So Randi Rhodes has apologized for a bit that seems to have advocated violence against the President. Good for her. Now let’s see what Air America does. President of Programming Jon Sinton says “internal discipline will be enforced”.
As opposed to Air America enforcing external discipline? This is gobbledy gook.
As a talk show host, I’m of the opinion that the more you can say the better. At the same time, you have to be aware of the limits of decency. Not “decency” as defined by the government, but decency as defined by fellow human beings.
The skit that aired on the Randi Rhodes show was in such poor taste that I can’t see how she could keep her job. If I or any other talk show host had aired a skit that advocated violence against Air America’s President of Programming (much less the President of this country), the hosts on Air America would be demanding my resignation. Should the liberal host of the Randi Rhodes show be able to operate under a different standard?
It would be easy to blame this on the unhinged Left, or to say that as ratings decrease, the level of rhetoric from hosts increases… but none of that really matters. What matters is the action Air America chooses to take now.
She will get a free pass and so will Air America.
Clear Channel should drop them immediately.
So it’s only bad to indirectly threated a president, but everything else goes?
The guy must be getting hit with big bandwidth fees. He keeps changing the URL so that we can not find it.
I have the most current link on my web site (for some reason the post program will not let me post the link here.)
The People wo do the ad are from the AAARP standing for The American Association of Armed Retired People
Randy “Let’s not do that. I’m here in Florida, Lets not arm the old people until I leave ”
george
I will try that link to Rhodes one last time
server2.whiterosesociety.org/content/rhodes/RhodesShow-(25-04-2005)b.mp3
Perhaps Air America thinks that since ratings are down so much that a “shock jock” strategy for improving them is a fair alternative.
Maybe next Ms. Rhodes will become the female counterpart for Howard Stern. Or, if she is a looker, they might consider a web cam and …..
Never mind. Ben would think I am being hypocritical.
…trying to come up with the name of a single leftwing personality who is not a complete moonbat…
What if a right-leaning on-air personality did the same bit with Impeached former president Bill Clinton or Hillary?? Wouldn’t be so damn funny to the liberals then, would it?
I didn’t hear the skit. Heard the apology. I seriously doubt it was a “threat” on the President’s life.
Poor taste, perhaps, but no more so, than Bush’s joking about “no weapons of mass destruction here”, “none here”, etc.
Things are done in poor taste. One of the rightwing talk show hosts, can’t think of his name, said anyone voting for Kerry was a Communist.
And he was serious.
That is in poor taste, offensive, and should have been investigated.
What should have been investigated is the person(s) who leaked the identity of the “spy” spouse about a year ago. That needs to be investigated NOW. That was not a joke. That was an illegal act. That ruined her ability to be a secret agent for the USA, thereby causing untold loss of money in her training, etc.
What should be investigated is the “disappearance” of 9 billion dollars in Iraq. That is a Federal offence, stealing. Federal employees, be they civilian or military, were charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the money. People need to be brought to justice.
DeLay’s comments re. people taking violence because of judges decisions, should be fully investigated.
Robertson or whatever preacher/minister, right after 9/11, made a comment stating something to the effect that God let this happen because we deserved it, (paraphrasing - don’t remember exact wording). That should be investigated and he should be removed.
Randi Rhodes show tells it like it is. This is the main objection to her show. She speaks her mind. If she thinks the President is a liar, then she says so. Whether we agree or not, she has a right to her opinion.
I would appreciate hearing the “threat”, but have been unable to find it.
Clearly this has been blown out of proportion.
What should be discussed it the plans to dismantle Social Security as we know it.
There is NO CRISIS in Social Security.
Social Security is solvent till 2043 or 2053, depending on which statistic you believe.
The Federal Government has seen this coming and is presently collecting more in taxes to build up a surplus to finance the payment to “baby-boomers”.
A bi-partisan commission needs to be established to study further adjustments.
Private accounts will add trillions to the debt and NOT lessen SS problems by one red cent.
The President does not know what he is talking about wrt Social Security. It is a Social Insurance Program. It is not an Individual Retirement Account.
As such, one does not build-up a “private” take it with you nest egg, but rather builds up a benefit amount, called a PIA, which is used to pay benefits far beyond that which has been invested. It pays benefits to spouses, children, former spouses, parents, widow’s, surviving divorced wives, disabled people, etc.
For the President to say that when husband and wife both work and he dies, she has to wait till 62, is completely in error, she can get benefits immediately if she has children under age 16 in her care, plus in other circumstances.
I believe it is “criminal” to put out false information, by saying, “this isn’t fair”, that the wife not be able to get both her and her husband’s benefits. “Fair” is the misleading word. Fairness is irrelevant. Does it comply or does it meet the requirements of the law. That is the issue. To mischaracterize Social Security and other events by the President, Unfairly trying to sway public opinion. It is trying to get the public to support his views without giving them the reasons for why the system is the way it is. I view that as “criminal.” People’s economic well-being are at stake.
Wow, ed, you are amazing! You mindlessly driveled on and inserted almost every liberal talking point faxed by Howard Dean and Terry McAuliffe. Too bad most of it are outright lies.
Ed, you contradict yourself throughout the entire rant, but let me point out just a couple and ask you explain them to me, because I only graduated college once, not 8th grade twice like you did.
Ed, you say “There is NO CRISIS in Social Security. Social Security is solvent till 2043 or 2053, depending on which statistic you believe.”
Then in the very next sentence, you say “The Federal Government has seen this coming and is presently collecting more in taxes to build up a surplus…..”
So help me understand this Ed, there is no crisis, like Impeached former President Bill Clinton said there was 182 times during his presidency and rape-fest, but the Federal Government is fixing a problem that doesn’t exist? Also, there will not be a crisis until 2043 or 2053, according to you, so when would be a good time to fix it? 2042 or 2052? Have you ever leaglly driven a car ed? when is a good time to put gas in the tank, when it’s half full or when it is completely empty and you are sitting alongside the road?
Also, with regard to the threat made by Randi Rhodes, any threat against a US president is taken seriously. You seem to think that it’s OK for someone to suggest on national radio that Bush should be assasinated (that means killed, ed) by gunshot. That’s OK for you, but someone calling Kerry a communist should be “investigated?” Investigated for what, expressing his opinion? What if he is found guilty of expressing his opinion Ed, what’s the penalty for that?
Also, Ed, you claim that Robertson or some preacher made the claim that America deserved the attack suffered on 9/11 and they “should be investigated and he should be removed.” Wow, Ed you just think investigating people solves all kinds of problems, huh? What if I told you several liberals made that very claim, that America deserved what we got on 9/11, would you feel the same way, or would you just say these liberals were expressing their “opinion?”
Explain your comment Ed when you said “Private accounts will add trillions to the debt and NOT lessen SS problems by one red cent.” Can you explain how this is true Ed? Let me give you a hint: Private accounts are not intended to relieve the problems of Social Security, it is designed to be an alternative to it. It is a “private account” (hence, the name) so an individual can keep control of his/her own money instead of replying on a govt program. Explain how it will “add trillions to the debt.”
Ed, if you truly believe “I believe it is “criminal” to put out false information,” then you should go down to the nearest Arkansas sheriff department and tell your cousin you need to turn yourself in. Maybe you will get lucky and he won’t arrest you. Hopefully, he will just investigate you.
I’m not that familiar with the SS debate…I’ve heard both sides present arguments worthy of consideration, but the central problem to me is that the government isn’t being responsible with where SS money ends up. From my understanding, they treat it as government revenue, plain and simple. Money is never “put away” in the SS account. That seems to be the problem to me–government irresponsibility with regards to spending, and that has been the fault of both Democrats and the new group representing the Republican party as well. I can see how private accounts would help alleviate that, but at the same time perhaps a different solution keeping the current program in tact might be better (though I’ve yet to hear a Dem propose such a comprehensive, viable solution).
Justin
Plain and simple Justin, the dems will never touch it because it was created by one of their liberal gods, FDR. Republicans may not have the backbone to allow private accounts, but I would rather have more control over my money than hand it over to Queen Hillary or Teddy Kennedy.
Which reminds me……………..just checking here real quick………….YUP, Mary Jo Kopechne is STILL dead.
clap clap clap Good Job Kevin, you lived up to my dreams. I thought that tirade was Justin, and was going to respond, but twas you. Not much more I can say, other than I’m just thrilled you pointed out that Mary Jo was killed by Kennedy. Had you not said that, I would be lost.
Th fundamental flaw with private accounts is it does nothing to shore up SS. The only means to shore up SS is to either raise taxes, cut benefits, extend retirement, or raising the cap. Private accounts introduce some serious problems into the current system, a system that is flawed not by it’s design, but by how it was handled by our elected representatives. The GAO, Greenspan, and numerous other agencies have spoken to great leantghs about the problems private accounts introduce, which fundamentally do nothing to help the problem both in short term or long term, with a very strong likelyhood that it will create a large amount of debt to cover in the short term.
Where the potential “trillions of debt” is created is the borrowing that will HAVE to take place as those who invest their 4% into the stock market, that is 4% that isn’t going into the SS fund. That money has to be made up, and Bush wants to make it up by borrowing that amount “off the books” to be paid back some decades later.
Couple those few simple, and dangerous problems with the other facts that your return (after everyone takes their fees and cuts) could be significantly less than that promised to us, nevermind the fact that the stock market was never designed to house even a portion of the entire country’s retirement, let alone what it supports now.
Private accounts are dangerous. Personally when I retire in a few decades, I’m not banking on having ANY SS due to the irresponsibility of the people who were elected into office. However, the lieklyhood of there not being any social security in my retirement is only strengthened if they follow through on this. That’s why I’m glad that even many republicans have doubt and concerns and that this may issue may die so that we can address some real fixes.
Ben, you’re right about that little 4% turning into something much larger after everybody gets a bite…just seems inherent in the proposal. However, I think I could trust a small part of my retirement/SS money in the stock market versus the government’s grubby little hands. That also sounds perfectly sensible.
Regardless of the merits or flaws in Bush’s plan, it’s certain SS isn’t going to dry up in the next 15 years, so why don’t we just stew in it awhile? Realistically speaking–Bush, I don’t think, has enough support to push it through so why doesn’t he just drop it for now and work on some stuff we CAN agree on and CAN get accomplished during the rest of his 2nd term? Maybe in a couple of years the political climate will be milder and they can work on touchy issues like this without going for each others’ throats.
Ben, for someone who claims to have lots and lots of schoolin, you sure don’t show it. Case in poin, you said “Th fundamental flaw with private accounts is it does nothing to shore up SS.”
Private accounts are not intended to “shore up” SS; they are intended to be an alterntive to SS.
Justin said it best:”I think I could trust a small part of my retirement/SS money in the stock market versus the government’s grubby little hands.” I concur with that statement. I believe I could do as well, if not better with my own money than the feds.
(Gee, I hope I didn’t come across as ‘bitter’)
I could certainly as well Justin, but who makes up that shortfall in the interim as we move that way? That is the problem with it. Bush’s plan is to cover it off the books with federal money. How is that OK with you people? Borrowing money to pay for something that has no recovery of that money on the “hope” that it works, when it has yet to work as advertised in any other country?
I honestly think that many republicans have lost their wits. If you think SS should be reduced or eliminated, I’m ALL for it. But you don’t make promises with the “hope” of a return, while borrowing off the books to cover the shortfall. That is a very ‘Enron-esque’ kind of plan.
Kevin, it’s not that difficult to comprehend the notion that taking 4% out of something fixed means that particular 4% has to be made up somewhere. I’m sure even you can see that. And I have yet to hear how borrowing large amount of money to cover the shortfalls is OK? It’s wreckless.
And Justin, I didn’t read your second paragraph. I wholeheartedly agree. I fear there will be a near meltdown in the process from one side or another before the american people get fed up with it, and turn the whole system over. Tims has shown that nothing gets accomplished under these kinds of interactions. And it’s the people that pay for it. The worst part of it all is that (at least right now) the two sides aren’t that far apart on a vast amount of issues, but the pissing contests between the two to one-up the other is what’s irresponsible. Just look at what’s going on in the OK senate? It’s ridiculous.
620572: Hey, does anyone know where I can find a list of gas stations with low prices in my area?
620572: Hey, does anyone know where I can find a list of gas stations with low prices in my area?