Posted on 05/10/2024 2:57:01 PM PDT by FreeReign
Rudy Giuliani was suspended from New York City talk radio station WABC and his daily show was canceled on Friday after he violated company policy by questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election, the New York Times reported—cutting off a source of income for Giuliani months after he filed for bankruptcy.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
WABC is interesting for daily talk radio. Greg Kelly is on noon-2P and is often pretty good. Sid in the morning is solid and has excellent guests.
But the best hour of the day is 4-5P and Rush Hour with James Golden aka Bo Snerdley. Closest thing you get on radio to the great Maha Rushie who Bo worked with for decades. Saturday morning 7-10A is 3 hours of Bo Snerdley which is fantastic.
Also, for great coverage and talk of Israel, there’s a show Sunday Morning 6-7A maybe called Rabbi and the Judge.
Sorry to hear about Rudy G. and maybe things will get worked out so he’s back sometime soon on WABC.
John Catsimatidis is apparently a retard.
Who knew?
Does anyone find any irony that we seek to moderate and ban liberals and never Trumpers and think nothing of it but believe Rudy’s first amendment has been violated when his boss moderates and bans him from his bosses airwaves?
That was just one source. Here’s another. Take your pick.
I’m not taking “the government’s” word. But it is not wise to believe everything you read on the internet just because you wish it was true. Some of that stuff is even sketchier than the “government’s word.”
What lies did she write in this article?
Nope.
The ban of Rudy by his boss didn't happen in a vacuum. In many cases such a ban comes from government coercion and lawfare.
Any government coercion limiting free speech is a violation of the First Amendment.
At this point it's naive not to see that.
So now you use as a source the Wisconsin Examiner. Its editors are "progressives" who list on the bio progressively biased publications.
I would pick a direct transcript of Peter Bernegger's presentation before the Assermbly Committee on Campaigns and Elections.
Do you have that?
Why haven't you linked to that?
Why are you so cocksure about what was is Bernegger's presentation without going to the original source?
Document your claim that Trump doesn't want to hear Rudy.
Go ahead and post it yourself if you are so cocksure.
If government influence was pushing Cats at WABC it would also be felt by JimRob. You would have never Trumpers and liberals being encouraged to speak out.
Jim can and does moderate as he sees fit. And I’m glad for that. Just pointing out if it’s our version of events being moderated we’re upset. If it’s theirs we applaud it.
Here’s some good analysis for your enlightenment.
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-no-evidence-of-widespread-fraud-in-wisconsin‘s-voter-database.html
I didn't say one way or the other that I decided the validity of Bernegger's presentation. YOU are the one who is so sure.
As I said, I would pick as a source a direct transcript of Peter Bernegger's presentation to the Assermbly Committee on Campaigns and Elections before being so sure one way or the other.
You on the other hand simply rely the "reporting" of a cacophony of progressive "news" sources who often fail to report accurately and who in this case don't link to the direct source.
Oh, for crying out loud, this story has been out there for a long time. His presentation is known; one doesn’t have to rehash it again to diminish, but one SHOULD address its accuracy it if ignorantly stating his conclusions as fact.
You have NO proof of that. There are plenty of other hosts who talk about it daily not only on local radio, but syndicated shows such as Beck, Hannity, Prager, Charlie Kirk and so forth.
Is it your opinion that there is no evidence that the Biden administration, using the FBI and the CIA have been telling certain platforms to limit certain opinions, because those opinions are Russian disinformation that threaten our security and democracy?
Just as I thought. You've seen no direct source nor did you hear his presentation directly.
His presentation is known; one doesn’t have to rehash it again to diminish, but one SHOULD address its accuracy it if ignorantly stating his conclusions as fact.
What?
Try harder. I’ve heard the claims directly. They have been debunked. His conclusions were posted as fact. That is not good.
No I'm fine. You try harder. I just giving you a chance to make your case. And you aren't doing that.
So you heard the presentation directly?
I’ve heard the claims directly.
So you heard the presentation directly?
I saw the highlights of the video he presented, with the debunking following. I posted a link here.
Don’t try to put me on the defensive. You are the one making accusations without support.
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-no-evidence-of-widespread-fraud-in-wisconsin‘s-voter-database.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.