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

[Rocko]

Rush is the main guy in conservative talk radio because he has been there a while, he formed his own network, he markets himself pretty well, he is good at what he does, he says interesting things (most of the time) and he is generally consistent in examining things through the filter of a conservative lens. That and he can be pretty funny.

Lots of libs cannot handle his wit or his thinking, so they lash out in frustration and anger.

It's kinda funny to see.

Because of the time frame he is on the air, I don't get to listen to him as much as I might like. But it's all good because I still get to listen to Levin. I prefer Levin. He too causes mental instability in lots of witless libs. But Levin is a genuine conservative philosopher and a hell of a good solid principled conservative spokesman.

Media Nutters will try to go after him, too, someday especially if they are emboldened by the shit they are attempting to do against Limbaugh.

They do not want to permit the opposition voice to be heard. They want to roll over all dissenting voices and silence them.

Howard Stern is pretty funny, so is Don Imus

But when they stepped over the line, they got fired

It's the way the business works

Who determines when they "step over the line"?

 

[rightwinger]

Rush is the main guy in conservative talk radio because he has been there a while, he formed his own network, he markets himself pretty well, he is good at what he does, he says interesting things (most of the time) and he is generally consistent in examining things through the filter of a conservative lens. That and he can be pretty funny.

Lots of libs cannot handle his wit or his thinking, so they lash out in frustration and anger.

It's kinda funny to see.

Because of the time frame he is on the air, I don't get to listen to him as much as I might like. But it's all good because I still get to listen to Levin. I prefer Levin. He too causes mental instability in lots of witless libs. But Levin is a genuine conservative philosopher and a hell of a good solid principled conservative spokesman.

Media Nutters will try to go after him, too, someday especially if they are emboldened by the shit they are attempting to do against Limbaugh.

They do not want to permit the opposition voice to be heard. They want to roll over all dissenting voices and silence them.

Howard Stern is pretty funny, so is Don Imus

But when they stepped over the line, they got fired

It's the way the business works

Who determines when they "step over the line"?

Public outrage

 

[Seawytch]

Rush is the main guy in conservative talk radio because he has been there a while, he formed his own network, he markets himself pretty well, he is good at what he does, he says interesting things (most of the time) and he is generally consistent in examining things through the filter of a conservative lens. That and he can be pretty funny.

Lots of libs cannot handle his wit or his thinking, so they lash out in frustration and anger.

It's kinda funny to see.

Because of the time frame he is on the air, I don't get to listen to him as much as I might like. But it's all good because I still get to listen to Levin. I prefer Levin. He too causes mental instability in lots of witless libs. But Levin is a genuine conservative philosopher and a hell of a good solid principled conservative spokesman.

Media Nutters will try to go after him, too, someday especially if they are emboldened by the shit they are attempting to do against Limbaugh.

They do not want to permit the opposition voice to be heard. They want to roll over all dissenting voices and silence them.

Howard Stern is pretty funny, so is Don Imus

But when they stepped over the line, they got fired

It's the way the business works

Who determines when they "step over the line"?

I guess it depends on who you work for. With people like Imus and Dr. Laura, it was pretty much public outcry. People calling station managers and sponsors. For people like Randi Rhodes, it was the company that carried her that fired her...for something she didn't even say on the goddamn radio.

Rush stepped over the line and he's paying the price. He might be "too big to fail" in the same sense that Imus and Rhodes "failed", but he's being hurt by this. Public outcry is hurting him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you prove that?

Why would I need to? Any bonehead with an internet connection could figure it out with a simple Google search. The funny thing is that they’re still advertising on Rush's stations. Just not during his show. However, he isn’t taking any of them back once they’ve left so he has stated. No one is really worried about the loss of Rush’s advertisers. He has the number one show in the United States. There is a waiting line and a bidding war over those valued advertising spots.

Carbonite Messed With Rush and Investors Fired Back…Carbonite Stock Plummets | The Gateway Pundit

Limbaugh Rejects Sleep Train After it Requests to be Advertiser Again | TheBlaze.com

Don?t mess with Rush | Western Journalism.com

Prove THIS statement concerning Carbonite.

"now they’re begging to get back on"

That little myth was debunked at the time. There was never any evidence that Carbonite begged to get back, and now, by the looks of the fortunes of their stock,

there's no real reason to. In fact, based on that stock chart, it may be that once the word got around that Carbonite dumped Limbaugh, it may have helped them with the 2/3rds of Americans who don't have a favorable opinion of him.

 

[Decepticon]

My local backwoods retard CON station this morning broadcast a plea for advertisers as "radio isn't controversial".

CLEARLY, the local stations that carry Limbaugh and contributed to his success are now feeling the pinch of public opinion.

I hope Limbaugh is driven off the air by low ratings. Perhaps that will signal that finally conservatives have come to their senses and embrace the type of Republicanism EISENHOWER stood for, instead of the failed policies of Reagan.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

I'm glad you ask liberals to respond, how about those of us who are ambidextrous?

Limbaugh in my opinion is a blowhard who does as much harm to the right as good. Sure, the dittoheads will vote the way they are told, but the wider audience - generally those who take a peak at what he says out of curiosity, much like looking a an awful car wreck, are put off by his mean spirited and rigid commentary.

Do I think he should be censored. NO! I do believe he should be subject to civil penalties when he defames others, including pols. And not only Limbaugh, but all commentators who stray from honest debate and disagreements to disagreeable personal attacks of the person and not their ideas.

 

[G.T.]

Can someone clarify for me what Media Matters is doing to try to get him off the air?

If they're trying to stop people from advertising w/Rush - I'm ok with that. It's free speech vs. free speech.

If they're trying to get him legally banned, I'm not okay with that.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Proof of who you are is not voter suppression... but don't let that stop you from evading the question posed to you

idiot asshole

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Proof of who you are is not voter suppression... but don't let that stop you from evading the question posed to you

idiot asshole

Is that your new signature DD?

 

[Article 15]

Can someone clarify for me what Media Matters is doing to try to get him off the air?

If they're trying to stop people from advertising w/Rush - I'm ok with that. It's free speech vs. free speech.

If they're trying to get him legally banned, I'm not okay with that.

They are doing the former along with encouraging people to call radio stations to express disapproval with them airing Rush.

The latter they aren't doing.

 

[G.T.]

Can someone clarify for me what Media Matters is doing to try to get him off the air?

If they're trying to stop people from advertising w/Rush - I'm ok with that. It's free speech vs. free speech.

If they're trying to get him legally banned, I'm not okay with that.

They are doing the former along with encouraging people to call radio stations to express disapproval with them airing Rush.

The latter they aren't doing.

Well, then I support their right to do so.

 

[editec]

The very fact that Liability demands that "LIBERALS" response pretty much informs you about everything you'll need to know about him.

Grow the fuck up, kid.

The world is not the cartoon plot you seem to think it is.

 

[Full-Auto]

Howard Stern is pretty funny, so is Don Imus

But when they stepped over the line, they got fired

It's the way the business works

Who determines when they "step over the line"?

Public outrage

Stern wasnt fired.

But thanks anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

Who determines when they "step over the line"?

Public outrage

Stern wasnt fired.

But thanks anyway.

Look up 14th St Bridge in Washington DC

 

[kaz]

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

No shit.

But of course, that's not the question.

Nice dodge, though.

To translate "liberal" to English, you have to add an "L" to what they say. Let me demonstrate.

NOLW

NAALCP

Freedom of L Speech

Keep in mind that liberalism is truth, so if it's not liberal it's by definition a lie and should be suppressed. I don't know anyone who thinks liberal extremists like Maher, Olberman, Rose, ... should be off the air. We just criticize them for what they say. On the other hand, the left is looking for domination of the airwaves and suppression of dissent. Sad, but it is what it is. With the Internet and the end of monolithic control of reporting of the news, the Genie's not going back in the bottle, but that doesn't mean they won't keep trying.

 

[Full-Auto]

Public outrage

Stern wasnt fired.

But thanks anyway.

Look up 15th Ave Bridge in Washington DC

Why? He was on air before slipping to satellite. You wouldnt be suggesting he made less money after what ever incident you wish to bring up are you?

 

[edthecynic]

I read the footnotes which is why I asked for an example of the ads they are running.

If that is what they are doing, running ads to persuade companies from advertising on Rush's show, no I don't have a problem with it at all. Unless you can show me otherwise they are perfectly within their right to do so. I see it no differently from any kind of boycott.

The goal is to persuade advertisers not to do business with Rush in order to silence his voice.

I am surprised that anybody who deems himself or herself a "liberal" would endorse that kind of thing.

But thanks for at least answering the question.

Surprise!

People are free to try and influence sponsors away from things they don't approve of just like they are free to influence people from buying goods and services from businesses they don't approve of.

Exactly, and what is hilarious is that is exactly what Stuttering Limpboy tried to do when he instructed his audience that the sponsors did not want their business any more when they decide what products and services to buy!!!! He even gleefully gloated and took credit for the short term drop in Carbonite's stock thanks to his audience.

But when others do exactly what he instructed his audience to do, suddenly it became "TERRORISM!"

Don't Worry, Folks: Advertisers Who Don't Want Your Business Will Be Replaced
March 05, 2012
RUSH: They've decided they don't want you or your business anymore.

March 05, 2012
RUSH: So, as you've always done, you make your own business decisions about the products and services you buy.

March 21, 2012
RUSH: It's an organized action by the left attempting to terrorize individuals who own businesses and operate radio stations.

 

[UpAndAbout]

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

It's ironic but I was thinking about this last week. I, too do not ever want to see Rush Limbaugh censored or forcibly banned from the airwaves, not that way. To see his advertisers dry up and his ratings go way down because of people just not interested in Rush... YES!

That's interesting. i feel the same way about Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews and most of MSNBC!!!

 

[Katiegrrl0]

It really doesn't matter what he says. Like all talk radio hosts his job is to collect listeners. Anyone with any brains will take him for what he is. His opinion like anyone else's means nothing to the politicians. He has the right to say what he likes as do the rest.

Is that why Obama told the democrats and the Congress early ON NOT...to listen to Rush?

The left is intimidated by him...

He doesn't intimidate me.
You can try and silence a voice. If some people agree with that voice they will shout it from the rooftops. The only way you bring down a voice is to provide evidence that the voice is wrong.
There are ideas on all sides that make no sense. There are ideas on both sides that do. Some issues have value from either side. When people line up left or right and stand in the cement of their opinion nothing happens. Finding a middle ground is where some of the best effort comes.
Silencing a single voice does nothing. Let Rush or anyone say what they want. If someone doesn't like it don't listen. If a person thinks Rush's views are asinine why would it bother you.
I don't agree with much he says. I don't listen. When I hear something he says it doesn't bother me as I don't agree. But taking him off the air is childish because you can't stop thoughts. You may silence his voice but someone else will speak.

 

[konradv]

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?

CONZ are whiny bitches.