My oh My, Why do I just love DANIEL CARVER?

Perhaps it's because you're not getting the joke. Carver isn't some political leader.

It would be tantamount to putting on some soccer hooligan blaming all the "pakis" for his own personal failures. Carver would have a point if not for the fact that he himself has raised druggie trash and now that druggie trash has the taxpayers paying for his defense while his failure of a father whines about people on welfare. In other words: Hypocrite.

===============

from your naive stance vis a vis
the schvartze

And this has happened how many times, exactly? Once; twice? There are 35 million people up here, and our head of state is a black woman. Plus I've never, ever heard the adjective "arrogant" applied to a Canadian; if that were the case Americans travelling abroad wouldn't display OUR flag on their luggage etc to try and get better treatment.

his politics are nuts but he always comes off as likeable on the show!

It reminded me of the good ole days when the most tabboo topics were spoken of wildly on the show without worrying about offending anyone or being p.c., the real HS!!

Not to worry. The free speech oppression you Brits suffer under is fast descending here on the States.

Our "liberals" are seeing to it.

List the examples or STFU, you drama queen. I love that you people see "freedom of speech" being held up by a racist who raised a methhead - who now depends on taxpayers to get him out of prison.

He was on terrestrial radio for years.

carver's no more racist than sharpton or jesse jackson

They're all jackasses.

Pull your head out of the sand and do your own research, douche.

How exactly does one research the inside of your stupid head?

Hand me a map and put an "X" where I can find "figment of your imagination." When I get inside there, do I turn right or left of your last functioning brain cell?

And what's your problem with innocent people being afforded legal representaion.

Is this another example of your "liberal" ideology?

The "fairness" doctrine for one. It's currently being proposed for the Internet, websites(including SFN) would have to "...present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC's view) honest, equitable and balanced." That sounds a lot like telling people what they can and can't say. Originally it was only for broadcast media in limited rural markets where people might only have one radio station to listen to, but now, it's being proposed for the entire Internet.

Not to be confused with the Internet Fairness Act or the Equal Time rule.

Spot on!

That shouldn't be a problem, considering you already live in a fantasy world.

I love Daniel Carver also and I'm a minority. maybe i'm just a self hating spic

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...whos_afraid_of_the_big_bad_fairness_doctrine/

Steve Almond
The Boston Globe
Who’s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine?

By Steve Almond
November 9, 2009
E-mail this article


OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.


Nonsense.

The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.

If you don’t believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted “a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,’’ and that they did so “fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.’’ That’s the whole shebang.

Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?

Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.

Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.

The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media’’ outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the public good?’’ they ask, “Will it get ratings?’’

This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It’s quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their “mainstream’’ brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.

In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments, let alone potential remedies.

And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.

Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want “fair and balanced’’ voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

If Obama and his congressional counterparts don’t have the guts for that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to seek out “news’’ and opinions that merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an honest desire to solve our common plights.

Which brings me to a final mystery: If today’s conservative talkers are so sure they’re right about everything (and they certainly sound sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why don’t a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.

Actually, consider that a dare.

Steve Almond, a guest columnist, is the author of five books, most recently the essay collection “(Not that You Asked).’’

I prefer an island.

Are you really this duped?

The United States of Alcatraz awaits your arrival.

Much has changed lately. Notice that Howie himself no longer says the N or F words, but not so long ago they flowed from his mouth pretty good!

There it is - "forced" to engage and "resonable" debate. Being forced to engage in what someone else considers resonable isn't freedom...even if it's only defending my wacky views. Imagine Howard being force to offer debate when he backed Kerry or when he talks about religion or any of his crazy talk.

"That's not America, that's not even Mexico."

Less, have you visited Toronto in the last 20 years?