How Large is your Penis?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Liberal Lunacy 2: Regulate Radios

I do not watch news, but about two weeks ago I was looking through the TV and saw a liberal news show discussing how unfair it is that there are more conservative radio shows than liberal radio shows. I wish I can remember what channel it was, what the name of the program it was, and name of the host was, but I did not pay attention to any of those details. I do remember the argument of the host though. He wanted the government to regulate the radios so that the numbers of liberal radio shows are equal to the number of conservative radio shows.

They claim that they support free speech because they want to encourage more liberal shows. But they fail to realize what free speech is. Read the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Focus on the part that says "shall make no law". The moment laws are made regarding speech then that is no longer "free speech". It is called "free speech" precisely because it is "free" from government control. If there are laws regarding speech on radios then it is no longer "free". Saying that you "want to pass laws to protect free speech" is just as retarded as saying you "want to regulate freedom to protect freedom" which is just as retarded as saying "want to go to war to achieve peace" or as George Carlin said "to screw for virginity", it just makes no sense.

Who did this liberal host blame for an excess number of conservative radio shows? The scapegoat of liberals, that is, the corporations. It is always the corporations, they are always evil and terrible. He claimed that corporations have an interest in having conservative radio shows therefore that is why we have an excess number of conservative radio shows.

The real reason why there are fewer liberal radio shows is because liberal shows are boring. Did you ever listen to Stephanie Miller? It makes me want to commit suicide, not only boring, but a braindead show. Conservative shows are more entertaining (I do not listen to them, but from what I have heard from time to time I think there are more interesting). That is the real reason why more people turn to conservative radio shows than to liberal radio shows.

Consider the following. Who are the most subscribed people on YouTube? Number one is nigahiga, number two is Fred, number three is Smosh. I have no idea why people watch these channels but apparently they are the most subscribed channels on YouTube. This example shows that people watch what they like. None of these people are corporations. They are just kids and teenagers who make videos that are not even so expensive to make. Yet the vast subscription of YouTube watches them. For the very simple reason is because they find them more entertaining to watch then anything else on YouTube. A kid speeding up his voice on camera gets more subscriptions than channels that are owned by corporations. Furthermore, if you ever watch YouTube you would realize that most political channels on YouTube are liberal channels not conservative channels. There are in fact very few conservative channels on YouTube. Are the corporations to blame again for the increase number of liberal shows? No, use basic common sense, people watch on YouTube what their interests are. Since most people on YouTube are of the younger variety there are more likely to lean on the left than on the right, therefore they are more interested in liberals shows. This is why liberal shows on YouTube are more successful than conservative shows.

Now who listens to radios? I doubt that young people listen to radios, that is from the past generation. Older people listen to radios. They are more likely to lean right. Therefore, the radio subscription is more interested in conservative talk radio. This has nothing to do with corporations, just basic common sense.

The proposal of these liberals to regulate radios for more liberal show is an attack on free speech.


  1. The response of the political left to a loss is to delegitimize the winners.
    Did Kerry lose to Bush II? Let's harp on how he really lost to Gore. Did the Republicans take Congress in 1994? Let's say it was due to voter discontent but that they really still like the Democrats.
    Do more people like Fox than MSNBC? Let's say that anyone who prefers Fox is an idiot and doesn't count.
    The internet is a great example because it is the last truly free and open market at work. That's why the left wants to regulate it - because they know more than you what's better for you.

  2. "That's why the left wants to regulate it - because they know more than you what's better for you.": It is also because of the corporations! Obviously, if they do not regulate it the evil nasty greedy corporations will take over everything.

  3. So one must admit that there are greedy corporations that are trying to do exactly what the left accuses them of. However, the left is trying to do the exact same thing! So who would I rather have manipulating me?

  4. "So who would I rather have manipulating me?": You set up the question in a wrong way. You create a false dichotomy. You think if the government does not control you then corporations would. And if the corporations do not control you then the government will have to control you. That is where the false dichotomy takes place. One can have a situation where no one is controlling anyone. That is what we need to achieve eventually no corporate power, and no government power. Instead of one or another.