Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Imus FiredFollow

#152 Apr 17 2007 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Should things have been different if they had said "He made a mistake and we forgive him. There is no reason why he should not be able to continue working"?


Do they pay for his show? If so then yes. If not, then obviously not.

You're so right, that was a stupid question.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#153 Apr 17 2007 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
But in this case, the outrage wasn't those who were actually invested in any way with the advertising on his show.

If they refused to buy from his advertisers, that makes them very invested with the advertising on his show.



But they didn't. That's the point. Get it?

I'm not aware of any significant number of actual people who said that they were upset enough by what Imus said to boycot the products of his advertisers.

I do know that a whole lot of political activists did demand that those same advertisers fire him though.

"The people", didn't do this. A relatively small number of people who have positioned themselves politically and claim to speak for the people did. Don't ever confuse the organization for the people. They are two different things.


I'm an advocate of free market processes, and the people voting both in elections and with their dollars. I'm *not* an advocate of political groups assuming they speak for the people and weilding that power on behalf of the people. That's a recipie for disaster.

Heck. Why not just let Sharpton and Jackson vote for everyone. Afterall, they know what's best for us, right?...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Apr 17 2007 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
I'm *not* an advocate of political groups assuming they speak for the people and weilding that power on behalf of the people. That's a recipie for disaster.


For once I agree!

look at this mess for example.

If only the political group in charge would listen to reason.....(and the will of the people).

But i guess thats the problem. The people in charge dont actually give a flyin fuck what the 'people' think or want.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#155 Apr 17 2007 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'm an advocate of free market processes


Apparently not.


Heck. Why not just let Sharpton and Jackson vote for everyone. Afterall, they know what's best for us, right?...


Right, terrified of black people having power. Got it.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#156 Apr 17 2007 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
At this point, who still cares about Don Imus? He's been fired, Sharpton is a racist, and black people can say whatever they want, just because it sells. The world is in total harmony.

This just really bothers you, doesn't it?

It's the world of entertainment, people are finicky and fickle. They like certain shows, movies, and music and not others, for no logical reason other than their personal preference.

And they are equally finicky and fickle about what they find offensive. If somehow there was equality achieved among racially-charged comments made by all races, there would still be other things that people would find offensive in some cases and not in others.

You can't apply logic to taste.

#157 Apr 17 2007 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
paulsol the Flatulent wrote:
Quote:
I'm *not* an advocate of political groups assuming they speak for the people and weilding that power on behalf of the people. That's a recipie for disaster.


For once I agree!

look at this mess for example.

If only the political group in charge would listen to reason.....(and the will of the people).

But i guess thats the problem. The people in charge dont actually give a flyin fuck what the 'people' think or want.


I'm sorry. Did we elect Jackson and Sharpton into public office and I missed it?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Our political system was never intended to allow for non-elected political organizations to weild more power then the elected officials themselves. Yet that appears to have been what's happened somehow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Apr 17 2007 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Our political system was never intended to allow for non-elected political organizations to weild more power then the elected officials themselves.


Actually, that's precisely what it was designed to allow.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#159 Apr 17 2007 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Our political system was never intended to allow for non-elected political organizations to weild more power then the elected officials themselves.


Actually, that's precisely what it was designed to allow.


Not on a national level, no.

The power was intended to change in indirect proportion to the number of people involved in the decision. The entire system in fact was predicated on the assumption that large numbers of people rarely make good decisions, so the broader the "scope" of an issue, the less influence it had. The most power should be weilded at a local level, where the fewest people have a say in it (with each person's "say" therefore having more weight). The least power should be at a national level, so that the "mob" would never be able to rule.

In keeping with that ideology those who listened to Imus' show would have the power to decide if what he said offended them by tuning out the show and thus hurting the revenue of its sponsors. The idea that a small number of political groups could apply pressure nationally to make a change locally is antithical to the original concept.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Apr 17 2007 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The idea that a small number of political groups could apply pressure nationally to make a change locally is antithical to the original concept.


This wasn't a political decision. As such, it's entirely removed from governmental or legal frameworks. Which was the idea. The government is responsible for specific things. The things it's not responsible for work themselves out organically.

Your entire series of arguments about this has been based on a situation that simply doesn't exist. You've taken the normal functioning of a free market and treated it as if the FCC took Imus off the air.

They didn't. The market functioned exactly the way it's supposed to. You can't arbitrarily decide that you only like free market decisions when the result is what you want. No one forced anyone to do anything. People exercised their rights to free speech and free assembly and expressed an opinion. Sponsors reacted to that opinion. Because it's a FREE MARKET if supporters of Imus feel differently there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing the same. They could boycott sponsors products until they put Imus back on the air, or assemble and protest or whatever they like. The truth is, they just don't care enough, and will keep buying the sponsor's products regardless of Imus' fate. That's not the fault of the people who wouldn't. If one group cares more, they'll win. That's exactly how free markets work.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#161 Apr 17 2007 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Our political system was never intended to allow for non-elected political organizations to weild more power then the elected officials themselves. Yet that appears to have been what's happened somehow.
This wasn't a political decision though. At least, not in the governmental sense. This was (I disagree but for the sake of argument) a couple dudes who made enough of a noise to get some other dude fired because the he said dumb shit. What does the "power" of the government vs. the power of some individual people have to do with this case at all?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162 Apr 17 2007 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji said

Quote:
You're comparing apples and oranges.


yeah. And I've come to the conclusion that you're a lemon.

gbaji said

Quote:
I'm sorry


you bloody well ought to be.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#163 Apr 18 2007 at 6:23 AM Rating: Decent
If you had a similar sized group of folks supporting Imus for what he said, he might still have a job. However, who you going to find to support some nappy headed old ******* calling a bunch of promising young women Hos? The people wanted this D bag off the air, so he is gone. I don't see what your problem is, G man.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 326 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)