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

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

That is a completely reasonable answer to your question.

Your just too stupid to understand that

Which one are you? PushMe or PullYou?

Don't join her at that level. She wants to call names or use any other technique just to avoid the question, let her wallow there herself.

 

[Article 15]

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

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

 

[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

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

First off, you get no points for your transparently obvious and fraud based effort at deflection.

And as deflection efforts go, yours was pathetic. It is premised in a lie.

The right does not seek to suppress voting. Personally, though, I am a big supporter of efforts to suppress illegal voting. Sorry that this adversely affects your usual suspects.

Now back to the topic.

Shall we mark you down as "too timid to answer the direct question?"

 

[snakedoc]

I'm not liberal but here is my take on this free speech in this country applies to everyone even those we don't like or agree with. There are many on radio and TV from the left I don't care for or agree with but I have never called for them to be fired or taken off the air I choose not to watch or listen to them trying to get anyone off the airwaves because you don't like them or their views is the first step to ending free speech in my opinion.

 

[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

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

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?

 

[The T]

That is a completely reasonable answer to your question.

Your just too stupid to understand that

Which one are you? PushMe or PullYou?

Don't join her at that level. She wants to call names or use any other technique just to avoid the question, let her wallow there herself.

It had to be highlighted. Mea Culpa.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Friend Liability....

A sad mistake you make due to your good-hearted belief that the Left lives in the same dimension as you do...

They do not.

Either through poor upbringing, or lack of either education or understanding, or as a result of the corrupt elements of human nature that Madison had in mind when he wrote in Federalist #51 "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."


They do not believe in rights, such as free speech, for opponents. Nor civility. Nor behaving toward others as you would wish that they behave toward you.

They use terms like 'lie' and 'hypocrite' because they know that these have meaning to those of us on the Right...but, when applied to them, it washes off like water on a duck's back.

So...even if they answer your query as we would, in favor of Rush's right to speak...they would be only to happy to see him censored.

 

[Truthmatters]

People have a right to tell any corporation they dont like their actions.

That includes telling a corporation they want a person off the air for whatever reasons they see fit.

Lets all remember what you on the right did to the dixie chicks when you didnt like their poltical beliefs

 

[Mac1958]

.

Sad to see people trying to eliminate those who disagree with them. The only reason someone would do this is that they're afraid - afraid that too many people would agree with what that person is saying.

I've been told my status as a Freedom of Expression purist is a little out in left field, so I'm sure in the minority on this.

.

 

[rightwinger]

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

As a liberal, I understand that freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want without prosecution

What freedom of speech does not mean is there are no consequences for what you say. If you say something offensive, it does not mean people can be and act offended. People who are offended by your speech are free to boycott your business and urge others to do the same

 

[Article 15]

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

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

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?

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.

 

[Liability]

People have a right to tell any corporation they dont like their actions.

That includes telling a corporation they want a person off the air for whatever reasons they see fit.

Lets all remember what you on the right did to the dixie chicks when you didnt like their poltical beliefs

TDM is unable and unwilling to answer a direct question. No surprise.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Which one are you? PushMe or PullYou?

Don't join her at that level. She wants to call names or use any other technique just to avoid the question, let her wallow there herself.

It had to be highlighted. Mea Culpa.

No biggie, I'm just tired of seeing children ruin threads . Why derail, deflect, call names, insult, fight, or do any of the other shitty tactics children do to avoid having an adult conversation? Why respond in kind to those who do? And frankly there are children on BOTH sides and it really is beginning to seem like most members like it that way, and that the staff doesn't care either.

Maybe I am the one who is in the wrong place.


Sorry to derail.

 

[Liability]

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

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?

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.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

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?

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.

Yes , that is perfectly okay, but SOME are suggesting laws that limit speech. Not specifically about Rush of course, but still...........

 

[Article 15]

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?

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.

 

[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

As a liberal, I understand that freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want without prosecution

What freedom of speech does not mean is there are no consequences for what you say. If you say something offensive, it does not mean people can be and act offended. People who are offended by your speech are free to boycott your business and urge others to do the same

Prosecution is not the topic. On that, we need not waste any more cyber-ink.

And we also do not disagree with each other that speech may have consequences.

We also do not disagree that Media Matters is free to ask companies to refrain from doing business with Rush Limbaugh's EIB network and the stations that buy his feed.
They are free to do so.

The question is whether that is proper (as a matter of political philosophy) when the objective is to silence the other guy's voice.

I would say that you, as a liberal, should oppose it. That you don't is troubling, and kind of surprising in some ways.


But at least you answered it.

 

[Article 15]

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?

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.

Yes , that is perfectly okay, but SOME are suggesting laws that limit speech. Not specifically about Rush of course, but still...........

And I am against such a thing. However, that is not what the OP is describing here.

 

[Rocko]

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

As a liberal, I understand that freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want without prosecution

What freedom of speech does not mean is there are no consequences for what you say. If you say something offensive, it does not mean people can be and act offended. People who are offended by your speech are free to boycott your business and urge others to do the same

their tactics go beyond boycotting Rush and asking people to.do the same.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

Yes , that is perfectly okay, but SOME are suggesting laws that limit speech. Not specifically about Rush of course, but still...........

And I am against such a thing. However, that is not what the OP is describing here.

Yes , I realize that now and either he mispoke, or I am in disagreement with him. Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech. I'm free to call you an asshole on my radio show and you're free to try to talk my sponsors into dropping me.