Fire Sharpton MSNBC

[Pogo]

(Satire)

Al Sharpton Educates Pope Francis on Race, Sissies and Prison Showers

AL SHARPTON: Welcome to my news show on MSNBC where I host, Mr. Pope.

POPE FRANCIS: Thank you, sir.

AL SHARPTON: You may call me Reverend.

POPE: Oh, you are a servant of the Lord?

AL SHARPTON: No defense, Mr. Pope, but in America it’s not polite to call an African American a servant.

POPE: People from all over the world serve Jesus Christ, my son.

AL SHARPTON: Well I can assure you, African Americans are paid a lot less for it than everyone else.

POPE: I see.

.........​

 

[ninja007]

and don't 4get, he basically lives at the WH. Barry's right hand man on race relations.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Better to revoke NBC's FCC licensing if they don't remove sharpton. Contributing to a hate monger and aiding in inciting violence.

Three posts later, still blind as a bat. Networks do not have "FCC licensing" any more than cable outlets do. Broadcasters have FCC licensing. That means radio and television stations. As in, on the air.

And again, as we just said three posts ago, restricting somebody's ability to speak because you don't like what they say, is what we call "unconstitutional". That hasn't changed as three posts went by.

Nit picking. The networks rely on the subsidiary affiliates who are granted FCC licensing, the grace of the public. Fomenting violence is not free speech. Like shouting fire in a theater.

 

[Pogo]

Better to revoke NBC's FCC licensing if they don't remove sharpton. Contributing to a hate monger and aiding in inciting violence.

Three posts later, still blind as a bat. Networks do not have "FCC licensing" any more than cable outlets do. Broadcasters have FCC licensing. That means radio and television stations. As in, on the air.

And again, as we just said three posts ago, restricting somebody's ability to speak because you don't like what they say, is what we call "unconstitutional". That hasn't changed as three posts went by.

Nit picking. The networks rely on the subsidiary affiliates who are granted FCC licensing, the grace of the public. Fomenting violence is not free speech. Like shouting fire in a theater.

Then you would have to go after each individual TV station one by one. And before you do even the first one, you have to get rid of the First Amendment.

The FCC has never taken anybody's license away for concerns of content in its life. And that's the way it should be.

Besides which, even more basically, Al Sharpton is not on NBC. Hes on MSNBC, which is cable. Therefore unless he goes to a broadcast interview or something, he's not even on the air, which means he doesn't appear anywhere the FCC has jurisdiction.

But thanks for coming out with your views on free speech. Go forth and read the Constitution.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Better to revoke NBC's FCC licensing if they don't remove sharpton. Contributing to a hate monger and aiding in inciting violence.

Three posts later, still blind as a bat. Networks do not have "FCC licensing" any more than cable outlets do. Broadcasters have FCC licensing. That means radio and television stations. As in, on the air.

And again, as we just said three posts ago, restricting somebody's ability to speak because you don't like what they say, is what we call "unconstitutional". That hasn't changed as three posts went by.

Nit picking. The networks rely on the subsidiary affiliates who are granted FCC licensing, the grace of the public. Fomenting violence is not free speech. Like shouting fire in a theater.

Then you would have to go after each individual TV station one by one. And before you do even the first one, you have to get rid of the First Amendment.

The FCC has never taken anybody's license away for concerns of content in its life. And that's the way it should be.

People need to meet requirements to be granted the privilege of licensing. That is not a free speech issue. It's not a right. That is precisely why licensing is necessary. You don't need a license to access human rights. Privileges that involve others require standards and rules.
Every subsidiary of the network can have its license revoked if that network doesn't comply with licensing requirements and the subsidiary acquiesces to the network.

 

[Pogo]

Better to revoke NBC's FCC licensing if they don't remove sharpton. Contributing to a hate monger and aiding in inciting violence.

Three posts later, still blind as a bat. Networks do not have "FCC licensing" any more than cable outlets do. Broadcasters have FCC licensing. That means radio and television stations. As in, on the air.

And again, as we just said three posts ago, restricting somebody's ability to speak because you don't like what they say, is what we call "unconstitutional". That hasn't changed as three posts went by.

Nit picking. The networks rely on the subsidiary affiliates who are granted FCC licensing, the grace of the public. Fomenting violence is not free speech. Like shouting fire in a theater.

Then you would have to go after each individual TV station one by one. And before you do even the first one, you have to get rid of the First Amendment.

The FCC has never taken anybody's license away for concerns of content in its life. And that's the way it should be.

Besides which, even more basically, Al Sharpton is not on NBC. Hes on MSNBC, which is cable. Therefore unless he goes to a broadcast interview or something, he's not even on the air, which means he doesn't appear anywhere the FCC has jurisdiction.

But thanks for coming out with your views on free speech. Go forth and read the Constitutio

People need to meet requirements to be granted the privilege of licensing. That is not a free speech issue. It's not a right. That is precisely why licensing is necessary. You don't need a license to access human rights. Privileges that involve others require standards and rules.
Every subsidiary of the network can have its license revoked if that network doesn't comply with licensing requirements and the subsidiary acquiesces to the network.

Wrong, wrong, completely wrong. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

FCC has no jurisdiction over a corporate entity. It licenses individual stations. And the network has no license to revoke. A network is not a broadcast station. It does not need a license.

Nor can, or should, or has, the FCC ever revoked somebody's license (even if it actually did have one) because of something their subsidiary did. That's absurd. Are you drunk?

Yes, stations need to meet requirements; those are that they're qualified to run a station and provide programming service "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". And that is obviously interpreted broadly.

All of which is moot, since as I just said again, Al Sharpton is not on the air in the first place.

 

[dannyboys]

Interesting that Sharpton is the face of negroes in the US. Some negroes deny this fact but they are delighted to see him standing on every fucking negro podium.
He's a piece of simian monkey shit and sooner or later he'll be maggot-meat.

 

[Politico]

I hope more people demand this. He needs to be banished out of our Televisions

Not gonna happen.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Better to revoke NBC's FCC licensing if they don't remove sharpton. Contributing to a hate monger and aiding in inciting violence.

Three posts later, still blind as a bat. Networks do not have "FCC licensing" any more than cable outlets do. Broadcasters have FCC licensing. That means radio and television stations. As in, on the air.

And again, as we just said three posts ago, restricting somebody's ability to speak because you don't like what they say, is what we call "unconstitutional". That hasn't changed as three posts went by.

Nit picking. The networks rely on the subsidiary affiliates who are granted FCC licensing, the grace of the public. Fomenting violence is not free speech. Like shouting fire in a theater.

Then you would have to go after each individual TV station one by one. And before you do even the first one, you have to get rid of the First Amendment.

The FCC has never taken anybody's license away for concerns of content in its life. And that's the way it should be.

Besides which, even more basically, Al Sharpton is not on NBC. Hes on MSNBC, which is cable. Therefore unless he goes to a broadcast interview or something, he's not even on the air, which means he doesn't appear anywhere the FCC has jurisdiction.

But thanks for coming out with your views on free speech. Go forth and read the Constitutio

People need to meet requirements to be granted the privilege of licensing. That is not a free speech issue. It's not a right. That is precisely why licensing is necessary. You don't need a license to access human rights. Privileges that involve others require standards and rules.
Every subsidiary of the network can have its license revoked if that network doesn't comply with licensing requirements and the subsidiary acquiesces to the network.

Wrong, wrong, completely wrong. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

FCC has no jurisdiction over a corporate entity. It licenses individual stations. And the network has no license to revoke. A network is not a broadcast station. It does not need a license.

Nor can, or should, or has, the FCC ever revoked somebody's license (even if it actually did have one) because of something their subsidiary did. That's absurd. Are you drunk?

Yes, stations need to meet requirements; those are that they're qualified to run a station and provide programming service "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". And that is obviously interpreted broadly.

All of which is moot, since as I just said again, Al Sharpton is not on the air in the first place.

Let's have NBC show hardcore porn on all of its network affiliates.
Get out of the 60's.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Fire Sharpton MSNBC"

You're at liberty of course to demand of MSNBC to fire Sharpton, and no one would presume to deny you that right; provided you realize that as a conservative your desire to limit Sharpton's avenues of communication is consistent with the hostility and fear most on the right exhibit toward expressions of diversity and dissent.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

"Fire Sharpton MSNBC"

You're at liberty of course to demand of MSNBC to fire Sharpton, and no one would presume to deny you that right; provided you realize that as a conservative your desire to limit Sharpton's avenues of communication is consistent with the hostility and fear most on the right exhibit toward expressions of diversity and dissent.

Dissent is one thing, but Sharpton is one of the most divisive individuals in America today and employers like MSNBC need to know that millions of Americans are going to hold them responsible for allowing him a stage to further divide us.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well.....one thing is for sure........Sharpton has accomplished one thing: ensuring that blacks in the inner cities, especially New York, are victims of more violent crimes by blacks. When 911 calls come in to patrol units now, they'll be showing up at the crime scene "whenever". The progressives never can connect the dots correctly, which is why their idea's are so fucking dangerous. In trying to fix the molehills, they create a huge mountain of problems. Blacks in the projects are going to be calling 911 for help..........guess what.........it aint coming for awhile s0ns!!!

 

[Mac1958]

.

Don't fire Sharpton.

Punishment for expressing opinions is the realm of the PC Police.

Better to point at what he says and say, "holy crap, look at THAT."

.

 

[TooTall]

Fire him for what?

Urging peace and calm?

This is exactly what we heard from racists about ever other civil rights leader in history.

When people talk about boycotting race and hate monger drugger Lushbo, you racists start raving about free speach. Let it be someone you don't like and you want him silenced.

What are you so afraid of?

Learn how to change your channel and just move on.

There are civil rights leaders and there are race baiters. Sharpton is one of the latter.

 

[skookerasbil]

.

Don't fire Sharpton.

Punishment for expressing opinions is the realm of the PC Police.

Better to point at what he says and say, "holy crap, look at THAT."

.

I concur 100%.......put this guy on 3-4 times a day I say!!! It ensures that the savages in the inner cities are shooting the shit out of each other 24/7 while police will now make sure to finish their coffee and donuts and get to the crimes "whenever". Any time the savages are knocking each other off is a big plus for society and we can thank Sharpton for that, especially in NYC where police will now by laughing their balls off when 911 calls come in to patrol cars!!

 

[reconmark]

Interesting that Sharpton is the face of negroes in the US. Some negroes deny this fact but they are delighted to see him standing on every fucking negro podium.
He's a piece of simian monkey shit and sooner or later he'll be maggot-meat.

Tell you what, take your ass back over to suckdaviddukesdick.com and give him some more of your minimum wage earnings to help pay his gambling debts, err, white rights platform.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fire him for what?

Urging peace and calm?

This is exactly what we heard from racists about ever other civil rights leader in history.

When people talk about boycotting race and hate monger drugger Lushbo, you racists start raving about free speach. Let it be someone you don't like and you want him silenced.

What are you so afraid of?

Learn how to change your channel and just move on.

Fire him for what?

Urging peace and calm?

This is exactly what we heard from racists about ever other civil rights leader in history.

When people talk about boycotting race and hate monger drugger Lushbo, you racists start raving about free speech. Let it be someone you don't like and you want him silenced.

What are you so afraid of?

Learn how to change your channel and just move on.

OH FUCK YOU !!!!

Hit a nerve, didn't I.

Why are the racists so afraid of what this man says?

If you don't like him calling for peace and calm, don't listen to him. Watch fux, listen to your brain cells die and polish you guns but face the fact that you're stuck with the Constitution and free speech.

 

[Stephanie]

"Fire Sharpton MSNBC"

You're at liberty of course to demand of MSNBC to fire Sharpton, and no one would presume to deny you that right; provided you realize that as a conservative your desire to limit Sharpton's avenues of communication is consistent with the hostility and fear most on the right exhibit toward expressions of diversity and dissent.

repeat wash rinse and repeat. You must have that on favorites you post it SO OFTEN

 

[August West]

Brinsley had 19 arrests and served jail time and there is zero evidence that he had anything to do with any protests. He fit the classic definition as a loner and a nut case and the head of the NY benevolent Association Pat Lynch wants to paint him as a product of the protests. Shame on him. Is Sharpton to blame for this guy shooting his girlfriend? Take off those white hoods, scratch your empty heads, gather up your 75 IQ points and think about that.

 

[reconmark]

"Fire Sharpton MSNBC"

You're at liberty of course to demand of MSNBC to fire Sharpton, and no one would presume to deny you that right; provided you realize that as a conservative your desire to limit Sharpton's avenues of communication is consistent with the hostility and fear most on the right exhibit toward expressions of diversity and dissent.

repeat wash rinse and repeat. You must have that on favorites you post it SO OFTEN

And yet, you haven't a logical argument to dismiss the statement...as usual.

 

[reconmark]

Brinsley had 19 arrests and served jail time and there is zero evidence that he had anything to do with any protests. He fit the classic definition as a loner and a nut case and the head of the NY benevolent Association Pat Lynch wants to paint him as a product of the protests. Shame on him. Is Sharpton to blame for this guy shooting his girlfriend? Take off those white hoods, scratch your empty heads, gather up your 75 IQ points and think about that.

BUT IT DON'T MATTA, IT DON'T MATTA...HE WAS A BLACK!!!!!