinton with a bone in his nose, would you have objected?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:50 amDribbleDick Says:
“I actually kind of lick the (preznit’s)bone.”
There, fixed it for you
June 27th, 2008 at 11:50 ambackup Says:
If we want a world that’s tolerant and respectful of the differences in cultures, races, and ideologies; it should be universal.
We wouldn’t tolerate Obama depicted like this. We shouldn’t tolerate Bush depicted like this.
You clearly don’t understand the concept of racial stereotypes, nor much about history.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:51 amPlargo: you’re absolutely correct.
That image is an insult to bone-in-nose-wearing bushmen EVERYWHERE.
For shame, Harry Shearer!!! For shame!!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:52 amWell then I guess they wouldn’t allow this picture of John McCain either:
John McCain - NOPE
Thanks ad nannies.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:52 amOf course, this is not the case here. George W. Bush is NOT “the country” nor is Harry Shearer an “ignorant” entertainer. He’s one of the sharpest and well-informed comedic minds working today.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:52 amI dunno. I get what the artist is trying to do, but the first thing taht came to my mind was “how would this go over if that was a picture of Obama with a bone thru his nose?”.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:53 amIt wouldn’t. However, there is the First AMendment and all that. Like all such things “contreversial”, it should be put out there and let the PUBLIC decide. If they hate it, it will die, if not, then Clear Channel will need to suck it up.
S MART…too bad we couldn’t put your dick through his nose!! This is simple “control the adgenda” by clear channel on behalf of the President. Clear Channel…and the rest of MSM, you are the laughing stock of the NEWS WORLD. “I would blow my brains out if I had to watch American news” . Enough said!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:54 amJebus, roggie, it’d be easier to take you a bit more seriously if you could spell better than a 2nd grader.
Geesh. Moron.
Uh, sorry…morron.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:54 amS_Mart Says:
Just another troll alias to succeed lock_box.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:54 amLara Logan quote above….brillantly said.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:55 amThere seems to be this double standard going on. The presidency must be respected because of the office, not the person. But somehow that got lost on the conservatives who did everything but pull Bill Clinton’s pants down for him. They have no trouble calling him a murderer, but they have suddenly found the respect for the office in the person of…BISHBASHBUSH? Lighten up, willya?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:55 amCan I infer from this statement that you think hard-core pornography and seditious statements ought to be allowed on billboards?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:55 amrogerse Says:
thats bs…you don’t believe in the first ammendment.
rogerse also Says:
It was controversial, it had to go…
Rogerse doesn’t deserve any more attention…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:55 amI think the vast majority of Americans have a better location for that bone. Imagine a chimp popsicle…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:56 amso rogerse:
June 27th, 2008 at 11:56 amAre you going to explain why this is so “controversial” as to require it “having to go”? or was that just chum that you throw out in hopes of attracking some attention?
backup Says:
If we want a world that’s tolerant and respectful of the differences in cultures, races, and ideologies; it should be universal.
We wouldn’t tolerate Obama depicted like this. We shouldn’t tolerate Bush depicted like this.
There’s a lot of good arguments to oppose Bush on policy. There’s a lot of good arguments to compare and contrast ideologies. But, characterizations like this are a step in the wrong direction, regardless of who the targets are.
decades of
rush,
sean,
john gibson,
savage,
malkin,
coulter,
et al.
and now you speak out?
pious hypocrite.
*
good luck.
<
President Beck: I Wouldn’t Detain Terror Suspects, I’d ‘Shoot Them All In The Head’
backup,
an active “concern troll”
here at tp,
had no comment.
*
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 amI know you’re right, belac, but just a little bit more? He’s so much fun to whack when he sticks his little troll head out of one of those holes…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 amHow could anyone even think of making fun of Bush?!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 amralph, stop playing with your food!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:58 amI would much rather have hard-core pornography on the billboards than pictures of movie stars toting guns. Have you notice how most ads for movies include a gun? At least the naked bodies are making LOVE, not war…
June 27th, 2008 at 11:58 amTrippleKick Says:
You. Are. A. Concern. Troll.
Period.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:58 amTrippleKick Says:
So gummich, when TP censors comments, is that ok with you? Just curious.
TP is a blog. Do you understand the distinction between a blog and the public airwaves?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am>What part of the free market do you not understand?
the part that gives government welfare to multibillion dollar oil companies and allows government bailouts of subprime mortgage companies when they go under because of thier own bad business practices. can you please explain that part of free markets to me troll?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:59 amWell, what am I gonna do with this practically-brand-new mallet if I can’t play Whack-A-Troll™?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:59 amI guess from a BUSINESS decision - which the Repuglicans are all about - this doesn’t make much sense. They’d get ad revenue from Harry Shearer for this, wouldn’t they? And it’s all about the almighty dollar, ain’t it? Hmmm?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pmIt’s like whacking the blob, ralph… it’s easy and entertaining but rogerse can’t feel anything and he’s not really hitting back, he’s just oozing back to his original shape… it’ll just tire you out and then the blob thinks it’s ‘won’
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm>I would much rather have hard-core pornography on the >billboards than pictures of movie stars toting guns.
why should we have to choose? :)
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pmGeeDubs Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Yes sir. Why do I get the feeling that yesterday’s Nacho Supreme Court ruling was an extended tribute to Charlton Heston?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pmrogerse Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
the reason for some material being banned is not that they’re “controversial”. It’s that they’re damaging in some way to the common good.
thats bs…you don’t believe in the first ammendment.
when words fail,
rogerse
will put them in other
peoples’ mouths.
*
good luck.
*
June 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pmWhy yes indeed, Chocolate Jesus - let’s get rid of ALL billboards, they’re tacky in the extreme anyway. Let’s go the Vermont way and ban them all. By the way…will WalMart refuse to sell this album as well?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pmNot so S_Mart Says:
“So you think the Government should control all media outlets?”
They practically do allready, or haven’t you been paying attention?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pmWell it sure as hell bothers me when I have to use some derivation of the anole eyes word.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pmrogerse Says:
Can I infer from this statement that you think hard-core pornography and seditious statements ought to be allowed on billboards?
are you saying just in public like billboards, or at all?.
Ralph, I rest my case…
June 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pmI don’t see the ambiguity in my question that you apparently see. Perhaps you’re just unwilling to answer a simple, straightforward question?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pmadd opposing ideas to the ever growing mammoth list of things these cowardly sissy frightened little bed-wetting right-wingers are afraid of
They never tire of being scared.
I AM NOT SCARED ENOUGH TO GIVE UP MY RIGHTS AND SUPPORT REPUBLICANS!
Why are you, rogerse? Are you REALLY that much of a cowardly sissy?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pmRight on, Chocolate Jesus. The only businesses still holding dear to free market priciples are run by Mom-n-Pop and overlooked by neocons as Wal-Mart’s afternoon snack.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pmYou’re right, belac, I know you’re right… but it’s like popping bubble-wrap.
I just gotta…
June 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pmso rogerse, it really was just chum wasn’t it?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pmS_Mart
June 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pmWhy the new name?
S_Mart Says:
So you think the Government should control all media outlets?
There’s a Government already controlling all media outlets — without 435 representatives to be voted in every two years and 100 senators to be voted in every six.
I’ll give you a clue: It’s the most regressive form of Government possible.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pmI see Tripplekick is employing another favorite right-wing false syllogism, where unequivalent things are presented as equivalent, and an argument constructed from there.
TK obviosuly did better at the Troll Academy than rogerse.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI think you mean smartly. It is an adverb. Well, drive safe…
June 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pmAs I suspected.
Gibberish.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pmS_Mart Says:
Good job clear channel! And good riddance to the Dixie Chicks they have learned a very valuable lesson!
I still don’t understand this hatred of the Dixie Chicks. All they said was that they were embarrassed that the pResident was from their state.
OMG! They don’t support fear/war mongering pResident!
June 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pmS_Mart Says:
shop smart!
I wish the RNC did the same for their trolls.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pmIs it just me or is rogerse at 83 directly contradicting rogerse at 2
June 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pmTrippleKick Says:
Gummich,
I asked you a very simple yes or no question. If you agree with TP’s censorship, then you have no argument If you disagree with TP’s censorship then you are consistent and do have an argument. Regardless, the public airways are not subject to your personal political broadcast standards in any way. Private companies can censor whatever they want to. Do you understand the this? Check the FCC.gov site to learn more what broadcast standards are.
tk,
check this out.
i’ve got you on #4, #5 and #21.
troll work, especially concern troll work,
can be hard.
but you must try.
+
good luck.
#
June 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pmMy personal picadillo is that there seem to be so many SENSITIVE Repuglicans out there. Can’t they laugh a little bit about this? What standard of decency is this violating? Hopefully Shearer will get more mileage out of this than he otherwise would have. Sort of the Al Franken ‘Lying Liars and the Lies…’ pushed his book into much more sales because Fox Snooze got upset about Billo being on the cover.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pmrogerse Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
so you can’t answer the question, hypocrit.
backup, tk,
show some concern.
help rog with his spelling.
thank you.
)
good luck.
+
June 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pmokay rogerse,
June 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pmmaybe you prefer the term burly. Was it just burly or can’t you answer the question?
Joe. I’ll make you a deal. I’ll take the effort to re-post previous posts of mine criticizing republicans/conservatives for offensive racial slurs against Obama and/or blacks, if you’ll concede I’m not a hypocrite (and you’re not just a mudslinger).
What do you say?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pmS_Mart Says:
TeleMan Says:
That’s the whole problem with liberalism; you are out of touch with average Americans. You assume because they do not share the same views and opinions as you they are just redneck idiots. The Dixie Chick said that on foreign soil, that’s like you disowning your family behind their back. Get my drift?
yes.
you’re saying you’re average.
i agree.
you are average.
get my drift?
%
good luck.
•
June 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pmLet me get this straight, rog:
you said that this ad was “controversial” therefore “it had to go”.
then you accused me of “not believing in the First Amendment”.
then you said that hard-core pornography ought to be allowed on billboards but “regulated… to some extent”.
Have I got all that right?
Now answer me this: if you’re such a strong proponent of the First Amendment (and your support for hard-core billboards suggests that you are) then why would an ad that is “controversial” “have to go”?
(And to answer my own question, no I don’t think hard-core pornography is appropriate on billboards. Nor is sedition, properly defined. The Supreme Court has determined that some speech is clearly not protected.)
June 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pmCheck out Harry’s video for “935 Lies.” Very cool — sounds a bit like Tom Waites.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pmS_Mart
ever read this:
The Average American: The Extraordinary Search for the Nation’s Most Ordinary Citizen by Kevin O’Keefe
June 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pmTrickleDick: the answer is YES, I’d be delighted if TP kicked every single one of your troll assses to the curb.
This is a private playground, and you idiots trash the place. I’m constantly tripping over your spewage, and I’d be much happier if I didn’t have to, yanno?
You don’t like it? Tough titty. Go play on RedState.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pmOh, well, if that’s the whole problem with liberalism, then I think liberalism is in great shape.
Especially since the public agrees with liberal positions on almost every issue of concern to the nation. So I’m not sure how “out of touch with average Americans” liberalism can really be.
Perhaps liberalism is “out of touch” with the average wingnut American. That I’ll grant you.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pmbackup,
President Beck: I Wouldn’t Detain Terror Suspects, I’d ‘Shoot Them All In The Head’
this is no comment from
backup on this post.
you’re concern for the rights
of others is biased.
*
i stand by my original comment:
you are a “concern troll”
and a pious hypocrite.
•
please help rog with his spelling.
note for him the correct way to spell
“hypocrite”.
ª
thank you.
•
June 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pmI guess rogerse can’t answer the question. If you wanna be a fisherman you have to anticipate what the target species will do in response to your attempts to catch them.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pmS_Mart Says:
TrippleKick Says
Toilet Paper is tax exempted. clear channel pays a crap load of taxes!
link?
•
June 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pmNew sockpuppet S Mart thinks we’ve proven her point, joe.
Can you explain what she’s going on about?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pmdbadass Says:
S_Mart
ever read this:
The Average American: The Extraordinary Search for the Nation’s Most Ordinary Citizen by Kevin O’Keefe
read?
s_mart?
lol!
•
good luck.
*
June 27th, 2008 at 12:35 pmrogerse Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
the first post was satirical, ok, not genuine opinion.
rog,
we’ve discussed satire before.
we decided it’s something you’re
really not good at.
remember?
*
good luck.
•
June 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pmIt’s pretty damned clear, we should change the channel. Boycott their dumbasses.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pmJoe. I’m sorry I missed you Glen Beck post. (I imagine you’re not here 100% of the time, either.)
Here’s me posting on the racially charged anti- Obama pin at the Texas Republican Convention:
Joe. Disagreeing with people that oppose you ideologically is one of the things that makes democracy great. I appreciate that. But, if you want to throw around terms like ‘liar’ and ‘hypocrite’ you might want to consider being able to back it up.
Now, let’s work on that mudslinger charge.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pmsorry ralph,
perhaps backup
can help with that
question.
•
June 27th, 2008 at 12:38 pmrogerse Says: so you don’t “sedition”,
No, I don’t think Ralph does ’sedition’
I don’t do it either, do you?
rogerse Says:
the first post was satirical, ok, not genuine opinion.
Do you have a genuine opinion?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:38 pmYou never makes sense, so it’s hard to tell when you’re doing it for comic effect.
dbadass Says
June 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
so rogerse:
Are you going to explain why this is so “controversial” as to require it “having to go”? or was that just chum that you throw out in hopes of attracking some attention?
_______________________________________________________
In the case of rogerse, it’s just chum to attract attention. Remember, he’s most likely getting paid to be a troll, and he has to earn it.
But one thing rogerse doesn’t seem to understand is that there is a difference between “controversial” and “offensive”. All “controversial” means is that people will have differing opinions about something, such as whether or not a high school dress code should include restrictions on hair length, or whether or not NAFTA should include Central American countries.
“Offensive”, on the other hand, is quite different. Because we are all different, anything could be potentially offensive to someone. So we adopt standards for our society, based upon whether something would be offensive to a “reasonable” person. For example, a “reasonable” person would find referring to African-American athletes on a college women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos” to be offensive. Likewise cartoons depicting far-east Asians with exaggerated buck teeth. Or referring to women as “c**ts”.
Controversial matter should not be censored. Offensive matter should almost always be, except when it’s used in a historical or academic context.
Now, having said all that, I’m going to go out on a limb here and declare Harry Shearer’s album cover to be offensive, but probably not for the reason you think. The “bone-through-the-nose” bit has been used as a way to portray native Africans (especially those in a tribal lifestyle) for some time now. But the truth is that Bushmen (whom Shearer is attempting to conflate Bush with) don’t wear bones through their nose, nor do most tribes on the African continent. Primitive peoples who opt for this kind of adornment have been found in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and a few other places in the South Pacific, as well as Australian Aborigines. Therefore, the “bone-through-the-nose” only serves to perpetuate an inaccurate and offensive stereotype.
Harry Shearer may have a boffo album (I wouldn’t know, because I haven’t heard it), but he needs a different album cover.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pms_mart@97,
Yeah, it seams that most of the country agree with us. Bush’s disapproval rating is greater than 70%.
And it’s not like they were calling him the war criminal he for lying us into a war. They just said they were embarrassed.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pmBut TrippleKick, if Clear Channel was the 100% OWNER of everything having to do with advertising, would you have a problem with that…or is it because they share your values on this particular issue?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pmExcuse me, TickleDick - I don’t see how kicking your stupid troll ass to the curb makes me a hypocrite.
You’re arguing that that since Clear Channel is a private business, they should be allowed to censor whatever they please, First Amendment be damned.
I’m simply turning your argument back on you. This is a private site, and you have no purpose at all for being here except to harass and disrupt. Therefore, you should be banned. Permanently would be nice.
Harry Shearer is funny and well-known, with a wide and appreciative audience.
You? Not so much. You may be famous in your mom’s doublewide and in your own mind, but that’s it.
No hypocrisy here. Just more troll idiocy.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pmIt’s still Friday morning and the troll activity sounds like a typical chaotic Friday night of gibberish.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pmrogerse, I asked you:
Can I infer from this statement that you think hard-core pornography and seditious statements ought to be allowed on billboards?
your response:
everything should be allowed, but regulated in public to some extent…
My question was unambiguous (although you tried to introduce ambiguity) and specific.
Let’s reduce the question and the response to their essences:
I asked: you think hard-core pornography and seditious statements ought to be allowed on billboards?
You replied: everything should be allowed
I don’t know if you were undone by an unintended moment of honesty, your unwillingness to make a simple, declarative statement or by your poor reading comprehension, but you’ve clearly stated that you think hard-core pornography should be allowed on billboards.
Your follow-up trap, where you try to equate “sedition” (i. e. incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority) with “strong anti-government speech” is disingenuous (as are most of your arguments here) and laughable.
Do they have a Troll Remedial Academy? Look into it.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pmrogerse Says:
#122 misshusseinmolly Says:
It sounds like your saying anti-war protesters do, but the kkk don’t have a right to public demonstration, am I right?.
Why don’t you learn to read what people actually write, instead of making sh!t up?
She didn’t suggest anything of the kind.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pmbackup,
i did a search here for “liar”
it appears twice.
once in a comment by GeeDubs
and again in your comment.
i never used it.
nor did i challenge you about your
soft criticism of republican racism.
you came up with that charge on your own.
*
i think you should look at
this link before you continue.
if you want to be a good
concern troll.
¶
good luck.
§
June 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pmTrippleKick Says:
Silly Annie,
You’re a hypocrite, clearly, when you admit that you oppose certain censorship which you don’t agree with and support other censorship that you do agree with. See how simple that is?
We see how simple you are, yes.
Cleaning out troll droppings does not qualify as “censorship”. Everyone but whiny trolls recognizes that.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pmrog, how many times does this gambit have to fail embarrassingly or come back to bite you before you stop trying to put distorted words into people’s mouths?
Seriously.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm(Unless this is one your “satirical” posts, not a genuine opinion. In that case I apologize.)
S_Mart
you’re only half finished
with your assignment.
“crap load of taxes”?
•
we’re waiting.
¶
good luck.
•
June 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pmplargo Says:
What a moronic and offensive image.
This is supposed to be funny?
Fail.
What a moronic and stupid post.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pmThis is supposed to be commentary?
Fail.
My guess is that reading is hard work, and rog would rather just make sh!t up. He can’t make any money actually reading what others say. He’s got propaganda to catapult.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pmralph, It isn’t a keeper. Just cut the line or toss it back. You have more than shown the lack of consistentency of thought on rogerse’ part. I say throw it back and cast again. Admittedly you’ll probably end up with it back on your hook but it is still fun to reel the little ones in and let em go
June 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pmI fail to grasp why anyone is attempting the futile job of arguing, debating or otherwise doing anything but dumping feces on the R2DumbToo troll. It laps up the attention like a spoiled poodle.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pmjoe, S-Mart (by my calculations about eight steps below K-Mart) isn’t even half-finished:
501(c) is a provision of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), listing 27 types of non-profit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes
June 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pmWhat I want to see is the picture of Bush after he DROPS DEAD and goes to his MASTER Satan:
Bush’s MASTER Satan SMASHING HIS FACE in EVERY SECOND FOR ETERNITY.
While a ROASTING Ronnie Reagan and looks on…
THAT’S the picture I want on the cover. OR just to SEE the JUSTICE handed down by the Almighty God.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
June 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pmralph, sadly making shit up is the upper limit of R2DumbToo’s repertoire.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pmAwright, awright.
Can I hook it on another thread at least?
Y’know, I’m normally not one to torment helpless creatures. But trolls just seem to be asking for it, don’t they?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pmI do wish they wouldn’t insult the noble Bushmen of Africa by comparing this failed dufus of a president with them.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pmAnd the bone thru the nose isn’t really funny, as Bushmen don’t wear such adornment.
Satan: WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!
TRAITOR Bush: unintelligible moans of PAIN…
TRAITOR Reagan: Duh!! Hot!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
June 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pmrogerse Says:
gummitch Says:
hey dumbass, still waiting for a non-paragraph answer to the “socratic” question..
backup,
rog just called gummitch
a dumbass.
i think that’s mudslinging,
what say you?
*
good luck.
£
June 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pmrogerse Says:
gummitch Says:
hey dumbass, still waiting for a non-paragraph answer to the “socratic” question..
Well, sh!tstain, I’m not capable of writing non-paragraph answers. I am a big fan of complete sentences.
If you need a short answer to your question about whether “controversial” applies across the board in questions about censorship, I’ve already answered it repeatedly. Your inability to comprehend complete sentences is the problem, not my answer.
Yes.
Is that short enough?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pmS_Mart Says:
joe cantwell Says:
Clear Channel is a 527 Corporation. ther stock are traded on the NASDAQ.
stock.
taxes.
crap load.
•
good luck.
&
June 27th, 2008 at 1:03 pmS_Mart Says:
joe cantwell Says:
Be a good liberal and show rogerse how to mudsling. I know you can do it there are no better mud slingers than liberals.
you’re getting upset
and nervous.
•
good luck.
:)
June 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pmralph, is it just me or is S_Mart the younger kid who so deperately wants to join in with the bigger kids? Seriously S_Mart I am just funning with you. I think you might want to try to expand your range beyond just liberals, liberalism, and well I guess that’s it
June 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pmOnly a pile of feces reich-winger could possibly be stupid enough to post such a comment.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pmS_Mart = rogerse
June 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pmI know you can do it there are no better mud slingers than liberals.
We’re slow to get going but we have a big advantage…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pmThere’s just so much DIRT on Republicans and a hard rain is a’gonna fall… MUD CITY!
Another advatage… nothing sticks like the truth.
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
rogerse Says:
It was controversial, it had to go…
Only a pile of feces reich-winger could possibly be stupid enough to post such a comment.
matt,
rog and i have already
discussed his problems with satire.
let’s not throw it in his face.
thanks.
•
good luck.
$
June 27th, 2008 at 1:09 pm“Notso SMart”, “Rogered up the Arse” and “I’ve been Triplekicked from TP” sure are looking desperate to make sense of their RNC talking points today.
They’re permenent members of the Fools and Cretins Club.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pmAh, “satire”….gotcha
June 27th, 2008 at 1:13 pmjoe. Here’s you from yesterday. You didn’t use the word ‘liar’ but you get the idea. I asked you to respond as to what you were referring too. But nothing from you. If you think I’m a liar or a hypocrite, let me now why you think that so I can respond. Otherwise, why don’t we stick to the issues. I withdraw the mudslinger comment.
I’ve got to go to work. Have a great day.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm“They hate us for our freedoms”… Excuse me, which ones?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pmNotso SMart says he has very low grammar and typing skills
Clear Channel is a 527 Corporation. ther stock are traded on the NASDAQ
And we all know who this POS is. How many times has this idiot been kicked, we should start keeping track, just for grins.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pmWow, StipplePrick, so many posts today!! You’re well on your way to your very own John McCain plastic glow-in-the-dark BEER STEIN!
YAY!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
S_Mart = rogerse
I don’t think so. I think it’s the troll recently known as cock_block or whatever it was.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pmbackup,
your apology is accepted.
good luck at work.
*
i thought this was your work.
*
this sentence makes no sense:
You didn’t use the word ‘liar’ but you get the idea. I asked you to respond as to what you were referring too.
probably because of the misuse of the adverb too
and because it is vague.
try again.
thanks.
•
*
good luck.
*
where do you work?
–
June 27th, 2008 at 1:27 pmrogerse Says
June 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
It sounds like your saying anti-war protesters do, but the kkk don’t have a right to public demonstration, am I right?.
_____________________________________________________
No, of course you’re not right, and furthermore you KNOW that. I was talking about media, not public demonstration. Public demonstrations not monitored or filtered by a corporate watchdog fall into an entirely different category, and one for a different thread.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pmOh, MissMolly, don’t waste precious logic on roggie-doggie - just douse him with a big bucket of swill.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pmWas it all the coke that resulted in that deviated septum?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:49 pmWeird picture, that smile has to be photoshopped. Where’s the smirk?
June 27th, 2008 at 5:31 pmI agree with missmolly at #122, and once again she adds to the debate by shedding Light on the subject.
Sauce for the goose..sauce for the gander. If we’re gonna complain about curious george/obama t-shirts, we should not condone this racially charged, stereotypic, and incorrect portrayal of president Bush/Bushmen.
I think Harry Sherer is a comedic genius, and a national treasure…but lose the cover.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pmI refuse to listen to Clear Channel radio stations.
In the fall of 2004, the religious flacks who run Clear Channel dumped all the great Classic Rock N’ Roll songs so that they could push what they called “contemporary and old school” songs, with the “contemporary” referring to Christian acid cult rock music and the “old school” referring to cherry-picked “Oldies” which contain religious-themed lyrics.
I refuse to listen to Clear Channel radio stations.
Crazed religious fundamentalists in the 1950s held Rock N’ Roll record burning parties. This didn’t work. So religious fundamentalists, and conservatives, hit on another scheme…buy up as much of the media as possible in the United States, establishing a media monopoly, and start censoring all things liberal while pushing all things conservative. Clear Channel is an offshoot of this un-American, anti-democracy fascist Republican scheme.
And since Jesus Christ himself said, “What profits a man, though he gain the whole world, yet loses his soul” (describing monopolists), and “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter heaven,” then one can safely presume that the wealthy, monopolistic-minded people at Clear Channel (and so many other conservative, monopolistic owned companies) aren’t going to end up anywhere near heaven.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:09 am