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

[Liability]

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.

Rush should have the freedom to say waht he wants and media matters should have the freedom to say what they want.

They do. That was never even a question.

But at least you dodged the actual question.

 

[Liability]

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

Sure it is a valid move. Stupid question from a poster that is usually spot on in his assessments and opinions.

Valuing free speech is great. People have to watch what they say and watch what they do.

At least you demonstrate the integrity to answer.

Sadly, your answer is entirely wrong.

No. It is not a valid move. They are entitled to try to silence Rush. But the question is whether that effort is consistent with the underlying values of free speech.

And it plainly is not.

You have permitted your partisan anger to overrule your higher faculties.

It's kind of a shame. In fact, it's pretty embarrassing to see so many libs answering along the same general lines as you do.

 

[candycorn]

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

Sure it is a valid move. Stupid question from a poster that is usually spot on in his assessments and opinions.

Valuing free speech is great. People have to watch what they say and watch what they do.

At least you demonstrate the integrity to answer.

Sadly, your answer is entirely wrong.

No. It is not a valid move. They are entitled to try to silence Rush. But the question is whether that effort is consistent with the underlying values of free speech.

And it plainly is not.

You have permitted your partisan anger to overrule your higher faculties.

It's kind of a shame. In fact, it's pretty embarrassing to see so many libs answering along the same general lines as you do.

The rigidity of your suss-position is where you fall short. "WE" is code for "you" as in your values. Not all speech is appropriate and protected. As is often pointed out, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Nobody that I know of thinks this is protected speech but there may be some who do. So "WE" is too general a phrase for you to apply evenly.

So values are personal.

My personal values run further to the determination of whether the speech was responsible. Rush's wasn't so the value of "free speech" is diminished by the content.
There is no competition in the idea's marketplace when your idea is that someone whom you never met is a "slut". It was further exacerbated by the request to post a sex tape.

It's trash; valueless.

 

[Liability]

Sure it is a valid move. Stupid question from a poster that is usually spot on in his assessments and opinions.

Valuing free speech is great. People have to watch what they say and watch what they do.

At least you demonstrate the integrity to answer.

Sadly, your answer is entirely wrong.

No. It is not a valid move. They are entitled to try to silence Rush. But the question is whether that effort is consistent with the underlying values of free speech.

And it plainly is not.

You have permitted your partisan anger to overrule your higher faculties.

It's kind of a shame. In fact, it's pretty embarrassing to see so many libs answering along the same general lines as you do.

The rigidity of your suss-position is where you fall short. "WE" is code for "you" as in your values. Not all speech is appropriate and protected. As is often pointed out, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Nobody that I know of thinks this is protected speech but there may be some who do. So "WE" is too general a phrase for you to apply evenly.

So values are personal.

My personal values run further to the determination of whether the speech was responsible. Rush's wasn't so the value of "free speech" is diminished by the content.
There is no competition in the idea's marketplace when your idea is that someone whom you never met is a "slut". It was further exacerbated by the request to post a sex tape.

It's trash; valueless.

Your reply again makes no sense.

My position (suss or whatever) is fuckin' AY rigid. I rigidly oppose the hypocrisy of pretending to embrace the values of free speech while at the same time seeking to silence an opponent merely on the basis of political disagreement.

It USED to be that liberals thought along similar lines as me in opposition to silencing the other guy.

Nowadays? Apparently, not so much.

And your "we" vs "they" dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

SOME libs think properly. Others think like you on that point. Sad.

 

[Rambunctious]

Leftist are mostly dictatorial...they hate free speech but love free health care.

 

[candycorn]

At least you demonstrate the integrity to answer.

Sadly, your answer is entirely wrong.

No. It is not a valid move. They are entitled to try to silence Rush. But the question is whether that effort is consistent with the underlying values of free speech.

And it plainly is not.

You have permitted your partisan anger to overrule your higher faculties.

It's kind of a shame. In fact, it's pretty embarrassing to see so many libs answering along the same general lines as you do.

The rigidity of your suss-position is where you fall short. "WE" is code for "you" as in your values. Not all speech is appropriate and protected. As is often pointed out, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Nobody that I know of thinks this is protected speech but there may be some who do. So "WE" is too general a phrase for you to apply evenly.

So values are personal.

My personal values run further to the determination of whether the speech was responsible. Rush's wasn't so the value of "free speech" is diminished by the content.
There is no competition in the idea's marketplace when your idea is that someone whom you never met is a "slut". It was further exacerbated by the request to post a sex tape.

It's trash; valueless.

Your reply again makes no sense.
My position (suss or whatever) is fuckin' AY rigid. I rigidly oppose the hypocrisy of pretending to embrace the values of free speech while at the same time seeking to silence an opponent merely on the basis of political disagreement.
It USED to be that liberals thought along similar lines as me in opposition to silencing the other guy.
Nowadays? Apparently, not so much.
And your "we" vs "they" dichotomy is a false dichotomy.
SOME libs think properly. Others think like you on that point. Sad.

So, lets define the argument:

If I understand you correctly, you think the following:

Anyone should be able to say anything they want, anytime they want, regardless of implications?

I don't agree with the above (in bold). I consider the source and the relationship to the topic. Blacks calling other blacks the "n word" for example is not seen as offensive to other blacks. I'm not black so if I use the "n word", they see it as offensive.

Free speech, again as I interpret it, is not a license to say whatever, whenever.

You're trying to enforce your definition on the whole and I reject it. Thats all.

It was a perfectly valid move--getting back to the OP.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Liability]

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.

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

Why don't you go eat a big bowl of stfu and then stfu with your stupid petty bullshit lies. Then give Rush the blowjob you've been dying to give him.

 

[Liability]

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

Why don't you go eat a big bowl of stfu and then stfu with your stupid petty bullshit lies. Then give Rush the blowjob you've been dying to give him.

I'm sorry to inform you, Ravi, that you tend to mumble when your own mouth is full of shit.

You mumble a lot.

Your mouth is always full of shit.

And, stop trying to share it.

Nobody is interested in your shit, you lowly skank.



It is abundantly clear that you, being a worthless skank, have no ability to defend the effort of Media Nutters to silence Rush.

It is clear what "free speech" means to filth like you. As I correctly noted just moments before I triggered your latest lunatic meltdown, "SOME liberals aren't all that liberal."

Happy to serve as your mirror. Enjoy the image? Yeech. Sucks to be you. Literally.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

Okay...

Do all conservatives fell the same way about 100% of the issues? I doubt it.

If you want to call me a liberal; cool. Just know, I'm pro-choice, pro showing your ID to vote, pro Enduring Freedom, pro flat tax, pro (most parts) of Obama care, pro gun control, and pro free college for all HS grads and paying for it through withholding.

Freedom of choice.

On this topic, the specific question asked is if a party made a valid move. To my mind yes. To my neighbor's mind, perhaps not. It's an opinion based not on fact but where you draw the line in your own mind as to what free speech entails. You seem to think, "Whatever-Whenever" is the only definition of free speech. In the purest form of the definition, maybe you're right. However, I think most people see shades of gray where you see only white.

 

[Liability]

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

Okay...

Do all conservatives fell the same way about 100% of the issues? I doubt it.

Quite irrelevant. Especially since I have already clearly noted that not all libs think alike, either.

If you want to call me a liberal; cool. Just know, I'm pro-choice, pro showing your ID to vote, pro Enduring Freedom, pro flat tax, pro (most parts) of Obama care, pro gun control, and pro free college for all HS grads and paying for it through withholding.

Freedom of choice.

On this topic, the specific question asked is if a party made a valid move. To my mind yes. To my neighbor's mind, perhaps not. It's an opinion based not on fact but where you draw the line in your own mind as to what free speech entails. You seem to think, "Whatever-Whenever" is the only definition of free speech. In the purest form of the definition, maybe you're right. However, I think most people see shades of gray where you see only white.

Interesting, I guess. But I really don't give a crap about whether you are a lib or not.

Your final paragraph appears to constitute evidence that you argue without caring about what you're arguing about.

 

[blimpo]

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.

First deflection Batter UP! SWING...and a miss...

So you're judge and jury on this matter?

Rush is a loudmouth blowhard that should be off the air, but the American people still follow P.T. Barnham's theory on public taste.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

It's a flawed question. Unless you truly believe that free speech is a liberal value. I think it's an American value.

And you keep operating on the premise that Rush is somehow entitled to have a radio show. If the sponsors do not want to sponsor him, that is the free market at work. Something that conservatives profess to love. If pressure on sponsors causes them to pull their advertisements, that is still the sponsors making a decision based on their bottom line.

If people stop buying tickets to see Bill Maher, because of something he has said, that is also perfectly valid. I doubt you would be saying that the people are waging war on Bill Maher's free-speech rights.

 

[The T]

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

First deflection Batter UP! SWING...and a miss...

So you're judge and jury on this matter?

Rush is a loudmouth blowhard that should be off the air, but the American people still follow P.T. Barnham's theory on public taste.

Perhaps YOU should pay attention to the question dumbass.

 

[jillian]

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

Me? I think you should ask your question in a way that doesn't lump "LIBS" together in one big homogenous blob....

i have mixed feelings about the issue.

but i'm leaning toward the view that if we don't like something we should change the channel.... and if enough people change the channel, he'll go away on his own. if not, he'll stay.

however, if he were propagandizing the mass murder of a group of people, would you think he should be off the air? and would you support pressuring his sponsors to stop sponsoring his hate show? or if he were encouraging a group of people to engage in terrorism??

i'm not saying this rises to the level of endorsing violence. but where would you draw the line?

 

[Liability]

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

Me? I think you should ask your question in a way that doesn't lump "LIBS" together in one big homogenous blob....

i have mixed feelings about the issue.

but i'm leaning toward the view that if we don't like something we should change the channel.... and if enough people change the channel, he'll go away on his own. if not, he'll stay.

however, if he were propagandizing the mass murder of a group of people, would you think he should be off the air? and would you support pressuring his sponsors to stop sponsoring his hate show? or if he were encouraging a group of people to engage in terrorism??

i'm not saying this rises to the level of endorsing violence. but where would you draw the line?

As I have noted --repeatedly -- the way I formulated the question does NOT lump libs together.

That is just your knee jerk reaction.

Typical lib.

 

[Liability]

Sorry - that was the question.

Rush has the right to open his mouth anywhere and anytime he wishes. He doesn't have a right to have a radio show.

It's as simple as that.

No.

It most certainly was not and still IS NOT the question.

Rush can talk all he wants.

Media Mutters may verbally attack him all they wish FOR whatever Rush says.

And yes, they may even seek to silence him because of what he says.

None of that is disputed or even doubted.

The QUESTION (the actual question, not your erroneous spin version) REMAINS:

is it appropriate -- within the context of the liberals' political philosophy and the values of free speech -- for someone to SEEK to silence someone else over the mere exercise of free speech?

I say the answer is "no."

I asked libs to address it primarily because I EXPECTED for there to be disagreement. Modern American "liberalism" is something very different from what it used to be.

Nowadays, when "libs" advocate for silencing the free speech of others, it starts to be pretty obvious that SOME liberals aren't all that liberal.

It's a flawed question. Unless you truly believe that free speech is a liberal value. I think it's an American value.

And you keep operating on the premise that Rush is somehow entitled to have a radio show. If the sponsors do not want to sponsor him, that is the free market at work. Something that conservatives profess to love. If pressure on sponsors causes them to pull their advertisements, that is still the sponsors making a decision based on their bottom line.

If people stop buying tickets to see Bill Maher, because of something he has said, that is also perfectly valid. I doubt you would be saying that the people are waging war on Bill Maher's free-speech rights.

Your quibbling evasions are silly -- and rightly noted.

I think free speech principles ARE an American value.

I already shared my conservative view on the matter. I frankly anticipate that most conservatives WOULD (and do) agree with me.

However, it is already crystal clear that libs do not speak with one voice on the matter.

And that's honestly a pity. Libs COULD speak with one voice on the matter and find some common ground with conservatives in the process.

Yet, in the immortal words of some guy --

But NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[jillian]

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

Me? I think you should ask your question in a way that doesn't lump "LIBS" together in one big homogenous blob....

i have mixed feelings about the issue.

but i'm leaning toward the view that if we don't like something we should change the channel.... and if enough people change the channel, he'll go away on his own. if not, he'll stay.

however, if he were propagandizing the mass murder of a group of people, would you think he should be off the air? and would you support pressuring his sponsors to stop sponsoring his hate show? or if he were encouraging a group of people to engage in terrorism??

i'm not saying this rises to the level of endorsing violence. but where would you draw the line?

As I have noted --repeatedly -- the way I formulated the question does NOT lump libs together.

That is just your knee jerk reaction.

Typical lib.

actually, you totally ignored the substance of my response.

typical rightwinger.

now why don't you respond to that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Me? I think you should ask your question in a way that doesn't lump "LIBS" together in one big homogenous blob....

i have mixed feelings about the issue.

but i'm leaning toward the view that if we don't like something we should change the channel.... and if enough people change the channel, he'll go away on his own. if not, he'll stay.

however, if he were propagandizing the mass murder of a group of people, would you think he should be off the air? and would you support pressuring his sponsors to stop sponsoring his hate show? or if he were encouraging a group of people to engage in terrorism??

i'm not saying this rises to the level of endorsing violence. but where would you draw the line?

As I have noted --repeatedly -- the way I formulated the question does NOT lump libs together.

That is just your knee jerk reaction.

Typical lib.

actually, you totally ignored the substance of my response.

typical rightwinger.

now why don't you respond to that.

He ignored the substance of my post, also.

Who woulda figured?