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

[francoHFW]

Rush is a big fat bought off lying a-hole who's ruined political discourse and turned 25% of Americans into brainwashed loudmouth morons who think they know everything, but appear to know NOTHING. A true demagogue. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, one minute of rebuttal an hour would sink the whole disaster...

Here's your fairness doctrine, change the ******* channel if you don't like what's on.

**** you, dittohead- I hate lies, ignorance, and hate. Change the channel . Hoping for your recovery, and the country's...

 

[The T]

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

It's kind of pathetic that you consider Rush a conservative.

It's more pathetic how urgently you need to deflect.

Rush is a conservative. And by comparison to nuts like the crew over at Media Matters, he is clearly conservative.

And this is why they want him silenced.

While ignoring that speech is a two-way street.

 

[Ravi]

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

It's kind of pathetic that you consider Rush a conservative.

It's more pathetic how urgently you need to deflect.

Rush is a conservative. And by comparison to nuts like the crew over at Media Matters, he is clearly conservative.

And this is why they want him silenced.

I have no idea if they want him silenced or if they are merely pointing to the leader of the Republican party and calling him a pig.

He's no conservative. Any real conservative would know that.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

The irony and ignorance are festering in your post.

1) Does Media Matters have the right to voice their opposition to what Rush said...yes or no?

Rush's problem is not the "free market of competing ideas" or Media Matters. His problem IS the free market...SPONSORS $$$

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

So long as they are only trying to dry up his ad money that is a valid move to "silence" him, including ads that try to get advertisers to drop him.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

In reality, Rush is an entertainer

He gets paid for his act and he gets paid well. Those who love his act listen to his broadcasts and ratings get him sponsors.

Free speech is a powerful right. Those who are offended by his speech are free to let sponsors know. Rush needs to modify his act accordingly if he wants to make money. If not, it is a business decision.

The free market of open ideas is this message board. We say what we want, when we want. We do not make a profit off of being controversial.

 

[The T]

Rush is a big fat bought off lying a-hole who's ruined political discourse and turned 25% of Americans into brainwashed loudmouth morons who think they know everything, but appear to know NOTHING. A true demagogue. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, one minute of rebuttal an hour would sink the whole disaster...

Here's your fairness doctrine, change the ******* channel if you don't like what's on.

**** you, dittohead- I hate lies, ignorance, and hate. Change the channel . Hoping for your recovery, and the country's...

So you make this post's central them about your hate?

Smooth Move, Ex-Lax.

 

[Rocko]

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

In reality, Rush is an entertainer

He gets paid for his act and he gets paid well. Those who love his act listen to his broadcasts and ratings get him sponsors.

Free speech is a powerful right. Those who are offended by his speech are free to let sponsors know. Rush needs to modify his act accordingly if he wants to make money. If not, it is a business decision.

The free market of open ideas is this message board. We say what we want, when we want. We do not make a profit off of being controversial.

didn't know you were such a free market guy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Who is suggesting laws limiting free speech?

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

How would you have liberals oppose it? Is a statement of condemnation sufficient or must there be something more demonstrative?

And this is why they want him silenced.

MM, perhaps, but not liberals – for the left Limbaugh is the gift that keeps on giving. MM’s efforts are inane and misguided (and likely to backfire).

 

[The T]

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

In reality, Rush is an entertainer

He gets paid for his act and he gets paid well. Those who love his act listen to his broadcasts and ratings get him sponsors.

Free speech is a powerful right. Those who are offended by his speech are free to let sponsors know. Rush needs to modify his act accordingly if he wants to make money. If not, it is a business decision.

The free market of open ideas is this message board. We say what we want, when we want. We do not make a profit off of being controversial.

Conservatism and preservation of the Constitution is an act? Really?

 

[Publius1787]

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

You didn’t get the memo? Your freedom of speech ceases to exist when you become a conservative and your freedom of conscious ceases when there is a woman who wants you to pay for her promiscuity. Oh, and all rules and liberal outrage governing conservative speech and etiquette are not applicable to liberals who commit the same “verbal infraction” or worse.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Is Media Matter free to run ads negative of Rush? Yes.
Is Rush free to say ignorant rants on his show? Yes.

Is Media Matters free to work behind the scenes to get Rush off the air because they dislike what he says? Absolutely not! And if they tried, I would side with Rush.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Liberals, or the left dont want laws to silence Rush. The OP starts out false and demands all liberals answer to the shit he just made up. I want everyone to be able to be on the radio from Rush to Opie and Anthony.

But that doesnt mean that people who take offense to the shows shouldnt say anything or take any action they so choose. You seem to have only a problem with peoples reaction to what someone says as being wrong, then hide behind free speech for Rush. It goes both ways.

BTW, Opie and Anthony got kicked off because of a Sex for Sam stunt where a couple went into a Catholic church for sex and location points.
If you advocate for them to be off the radio for that, protest or boycott. You should check your Free speech rant again.

 

[The T]

Liberals, or the left dont want laws to silence Rush. The OP starts out false and demands all liberals answer to the shit he just made up. I want everyone to be able to be on the radio from Rush to Opie and Anthony.

But that doesnt mean that people who take offense to the shows shouldnt say anything or take any action they so choose. You seem to have only a problem with peoples reaction to what someone says as being wrong, then hide behind free speech for Rush. It goes both ways.

BTW, Opie and Anthony got kicked off because of a Sex for Sam stunt where a couple went into a Catholic church for sex and location points.
If you advocate for them to be off the radio for that, protest or boycott. You should check your Free speech rant again.

Guess YOU didn't read the links, did you?

*FAIL*

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

In reality, Rush is an entertainer

He gets paid for his act and he gets paid well. Those who love his act listen to his broadcasts and ratings get him sponsors.

Free speech is a powerful right. Those who are offended by his speech are free to let sponsors know. Rush needs to modify his act accordingly if he wants to make money. If not, it is a business decision.

The free market of open ideas is this message board. We say what we want, when we want. We do not make a profit off of being controversial.

Conservatism and preservation of the Constitution is an act? Really?

You haven't realized that Rush Limbaugh is an act?

 

[Ernie S.]

People have complete rights to tell a corporation they dont like its practices.

Answer the question you stupid, stupid woman. And PLEASE! Learn to use a ******* apostrophe. Just once, so I know that you know what one is, OK?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

 

[The T]

In reality, Rush is an entertainer

He gets paid for his act and he gets paid well. Those who love his act listen to his broadcasts and ratings get him sponsors.

Free speech is a powerful right. Those who are offended by his speech are free to let sponsors know. Rush needs to modify his act accordingly if he wants to make money. If not, it is a business decision.

The free market of open ideas is this message board. We say what we want, when we want. We do not make a profit off of being controversial.

Conservatism and preservation of the Constitution is an act? Really?

You haven't realized that Rush Limbaugh is an act?

As much as the Liberal MSM is...

*IDIOT*

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement..."