For the Board's liberals, here's an interesting question.

[Luddly Neddite]

If Media Nutters loathes Rush Limbaugh's off-color commentary about Ms. Fluke, the proper answer is similar. REFUTE it. But instead, those alleged bastions of free speech and so forth do exactly what they shouldn't be doing. They are seeking to silence their opposition.

They, as Americans, have the right to do that.

A right that the right does not support.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liability,

Are you thinking that this effort by Media Matters will work........and that Rush Limbaugh will decide to retire?

I don't. I think it is little more than a publicity stunt by Media Matters.

Ebowythings gonna be otay, sweetie.

 

[rightwinger]

No.

But even if he had been trying to "silence" her, is it your contention that the answer is therefore to silence him?

Very modern American liberal of you.

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

Nope. He was trying to expose what he considered a staged little liberal fraud.

The Democrats on the Pelousy "committee" called this inconsequential woman to "testify" before a "Congressional committee."

And she dutifully did so. The thrust of her speech was pretty ignorant, BUT even so, it really was NOT what Rush then mocked it as having been. Calling Rush on THAT effort would have been perfectly appropriate. But that's not what we see.

Instead, Media Matters is USING it as some golden opportunity to get Rush's sponsors to drop him in the obvious hope that this will wreck his finances and result in him going off the air.

They made a choice. They chose NOT to debate and refute him (which presumably they could have done pretty well since Rush had gone a bit dopey on the matter). INSTEAD they chose to try to get him silenced.

If you don't see their efforts as wrong-headed, misguided and shameful, that's fine. I see that as a reflection on you and the sad state of the modern American liberal.

If Rush disagreed with her testimony, he was free to dispute it. However, his behavior went over the line of common decency and the kickback was immediate and warranted

Rush suffered the consequences of his bad behavior. It had nothing to do with his free speech being violated

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Read the footnotes.

Your answer is a deflection.

If they are financially promoting ads to persuade companies to refrain from giving ads to the Rush show, is that something you support?[/he people have the right to ignore Rush and Media matters and make up their own mind.

Yes. People sure do.

But if I read your reply correctly, YOU think it's just peachy for Media Nutters to try to silence Rush like this? Is that REALLY your thinking?

Why do you object to a group of Americans joining forces to try to effect change?

Are you also against Heritage Foundation for paying limb-a-a-a-a to spew hate?

Are you against ALL other groups of people who use their numbers to effect change? You know, like the teebaggers?

Which groups are okay and which are not?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I think it is little more than a publicity stunt by Media Matters.

And a publicity stunt on the part of the fat drug addicted darling of the GObP.

 

[Liability]

Liability,

Are you thinking that this effort by Media Matters will work........and that Rush Limbaugh will decide to retire?

I don't. I think it is little more than a publicity stunt by Media Matters.

Ebowythings gonna be otay, sweetie.

Fuckwit:

I realize you are too stupid to breathe, but let's spell it out for you in case some adult can help you out.

I say there is not a chance in the universe that the pissy embarrassing effort by the assholes at Media Matters will "work."
But that's not the point, you idiot.

The point is that some folks (the scum at Media Matters and a few of the so-called "liberals" here at USMB, for example) still endorse the very effort.

That's what's shameful.

Everything will NOT be ok for you, dufus. Tomorrow, like today, you will still be a jackass laughing stock.

 

[The T]

Liability seeks validation from liberals. How cute.

No...he's baited a TRAP that YOU unwittingly and with forethought didn't read but enetered anyway with his message of Liberty that is your bane.

Didn't let it stop you, did you?

*Idiot*

 

[Liability]

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

Nope. He was trying to expose what he considered a staged little liberal fraud.

The Democrats on the Pelousy "committee" called this inconsequential woman to "testify" before a "Congressional committee."

And she dutifully did so. The thrust of her speech was pretty ignorant, BUT even so, it really was NOT what Rush then mocked it as having been. Calling Rush on THAT effort would have been perfectly appropriate. But that's not what we see.

Instead, Media Matters is USING it as some golden opportunity to get Rush's sponsors to drop him in the obvious hope that this will wreck his finances and result in him going off the air.

They made a choice. They chose NOT to debate and refute him (which presumably they could have done pretty well since Rush had gone a bit dopey on the matter). INSTEAD they chose to try to get him silenced.

If you don't see their efforts as wrong-headed, misguided and shameful, that's fine. I see that as a reflection on you and the sad state of the modern American liberal.

If Rush disagreed with her testimony, he was free to dispute it. However, his behavior went over the line of common decency and the kickback was immediate and warranted

Rush suffered the consequences of his bad behavior. It had nothing to do with his free speech being violated

Wrong. The point Rush was making wasn't all that far off. Using Fluke as his pawn, though, was certainly misguided.

And yes, Rush did get some immediate feedback. That's as it should be. He said something stupid and offensive that did go over the line, and the corrective aspects of free speech did kick in. Good.

But that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing, instead, the orchestrated efforts of Media Matters to seek to get him off the air. And it is NOT important that they will fail. It is important only insofar as it is so misguided of them to even try to do that.

Shameful, really.

I have never said diddly dog about his free speech being violated. He had his free speech. What I AM talking about is the sordid attempt by a fraudulent Media MAtters cadre to exploit this incident to silence him. It will fail, true. But they are still making the effort. Shameful.

 

[uscitizen]

People have complete rights to tell a corporation they dont like its practices.

That wasn't the question.

Not to step on toes, but allow me to simplify the question.

Do YOU believe Rush should not be allowed to express himself on the air?

That's a yes or no question - if you're honest enough to answer.

I personally do not think any hate and fear monger of any political persuasion should be broadcasting on the air. I think it causes problems in my country with those of weaker minds.
Just my opinion though.

also I do not listen to ANY talk radio or talking head pundit TV shows.
I am a free thinker and need no one telling me what or how to think.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While the ignorant rw children are ranting and using foul language in a useless effort to cover their stupidity, what they're failing to understand is that the fat dittohead is not the only one who is well within his rights to state an opinion. If they had their way, liberals would be shut down and only rw garbage would be seen or heard.

Ask yourselves who pays lusbo's salary.

Clear Channel, co owned by Bain Capital which is owned by the morm church and Thomas Lee Partners, owned by Koch and Heritage.

IOW, you're fighting for right of these radical, very anti-American, right wing organizations to do exactly what you think Media Matters should not be allowed to do.

But, that's the rw for you. Bought and sold before you even you were for sale.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

Nope. He was trying to expose what he considered a staged little liberal fraud.

The Democrats on the Pelousy "committee" called this inconsequential woman to "testify" before a "Congressional committee."

And she dutifully did so. The thrust of her speech was pretty ignorant, BUT even so, it really was NOT what Rush then mocked it as having been. Calling Rush on THAT effort would have been perfectly appropriate. But that's not what we see.

Instead, Media Matters is USING it as some golden opportunity to get Rush's sponsors to drop him in the obvious hope that this will wreck his finances and result in him going off the air.

They made a choice. They chose NOT to debate and refute him (which presumably they could have done pretty well since Rush had gone a bit dopey on the matter). INSTEAD they chose to try to get him silenced.

If you don't see their efforts as wrong-headed, misguided and shameful, that's fine. I see that as a reflection on you and the sad state of the modern American liberal.

If Rush disagreed with her testimony, he was free to dispute it. However, his behavior went over the line of common decency and the kickback was immediate and warranted

Rush suffered the consequences of his bad behavior. It had nothing to do with his free speech being violated

As long as those repercussions don't come from the government, then no problem, you are right.

 

[Liability]

sure and the people have the right to ignore Rush and Media matters and make up their own mind.

Yes. People sure do.

But if I read your reply correctly, YOU think it's just peachy for Media Nutters to try to silence Rush like this? Is that REALLY your thinking?

yup...and i have the right to ignore them...whole free will thing is a bitch huh

That makes no sense. Have you been sniffing glue?

The QUESTION is not whether you may ignore them. We all know we can ignore them.

The ACTUAL question remains:

is the effort they are making to silence Rush proper in a political philosophy sense?

Maybe we can chat again after you sober up.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liability,

Are you thinking that this effort by Media Matters will work........and that Rush Limbaugh will decide to retire?

I don't. I think it is little more than a publicity stunt by Media Matters.

Ebowythings gonna be otay, sweetie.

Fuckwit:

I realize you are too stupid to breathe, but let's spell it out for you in case some adult can help you out.

I say there is not a chance in the universe that the pissy embarrassing effort by the assholes at Media Matters will "work."
But that's not the point, you idiot.

The point is that some folks (the scum at Media Matters and a few of the so-called "liberals" here at USMB, for example) still endorse the very effort.

That's what's shameful.

Everything will NOT be ok for you, dufus. Tomorrow, like today, you will still be a jackass laughing stock.

Please calm down. You are embarrassing yourself.

Do you understand my words? Media matters is not trying to silence Rush. They are simply creating publicity for their brand. Do you get that?

And.....even if they were delusional enough to think that this $100k effort could derail the fat druggie......they would not be violating any moral or legal standards in doing so. It is not shameful nor inappropriate in any way. You are simply wrong.

Now....if you like, I will make a point of annoying you with common sense and logic for a few days. You seem to be seeking attention with your silly rants. I am here primarily to make fun of dummies like you, so it is really not any trouble.

 

[Listening]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

__________________________
* See, for instance: Media Matters ad campaign aims to censor Rush Limbaugh | Washington Times Communities

And see its own website, where Media Matters talks of "monitoring" the advertising on Rush's radio show: Rush Limbaugh's Advertisers, March 6 | Media Matters for America

Is the right wings work towards voter suppression valid? A much more important question.

Do you ever post to address the thread topic or are you simply not taking your ADD meds ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

People have complete rights to tell a corporation they dont like its practices.

That wasn't the question.

Not to step on toes, but allow me to simplify the question.

Do YOU believe Rush should not be allowed to express himself on the air?

That's a yes or no question - if you're honest enough to answer.

I personally do not think any hate and fear monger of any political persuasion should be broadcasting on the air. I think it causes problems in my country with those of weaker minds.
Just my opinion though.

also I do not listen to ANY talk radio or talking head pundit TV shows.
I am a free thinker and need no one telling me what or how to think.

Yabut, who gets to decide what constitutes "hate" and/or "fear"?

There was a tine when our news media was sacrosanct. There were laws forbidding any one corp from owning more than one media or more than one type of media. In addition, no foreign individual or company could own American media. We went out of our way to keep it true and honest.

That ended when Michael Powell, son of Colin (Lower Bowel) Powel managed to buy leadership of the FCC. Colin Powell, quitting the Bush white house, apparently has some integrity. His son does not. He is owned by Murdoch who actually became a US citizen to circumvent our laws and then Michael Powell spearheaded the complete dismantling of our FCC and the integrity of our media.

Now Murdoch has a MUSLIM ARAB PRINCE in charge of faux programming and those who know this don't object to it.

Why would anyone object to Americans stating their opinion?

A couple of years ago, 71% of all pubs polled said that there should be some controls on what our news media is allowed to broadcast/print/say. How many here would agree with that?

 

[Liability]

Nope. He was trying to expose what he considered a staged little liberal fraud.

The Democrats on the Pelousy "committee" called this inconsequential woman to "testify" before a "Congressional committee."

And she dutifully did so. The thrust of her speech was pretty ignorant, BUT even so, it really was NOT what Rush then mocked it as having been. Calling Rush on THAT effort would have been perfectly appropriate. But that's not what we see.

Instead, Media Matters is USING it as some golden opportunity to get Rush's sponsors to drop him in the obvious hope that this will wreck his finances and result in him going off the air.

They made a choice. They chose NOT to debate and refute him (which presumably they could have done pretty well since Rush had gone a bit dopey on the matter). INSTEAD they chose to try to get him silenced.

If you don't see their efforts as wrong-headed, misguided and shameful, that's fine. I see that as a reflection on you and the sad state of the modern American liberal.

If Rush disagreed with her testimony, he was free to dispute it. However, his behavior went over the line of common decency and the kickback was immediate and warranted

Rush suffered the consequences of his bad behavior. It had nothing to do with his free speech being violated

As long as those repercussions don't come from the government, then no problem, you are right.

No. He's not right. IF the question had been whether the efforts of Media Matters somehow violates the First Amendment, then yes. He would be right. But that's not the question. Never was.

The question has nothing to do with any alleged violation of the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment matter even in issue here.

What has been asked is whether the effort by Media Matters is a proper one in terms of political PHILOSPHY? In other words, do liberals (or any of them) endorse an effort to silence an opponent rather than debating and refuting an opponent.

To conscientiously seek to silence an opponent in the market-place of ideas is wrong. "Liberals" used to understand this -- almost instinctively.

Something has changed. The change is ugly and it's wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. He was trying to expose what he considered a staged little liberal fraud.

The Democrats on the Pelousy "committee" called this inconsequential woman to "testify" before a "Congressional committee."

And she dutifully did so. The thrust of her speech was pretty ignorant, BUT even so, it really was NOT what Rush then mocked it as having been. Calling Rush on THAT effort would have been perfectly appropriate. But that's not what we see.

Instead, Media Matters is USING it as some golden opportunity to get Rush's sponsors to drop him in the obvious hope that this will wreck his finances and result in him going off the air.

They made a choice. They chose NOT to debate and refute him (which presumably they could have done pretty well since Rush had gone a bit dopey on the matter). INSTEAD they chose to try to get him silenced.

If you don't see their efforts as wrong-headed, misguided and shameful, that's fine. I see that as a reflection on you and the sad state of the modern American liberal.

If Rush disagreed with her testimony, he was free to dispute it. However, his behavior went over the line of common decency and the kickback was immediate and warranted

Rush suffered the consequences of his bad behavior. It had nothing to do with his free speech being violated

Wrong. The point Rush was making wasn't all that far off. Using Fluke as his pawn, though, was certainly misguided.

And yes, Rush did get some immediate feedback. That's as it should be. He said something stupid and offensive that did go over the line, and the corrective aspects of free speech did kick in. Good.

But that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing, instead, the orchestrated efforts of Media Matters to seek to get him off the air. And it is NOT important that they will fail. It is important only insofar as it is so misguided of them to even try to do that.

Shameful, really.

I have never said diddly dog about his free speech being violated. He had his free speech. What I AM talking about is the sordid attempt by a fraudulent Media MAtters cadre to exploit this incident to silence him. It will fail, true. But they are still making the effort. Shameful.

Rush screwed up and is paying the price.

He is not going to fire himself and Media Matters has a right to pursue other venues. Rush has been pushing the line for twenty years. This time he is catching more crap for it

Nothing new here

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't know what the Liberals will say but I think way too much was made of the Rush thing. I don't care for his blend of entertainment so I have an easy method of dealing with it: I don't listen to his show.
Conservatives have done the same thing in the past and I didn't approve of it then. I don't approve of this now.
Did I approve of Bill Maher alling Sarah palin a slut? Nope.
Did I approve of Limbaugh calling this girl a whore and saying he wants her to post porn for him? Of course not. And it's creepy. But whatever. The only reason I heard of either was Rush was on the news for this affair and of course FOX had to go the moral equivalency route by bringing up what Maher said years ago.
I'll be impressed when I see a Liberal say Maher was wrong or a Conserv say Rush was - but I'm not holding my breath...

 

[The T]

If Rush disagreed with her testimony, he was free to dispute it. However, his behavior went over the line of common decency and the kickback was immediate and warranted

Rush suffered the consequences of his bad behavior. It had nothing to do with his free speech being violated

As long as those repercussions don't come from the government, then no problem, you are right.

No. He's not right. IF the question had been whether the efforts of Media Matters somehow violates the First Amendment, then yes. He would be right. But that's not the question. Never was.

The question has nothing to do with any alleged violation of the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment matter even in issue here.

What has been asked is whether the effort by Media Matters is a proper one in terms of political PHILOSPHY? In other words, do liberals (or any of them) endorse an effort to silence an opponent rather than debating and refuting an opponent.

To conscientiously seek to silence an opponent in the market-place of ideas is wrong. "Liberals" used to understand this -- almost instinctively.

Something has changed. The change is ugly and it's wrong.

Speech is OK...as long as it's thiers. All others have to be silenced by intimidation or by the purse.

Simple.

 

[uscitizen]

Our "news" media has become like the national enquirer was when it first started out.

We almost cannot just get news without sensationalistic commentary.
Like the murdered couple were childhood sweethearts and walked 12 miles to school together each day, uphill both ways, etc.