Bowsite.com

I disagree strongly with that decision, but his employer had every right to do that, no matter how disgusting their decision was.

When they shut him off, from what I'm seeing, they then ran a replay from a previous Savage broadcast.

Edit! In listening to his response from his next broadcast the following day, it seems this action was taken by his New York affiliate, WABC

Again, what WABC did was bullcrap. But if you believe in liberty, it's WABC's right to do really bullcrappy things. It's our right not to patronize WABC in response.

Snopes is run by a decidely left-wing couple who cannot be trusted on any political issues.

Snopes IS a decidely left wing site. They are not to be trusted on anything with a poitical bent.

You'll see more than enough evidence to realize what I'm saying is true.

Remember, anyone can start a 'fact check' website. It's the internet, after all!

Snopes used the EPA as reference to verify an EPA claim WRT CFLs.

Interesting that there is little investigation reporting about any of the disclosed Clinton email lies and fallout.

Considering all the data that has been dumped by the FBI about Clinton, her servers, security lapses, bleachbitting subpoenaed emails, etc.; it is interesting that there are no Snopes articles refuting or verifying these problems.

Trust but verify.

Something to think about: in a few days; unless Congress acts (and there is doubt if they will even attempt to), control of the Internet will transfer from US control to an international body that has no historical connections to freedoms of speech. We have seen how "free speech" is now dealt with in this country even with 1A protection. Marshmallow safe spaces are springing up all over our country to keep sensitive ears from being offended by even the most trivial things.

Expect global censorship of sites, especially any criticism of koranderthalism. We have seen it in European countries inundated with Muslims who come to replace the host country's culture with their queer-on and self-granted superiority.

The Savage Show censorship was just a blip of what is to come.

But a great many times you see them verify something they clearly don't WANT to be right.... then promptly offer up excuses as to while the "rumor" was "technically" correct... there were valid "good" reasons for it.... they step outside and editorialize the "facts" a good deal.

XX10. That question has been answered. ;-)

The Rock

If we were to believe the Democrats line of thinking here, then would it not stand to reason that any politician who took foreign money would be disqualified from serving the people? Foreign money influencing American politicians (i.e. Hillary Clinton’s millions, as well as Barack’s) is far more dangerous than foreign ownership in media.

This is nothing more than a coup against the First Amendment — totalitarianism in action in 21st century America.

Rest assured, left wing propaganda organs will be excluded. Bet on it.

“FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage,” Washington Examiner, By Paul Bedard, W September 29, 2016:

In their biggest threat yet to conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are laying the groundwork to bar companies with even the tiniest foreign ownership from American politics, a move that could ban Fox, the Wall Street Journal and even the New York Times from covering political races or giving endorsements.

In a last-minute submission Wednesday, a top Democrat on the evenly split FEC proposed that the Thursday meeting of the commission begin the process to prohibit companies with foreign ownership as small as 5 percent “from funding expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.”

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said in her submission, “Given everything we have learned this year, it blinks reality to suggest that that there is no risk of foreign nationals taking advantage of current loopholes to intercede invisibly in American elections. This is a risk no member of the Federal Election Commission should be willing to tolerate.”

Under Weintraub’s proposal, entities that reach her foreign ownership target would conceivably be banned from advocating for a candidate’s election or defeat.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Several media giants have at least 5 percent foreign ownership, some with as much as 25 percent. Included is News Corp, which owns Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times also has foreign ownership, as do many politically active firms like Ben & Jerry’s.

That prohibition could include Fox commentator Sean Hannity or Wall Street Journal editorial. And, according to one analysis, because foreign nationals also are prohibited from making electioneering communications, those media would not even be able to mention Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if just covering them.

Democrats on the commission have been on a three-year campaign to limit the voice of conservative media, stopped by Republican commissioners who have warned that the First Amendment is under attack in the FEC.

The latest move was hinted at last month when Weintraub proposed another political ban on foreign-owned companies. Republicans countered with their proposal, but both were voted down. It was suggested that Weintraub tighten her proposal and her Wednesday submission calls for commission lawyers to design a foreign ownership rule.

“I am prepared to move that we address through rulemaking five discrete topics relating to foreign-national political spending and corporations: 1. Percentage of foreign ownership: 2. Board membership of corporation: 3. Foreign government ownership: 4. Type of corporation: and 5. Implementation measures,” she wrote.

You are correct. Kim Lacapria should strike a nerve in regards to Snopes.

The Rock