Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range
    • From:


Comment Archives: Stories: News & Views: Word

Re: “Hip-hop furor

I strongly feel that Hip-Hop is an insult to the African American race. As an African American, I was once a lover of Hip-Hop but now I’ve grown out of love with it. Hip-Hop is no longer just an art; it has become a way of life for young African Americans. Many of them have adopted ignorance as who they are. I strongly believe that it is time for Hip-Hop to say good-by to the mainstream and return to the underground from which it came. I myself have become sick and tired of Hip-Hop and have launched a national campaign against the source that allows it to live, BET. My petition can be found on WE ARE BLACK BY NAME BUT NOT BY DEFINITION.

Posted by J. WILLIAMS on 08/23/2007 at 1:46 AM

Re: “Shades of hate

First of all, just because the actual reporters themselves are liberal doesn't mean that the networks are or that what they portray is. With broadcast journalism, which unfortunately is the most frequent source of American news as newspapers die off (you can just watch as even major newspapers like the new york times struggle to stay afloat) the networks decides the content and frequently the reporters just read off of their cue cards. As to the networks, it’s hard not to suspect some ulterior motives when news networks like nbc are owned by general electric, one of the largest weaponry manufacturers. Clear Channel Communications is constantly coming under criticism for censoring negative comments about the current administration, and particularly george bush, and for having the only station which refused to play an anti-war commercial paid for by cindy sheehan. Perhaps the large number of conservative talk show hosts has more to do with the fact that clear channel owns 1,100 radio stations, not to mention 11 xm stations and over 30 television stations. And I don't feel I even need to go into Rupert Murdoch, a staunch conservative and head of news corporation who appears to want to control all sources of media in our country, which I'm sure just means much less biased coverage.... Yeah.... He owns fox news, the new york post, and is in the process of buying dow jones and thus the wall street journal. Ultimately though I don't think the problem is as much one between a conservative or liberal bias as with a corporate one. As all of the news in our country is becoming more centralized within a the hands of a few major corporations it only makes sense that diversity in journalism would disappear and be replaced by the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, promotion of their agendas. As for Don Imus, I think what he said was obnoxious and idiotic but if people like Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz are going to be allowed to say all of the racist and inconsiderate things they say to replace real news with sensationalism, then there is certainly no precedent for firing Imus. Regardless our constitution guarantees people to be as tasteless as they want as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

Posted by Jessica on 08/17/2007 at 7:04 AM

Re: “Shades of hate

Just ignore NRB. It is a troll with no life. Otherwise it wouldn't have the time to comment on every article that CL posts.

Posted by RealTruth on 04/27/2007 at 4:49 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

I am not here to defend NRB, but to deny that the msm is liberal is to deny the facts. According to The American Journalist, only 18% identify themselves as Republican. In other measures, they are more than twice as likely to be liberal than the general population. 19% of them voted for Bush, 52% for Kerry and the rest refused to answer. Pretty inept conservatives, always voting for the wrong party, huh?

Posted by Dale on 04/26/2007 at 7:32 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

NRB, is it not within you capacity to refrain from labeling anything 'liberal' or generally skewed with common sense, home-spun socially rigid and fact obsfucating conservative radio personalities as communist. 'Cos you just know how us liberals simply love to curl up by the nightstand with some Karl Marx just before bed. Such ill-informed generalizations only manage to paint your raving, long-winded rants with that immaculate conspiracy theorist veneer that we've come all to love and love to ridicule.

Posted by Chad on 04/26/2007 at 8:56 AM

Re: “Shades of hate

You can believe that what I wrote is BS but you cannot prove it otherwise. Also, MOST members of the mainstream media are hardcore liberals and there is substantial proof of that...if you look...which you havent.

Posted by NRB on 04/25/2007 at 6:25 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

You accuse liberals of quite a few things - many of which can be pinned on the conservatives as well. Very few members of the "mainstream media" are liberals. Many of the leaders of the news networks are staunch conservative supporters. Rush Limbaugh was caught with that revelation, since he uses the same BS line quite often. Even he stammered a bit (in front of Lou Dobbs, no less). I defend Imus' freedom of speech to the fullest, don't get me wrong. But what he said was insulting. You can't just inslut something without expecting some form of retaliation in return. If I called you a "cousin-molesting gun-totin' honky" to your face, I would expect some form of retaliation - verbal or physical. P.S. - I'm a moderate and politcially speaking, I believe most of what you wrote is complete BS.

Posted by ray on 04/25/2007 at 12:13 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

TJ, You have to understand something, while liberals own Hollywood, run the mainstream news media (print and television), they have simply failed to be able to compete in Talk Radio. This is because conservatives rely on common sense and facts to back up what they say, and liberals rely purely on emotion or pulling 'facts' out of their corn-holes. This does not work out well on talk radio, where you can be confronted by a caller and 'put on the spot'. Liberals of course cannot compete in any sort of free market system because they are so full of shit, that even a centerist person can see through it and choose to not watch ABC news, read the AJC, or listen to Air America. In turn, people are hungry for real commentary based on facts and logic and thus turn to talk radio in droves. This drives liberals nuts because they want only their voice heard, only their viewpoint expressed, and basically desire a one party communist system. Talk radio, being the last bastion of free speech in this country (next to the internet of course), is the main target of democrats who want to silence all opposing viewpoints. There are entire communist organizations (ACLU,, Creative Loafing etc.) hellbent on destroying conservative radio and it 'could' happen. What then of the demand for this commentary and news source? I'm thinking that any remaining talk radio hosts would probably turn to the internet where the final battle would ensue: Democrats/Liberals aiming to control what can be said on the internet. If they win that round, the communist new world order would be in full effect, and America will turn into a third nation shithole within twenty years at the helm of a communist/democratic one world 'government'. Scary shit. All because Imus said 'Nappy Headed Hos'.

Posted by NRB on 04/23/2007 at 5:24 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

This is all bullsh*t! Can anyone prove how any of the "quotes" are false? They're simply opinions. Why are we shooting the messengers???

Posted by tj on 04/23/2007 at 2:05 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

yes, we have free speech, but speech has never been and will never be without consequence!

Posted by roxie on 04/21/2007 at 1:08 PM

Re: “Shades of hate

We haven't had "free" speech in decades. Prime example - slander. You can say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't damage another person's reputation, job prospects, or public image.

Posted by ray on 04/19/2007 at 9:00 AM

Re: “Shades of hate

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Posted by NRB on 04/18/2007 at 7:14 PM

Re: “Unprized van

Well Eric, unfortunately this short article can't go into all the details of what happened -- but the AJC acted in bad faith in my opinion. It has nothing to do with the money -- it's about the PRINCIPLE. I disagree with you that AJC had the right to do what they did under the rules. I think it says something that the AJC took TEN DAYS TO COME UP WITH THAT EXPLANATION THEMSELF. Must have had their lawyers working overtime to justify what they did. We played by the rules -- and legitimately got the most votes. Any other vehicle's owner could have done the same. And yes it took work -- what pisses me off is that for all the effort we expended for the benefit of the AJC to register new users for them, they turn around and dismiss us without so much as an apology. we were disqualified from the contest because other viewers flagged our van picture as "obscene" - which on it's face is laughable. The AJC then struggled to justify what had happened - the whole thing just stinks and they won't own up to it. I agree, lots of vehicles on their were more legit examples of cool custom cars - the Solstice is rather sad as an example; the van has more spirit as a piece of a Americana and the paint job is a paen to vintage american sign painting, all done by hand - also a vanshing art. A much more interesting show vehicle than the Solstice - as would have been several of the other entries. But "abomination", LOL - dude, what's YOUR beef?

Posted by Johnny H on 03/16/2007 at 6:19 AM

Re: “Unprized van

Dude, I'm not saying the AJC is completely blameless and I agree with the you --the Rockin' Van clause is a little weak. But, if you DO read the rules, they have the right to do what they did, and I'm sure that most of the other entrants (who share an appreciation for custom cars and wanted to see a legitimate entry win) agree that the AJC did the right thing. Personally, I was bummed to learn that a 2006 Soltice had won. I mean there were some incredible cars on the site. But to put your Van in the show would have been real abomination and an insult to the customizing community. Besides, man, it's not that big of a deal. $1,000 -- what, that's like two or three hours of work for you?

Posted by Eric on 03/15/2007 at 1:31 PM

Re: “Unprized van

The AJC specifically ASKED ME to enter my Van in their Contest when they were trying to beef-up entries. I relied on that - quite fairly I think. Read the rules of the contest -- it does not prohibit it, and they easily could have included a rule doing so. We competed fairly -- and WON -- only to have AJC throw a snit because sensitive readers complained that the caption on our photo "If the Van's Rock'in, Don't Come Knock'in" was deemed "obscene" and "offensive". That's laughable and pathetic.

Posted by JohnnyH on 03/15/2007 at 12:24 PM

Re: “Unprized van

While the AJC should have told Mr. Hollywood right off the bat that his advertisement was a clear abuse of the contest, only an idiot would really be surprised by the ruling. It was clearly a contest for custom cars. Every other entrant figured it out. One can't deny Mr. Hollywood's ingenuity and creativy in attempting to exploit the AJC's contest for his own personal business gain, but any fool could have predicted this outcome, and his current protest is kind of pathetic.

Posted by Eric on 03/15/2007 at 12:06 PM

Re: “Unprized van

A Solstice. Even better. What an embarassment.

Posted by Ashley Stanley on 03/15/2007 at 9:48 AM

Re: “Unprized van

That is unbelievable. Didn't a 2006 Sonata end up winning? And wasn't the winner the guy who made the posts about complaining? Yet another reason to hate that rag called the AJC.

Posted by Ashley Stanley on 03/15/2007 at 9:38 AM

Re: “Unprized van

I hope the AJC Auto Show attendees weren't offended to see a 2006 Solstice in the show. Besides the vintage van, there were some very special hot rods in the contest. I think the winning entry falsely accumulated votes.

Posted by Helen on 03/15/2007 at 8:49 AM

Re: “Unprized van

Ms. Miller has NEVER contacted me to offer the explanation given to the AJC -- an AJC rep told me that the Van was disqualified solely because the caption was "obscene" and "offensive". Moreover, it is important to note that: (i) an employee in the Classifieds division solicited me to enter the 13 Roses van in AJC's contest, (ii) the 13 Roses van pics were on the AJC site for 10+ days, where AJC editors viewed them and could have removed them much, much earlier if they had a problem with the shop logo or that it was a commercial vehicle, (iii) the rules of the contest have no explicit prohibition on commercial vehicles in the contest, (iv) And while Ms. Miller states that the AJC "couldn't permit the contest to be abused to serve as an advertising vehicle for a local business" -- apparently the AJC has no problem exploiting small local business owners to collect registrations for their huge media enterprise for 10 days and then disqualify them with specious reasons and screw them over without even having the balls to even call or inform said small business owner directly and then more than a week later come up with this lame ex-post facto justification for their actions.

Posted by JohnnyH on 03/15/2007 at 7:35 AM

© 2016 Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation