The Anger Of The Left

[Truthmatters]

"Personal attacks; political editorials.
"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the [374] attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.

"(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, on other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or persons associated with the candidates in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including commentary or analysis contained in the foregoing programs, but the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall be applicable to editorials of the licensee).

"NOTE: The fairness doctrine is applicable to situations coming within [(3)], above, and, in a specific factual situation, may be applicable in the general area of political broadcasts [(2)], above. See, section 315 (a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 315 (a); Public Notice: Applicability of the Fairness Doctrine in the Handling of Controversial Issues of Public Importance. 29 F. R. 10415. The categories listed in [(3)] are the same as those specified in section 315 (a) of the Act.

"(c) Where a licensee, in an editorial, (i) endorses or (ii) opposes a legally qualified candidate or candidates, the licensee shall, within 24 hours after the editorial, transmit to respectively (i) the other qualified candidate or candidates for the same office or (ii) the candidate opposed in the editorial (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for a candidate or a spokesman of the candidate to respond over the [375] licensee's facilities: Provided, however, That where such editorials are broadcast within 72 hours prior to the day of the election, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph sufficiently far in advance of the broadcast to enable the candidate or candidates to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion." 47 CFR 73.123, 73.300, 73.598, 73.679 (all identical).

The only reason this doesnt exsist anymore is Reagan vetoed the bill which made it law.

The SC found it perfectly constitutional

 

[Bern80]

I still don't see what that has to do with my original post (33). I never even mentionef the fairness doctrine. Just answer the questions.

Further your post doesn't refer in any way to the constitutionality of the doctrine.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would you want to 'make' anybody listen to anything? I guess you could legilate that there be equal time, but that's it. You can't make anyone listen to it.

The assumptions of those who are attempting to implement this would have to be many for it to make any sense:

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that because people listen to it they must agree with it?

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that people will actually listen to whatever time the government legislates for libs?

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that you are simply smarter than the people listening now and this is just for their own good?

This is your first post on this thread.

you cant seem to keep your mind focused huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

I still don't see what that has to do with my original post (33). I never even mentionef the fairness doctrine. Just answer the questions.

Further your post doesn't refer in any way to the constitutionality of the doctrine.

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

It a supreme court case which was desided in favor of the fairness doctrine complying with the constitution.

cant you read?

 

[Truthmatters]

Decided June 9, 1969

Together with No. 717, United States et al. v. Radio Television News Directors Assn. et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued April 3, 1969.

Syllabus
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has for many years imposed on broadcasters a "fairness doctrine," requiring that public issues be presented by broadcasters and that each side of those issues be given fair coverage. In No. 2, the FCC declared that petitioner Red Lion Broadcasting Co. had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine when it carried a program which constituted a personal attack on one Cook, and ordered it to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide reply time, whether or not Cook would pay for it. The Court of Appeals upheld the FCC's position. After the commencement of the Red Lion litigation the FCC began a rule-making proceeding to make the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and more readily enforceable, and to specify its rules relating to political editorials. The rules, as adopted and amended, were held unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals in RTNDA (No. 717), as abridging the freedoms of speech and press. Held:




do you understand what the held word at the end of this means?

 

[Bern80]

This is your first post on this thread.

you cant seem to keep your mind focused huh?

Again show me in that post where I mentioned the fairness doctrine. You assumed (as usual) that's what I was talking about. I in no way implied it.

 

[Bern80]

The rules, as adopted and amended, were held unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals in RTNDA (No. 717), as abridging the freedoms of speech and press. Held:




do you understand what the held word at the end of this means?

I beleive it is meant the way it is used in the above sentence. That the rule ammendments attempted by the FCC with regard to personal attacks were found to be unconstitutional

 

[Annie]

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

It a supreme court case which was desided in favor of the fairness doctrine complying with the constitution.

cant you read?

Yes, but even back in 1969 they saw the inherent danger within the ruling and made the caveats:

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

...Although broadcasting is clearly a medium affected by a First Amendment interest, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 166 (1948), differences in the characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them.[note 15] Joseph [387] Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 503 (1952). For example, the ability of new technology to produce sounds more raucous than those of the human voice justifies restrictions on the sound level, and on the hours and places of use, of sound trucks so long as the restrictions are reasonable and applied without discrimination. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).

Just as the Government may limit the use of sound-amplifying equipment potentially so noisy that it drowns out civilized private speech, so may the Government limit the use of broadcast equipment. The right of free speech of a broadcaster, the user of a sound truck, or any other individual does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).

When two people converse face to face, both should not speak at once if either is to be clearly understood. But the range of the human voice is so limited that there could be meaningful communications if half the people in the United States were talking and the other half listening. Just as clearly, half the people might publish and the other half read. But the reach of radio signals is [388] incomparably greater than the range of the human voice and the problem of interference is a massive reality. The lack of know-how and equipment may keep many from the air, but only a tiny fraction of those with resources and intelligence can hope to communicate by radio at the same time if intelligible communication is to be had, even if the entire radio spectrum is utilized in the present state of commercially acceptable technology.

It was this fact, and the chaos which ensued from permitting anyone to use any frequency at whatever power level he wished, which made necessary the enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, [note 16] as the Court has noted at length before. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 210-214 (1943). It was this reality which at the very least necessitated first the division of the radio spectrum into portions reserved respectively for public broadcasting and for other important radio uses such as amateur operation, aircraft, police, defense, and navigation; and then the subdivision of each portion, and assignment of specific frequencies to individual users or groups of users. Beyond this, however, because the frequencies reserved for public broadcasting were limited in number, it was essential for the Government to tell some applicants that they could not broadcast at all because there was room for only a few.

Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast [389] licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same "right" to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.

This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. FRC v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933). No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943).

By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right [390] of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 361-362 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 546 (1947). It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). "peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964). See Brennan, The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn Interpretation of the First Amendment, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1965). It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
B

Rather than confer frequency monopolies on a relatively small number of licensees, in a Nation of 200,000,000, the Government could surely have decreed that [391] each frequency should be shared among all or some of those who wish to use it, each being assigned a portion of the broadcast day or the broadcast week. The ruling and regulations at issue here do not go quite so far. They assert that under specified circumstances, a licensee must offer to make available a reasonable amount of broadcast time to those who have a view different from that which has already been expressed on his station. The expression of a political endorsement, or of a personal attack while dealing with a controversial public issue, simply triggers this time sharing. As we have said, the First Amendment confers no right on licensees to prevent others from broadcasting on "their" frequencies and no right to an unconditional monopoly of a scarce resource which the Government has denied others the right to use.

In terms of constitutional principle, and as enforced sharing of a scarce resource, the personal attack and political editorial rules are indistinguishable from the equal-time provision of 315, a specific enactment of Congress requiring stations to set aside reply time under specified circumstances and to which the fairness doctrine and these constituent regulations are important complements. That provision, which has been part of the law since 1927, Radio Act of 1927, 18, 44 Stat. 1170, has been held valid by this Court as an obligation of the licensee relieving him of any power in any way to prevent or censor the broadcast, and thus insulating him from liability for defamation. The constitutionality of the statute under the First Amendment was unquestioned. [note 17] Farmers Educ. & Coop. Union v. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525 (1959). [392]

Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.[note 18] Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed. There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. "Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
C

It is strenuously argued, however, that if political editorials or personal attacks will trigger an obligation in broadcasters to afford the opportunity for expression [393] to speakers who need not pay for time and whose views are unpalatable to the licensees, then broadcasters will be irresistibly forced to self-censorship and their coverage of controversial public issues will be eliminated or at least rendered wholly ineffective. Such a result would indeed be a serious matter, for should licensees actually eliminate their coverage of controversial issues, the purposes of the doctrine would be stifled.

At this point, however, as the Federal Communications Commission has indicated, that possibility is at best speculative. The communications industry, and in particular the networks, have taken pains to present controversial issues in the past, and even now they do not assert that they intend to abandon their efforts in this regard.[note 19] It would be better if the FCC's encouragement were never necessary to induce the broadcasters to meet their responsibility. And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications. The fairness doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect....

 

[red states rule]

Yes, even Rush is guilty of fallacious or downright false accusations in addition to hateful comments.

See http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2004apr14a.htm

Insisting that "liberals hate Bush more than the terrorists" is absurd and an insult to thinking people everywhere. Rush should not throw such venomous gibes unless he is prepared to provide names. And even IF he could name a single person who would assert such a thing, how could that mean all liberals hold such a view?

See http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh

Limbaugh regularly feeds his audience a diet of falsehoods, misstatements, distortions, invective, and childish put-downs in service of the conservative movement. During his long reign over the airwaves, Limbaugh has called abortion rights activists "feminazis", told an African-American caller to "take that bone out of your nose," referred to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "blow[ing] some steam off, " and declared that "what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party."

http://www.now.org/nnt/special-2001/hatespeech.html

Rush Limbaugh surprised just about everyone when he castigated Falwell and Robertson, telling his radio listeners he was "profoundly embarrassed and disappointed by their comments," and that "their words are indefensible." A day later, however, Limbaugh found a new (and particularly chilling) way to defend Falwell. He explained: "In order for me to believe that God was sending America a message, I would need to be shown that the people who died Tuesday were all members of the NOW gang, or abortionists, civil libertarians, et cetera." In other words, if only those who disagree had been killed – then it would be the work of the deity that Limbaugh, Falwell and Robertson believe in.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55182

On Aug. 23, 2006, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program "Survivor" in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh said the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim" – a reference to a statement that got former Los Angeles Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis fired in 1987…

On June 14, 2004, Limbaugh shared his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women: "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG").

http://www.americablog.com/search/label/rush limbaugh

"Barack, the Magic Negro" - a new song played on the Rush Limbaugh show…

Rush Limbaugh says Virginia Tech mass murderer 'had to be a liberal"

Gee. That was easy.

Some libe do hate Bush more then the terrorists - that is a fact

As far the NAG's - it is satire. Mediamatters is the Soros funded smear website.

I was surprised the left did not protest ethnic teams - libs are always talking about not singling out races

The LA Times ran the magic negro op ed about 2 months before Rush aired his satire bout the LA Times oped. the left was not outraged over the LA Times oped

 

[mattskramer]

Some libe do hate Bush more then the terrorists - that is a fact

As far the NAG's - it is satire. Mediamatters is the Soros funded smear website.

I was surprised the left did not protest ethnic teams - libs are always talking about not singling out races

The LA Times ran the magic negro op ed about 2 months before Rush aired his satire bout the LA Times oped. the left was not outraged over the LA Times oped

It should be clear to everyone that I answered your challenge pretty soundly, particularly with Limbaugh’s gross generalization that liberals hate Bush more than terrorists. He did not say that some liberals hate Bush more.

He told an African American to take the bone out of his nose. That was racist and uncalled f pretty much over-the-top.

He said that Virginia Tech mass murderer 'had to be a liberal.

You challenged people to show you what hate Rush said on his program. I did so. Do I hear “Okay, you are right."? I didn’t think so.

When you said that you never saw Christians force people to convert, I reminded you of the Spanish Inquisition. Did I hear, “Oh yeah. I guess that it did happen”. No. You changed the issue and included a time stipulation. It had to be a recent incident.

You simply will not own up to anything when your challenges are met, will you?

 

[red states rule]

It should be clear to everyone that I answered your challenge pretty soundly, particularly with Limbaugh’s gross generalization that liberals hate Bush more than terrorists. He did not say that some liberals hate Bush more.

He told an African American to take the bone out of his nose. That was racist and uncalled f pretty much over-the-top.

He said that Virginia Tech mass murderer 'had to be a liberal.

You challenged people to show you what hate Rush said on his program. I did so. Do I hear “Okay, you are right."? I didn’t think so.

When you said that you never saw Christians force people to convert, I reminded you of the Spanish Inquisition. Did I hear, “Oh yeah. I guess that it did happen”. No. You changed the issue and included a time stipulation. It had to be a recent incident.

You simply will not own up to anything when your challenges are met, will you?

If you want to go with crap frm the Soros funded smear sites go ahead

Dems have said much worse about black conservatives yet i never see any libs upset over it

So you have to go way back in history to bash Christians - wow that is current examples

The VA shooter may have been a lib - do ypu nahve any proof he was not? It was liberal gun control laws that allowed only him to have a gun

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

they won't tolerate how Bush & Co have ruined this country. You gotta problem with that?

 

[mattskramer]

If you want to go with crap frm the Soros funded smear sites go ahead

It should not matter who funds web sites as long as the information pulled from those sites is factual. Anyway, there are other examples besides those from sites funded by Soros. Recall that I provided examples via links to other web sites:

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2004apr14a.htm

http://www.now.org/nnt/special-2001/hatespeech.html


Here is another link.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/372752,CST-CONT-ghetto06.articleprint

Rush Limbaugh embodies the ghetto ethos, Asim says, recalling how the radio host once told a guest to take a bone out of his nose and call him back.

Dems have said much worse about black conservatives yet i never see any libs upset over it

Do you have any proof to support your claim? Provide a link to objective statistical research.

So you have to go way back in history to bash Christians - wow that is current examples

Read your message carefully at: http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=565842&postcount=296

You did not ask for a recent example of a Christian executing someone for not converting.

My intention was not to bash Christians but merely to give you an example, perhaps from long ago, of Christians executing people for not converting. You did not ask for current examples. You said that you have never seen Christians force others to convert. I brought your attention to the Inquisition. There are probably no examples of Christians recently executing non-believers but such an example was not asked for.

The VA shooter may have been a lib - do ypu nahve any proof he was not? It was liberal gun control laws that allowed only him to have a gun

Sheesh. Again, please carefully read your message on:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=566140&postcount=28

The debate is not about gun laws. It is not for me to prove that he was not a liberal. The point is that Rush said some hateful things. He claimed that the VA shooter must have been a liberal. I consider that to be a hateful comment.

MM was right about you. You do have a tendency to change the subject when your challenges are met.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

at how Bush has managed to sneak around and subvert our Constitution for his own selfish purposes and for scaring everyone in order to support all of his lies and failed policies. Anyone who still supports this criminal is either blind or stupid- or both. But let's just blame the liberals for all of it- if that's what helps you sleep at night.

 

[red states rule]

It should not matter who funds web sites as long as the information pulled from those sites is factual. Anyway, there are other examples besides those from sites funded by Soros. Recall that I provided examples via links to other web sites:

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2004apr14a.htm

http://www.now.org/nnt/special-2001/hatespeech.html


Here is another link.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/372752,CST-CONT-ghetto06.articleprint

Rush Limbaugh embodies the ghetto ethos, Asim says, recalling how the radio host once told a guest to take a bone out of his nose and call him back.



Do you have any proof to support your claim? Provide a link to objective statistical research.



Read your message carefully at: http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=565842&postcount=296

You did not ask for a recent example of a Christian executing someone for not converting.

My intention was not to bash Christians but merely to give you an example, perhaps from long ago, of Christians executing people for not converting. You did not ask for current examples. You said that you have never seen Christians force others to convert. I brought your attention to the Inquisition. There are probably no examples of Christians recently executing non-believers but such an example was not asked for.



Sheesh. Again, please carefully read your message on:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=566140&postcount=28

The debate is not about gun laws. It is not for me to prove that he was not a liberal. The point is that Rush said some hateful things. He claimed that the VA shooter must have been a liberal. I consider that to be a hateful comment.

MM was right about you. You do have a tendency to change the subject when your challenges are met.

So far your "unbiases" sites are very biased. They are left wing smear sites - yet you CLAIM to be a moderate

If you want racism toward blacks - look no further then the Dems. They have made hatful racist statements about conservatives blacks

The last election showed how libs view black conservatoves

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm


as far as the VA shooter, he did have a hate for the "rich amd priviliged". Where have we heard that before?

 

[mattskramer]

So far your "unbiases" sites are very biased. They are left wing smear sites - yet you CLAIM to be a moderate

I did not say that the sites that I provide are unbiased. Is that another challenge? Come up with a balanced site that shows that Rush Limbaugh gives hate speech in some of his program. I’ll provide one but it probably won’t meet with your satisfaction.

http://www.bet.com/News/racialslutnealboortz.htm?Referrer={03CE5360-2620-42CB-AD7E-77E4249C5FB7}

Yes. I can still claim to be a moderate while providing left-leaning sites that counter your erroneous right-leaning rhetoric. Some examples of my right-wing views include:

I oppose raising minimum wage.
I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified.
I think that jail time should be harsher on convicts.
I think that abortion should be outlawed but for very rare circumstances.
I think that butterfly-ballots are okay to use in elections.
I criticized MM for his comment that he hoped that Falwell went to hell.

If you want racism toward blacks - look no further then the Dems. They have made hatful racist statements about conservatives blacks

The last election showed how libs view black conservatoves

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

I agree. In all likelihood, liberals have made hateful comments about blacks. That point is irrelevant to the fact that Rush made hateful comments.

as far as the VA shooter, he did have a hate for the "rich amd priviliged". Where have we heard that before?

So. I think that there is evidence that he also hated women. That still does not excuse Rush’s comment and it does not prove that he must have been a liberal.

 

[JeffWartman]

But nobody can hold a candle to RSR in the arrogance department.

It's not necessarily that he's arrogant, it's that he is very very very very unintelligent.

 

[red states rule]

I did not say that the sites that I provide are unbiased. Is that another challenge? Come up with a balanced site that shows that Rush Limbaugh gives hate speech in some of his program. I’ll provide one but it probably won’t meet with your satisfaction.

http://www.bet.com/News/racialslutnealboortz.htm?Referrer={03CE5360-2620-42CB-AD7E-77E4249C5FB7}

Yes. I can still claim to be a moderate while providing left-leaning sites that counter your erroneous right-leaning rhetoric. Some examples of my right-wing views include:

I oppose raising minimum wage.
I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified.
I think that jail time should be harsher on convicts.
I think that abortion should be outlawed but for very rare circumstances.
I think that butterfly-ballots are okay to use in elections.
I criticized MM for his comment that he hoped that Falwell went to hell.



I agree. In all likelihood, liberals have made hateful comments about blacks. That point is irrelevant to the fact that Rush made hateful comments.



So. I think that there is evidence that he also hated women. That still does not excuse Rush’s comment and it does not prove that he must have been a liberal.

Libs have been playing the race card against Rush for 16 years - he still is the King of talk radio

To bad the truth is the only thing standing between the left and getting Rush off the air

Rush has the nerve to link liberals and liberalism with current events - what nerve.

 

[Shogun]

HAHAHAHAHA!

did RSR just complain about BIASED SOURCES?


whatsa matter, newsmax boy? do as I say and not as I cut and paste?

 

[mattskramer]

Libs have been playing the race card against Rush for 16 years - he still is the King of talk radio

That is an irrelevant point and does not disprove my statement.

To bad the truth is the only thing standing between the left and getting Rush off the air

This is an erroneous statement and still does not disprove any of my statements. There are many examples in which Rush was technically and factually wrong.

Rush has the nerve to link liberals and liberalism with current events - what nerve.

This comment is vague and ambiguous and it does not disprove any of my statements.