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

[kaz]

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

When I want to remember how stupid liberals are, I'm going to go back to this one.

First of all, it's been repeatedly explained to you liberals that no one is questioning your right to protest to sponsors. Liability was asking why you want to. I was personally disappointed when Olberman was taken off MS-NBC and he makes Rush look like a basket full of puppies. Rather then answer the question, you libbies keep going to the strawman that anyone said you don't have the right to do it when no one said that.

Second, your Carbonite example is truly stupid. They declared war specifically on Rush. He's retaliating To equate that with using the market to restrict views you disagree with is...well it's what you liberals do because you have no rational arguments.

 

[kaz]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

CONZ are whiny bitches.

Please, stop whining and just address the points.

 

[rightwinger]

Stern wasnt fired.

But thanks anyway.

Look up 15th Ave Bridge in Washington DC

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

I said nothing about making money, I said get fired

Stern has been fired a couple of times

 

[kaz]

Look up 15th Ave Bridge in Washington DC

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

I said nothing about making money, I said get fired

Stern has been fired a couple of times

15th street bridge? I lived in the DC area for decades and I am not aware of that one. Maybe it would have hit it though if it existed and had missed the 14th Street bridge...

I also lived in DC during that incident and listened to Stern, I remember it well. He was tasteless. He called Air Florida and asked if they were going to have a regular stop on the 14th street bridge. He also advocated if you were running late you could meet your plane there. It was tasteless, but everything he did was. He left that job to go to NY for more money. I'm not sure what it has to do with liberals wanting to fire people for not being liberal though.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I said nothing about making money, I said get fired

Stern has been fired a couple of times

15th street bridge? I lived in the DC area for decades and I am not aware of that one. Maybe it would have hit it though if it existed and had missed the 14th Street bridge...

I also lived in DC during that incident and listened to Stern, I remember it well. He was tasteless. He called Air Florida and asked if they were going to have a regular stop on the 14th street bridge. He also advocated if you were running late you could meet your plane there. It was tasteless, but everything he did was. He left that job to go to NY for more money. I'm not sure what it has to do with liberals wanting to fire people for not being liberal though.

Fixed it

 

[edthecynic]

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

When I want to remember how stupid liberals are, I'm going to go back to this one.

First of all, it's been repeatedly explained to you liberals that no one is questioning your right to protest to sponsors. Liability was asking why you want to. I was personally disappointed when Olberman was taken off MS-NBC and he makes Rush look like a basket full of puppies. Rather then answer the question, you libbies keep going to the strawman that anyone said you don't have the right to do it when no one said that.

Second, your Carbonite example is truly stupid. They declared war specifically on Rush. He's retaliating To equate that with using the market to restrict views you disagree with is...well it's what you liberals do because you have no rational arguments.

To your first point, the protesters are being called "TERRORISTS." If that isn't questioning their free speech right to protest, then nothing is.

And to your second point, your MessiahRushie was the one who "declared war" and then victory in his war against Carbonite because the owner had the unmitigated gall to not only remove his advertising, but also to exercise his free speech right to criticize the Pinko Slime of Politics. Of course that victory dance by the Doctor of Duplicity has backfired and Carbonite stock is higher now then when he pulled his ads.

 

[Neubarth]

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.

I believe that if Rush is morally repugnant, we have a right to inform his sponsors of his gross moral corruption and filth that he is spewing on the airwaves.

 

[kaz]

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.

I believe that if Rush is morally repugnant, we have a right to inform his sponsors of his gross moral corruption and filth that he is spewing on the airwaves.

So what are you doing about Maher, Olberman, Letterman, Meadow, Schultz, ... on the left?

Selective moral outrage isn't moral outrage, it's selective outrage for cheap political points.

And once again, dumb ass, your point is a strawman argument, no one said you don't have the "right." The question was why you want to.

 

[kaz]

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

When I want to remember how stupid liberals are, I'm going to go back to this one.

First of all, it's been repeatedly explained to you liberals that no one is questioning your right to protest to sponsors. Liability was asking why you want to. I was personally disappointed when Olberman was taken off MS-NBC and he makes Rush look like a basket full of puppies. Rather then answer the question, you libbies keep going to the strawman that anyone said you don't have the right to do it when no one said that.

Second, your Carbonite example is truly stupid. They declared war specifically on Rush. He's retaliating To equate that with using the market to restrict views you disagree with is...well it's what you liberals do because you have no rational arguments.

To your first point, the protesters are being called "TERRORISTS." If that isn't questioning their free speech right to protest, then nothing is.

Free speech is one directional. You are demonstrating my point again, liberals have the right to criticize, no one has the right to criticize them.

But I do agree calling them terrorists is wrong. Terrorism is when you attack for no military advantage. Clearly here they are doing it for the advantage of shutting down views they oppose. That's not terrorism.

And to your second point, your MessiahRushie was the one who "declared war" and then victory in his war against Carbonite because the owner had the unmitigated gall to not only remove his advertising, but also to exercise his free speech right to criticize the Pinko Slime of Politics. Of course that victory dance by the Doctor of Duplicity has backfired and Carbonite stock is higher now then when he pulled his ads.

Every time I think you're dumb, you show me you're dumber...

So carbonite by blasting Rush and pulling their ads did not in fact declare war, he did by responding. What an intellectual powerhouse you are. Again..

 

[rightwinger]

When I want to remember how stupid liberals are, I'm going to go back to this one.

First of all, it's been repeatedly explained to you liberals that no one is questioning your right to protest to sponsors. Liability was asking why you want to. I was personally disappointed when Olberman was taken off MS-NBC and he makes Rush look like a basket full of puppies. Rather then answer the question, you libbies keep going to the strawman that anyone said you don't have the right to do it when no one said that.

Second, your Carbonite example is truly stupid. They declared war specifically on Rush. He's retaliating To equate that with using the market to restrict views you disagree with is...well it's what you liberals do because you have no rational arguments.

To your first point, the protesters are being called "TERRORISTS." If that isn't questioning their free speech right to protest, then nothing is.

Free speech is one directional. You are demonstrating my point again, liberals have the right to criticize, no one has the right to criticize them.

But I do agree calling them terrorists is wrong. Terrorism is when you attack for no military advantage. Clearly here they are doing it for the advantage of shutting down views they oppose. That's not terrorism.

And to your second point, your MessiahRushie was the one who "declared war" and then victory in his war against Carbonite because the owner had the unmitigated gall to not only remove his advertising, but also to exercise his free speech right to criticize the Pinko Slime of Politics. Of course that victory dance by the Doctor of Duplicity has backfired and Carbonite stock is higher now then when he pulled his ads.

Every time I think you're dumb, you show me you're dumber...

So carbonite by blasting Rush and pulling their ads did not in fact declare war, he did by responding. What an intellectual powerhouse you are. Again..

Rush is not being attacked for his political views. He is being attacked because what he said about Fluke was obnoxious bullying which most Americans found offensive

 

[edthecynic]

When I want to remember how stupid liberals are, I'm going to go back to this one.

First of all, it's been repeatedly explained to you liberals that no one is questioning your right to protest to sponsors. Liability was asking why you want to. I was personally disappointed when Olberman was taken off MS-NBC and he makes Rush look like a basket full of puppies. Rather then answer the question, you libbies keep going to the strawman that anyone said you don't have the right to do it when no one said that.

Second, your Carbonite example is truly stupid. They declared war specifically on Rush. He's retaliating To equate that with using the market to restrict views you disagree with is...well it's what you liberals do because you have no rational arguments.

To your first point, the protesters are being called "TERRORISTS." If that isn't questioning their free speech right to protest, then nothing is.

Free speech is one directional. You are demonstrating my point again, liberals have the right to criticize, no one has the right to criticize them.

But I do agree calling them terrorists is wrong. Terrorism is when you attack for no military advantage. Clearly here they are doing it for the advantage of shutting down views they oppose. That's not terrorism.

And to your second point, your MessiahRushie was the one who "declared war" and then victory in his war against Carbonite because the owner had the unmitigated gall to not only remove his advertising, but also to exercise his free speech right to criticize the Pinko Slime of Politics. Of course that victory dance by the Doctor of Duplicity has backfired and Carbonite stock is higher now then when he pulled his ads.

Every time I think you're dumb, you show me you're dumber...

So carbonite by blasting Rush and pulling their ads did not in fact declare war, he did by responding. What an intellectual powerhouse you are. Again..

It's always the Right who try to shut down all opposition to CON$ervoFascism, and then they play the VICTIM when anyone stands up to them. Your MessiahRushie was trying to shut up Fluke with his lies about her sex life and he was trying to destroy Carbonite for defending her against his lies. It has always been his MO to start a fight and then rationalize that the object of his hate started it. For example, he was calling Obama "Hussein" a full year before Bob Kerrey, but the pathological liar said Kerrey was the first! There are many other examples if you need them.

Laura Ingraham Interviews Rush on Fox News Channel - The Rush Limbaugh Show
March 3, 2008
RUSH: Who was it that first used Obama's middle name of Hussein? It was not us. It was Bob Kerrey, over and over again, former Democrat senator of Nebraska.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/kerrey_for_clinton.html
December 16, 2007
KERREY: I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama,

Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears - The Rush Limbaugh Show
Stop the Tape: Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears
Dec 13, 2006
RUSH: (interruption) Snerdley is convinced that Maureen wants Barack Hussein Obama.
(sigh) I don't even want to go there.

 

[kaz]

Rush is not being attacked for his political views. He is being attacked because what he said about Fluke was obnoxious bullying which most Americans found offensive

He is being attacked for his political views as you're not going after people you agree with politically who make the same and worse comments. Hypocrisy proves that civil discourse isn't an issue when you only apply it to people who you don't agree with. Schultz, Maher, Olberman, ... They get a pass. There is only one reason you're going after Rush, he's not liberal.

 

[kaz]

It's always the Right who try to shut down all opposition to CON$ervoFascism, and then they play the VICTIM when anyone stands up to them

Liberals are such whiners. That you are criticized is trying to shut you down, while when you actually do try to take people off the air you whine about the victim card. You're such cry babies. This thread over and over liberals intone you have the "right" to do it. When Liability in the Op and over and over since you have been told no one is questioning that you do, the question is why you want to. Yet over and over you whine and repeat your strawman argument that people are saying you don't have the right.

The next post will not be you quoting non-liberals telling you that you don't have the "right" to go after advertisers for two reasons.

1) You have no dick
2) No one said that.

Go ahead back to your strawman, far easier to address then the question asked.

 

[edthecynic]

It's always the Right who try to shut down all opposition to CON$ervoFascism, and then they play the VICTIM when anyone stands up to them

Liberals are such whiners. That you are criticized is trying to shut you down, while when you actually do try to take people off the air you whine about the victim card. You're such cry babies. This thread over and over liberals intone you have the "right" to do it. When Liability in the Op and over and over since you have been told no one is questioning that you do, the question is why you want to. Yet over and over you whine and repeat your strawman argument that people are saying you don't have the right.

The next post will not be you quoting non-liberals telling you that you don't have the "right" to go after advertisers for two reasons.

1) You have no dick
2) No one said that.

Go ahead back to your strawman, far easier to address then the question asked.

No, kicking a highly rated Liberal program off the air IS shutting Libs down. Let me remind you of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. They lampooned LBJ mercilessly over the Vietnam War, but he never stopped them. But when Nixon became the object of their humor, he got the "Liberal" CBS to kick them off the air when their censoring didn't silence them, and Nixon got all the other stations to blackball them. Liberal voices are kept off the air by the CON$ervoFascist owners of the media because they know CON$ervoFascism can't compete.

 

[kaz]

It's always the Right who try to shut down all opposition to CON$ervoFascism, and then they play the VICTIM when anyone stands up to them

Liberals are such whiners. That you are criticized is trying to shut you down, while when you actually do try to take people off the air you whine about the victim card. You're such cry babies. This thread over and over liberals intone you have the "right" to do it. When Liability in the Op and over and over since you have been told no one is questioning that you do, the question is why you want to. Yet over and over you whine and repeat your strawman argument that people are saying you don't have the right.

The next post will not be you quoting non-liberals telling you that you don't have the "right" to go after advertisers for two reasons.

1) You have no dick
2) No one said that.

Go ahead back to your strawman, far easier to address then the question asked.

No, kicking a highly rated Liberal program off the air IS shutting Libs down. Let me remind you of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. They lampooned LBJ mercilessly over the Vietnam War, but he never stopped them. But when Nixon became the object of their humor, he got the "Liberal" CBS to kick them off the air when their censoring didn't silence them, and Nixon got all the other stations to blackball them. Liberal voices are kept off the air by the CON$ervoFascist owners of the media because they know CON$ervoFascism can't compete.

Richard Nixon 40 years ago is all you have? See point #1...

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Media Matters is free to say what they want. So is el-Rash-Butt.

 

[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

Media Matters is free to say what they want. So is el-Rash-Butt.

Already known. But not even slightly responsive. Media Matters has long exercised its right to be an organization dedicated to being fucking dishonest scumbags.

 

[kaz]

Media Matters is free to say what they want. So is el-Rash-Butt.

And so are you dumb ass. Again, Liability said and repeated no one is saying they are not "free" to do it, he's asking why liberals "want" to do it. The point isn't that hard, focus, dim wit. In fact I've seen exactly zero people say they aren't free to do it. The complete intellectual laziness of liberalism. Don't like a question? Go strawman. I have yet to see a single liberal comprehend his question, which I got the first time I read it. Despite that you are told over and over and over that no one is questioning their "right" but their desire to do so.

 

[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.

I believe that if Rush is morally repugnant, we have a right to inform his sponsors of his gross moral corruption and filth that he is spewing on the airwaves.

You do. That's not even debated. But thanks for another of your always worthless contribution.

 

[Dick Tuck]

To your first point, the protesters are being called "TERRORISTS." If that isn't questioning their free speech right to protest, then nothing is.

Free speech is one directional. You are demonstrating my point again, liberals have the right to criticize, no one has the right to criticize them.

But I do agree calling them terrorists is wrong. Terrorism is when you attack for no military advantage. Clearly here they are doing it for the advantage of shutting down views they oppose. That's not terrorism.

And to your second point, your MessiahRushie was the one who "declared war" and then victory in his war against Carbonite because the owner had the unmitigated gall to not only remove his advertising, but also to exercise his free speech right to criticize the Pinko Slime of Politics. Of course that victory dance by the Doctor of Duplicity has backfired and Carbonite stock is higher now then when he pulled his ads.

Every time I think you're dumb, you show me you're dumber...

So carbonite by blasting Rush and pulling their ads did not in fact declare war, he did by responding. What an intellectual powerhouse you are. Again..

Rush is not being attacked for his political views. He is being attacked because what he said about Fluke was obnoxious bullying which most Americans found offensive

And many sponsors determined they didn't want their brand associated with Rush any longer.