KHOW's Peter Boyles repeatedly makes sexist remark about Rep. DeGette's name: 'Vagina DeJet'
By John Amato Friday Feb 20, 2009 9:00amRight winger talkers are just losing their minds over the fact that Obama is now President. I know they lack humor so could it be that they actually think this is funny?
Discussing President Obama's signing of the economic recovery bill at a ceremony in Denver, 630 KHOW-AM's Peter Boyles on his February 18 program repeatedly referred to one of the ceremony attendees, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver), as "Vagina DeJet" and "Vagina DeGette."
And a Republican state Sen joins in the conversation like it's no big deal. He should apologize immediately.
CALDARA: When Schultheis speaks, it's a real room-clearer.
BOYLES: As soon as Schultheis spoke, I said, "It's time to fire up the bike." But then I went out to the museum. And, you know, I went over to Fox News, and all the media trucks were over there on the north side. Guys, there wasn't 75 people there.
SCHULTHEIS: That's what I hear. Hardly anybody.
BOYLES: I mean, now there were 250 of, like, Vagina DeJet was in there, and other people, they were the 250 selected, hand-picked -- Federico Peña was in the front row. I was shocked to see that.
[...]
BOYLES: Well, you know, just -- it is what it is. But I thought you guys had, like, a pretty remarkable turnout.
[crosstalk]
CALDARA: I thought it'd be a handful of guys, but people are genuinely angry, and you could tell that they wanted to do something, but there was nothing to do, that our Colorado delegation, by a --
BOYLES: Vagina DeGette.
I think we need to take a look at the fairness doctrine. Not to change the rules per se, but so we can have equal time on the air to yell either racist or sexist remarks about Republicans. Well since there aren't any African Americans in their party outside of Michael Steele, I guess that wouldn't work. No, I wouldn't go for that really, but I like bringing up the fairness doctrine because it scares the heck out of these talking head freaks and FOX News in particular.
Login or Register to post comments.
A lack of sense of humor means we should make a new law restricting their free speech? Not even an amusing idea, the government isn't our censorship tool for those we disagree with, even if our guys are in power.
Do I really have to point this out?
Where's the FCC on this one? Janet Jackson gets fined for flashing, Imus gets booted and the right wingers are safe chuckling and mocking women? This on the heels of the monkey cartoon, and you say "no biggie"?
Do I really have to point this out?
"I think we need to take a look at the fairness doctrine."
Ok, I should have quoted it originally. Yes, use the FCC and decency laws, but why does this blog have to keep bringing up the damned fairness doctrine!?!
He pointed out why in the last sentence ....
... but I like bringing up the fairness doctrine because it scares the heck out of these talking head freaks and FOX News in particular.
And in looking over your prior comments the last couple of weeks, it sure seems like this subject yanks your chain.
I just think it's important that people understand the implications of the Fairness Doctrine since it's brought up so often on this blog. Are we just trying to "yank chains" or have meaningful discussions? Plus, I'm not a "talking head freak" or FOX news, just a liberal who wants to share his comments.
I agree with a lot of other material covered on this blog, which is why this issue gets a lot of comments from me, we have enough cheerleaders so you won't see me much on topics I agree with.
just think it's important that people understand the implications of the Fairness Doctrine
Enlighten us. How is providing equal time for opposing views somehow have "implications"?
It has implications because equal time for opposing views means modifying the current programs and inserting the opposing view.
It's not free speech when you have to modify what your saying to conform to a FCC regulation. You could argue that they do this with profanity, etc, but these are OPINIONS being expressed and that should be a sacred thing, even if we DO NOT AGREE or think it's distasteful.
And don't forget, under the Fairness Doctrine, Air America stations would be required to have conservative viewpoints!
I want to listen to my liberal radio hosts without a conservative viewpoint inserted for balance! That's just not American, damnit!
I want to listen to my liberal radio hosts without a conservative viewpoint inserted for balance! That's just not American, damnit!
Really. What? Is it like homosexuality...if you're exposed to it...you're afraid you'll go conservo?
have to point this out?
this misconception itself is testament to the ability of the talk radio monopoly with its COOORDINATED UNCONTESTED REPETITION to alter our reality.
... we like seeing fainting Marthas like you pee themselves.
Nothing in a fairness doctrine would prevent Boyles from making his offensive comment. However, there would be an opportunity for Rep. DeGette to speak in her defense, and if that program treats the issues and speakers with due respect, then the only person Boyle has to blame for any loss of ground is himself.
The left rarely brings up the Fairness Doctrine whereas I believe Hannity dedicates a half hour a day railing about it. The right wing media, and CORPORATE media in particular is scared of the Fairness Doctrine, more I think because it sets aside time for non-profittable things like news.
... the Fairness Doctrine also protected us against the evils of seeing too much of Mr. Sulu on syndicated Star Trek episodes when actor George Takei was running for Los Angeles City Council.
It's more like Campaign Finance Reform that has done that. Though back then, maybe they used it for the same purposes.
edit: I just looked it up, one station stopped running the syndication because of fears of running afowl of the FCCs "Equal-Time Rule", not the "Fairness Doctrine"
Takei's opponent specifically cited the Fairness Doctrine and demanded that he be given free airtime or that Star Trek be taken off the air.
The station's solution was to run, ad nauseum, those episodes in which the character of Mr. Sulu did not appear.
which the talk radio monopoly is completely immune from because the main blowhards have screeners to make sure no real calls get through.
perched on top of the biggest unapproachable soapbox this country has ever seen they claim to represent free speech and be the voices of the mainstream.
Yes being an ignorant sexist racist pig won't get you invited to any of the good parties, but its not illegal. Several times here on Salon, posters have justified posting these a-holes' ravings is to shine a light on it, I also so believe its harmful to also attempt to push it into the darkness.
Call for boycotts, turn up you nose, rant and rail. Do not call for gov't mandated silence. imo.
And we can point out how unfunny, unhip and completely dull Conservatives are. To these no-talents, meanness is the same as being funny. And yes, we need the fairness doctrine. Your argument(blatant lie) that Progressive talk radio won't sell is the same shit that your ancestors peddled in the early days of Rock and Roll when those Bigots claimed R&B couldn't make money as an excuse to maintain segregation. The nation told you Conservatives and your bullshit to fuck off in November.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Well I would be one of those who also told conservatives and their bullshit to fuck off in November, but I guess disagreeing with the flock puts me in the "other" category regardless. No reason to get angry at a difference in opinion, this isn't redstate.com is it?
... because you conflated the Fairness Doctrine with censorship, just like Limbaugh and Beckageddon do, not because you were trying to have a discussion.
How is the government deciding the political affiliation of radio show hosts and adjusting the content accordingly NOT censorship? WHO decides what is left and what is right? What about the middle?
The government wouldn't decide or adjust anything. Period. There just simply would be differing viewpoints unlike it is now. There would be no censorship.
In order for this to happen the monopolies must be broken up and a full spectrum of ideas and subjects allowed to flourish.
Just the opposite of censorship.
How is the government deciding the political affiliation of radio show hosts and adjusting the content accordingly NOT censorship?
So...do you actually read this shit somewhere and regurgitate it...or do you simply make it up as you go along?
Where in the fairness doctrine did the government have the right to decide political affiliation of radio shows and adjust comment.
Please, stick to facts. We can read made up bullshit on Drudge or Little Green Footballs.
The "flock" is the "minority" multitudes who listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly who unfairly have hundreds more stations(and with much better sound quality) to pump their bullshit across the nation.
Good job L & L. You get the TGIF "post of the day!"
Second!
Uhh, ok, so he assumes that me, a lifetime Green Party member and recent Democrat convert, is a conservative and tells me to fuck off, and everybody gets tingly feelings?
Just insert opposite party references and issues and this would be a right-wing blog. Think about that...
If you're a lifetime Green, and recent Dem convert...why is it that your position so closely resembles that of the more conservative leaning posters in here?
I don't believe that any position is necessarily "right" or "left". That's our big problem and why I voted for Obama, because he is in the middle and believes good ideas are good ideas and not just republican or democrat ideas. Now if he can put that into practice I'll really be impressed...
I do disagree with you about positions or ideas being right or left...but I can agree that a good idea is a good idea no matter the origin.
No, that's your problem.
Many positions like universal health care, the right to form unions, the right of minorities, workplace safety regulations... and on and on are left or liberal positions fought tooth and nail by the right-wing wackos.
I have advertised my business on the radio. Stopped because the radio station I was on never, in 4 years, let me know they had an AirAmerica affiliation, until after the station went off the air. I would have dumped my money onto the AirAmerica airwaves in a heart beat, but the 4 sales reps I had never once mentioned AirAmerica.
So Progressive Radio doesn't sell is a lame excuse because there has been no effort to sell it. It was, IMO, put up there to fail by the corporations that want to sell their conservative voices. Don't believe me, Bob Ney, oh he of Abramoff fame is now a progressive voice on the air in Ohio. If he's a progressive then Beck is a moderate!
while the talk radio monopoly was bringing us to this disaster?
RW talk radio has been the single most powerful political force for intimidating and misinforming and undercutting American democracy.
even a single local blowhard reading chamber of commerce talking points can undo the work of thousands of volunteer activists who have no fucking clue because it gives them headaches to listen to the dumb fucks.
The fairness doctrine never had anything to do with censorship; it simply required presenting more than one view. In effect, by repealing the Fairness Doctrine, government has allowed the media to selectively censor themselves from presenting any progressive or liberal views.
The reality is, radio is owned by right wing ownership and they are not going to allow liberal talk to succeed regardless of the fact that in most markets it is MORE profitable than right wing talk.
Break up the media conglomerates.
Yes. In our market, any liberal (or centrist even) who gets a following that kicks the conservatards ass in the ratings, is suddenly switched to the 10:00 p.m. time slot. Its about propaganda. They could care less about ratings!
for instance, got great ratings but was taken off the air because he is a liberal.
Stephanie Miller still rants of how her radio show was number one in her time slot in Madison, Wis. and yet was replaced by a fucking sports talk show...that tanked! Conservatives are such liars.
This has nothing to do with "free speech." It relates to common decency and hate speech directed at a woman.
If you don't understand that, you're a fool.
These idiots sound like they're still in junior high school. Honestly, how juvenile, misguided, stupid, and plain MCP of this Boyles guy... certainly could make some fun of his name as well, couldn't you?!
I think these folks are showing themselves for who they really are... ignorant juvenile fools!
How many of y'all listen (or listened) and laugh at/with Howard Stern?
I'm betting some of y'all do or did (me? I wouldn't listen with a gun in my mouth)...
So, then, please, tell me how is Stern different from this Denver creature?
BTW: Remember the (liberal) talk-jock who was murdered in Denver some years ago?
Google Alan Berg...
Umm, Stern had to go to satelite because he couldn't say his garbage on the air without getting fined. His humor is juvenile, but this is just even lower. Stern has on hookers and call girls and acts like a real fool, this guy is claiming to be a reasoned voice and has on serious politicians.
The pol in the interview may not have heard this guy talking, if he did then he should have spoken up, and deGette should call him to the carpet when they meet up next in the legislative house.
I think that we need to deregulate people like this away from being political talkers to being shock jocks.
Once that's done, we don't have to waste time as to what they're saying. They can go on finding ways to get attention and we can focus on the real ills of this country.
We need to add Rush as a shock jock and his relevancy takes on a whole new lower level of pure entertainment.
Stern is an equal opportunity insulter. And he never tries to manipulate any party's political agenda. Stern also is talented and funny.
... Howard Stern is not on the top of my list for entertainment, and my initial perception upon seeing his television show was 'great, another clueless high-school jerk' ...
... there have been times where I've laughed at a joke related by friends or coworkers and discovered that it came from Stern.
These guys are in it purely for corporate fascist (republican)propaganda. They are there to constantly drill the masses with subliminal, Orwellean, economic suicide doublespeak.
Howard Stern is an adolescent with a titty fetish.
You can't see the difference? Wow?
It was funnier when Austin Powers had a girlfriend named Arlotta Fagina.
It was Alotta Fagina.
Sounds like a drag queen I once saw perform at a club on Highland.
women. What's the diff? Even the fave term "douchebag" relates to women's anatomy.
I'm not on the public airwaves.
.
...sounds an awful lot like "Penis Boils."
Ok, everyone, try to contain your laughter.
Jeez, it's like a room of seven-year-olds that just were taught their first lesson in sex ed. Talk about the dumbing down of America.
My five year old doesn't think the word Penis is funny. Farting yes, but not penis. Any man who thinks saying Vagina is funny must not see a whole lot of it.
Him not get?
Him see, get, not like?
Farting IS hilarious!
Watch this clip and try not to laugh your ass off!!
I TRIPLE DAWG DARE ya!
http://www.maniacworld.com/farting-baby.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:35 — me_over_here
My five year old doesn't think the word Penis is funny. Farting yes, but not penis. Any man who thinks saying Vagina is funny must not see a whole lot of it.
____________________________________________________________________
He'd better watch out for the Vagina Dentata:
Unless he wants to sing like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKEE-Htgs-w
For this young lady as well.
http://www.imdb.com/rg/videos-title/summary/v...
ProgressNow Colorado is joining up with Media Matters to call on the sponsors to pull their ads from Peter Boyles. He has a history of such disrespect towards women and it needs to end.
We put up the audio with the call in a video on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbpmlZIEL1k
Help is always welcome.
...to a website that tells us who his national sponsors are? I'll go out of my way to avoid large companies who support this crap.
We're started a petition here:
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/respectwomen
And here's the list of sponsors:
The Sponsors of the Peter Boyles Show:
American Guarantee Mortgage: 303-577-4987
Horan and McConaty Funeral Home(303) 745-4418
Wally Park: (303) 342-0500
Ask for the Regional Manager: David Kotarski or email him at dkotarski@wallypark.com
Arapahoe Basin 970-468-0718
System Pavers (866) 389-3173
Time Plumbing and Heating: (303) 758-6237
Jebco heating and Air (303) 573-7100
Innomax (303) 296-9530
AAA Home Improvement (720) 981-4269
Walmart 1-800-925-6278
Denver YMCA (720-524-2700)
Harvard Square Retirement Community (303) 696-0622
FitzGerald's Casino Blackhawk 303-582-6100
for any efforts on the talk radio issue.
and picketing the stations themselves
in the denver area until air america finally broke in.
typical
Revisiting the Fairness Doctrine has been a Republican fear meme for ages now.
For a left-wing site to start saying "Well maybe we should" after months of claiming that the only people talking about it were Republicans, plays right into their hands.
We open the left both to charges of hypocrisy, and fuel the right-wing fear and propaganda machine, as they can say "What other pledges are they going to break next? They said this wasn't about socialism either! Give them another few weeks, and we'll see!"
etc..
The Fairness Doctrine is not something that should be revisited, just because you don't like how Republican idiots use their first amendment rights.
... that the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a right-wing boogeyman, but, for some reason, we shouldn't even think about restoring it.
Because we wouldn't want the right-wingers to be unhappy or feel oppressed and persecuted. Waaaaaahhhhhh.
Heres my question: what is the litmus test for political affiliation? In my town, we have a lot of local hosts who try very hard not to take one side or the other. When they have to, some may consider them libertarian, and therefore possibly Republican. But then they also support "Democratic" issues such as decriminalization of marijuana, anti-war, etc.
The big names are obviously republican cheerleaders, but it's all the others who's opinion (agreed or not) I enjoy listening to I worry about.
I see absolutely no point to your logic. The repukes are going to lie and demagogue whatever we do. Fuck em.' The people are starting to see through their bullshit.
Cedeing the airwaves to them just because they might bitch is nonproductive in the use of public airspace.
They are crying because they will lose their monopoly. Think about it. Even during their greatest political heyday, they still only had 55 Senate seats, 230 House seats, and won the presidency (if they really did) by the skin of their teeth. And that was with a 24/7, 365 days a year after year propaganda machine monopoly.
If liberals were given just equal time to show how full of shit conservatives really are, they know the american people would drop them down into the 30% range as a national party. They may be stupid, but they are evil.
the GOP is nothing without their invisible radio 2x4 and for americans to continue to ignore is really dumb.
the reason the right can define hypocrisy is the talk radio monopoly itself.
Just another dry drunk with a thick moustache you don't want to get too close to. Let him destroy himself.
It seems that once again the debate about the Fairness Doctrine is focusing on the wrong terminology.
When the Fairness Doctrine was adopted there were a few hundred radio stations and TV was in its infancy. Though the regulations of fairness applied to Public Airwave usage, that was the legal rationale – not the reason.
The reason it was enacted was because those who enacted it were justifiably concerned that an important source for the American citizenries’ knowledge of public affairs might be corrupted in the same way NewsPapers had in prior decades, and radio was at the time by Germany and others. They were afraid of propaganda. They were concerned that one of the most important tenants of democracy – a knowledgeable populace – would be subverted for the sake of tyranny.
They were right.
We can argue today about the use of public AM Talk-Radio, and whether the Fairness Doctrine would or would not apply to Rush, and Sean, and Billy (it does). We can also debate whether the regulation applies to cable and print media (it doesn’t). But the main problem with bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is that it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t address the subversion of Americans’ sources of information for the benefit of tyranny. It doesn’t go far enough because we have already been subverted. It already happened.
I would suggest first getting back to the why rather than the how, in protecting America’s right to know. Then start to implement the how.
n/t
...an independent status (no political assignments) and allow them to levy fines on anyone who passes information that is known to be wrong or misleading?
It could well put Fox Noise out of business in a week.
But the Courts already said they could make up shit and still call it news.
and submerge it in bullshit.
as long as they control the how americans cannot have a real discussion or investigation of the why
Any debate about how is going to be drowned out if those who control the content keep fanning the First Amendment Flames and fawning over their favorite mouth pieces.
The way the Fairness Doctrine was passed before was to change the focus of the debate away from the individual right of free speech and toward the greater good. This same applies today.
As long as we are arguing against Rush et al, that First Amendment argument will catch us. Instead, the debate should center on foreign ownership of American Media.
then you may be right- re foreign ownership
the problem as i see it though is that talk radio drives the discussion and will always ignore what it wants until it fades or is drowned out by mountains they created from molehills
I don't want to fight their fight. Their argument will always be Free Speech and Free Enterprise.
The foreign ownership angle is a battle that can be won against Murdoch, but not Clear-Channel.
The debate with Clear-Channel should be on the original intent of the regulations concerning monopoly ownership that were relaxed in '96.
I say, continue to let these people make total arses of themselves. Just let them dig themselves into deeper and deeper holes of hate and disrespect until eventually their venomous hate buries them completely.
Eventually, even the nuttiest of the right-wing wackos will realize the hate and flat our evil natures of individuals like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh etc.
They are all disingenuous windbags who only deserve our scorn and contempt. And as "windbags" always do, they will eventually run out of hot air and disappear back into their ugly caves.
We must all continue to witness to their evil, and continue to try to take the high road seeking truth, justice and the TRUE American way.
... low-hanging, rotten, and full of maggots?
The problem with that strategy is that far too many Americans get their news/opinions from only those sources simply because they have no access to another view.
Again, break up the media conglomerates.
While media conglomeration is a factor, it's not that Americans 'have no access to another view,' it's that they can't be arsed to LOOK for those other views, let alone apply critical thinking.
America sat by and watched the corporations suck up content, and then distribution, and is still sitting there dumbfounded as Rush and his ilk tell them a diversity of opinion is the same as censorship.
Their "sense of humor" reminds me of my grade school years. I'm sure when no one is looking they light their farts.
.
Gee, another insight from the Conservative He-Man Woman Haters Club. If we're not spouting the same bullshit they do (Palin, Malkin, etc.), they detest us and they can't make it any clearer.
The Fairness Doctrine never limited free speech. That is a specious argument. When it was done away with in 1987, the reason given was that with the beginning proliferation of media (mainly cable news) the need for balance was met by other forums (some may argue that this is even more relevant today with the media explosion over the last 15 years). However, the monopoly of speech by the right on AM radio is not rectified by voices of dissent in other media. When any single media source is so completely one-sided, regardless of the availability of other sources of information, this doesn't meet the FCC's boilerplate when granting licenses of opertating "in the public trust." This is the crux of the matter. The public trust is a contract that is broken every day on America's airwaves.
Obviously the consolidation of station ownership is the devil here. This is how the Limbaugh's of the world were able to dominate. The goverment SHOULD divest a couple of the top companies from a percentage of their stations, or at least compel them to offer other voices in certain markets. If they refuse the FCC should revoke their licenses. This does NOT violate free speech. Speech is not free when only one side's views are presented, PERIOD. No one is suggesting, myself included, that these stations should have to change the format of any show, or change one word of what is said. Neither am I suggesting that stations owners should be forced into a failing business model. This is the argument of people like Michael Medved who constantly crows that liberal speech fails because no one wants it and the market reflects that. However, it's a ridiculous argument that whatever succeeds is good, or true, or fair. The market rewards the bad as well as the good. No? Explain Fox news. Explain reality TV. And, in a vaccuum, people will listen to whatever is available, which makes laughable the boast of Medved that 30% of his audience DISAGREES with him. Yeah, no shit!
Bottom line is that AM talk is an unfair monopoly and the unfair part can be corrected by a return of the Fairness Doctrine or divestiture. Limbaugh and his ilk would never have become as big as they are without this ownership monopoly.
Limbaugh would still be just as fat a pig as he is today with or without ownership monopoly.
That said, you are absolutely right about violating the public trust on OUR airwaves. Obama needs to give the FCC some teeth and let them start revoking licenses of the stations that allow for right wing (or left if it happens) liars.
on the air, yet Michael Reagan is allowed to say that people who question the "official" 9/11 fairy tale should be shot!! That is perfectly okay. I personally made a formal complaint to the FCC and they did nothing about his blatant hate speech!!!
Perhaps we should all spend more time visiting the "other sides" blogs and make our comments.
It's kind of fun to get into it with them once in a while. You can almost see the steam emanating from the keyboard.
Ha!!!!!!!!!!
We need to know our enemies well, which is why I subscribe to some of the right wing wacko daily emails like "Human Events" etc. I'll check out an article by, say, Pat Buchanan, then go on to comment. After the brawl gets started I leave.
Drk, drk.....
x
Michigan is overwhelmingly blue (60%). Yet, in one afternoon, I conducted a simple experiment.
I was able to get Rush on nine channels between noon and 6. Four at once. Hannity three times, Billo, Ingraham, Savage multiple times, etc, etc...........; at the end of the day, the score was right-wing nutjobs 26, centrists 1, and liberals zero!
Whenever I ask liberal friends why they listen to Rush sometimes, they say its because "that is all that's on."
I rest my case.
Peter Boyles is a known douchebag and doesn't represent the majority of Coloradoans. He's the kind of guy that if he were broken down on the road, people would pull over - they just wouldn't slow down.
ROFLMAO! That's a good one.
before air am
I worked in a media venue that will go unnamed. We used Peter Boyles as our moderator - once, just one horrible time. He was awful on every level. All the folks who worked with him that day have ever since referred to him as "the horse's patoot." This is a quote from one of the speakers, who is Irish.
It is fun to watch the GOP lose their sanity. Truly, it is. I just wish for one instant they could feel a deep clear moment of introspection so they could fully grasp, even momentarily, how insane and ludicrous and silly they seem to normal people.
Perhaps all their crying about the Fairness Doctrine recently was to innoculate them against a natural lashback to a plan they all seem to be in on—to speak so outrageously in media that they provoke great unrest. Between the "Blue Scrotum" type talk on FOX and Rush's gathering storm of paranoia and madness, I think we are only seeing the tip of the hateberg. And I think they mean to take down the whole ship if need be.
It's really all about holding on to ALL the wealth they stole from the rest of us, going way-back to Psycho Ronnie's election.
They would gladly destroy the entire country rather than share any of their obscene amounts of wealth. They are heartless, souless, greedy, very greedy evil parasites.
And you ain't seen nothing until Obama goes after the Holy Grail of republican politics: TAXING the rich fairly. If that day ever comes, whoa, the shit you are seeing and hearing now is gonna seem centrist compared to those dark days. Personally, I am getting a laugh once my revulsion calms down. Helps the blood pressure.
That is called "consolidation."
It took off under Raygun.
The only to reverse it would be by Constitutional Amendment which reduced the number of licenses which could be owned by any one entity--person, corp, church, etc--to ONE and one only.
I know it's not gonna happen.
I know better than anybody, probably.
But that is the only solution...
Well, I get your point about just one license going to each owner, and you're right, it will never fly. But there are models out there that fit this scenario. Take the 1948 "Paramount Decision" which divested the Hollywood studios from theatre ownership. That's just one instance.
But why a Constitutional Ammendment? Doesn't the FCC decide who gets broadcast licenses? The Paramount case was decided by the US Supreme Court, not by Congress.
it's time for women and minorities to start suing these obscene sexists and racists for literally millions. Class action lawsuits. Publicity out the gazoo.
It really is time to stop these jackasses.
Annie - if you start a lawsuit, let me know. I'll join in.
CRF
I've been looking around their website here and tried to access the "EEO Public File".
http://www.khow.com/pages/contact-index.html
It comes up blank from every link on various of their website pages. I was wondering if they got any federal or state money that could tie them to a "contractor" basis, where discimination on several bases is prohibited. (Usually the basis for an EEO policy statement is given in official documents.)
Wonder why they removed it?
I find Boyles statement offensive. Let's hope that these creeps keep up this kind of rhetoric because it will turn more people away from them. They are making themselves more and more marginalized every time they open their mouths.
The woman hating, wing-nutO's out there are just burying themselves. That's why their ratings are dropping like rocks and will continue.
Outta the Cornfield contacted C&L last night asking if this story was worthy of a post. It was and thank you for that John!
We do not control the airwaves but yet we all own them. There is outrage on this thread as it should be. This slug needs to be shitcanned and hope many of you follow the links asking that this be done. Along with Progress Now Colorado's effort maybe this dumb bastard can be taught a lesson. I hope so.
One Fly
And I'd say
We do not control the airwaves but yet we all are assaulted by the obscenities they permit themselves.
vagina,vagina,vagina,vagina........
vagina.
vagina,vagina,vagina,vagina........
vagina.
asshole getting sprung every time he says 'vagina.' Because he so wants to know what one is like, in person, not just some picture in a mag, or a hole in some blowup doll. He's heard the real thing is nothing at all like the plastic imitation.
These people are a big boil on the back of America coming to a head, all ready to pop in a few days, and then we can get on with our lives.
Typical Republicans showing what classy guys they are.
You can't expect civilized behavior from Troglodytes, after all.
'Vagina DeJet' ?????????
WTF. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200, go directly back to kindergarten (where you belong) and try again. What a bunch of sorry sorry losers.
Only kindergarteners titter and squeal at mentions of pee pees, vaginas and penises.
Very UNcool.
Still thinking of a syndication deal so you can bail out of Denver are ya?
Login or Register to post comments.