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

[Liability]

Where is mediamatters violating any law or violating anyone's rights?

Please cite the post where somebody said they were violating a law.

Weak-ass deflection efforts from you Carby are very predictable, but quite pathetic.

 

[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 being on the radio a right?

How is Rush's freedom of speech being denied? Can't he stand on a corner or have a rally and say what he said or would he be arrested?

Did I argue that Rush's right to free speech was being violated?

Nope.

If you truly lack the ability to comprehend the meaning of the OP, it would be better for you not to so thoroughly expose what a dufus you are, Salt Peter.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I think the root of this is what "trying" means.

If by "trying" to silence Rush they're putting out ads against him, that's fine. They have just as much of right to speak out against Rush as he does against them.

If MediaMatters were trying to get a law passed to force Rush off the air, I'd be in the street protesting them.

They are trying to silence him.

But as long as they do it in some circumspect fashion, then it's not unseemly?

They are taking out ads to try to kill the revenue stream that permits him to be aired. Not all that different than getting a tin-horn dictator's approach to passing a law forbidding him from speaking on the air. A different method with the very same agenda.

They are not content to expose the stupidity of what he said in that Fluke story. And some of what he said was, actually, kinda dumb. No. That's not enough for them. They want him silenced.

Way to embrace free speech values. Not.

Damn, Liability. That is really stupid. You are really missing the point in YOUR OWN THREAD.

 

[Liability]

Liarility: Leave Rush alone, the's the spokesperson for the GOP.

Another simpering idiot post from the always vapid Ravi.

How -- expected.

 

[Ravi]

Liarility: Leave Rush alone, the's the spokesperson for the GOP.

Another simpering idiot post from the always vapid Ravi.

How -- expected.

lol, vapid ops make for vapid responses.

But keep defending Rush in your paranoia. Maybe he'll get high on oxycontin and Viagra and pleasure you.

 

[Liability]

I think the root of this is what "trying" means.

If by "trying" to silence Rush they're putting out ads against him, that's fine. They have just as much of right to speak out against Rush as he does against them.

If MediaMatters were trying to get a law passed to force Rush off the air, I'd be in the street protesting them.

They are trying to silence him.

But as long as they do it in some circumspect fashion, then it's not unseemly?

They are taking out ads to try to kill the revenue stream that permits him to be aired. Not all that different than getting a tin-horn dictator's approach to passing a law forbidding him from speaking on the air. A different method with the very same agenda.

They are not content to expose the stupidity of what he said in that Fluke story. And some of what he said was, actually, kinda dumb. No. That's not enough for them. They want him silenced.

Way to embrace free speech values. Not.

Damn, Liability. That is really stupid. You are really missing the point in YOUR OWN THREAD.

Lonely Laughable, you idiot. I got the point just fine. Tools like you will never begin to fathom how ridiculous you are.

You do not embrace free speech values when you applaud the effort of some shit bird organization like Media Matters to silence its opposition.

You don't understand that. I know. It's clear. We all know why too. It's because you really are just that stupid. And you prove it with virtually every post you submit.

 

[The T]

Liarility: Leave Rush alone, the's the spokesperson for the GOP.

Another simpering idiot post from the always vapid Ravi.

How -- expected.

lol, vapid ops make for vapid responses.

But keep defending Rush in your paranoia. Maybe he'll get high on oxycontin and Viagra and pleasure you.

Ravioli has to perpetuate...

 

[LoneLaugher]

"They are taking out ads to try to kill the revenue stream that permits him to be aired. Not all that different than getting a tin-horn dictator's approach to passing a law forbidding him from speaking on the air. A different method with the very same agenda."

Stupid statement. You made it, Liability. Own it.

Just stupid.

 

[Liability]

Liarility: Leave Rush alone, the's the spokesperson for the GOP.

Another simpering idiot post from the always vapid Ravi.

How -- expected.

lol, vapid ops make for vapid responses.

But keep defending Rush in your paranoia. Maybe he'll get high on oxycontin and Viagra and pleasure you.

Your mindless rants reflect only that you are incapable of grasping what Media Nutters is all about.

Idiots like you applaud their efforts to silence guys like Rush.

If you actually were intelligent and valued the precepts of free speech as real liberals used to do, you wouldn't support the sordid efforts of shitbirds like Media Matters.

You have always been trite. But you are hitting new lows even by your abjectly abysmal standards. You are already working at TDM levels. Keep sinking. Maybe your hat will float to the surface to mark the spot.

 

[Liability]

"They are taking out ads to try to kill the revenue stream that permits him to be aired. Not all that different than getting a tin-horn dictator's approach to passing a law forbidding him from speaking on the air. A different method with the very same agenda."

Stupid statement. You made it, Liability. Own it.

Just stupid.

If YOU think it's stupid, then I am more than pleased to own it. What a moron like you thinks is "stupid" is often intelligent by definition.

Lonely Laughable, you have no capacity for intelligent debate. It shows.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Said the Herman Cain supporter.

Excuse me while I die from laughter.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Specifically, how are they going about it?

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

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgn1WkFmBc]Media Matters Rush Limbaugh Radio Spot #2 - YouTube[/ame]

I have no idea what this has to do with freedom of speech as Media Matters isn't the government. One group criticizing a blowhard, lol. And freedom of speech certainly allows them to do it.

True, but many including a few in this thread, advocate the government stepping in.

Links please?

The only time in recent memory that I've seen anyone wanting the government to "step in" has been the very private and personal right to control one's reproduction and the right to marry whom you wish.

Fact is, it is ALWAYS the "conservatives" who want laws to control citizens actions or words.

 

[Ravi]

Another simpering idiot post from the always vapid Ravi.

How -- expected.

lol, vapid ops make for vapid responses.

But keep defending Rush in your paranoia. Maybe he'll get high on oxycontin and Viagra and pleasure you.

Your mindless rants reflect only that you are incapable of grasping what Media Nutters is all about.

Idiots like you applaud their efforts to silence guys like Rush.

If you actually were intelligent and valued the precepts of free speech as real liberals used to do, you wouldn't support the sordid efforts of shitbirds like Media Matters.

You have always been trite. But you are hitting new lows even by your abjectly abysmal standards. You are already working at TDM levels. Keep sinking. Maybe your hat will float to the surface to mark the spot.

gmafb

Rush makes Media Matters look sane in comparison.

But keep pretending this has anything to do with free speech.

 

[Liability]

lol, vapid ops make for vapid responses.

But keep defending Rush in your paranoia. Maybe he'll get high on oxycontin and Viagra and pleasure you.

Your mindless rants reflect only that you are incapable of grasping what Media Nutters is all about.

Idiots like you applaud their efforts to silence guys like Rush.

If you actually were intelligent and valued the precepts of free speech as real liberals used to do, you wouldn't support the sordid efforts of shitbirds like Media Matters.

You have always been trite. But you are hitting new lows even by your abjectly abysmal standards. You are already working at TDM levels. Keep sinking. Maybe your hat will float to the surface to mark the spot.

gmafb

Rush makes Media Matters look sane in comparison.

But keep pretending this has anything to do with free speech.

Sure TDM. Sure.

Oh. Sorry. I meant Ravi, of course.

 

[Liability]

Said the Herman Cain supporter.

Excuse me while I die from laughter.

Gee. There's a line you don't see Lonely Laughable trot out every day.

It's more like every other day.

And yes. I did support Cain.

Good man.

 

[freedombecki]

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

Eh, Media Mutters doesn't believe in extending the First Amendment principle to anybody who opposes the One.

 

[Montrovant]

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 am not a liberal, but I am going to answer anyway. *Free speech! *

I think what you mean by 'valid' is important to answering this. Is it legal? Sure, but that's not what you meant. Is it moral? I find myself torn. I suppose it depends on exactly what they do in their campaign against Limbaugh.

Personally, I'm not a big proponent of boycotts. They have their use, but I think people tend to be too thin-skinned and want to boycott a product or person for fairly silly reasons. This Limbaugh thing is a good example. He called someone a slut? Heaven forfend!

So, I guess I'd tend to lean toward this being in bad taste, but not really immoral or beyond the pale. How it is conducted could change my view.

I didn't read the whole thread, so if I missed information provided which would be important to my opinion, sorry.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Private company, FreedomBecki. The entire thread is rifuckingdiculous.

 

[rightwinger]

I think the root of this is what "trying" means.

If by "trying" to silence Rush they're putting out ads against him, that's fine. They have just as much of right to speak out against Rush as he does against them.

If MediaMatters were trying to get a law passed to force Rush off the air, I'd be in the street protesting them.

They are trying to silence him.

But as long as they do it in some circumspect fashion, then it's not unseemly?

They are taking out ads to try to kill the revenue stream that permits him to be aired. Not all that different than getting a tin-horn dictator's approach to passing a law forbidding him from speaking on the air. A different method with the very same agenda.

They are not content to expose the stupidity of what he said in that Fluke story. And some of what he said was, actually, kinda dumb. No. That's not enough for them. They want him silenced.

Way to embrace free speech values. Not.

Was Rush trying to "silence" Sandra Fluke?

 

[The T]

Said the Herman Cain supporter.

Excuse me while I die from laughter.

Yeah the Media HAD thier day with him too. NOTE too? The Bimbo eruption died out as soon as he bowed out?

Funny how that works, innit?

*Simp*