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

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Yeah, its okay for you rabid rw's to join others who agree with YOUR "political philosophy" but not the other way around.

What next? You gonna want to outlaw the girl scouts because they have meetings and talk about cookies behind your back?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Yes it is wrong that the left is starting to play the game like the right does.

 

[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

Can we, on the right, speak ?

It is well within their legal rights to run the kind of campaign they are running.

What I would like to see is a list of Rush sponsors so I can support them. I don't listen to Rush, but you can bet I'll be in contact with every advertiser who I might purchase from and tell them I bought because they support his show.

And I suspect you'd get others doing the same.

If Media Matters is going in one direction, you know I'm about 180 degrees in the other.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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...

To be fair, I've seen many liberals and conservatives alike say that both guys are assholes. The point is however that we have a right to be assholes if we want. If you're on the air, then your listeners have a right not to listen to you being an asshole. If enough listeners choose not to, you will eventually not be on the air.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Yes it is wrong that the left is starting to play the game like the right does.

But has anything really changed?

A bunch of poor spellers stapled tea bags to their silly hats and tried to pretend they're a political party. they have that right.

Why is it okay for the GObP, Bain, morms, Koch's, Heritage to band together and pay lushbo to spew shit?

Why is it okay for them but not for those - of BOTH parties - to band together to state their opinion?

 

[Liability]

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.

So you have a problem with them buying up ad space in order to say people shouldnt listen to Rush? In a sense you want to silence them from their freedom to speak out?

Odd....They have the right to buy ad space, just like radio stations have the right to deny them the space. You have the right to listen to their message and ignore it.

Do you need your hand held as you browse the internet?

Wow. You are intent on studiously missing the point. But at least your lame ass efforts at ad hominem deflection reveal how insecure you are.

To repeat. Yes. I DO have a problem (in terms of political philosophy) with Media Nutters trying to orchestrate anything to silence an opponent.

And in no sense AT ALL do I wish to silence them. That's just your false claim. I think they SHOULD speak out if they are offended by the stupid thing Rush said. It would be a healthy thing for them to refute him and expose him.

It is not a healthy thing, though, to just silence him.

If they were to succeed, you'd be wrong -- for in that event NO, I wouldn't be able to just change the channel or turn him off. They would have already denied everyone of the right to choose for themselves whether or not to listen to the guy.

No. I don't need anybody holding my hand. And I don't WANT for them to make unilateral decisions that deny me the ability to listen to Rush or Levin if I wish or that asshole Bill Maher, instead, if that's the route I CHOOSE to go.

Sad that you can't or won't see that.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Yes it is wrong that the left is starting to play the game like the right does.

But has anything really changed?

A bunch of poor spellers stapled tea bags to their silly hats and tried to pretend they're a political party. they have that right.

Why is it okay for the GObP, Bain, morms, Koch's, Heritage to band together and pay lushbo to spew shit?

Why is it okay for them but not for those - of BOTH parties - to band together to state their opinion?

The problem is that the masses have gotten plumb stupit and believe that crap they spew.
This stuff would not have flown very well 50 years ago.

 

[francoHFW]

Rush is a bought off LIAR. The namecalling is just stupid.

 

[The T]

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.

So you have a problem with them buying up ad space in order to say people shouldnt listen to Rush? In a sense you want to silence them from their freedom to speak out?

Odd....They have the right to buy ad space, just like radio stations have the right to deny them the space. You have the right to listen to their message and ignore it.

Do you need your hand held as you browse the internet?

Wow. You are intent on studiously missing the point. But at least your lame ass efforts at ad hominem deflection reveal how insecure you are.

To repeat. Yes. I DO have a problem (in terms of political philosophy) with Media Nutters trying to orchestrate anything to silence an opponent.

And in no sense AT ALL do I wish to silence them. That's just your false claim. I think they SHOULD speak out if they are offended by the stupid thing Rush said. It would be a healthy thing for them to refute him and expose him.

It is not a healthy thing, though, to just silence him.

If they were to succeed, you'd be wrong -- for in that event NO, I wouldn't be able to just change the channel or turn him off. They would have already denied everyone of the right to choose for themselves whether or not to listen to the guy.

No. I don't need anybody holding my hand. And I don't WANT for them to make unilateral decisions that deny me the ability to listen to Rush or Levin if I wish or that asshole Bill Maher, instead, if that's the route I CHOOSE to go.

Sad that you can't or won't see that.

All have the right and ability to turn the knob or not, and are free to think for themselves. They also have the responsibility to defend speech even if such speech doesn't square with thier own.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liability doesn't like the WAY that Media Matters has chosen to express their opposition to the fat druggie. It is somehow unfair? Unbecoming of a political media watchdog?

I wonder.......is there any tape of El Fatbo or other radio nutgabs ranting and raving on air.......about Media Matters? Whatchya think, dummy?

 

[Liability]

Yes it is wrong that the left is starting to play the game like the right does.

But has anything really changed?

A bunch of poor spellers stapled tea bags to their silly hats and tried to pretend they're a political party. they have that right.

Why is it okay for the GObP, Bain, morms, Koch's, Heritage to band together and pay lushbo to spew shit?

Why is it okay for them but not for those - of BOTH parties - to band together to state their opinion?

The problem is that the masses have gotten plumb stupit and believe that crap they spew.

Wrong.

The problem is that plumb stupid dimwits like you don't believe what we used to hold so dear and what we knew was right.

The problem isn't the tea party. The problem is the dishonest reaction of tools like you to the fairly simple but rational things they seek.

You can't out-debate them, so you try to silence them, marginalize them or ridicule them. All the while you cannot figure out that it is you who are so far out of line and off base.

You are no longer willing to even try to listen and learn.

 

[Listening]

Rush is a bought off LIAR. The namecalling is just stupid.

3,074 posts to your name and you've still yet to back up one thing you claim.

When does that happen ? When you hit 5,000 ?

 

[Liability]

Liability doesn't like the WAY that Media Matters has chosen to express their opposition to the fat druggie. It is somehow unfair? Unbecoming of a political media watchdog?

I wonder.......is there any tape of El Fatbo ranting and raving on air.......about Media Matters? Whatchya think, dummy?

Wrong, you stupid sow.

Since you clearly lack the intellectual ability to even track a conversation in written format, you should refrain from trying to recapitulate what you falsely imagine others have said.

My disagreement with Media Matters is that they are trying AT ALL to silence their opponent.

If you had a functioning brain cell in that void of a skull, even YOU might be able to perceive how wrong that is.

But yeah. I do think you signed off correctly. You ARE indeed just a dummy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes it is wrong that the left is starting to play the game like the right does.

But has anything really changed?

A bunch of poor spellers stapled tea bags to their silly hats and tried to pretend they're a political party. they have that right.

Why is it okay for the GObP, Bain, morms, Koch's, Heritage to band together and pay lushbo to spew shit?

Why is it okay for them but not for those - of BOTH parties - to band together to state their opinion?

The problem is that the masses have gotten plumb stupit and believe that crap they spew.
This stuff would not have flown very well 50 years ago.

Interesting point. The entire internet is our own private library and yet many read only their own narrow view.

I wouldn't want either side forcibly silenced and yet that is effectively what is happening because the right has so much more money than the left. The left is being silenced by the Kochs, Morms, Heritage etc. Grover Norquist and Karl Rove would love someone like liability because he just can't see his own forest.

What makes my crazy is not just that the rw's don't seem to understand what they're doing, its that they will take the rest of us over the cliff with them.

 

[The T]

Liability doesn't like the WAY that Media Matters has chosen to express their opposition to the fat druggie. It is somehow unfair? Unbecoming of a political media watchdog?

I wonder.......is there any tape of El Fatbo ranting and raving on air.......about Media Matters? Whatchya think, dummy?

NOT what it is at all no matter how hard you try to show your dumbass to get him to respond.

If I didn't know any better? I'd say you WANT Liability to slap you around a little more...I think YOU rather enjoy it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rush is a bought off LIAR. The namecalling is just stupid.

3,074 posts to your name and you've still yet to back up one thing you claim.

When does that happen ? When you hit 5,000 ?

If you have access to something called the Interwebs, you can go to a secret site called GOOGLE and find out that what franco said is true. Go ahead, try it. Its really way cool.

My disagreement with Media Matters is that they are trying AT ALL to silence their opponent.

Well gee willikers, sweetie pie, why don't you write to them and tell them that. I'm sure they'll stop right away if you just talk from your heart.

 

[yidnar]

the anti American left wants to silence all opposing views ...

 

[The T]

Rush is a bought off LIAR. The namecalling is just stupid.

is that why you practice it in other threads?

 

[Liability]

So you have a problem with them buying up ad space in order to say people shouldnt listen to Rush? In a sense you want to silence them from their freedom to speak out?

Odd....They have the right to buy ad space, just like radio stations have the right to deny them the space. You have the right to listen to their message and ignore it.

Do you need your hand held as you browse the internet?

Wow. You are intent on studiously missing the point. But at least your lame ass efforts at ad hominem deflection reveal how insecure you are.

To repeat. Yes. I DO have a problem (in terms of political philosophy) with Media Nutters trying to orchestrate anything to silence an opponent.

And in no sense AT ALL do I wish to silence them. That's just your false claim. I think they SHOULD speak out if they are offended by the stupid thing Rush said. It would be a healthy thing for them to refute him and expose him.

It is not a healthy thing, though, to just silence him.

If they were to succeed, you'd be wrong -- for in that event NO, I wouldn't be able to just change the channel or turn him off. They would have already denied everyone of the right to choose for themselves whether or not to listen to the guy.

No. I don't need anybody holding my hand. And I don't WANT for them to make unilateral decisions that deny me the ability to listen to Rush or Levin if I wish or that asshole Bill Maher, instead, if that's the route I CHOOSE to go.

Sad that you can't or won't see that.

I read the link in the first post Lia, There is nothing wrong with what they are doing.
Odd i NEVER saw you on here or the other forum call out bill O'Reilly with his "boycotts" of things.

Media matters is free to buy up ad space to promote their message, whether you like the message or not. Nobody is stopping you from listening to anyone. Media Matters isn't forcing you or Rush to stop. They are trying to persuade you to not listen.

Again this is a very child thread that wasnt very thought out. It would seem you are just dragging it out now in order to have some "point" that nobody is really arguing.

Then read more of the thread because some of the links here have established that they very much are attempting to silence Rush.

How I came to hear of this petty sordid and unprincipled effort was -- drumroll -- reading pots and threads at USMB.

I don't watch O'Reilly so I don't know thing one about any of his calls for boycotts. And as a general rule, I tend not to give credence to any efforts to call for a boycott.

You are still intent on missing the point, though.

I am pretty sure you would ENDORSE an effort by Media Matters to expose the stupidity of what Rush said. And I think that's perfectly fair game.

So, that being the case, the question becomes a whole lot simpler: DO you -- or do you not -- endorse the tactic of silencing an opponent rather than seeking to expose and refute an opponent in the free marketplace of ideas and expression?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liability doesn't like the WAY that Media Matters has chosen to express their opposition to the fat druggie. It is somehow unfair? Unbecoming of a political media watchdog?

I wonder.......is there any tape of El Fatbo ranting and raving on air.......about Media Matters? Whatchya think, dummy?

Wrong, you stupid sow.

Since you clearly lack the intellectual ability to even track a conversation in written format, you should refrain from trying to recapitulate what you falsely imagine others have said.

My disagreement with Media Matters is that they are trying AT ALL to silence their opponent.

If you had a functioning brain cell in that void of a skull, even YOU might be able to perceive how wrong that is.

But yeah. I do think you signed off correctly. You ARE indeed just a dummy.

You don't understand yet? I have explained it to you three times already. What they are doing is in no way wrong. It is common practice and entirely appropriate. You are wrong.

If 20 people posted the words "Liability is wrong" in this thread would you admit it?