GOP Apologizes to Rush

[Fern]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
I do not see why the "liberal media" would care about this guy and his views.
They are both obsolete.

The pertinent question ^ about all this MSM driven stuff about Rush being the defacto head of the Repub party.

Some good answers below.

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I have some thoughts about all of this "Rush is the leader of the Repub party" stuff.

It seems it is in concert that all the Dems are planning off of the same scripted handbook
-snip-

Yes, Obama started, Rahm continues to push it as well as the left MSM (e.g., Chris Matthews)

For one it does provide a good distraction for the Dem's from these budget busting bills out of Congress.

Originally posted by: alchemize
They need a new boogeyman now that Bush is gone.

Yep. There is seemingly no person at the leadership now. In normal cases it would be McCain, him having been the most recent nominee. But he's keeping a fairly low-profile and the MSM likes him and IMO doesn't wanna bash him. Anyway, he's just 'Dem lite' and supports Dem policy like cap-n-trade anyway, why go after him? (Speaking of McCain, if Rush was so influential McCain never would've been nominated; he railed against him non-stop to no avail.)

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think it is far more powerful than that. If they can successfully paint Rush as the leader then Republicans will be put in a corner to defend Rush instead of attacking democrats on their unbelievable expansion of govt under Obama in under 45 days.

Yes, they building a up a boogey man to fight, one they think they can look good by fighting

Originally posted by: yllus
The trouble with Rush Limbaugh's sweet nothings

-snip-
Yet 13 million listeners plus their spouses, plus the family dog, plus a few dead aunts and uncles thrown in here or there, still doesn't add up to an electoral majority.

-snip-

Thanks for posting his audience numbers. Dems around here like Craig234 post about Rush being 'chosen' by the masses. Rush hasn't been chosen as anything other than entertainment. His listener base is only 13 million, far less than the number of Repubs. Also, it's reported that only 80% of his listeners are conservatives (the others identifying themselves as independants and moderates - what else is there to listen to on radio at lunch hour?).

A mere 10 (or even 13) million Repubs nationwide is pretty minimal (even if they were voters for Rush, instead of just listeners). McCain, not very popular with Repubs got about 60 million votes in the election.

10 million out of 60 million sure as h3ll ain't no masses electing anything.

I'd say this was some nifty political games authored by Rahm with assistance (witting or unwitting) by the MSM. (Since the MSM competes with Rush for advertising $s and ratings I'm sure they're happy to bash him anyway. They also might be a little jealous of his latest contract too. Don't underestimate the egotism of the MSM celeb's.)

The old saying is that you shouldn't get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I noted that Obama folded on Dashle the minute the NYT started opposing him in print. Steele (or any Repub politician) doesn't need a fight with Rush; they'd simply be out-gunned. None of them have daily radio shows running coast-to-coast.

BTW: technically, I don't think Steele is head of the Repub party. I'm thinking the Repub party exists only at the state level. Steele is head of one of three committees that raise funds for campaigns etc (there are separate comittes for both House and Senate elections). Steele is head of the RNC, not the GOP.

Other than the fun watching Dems here march here in lockstep, and Rush getting a lot of 'free' advertising for his show, not much else to this fuss. I suppose no harm in letting Rush be the flack-catcher from the Dems until the Repubs find a leader

Fern

 

[lupi]

Lol, everytime I think about tim I haven't met a tax increase I didn't like kaine being the head of the dnc I find it hard to stop laughing. All aboard for cuukoo land!

 

[Ozoned]

DP

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Perknose
RNC head Steele begs his fat forgiveness.

The new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, apologized to Rush Limbaugh on Monday after describing him in a television interview over the weekend as an ?entertainer? who made incendiary and sometimes ugly remarks, party officials said.

Mr. Steele called Mr. Limbaugh after the radio host belittled Mr. Steele on his show, questioning his authority and saying the new Republican leader was off ?to a shaky start.?

?It?s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you?re having a tough time pulling off,? Mr. Limbaugh said, in a transcript of his remarks he posted on his Web site.

?Mr. Steele: You are head of the R.N.C.,? Mr. Limbaugh said. ?You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the R.N.C. and right now they want nothing to do with it.?

The fight broke out at a time when Democrats have sought to portray Mr. Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a line that has been pushed in television advertisements financed by labor, as well as by the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Steele bristled after a questioner on CNN referred to Mr. Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party on Saturday.

?No he?s not ? I?m the de facto leader of the Republican Party,? Mr. Steele responded.

?Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,? he said. ?Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it?s incendiary, yes, it?s ugly.?

Mr. Steele told Politico on Monday that he had called Mr. Limbaugh to apologize.

?My intent was not to go after Rush ? I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,? Mr. Steele told The Politico. ?I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.?

Democrats reacted with glee to the exchange. ?Michael Steele has denounced himself for renouncing Rush,? said Paul Begala, an ally of Mr. Emanuel and one of the Democrats presenting Mr. Limbaugh as the face of the G.O.P. ?Can anyone seriously argue now that Rush is not the unchallenged leader of the Republican Party??

Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Mr. Steel?s counterpart at the Democratic National Committee, said: ?Chairman Steele?s reversal this evening and his apology to Limbaugh proves the unfortunate point that Limbaugh is the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama?s agenda in Washington.?

Rush does not care about the GOP, or even conservative principles, imho, he only cares about Rush.

If the Republican Party continues to let itself be dictated to by this blowhard charlatan, they will remain a permanent minority held hostage by the ignorant Right.

I guess Obama doesn't see it that way, otherwise you wouldn't be giving Rush the stage. Obama is afraid of the fat white boy. I wonder if there is a story behind that. :laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I guess Obama doesn't see it that way, otherwise you wouldn't be giving Rush the stage. Obama is afraid of the fat white boy. I wonder if there is a story behind that. :laugh:.......
Russia was suckered into Georgia by the previous administration to make Obama look like he is willing to take it in the ass.

:shocked:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want Rush silenced. I want his right to monopolize public spectrum taken. Opposing views should air along with his. He should not be allowed a monologue.

He is a disease and a contagion. The antidote is sunshine and reason.

Opposing views do. Franken and Air America for one.

"He should not be allowed..." Interesting, that is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Oh wait, it is a "public" airwave so you can stifle free speech you do not agree with. That demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position, your philosophy. It cannot withstand the attacks of those who oppose your ideas so instead of being able to counter with better ideas, you simply shut down the voice of the opposition.

You idiot, I specifically said I don't want to silence Rush. I want the monologue broken. I want his ideas challenged as he speaks. I think Limpbrow is a dangerous psychotic and hate monger, a contagion disease carrier that is infecting an easily brain-washable segment of the population to emulate and think like him, and he is tolerated on private networks because he sells products to these same imbeciles who listen. I think he is a drag on the mentality of the nation, a retrograde force of Neanderthalism. I do not think it is right that the airwaves that belong to all of us should be given over to commercial interests that are willing to destroy the fabric of society to sell a product. I want equal time while he broadcasts for voices that show us what an idiot he is. I don't want Hitler to do all the talking. He is another example of how money is destroying our country. Garbage spewing for a buck and the fostering of hate and intolerance.

By the same token I believe that all networks should fund high quality news as a part of their right to broadcast on public airwaves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want Rush silenced. I want his right to monopolize public spectrum taken. Opposing views should air along with his. He should not be allowed a monologue.

He is a disease and a contagion. The antidote is sunshine and reason.

Is there a barrier to entry to the market of talk radio?

No.

The fact that liberal-talk radio doesn't sell doesn't indicate a monopoly on the part of the competition. It simply means you're not marketing a valuable product.

What you fail to understand is that when a market like entertainment isn't regulated and depends for it's income on viewers and listeners numbers, what you get is a race to the bottom of the barrel, an increasing run at the Roman Coliseum. Corporations are not just amoral, they are actively immoral. They will destroy the country if there is a profit to be made. Look at the financial crisis we are in. It is the same thing when a country does not support and affirm high morality. It rots life a fish from the head. Most people value money over conscience and self respect and think only of short term gain.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want Rush silenced. I want his right to monopolize public spectrum taken. Opposing views should air along with his. He should not be allowed a monologue.

He is a disease and a contagion. The antidote is sunshine and reason.

Is there a barrier to entry to the market of talk radio?

No.

The fact that liberal-talk radio doesn't sell doesn't indicate a monopoly on the part of the competition. It simply means you're not marketing a valuable product.

What you fail to understand is that when a market like entertainment isn't regulated and depends for it's income on viewers and listeners numbers, what you get is a race to the bottom of the barrel, an increasing run at the Roman Coliseum. Corporations are not just amoral, they are actively immoral. They will destroy the country if there is a profit to be made. Look at the financial crisis we are in. It is the same thing when a country does not support and affirm high morality. It rots life a fish from the head. Most people value money over conscience and self respect and think only of short term gain.

If money is the root of all evil. Then, the lack of money is the root of all misery. It is simple math.

IMHO, our society does a good job of balancing those 2 things. We go back and forth across the perfect balance in 4 and 8 year cycles.

If Obama is a player, he will do Ok. If he is out to change the system, he will fail.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I guess Obama doesn't see it that way, otherwise you wouldn't be giving Rush the stage. Obama is afraid of the fat white boy. I wonder if there is a story behind that. :laugh:

Heh, the CPAC & Micheal Steele seem to be "giving Rush the stage" The conservative talker with the self-professed "talent on loan from God" spoke incessantly in the first person: there were more "I's" in his CPAC address than in an Idaho potato field.

Rush has maybe 2-3 points he wants to cover in any single day, and he repeats them over and over again. The reason it works is that his workday audience consists of people who have the radio on as background while they go about their workday, so it's necessary to repeat points several times to make sure his audience hears all of them. Also, his audience *likes* the repetition. While normal people will tune to a music station, or possibly business news or sports, his dittoheads go for the thrill of having Rush soothingly tell them over and over again that they are the good people and everyone else is evil. Repetition in this case is not bad, it's equivalent to your mommy telling you "everything's going to be alright" over and over and over again.

His radio show is like this too. His listeners, though they never will admit it, are desperate for Daddy figures who take charge, and this is perhaps the biggest reason that Rush continues to dominate conservative talk show ratings 20 years after he started. This is why his listeners fooled themself into thinking Dubya was a cartoon version of Patton - they *need* to think Daddy is taking care of them. When an evil Democrat holds the Presidency they *need* to hear Rush tell them that HE will take charge and protect them.

By the way, this is exactly why any other form of talk radio doesn't work well. The Rush formula is DOA when dealing with critical thinkers, centrists, or anyone but a dittohead. Rational people are more likely to be looking for analysis and solutions. Dittoheads just want to know who to blame and that they are safe and secure.

Limbaugh apparently did what he does best, combining bluster and a disregard for reality (and really, who could blame Republicans for wanting to avoid reality at this point?) with a series of attacks on straw men created specifically for that purpose.

For example:

?We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are, because we make the mistake of assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based on the way we?re portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by the Democrat party.?

Rush and his followers should know that the problem isn?t what Americans know about conservatives based on other media (which they, like Limbaugh, tend to distrust). The problem is what they know about modern conservatism as voiced specifically by people like Rush, through the conservative media.

Limbaugh is no Paul Harvey...

If conservatives truly want to go back to what they once were, they might look to the example of Paul Harvey - who, sadly, died on the same day that Limbaugh was inadvertently re-emphasizing the reasons for the decline of the GOP. Harvey was more in the style of Barry Goldwater Republicans who brought the GOP to power. They were protectors of individual rights even when it sometimes made them uncomfortable (Harvey supported abortion rights, for example) and willing critics of even their own party (he famously criticized Richard Nixon over the Vietnam War).

Like most Americans, Harvey once got carried away with fears of communism. Like most of us, he occasionally said stupid things. Unlike Limbaugh, however, he didn?t make saying stupid things a point of pride, and conservatives of his era didn?t look to his stupidest comments as stepping stones to lead them out of their self-imposed wilderness retreat.

Interestingly, as long as Limbaugh remains the voice and conscience of conservatives, apparently Democrats and lots of Republicans will be happy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If money is the root of all evil. Then, the lack of money is the root of all misery. It is simple math.

FYI...it's the love of money that's the root of all evil.

 

[wwswimming]

El Rushbo is looking a little porky. guy needs to exercise more.

from the neck down - he looks like Michael Moore !

 

[WHAMPOM]

To sum up this topic; Steele apoligizes to TRUE leader/mouth-piece of the GOP??

 

[SP33Demon]

It's all good dawgz.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
El Rushbo is looking a little porky. guy needs to exercise more.

from the neck down - he looks like Michael Moore !

Yeah he's definitely working on a coronary, diabetes or a stroke. He does fit the image of a fat cat Republican though.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I guess Obama doesn't see it that way, otherwise you wouldn't be giving Rush the stage. Obama is afraid of the fat white boy. I wonder if there is a story behind that. :laugh:

Heh, the CPAC & Micheal Steele seem to be "giving Rush the stage" The conservative talker with the self-professed "talent on loan from God" spoke incessantly in the first person: there were more "I's" in his CPAC address than in an Idaho potato field.

Rush has maybe 2-3 points he wants to cover in any single day, and he repeats them over and over again. The reason it works is that his workday audience consists of people who have the radio on as background while they go about their workday, so it's necessary to repeat points several times to make sure his audience hears all of them. Also, his audience *likes* the repetition. While normal people will tune to a music station, or possibly business news or sports, his dittoheads go for the thrill of having Rush soothingly tell them over and over again that they are the good people and everyone else is evil. Repetition in this case is not bad, it's equivalent to your mommy telling you "everything's going to be alright" over and over and over again.

His radio show is like this too. His listeners, though they never will admit it, are desperate for Daddy figures who take charge, and this is perhaps the biggest reason that Rush continues to dominate conservative talk show ratings 20 years after he started. This is why his listeners fooled themself into thinking Dubya was a cartoon version of Patton - they *need* to think Daddy is taking care of them. When an evil Democrat holds the Presidency they *need* to hear Rush tell them that HE will take charge and protect them.

By the way, this is exactly why any other form of talk radio doesn't work well. The Rush formula is DOA when dealing with critical thinkers, centrists, or anyone but a dittohead. Rational people are more likely to be looking for analysis and solutions. Dittoheads just want to know who to blame and that they are safe and secure.

Limbaugh apparently did what he does best, combining bluster and a disregard for reality (and really, who could blame Republicans for wanting to avoid reality at this point?) with a series of attacks on straw men created specifically for that purpose.

For example:

?We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are, because we make the mistake of assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based on the way we?re portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by the Democrat party.?

Rush and his followers should know that the problem isn?t what Americans know about conservatives based on other media (which they, like Limbaugh, tend to distrust). The problem is what they know about modern conservatism as voiced specifically by people like Rush, through the conservative media.

Limbaugh is no Paul Harvey...

If conservatives truly want to go back to what they once were, they might look to the example of Paul Harvey - who, sadly, died on the same day that Limbaugh was inadvertently re-emphasizing the reasons for the decline of the GOP. Harvey was more in the style of Barry Goldwater Republicans who brought the GOP to power. They were protectors of individual rights even when it sometimes made them uncomfortable (Harvey supported abortion rights, for example) and willing critics of even their own party (he famously criticized Richard Nixon over the Vietnam War).

Like most Americans, Harvey once got carried away with fears of communism. Like most of us, he occasionally said stupid things. Unlike Limbaugh, however, he didn?t make saying stupid things a point of pride, and conservatives of his era didn?t look to his stupidest comments as stepping stones to lead them out of their self-imposed wilderness retreat.

Interestingly, as long as Limbaugh remains the voice and conscience of conservatives, apparently Democrats and lots of Republicans will be happy.

A quite rare (in P&N) and lengthy reply by BMW540I6speed. I completely disagree with your premise. I really do think the majority of people (who) listen to Rush, listen for entertainment.

This (Rush on the stage) isn't about Rush, Conservatives, or the GOP. It is about Obama.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want Rush silenced. I want his right to monopolize public spectrum taken. Opposing views should air along with his. He should not be allowed a monologue.

He is a disease and a contagion. The antidote is sunshine and reason.

Opposing views do. Franken and Air America for one.

"He should not be allowed..." Interesting, that is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Oh wait, it is a "public" airwave so you can stifle free speech you do not agree with. That demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position, your philosophy. It cannot withstand the attacks of those who oppose your ideas so instead of being able to counter with better ideas, you simply shut down the voice of the opposition.

You idiot, I specifically said I don't want to silence Rush. I want the monologue broken. I want his ideas challenged as he speaks. I think Limpbrow is a dangerous psychotic and hate monger, a contagion disease carrier that is infecting an easily brain-washable segment of the population to emulate and think like him, and he is tolerated on private networks because he sells products to these same imbeciles who listen. I think he is a drag on the mentality of the nation, a retrograde force of Neanderthalism. I do not think it is right that the airwaves that belong to all of us should be given over to commercial interests that are willing to destroy the fabric of society to sell a product. I want equal time while he broadcasts for voices that show us what an idiot he is. I don't want Hitler to do all the talking. He is another example of how money is destroying our country. Garbage spewing for a buck and the fostering of hate and intolerance.

By the same token I believe that all networks should fund high quality news as a part of their right to broadcast on public airwaves.

Hy there moony, just a reminder that popular TV shows like the Jack Paar and Smother Brothers where cancelled for controversial topics.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Hy there moony, just a reminder that popular TV shows like the Jack Paar and Smother Brothers where cancelled for controversial topics.

Close, but Jack Paar both left (and returned) to The Tonight Show, and left the Jack Paar Show of his own volition and on his own terms.

Paar was a brilliant and unique iconoclast, and, imho, highly underrated by most even today.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, the problem is that Rush controls the content such that his viewers hear only his take on things, and when Rush is feeling particularly democratic, he may use his alter ego of smurdley to speak out.

Its precisely the kind of format that the fairness doctrine is supposed to prevent, but not being a censorship fan, its difficult to force Rush into a free and fair debate.

And after free and unregulated markets just laid the biggest egg since the great depression, its takes incredibly fractured logic for Rush to keep ignoring that point.

But from my point of view, Rush is the GOP's problem, and if the GOP lets Limbaugh drive their politics, they will be doomed at the ballot box for decades.

 

[Perknose]

I just LOVE the Repug conspiracy theorist spin on all this:

HELP, that Mean Magick Negro is making us publicly kiss the enormous lard-encrusted ass of an ignorant blowhard, boo-hoo-hoo!

The party of personal responsibility? I don't think so.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

They didn't paint the GOP as being Bush. The GOP practically slobbered on Bush's balls for the first 6 years.

Truth be told, the GOP is better off dead. I like a lot of their positions, especially on smaller government and fiscal responsibilities, but they are a snake oil salesman. Very few in the GOP actually believe the party line and the social conservatism is simply anachronistic. With regards to social conservatism, they are simply yesterday's liberals. In 15 years, the liberals of today will be the social conservatives of tomorrow. It's as simple as that. Where are the true social conservatives that put coloreds, women and disableds in their place. Where are they when it comes to issues of the non-landed gentry having a say in government? Obviously, none of those positions are viable in the least. However, that's what social conservatism looked like 40 years ago and 150 years ago. In another 15 years, gay marriage will seem as right as inter-racial marriage does today. You can't stop social progression unless you implement something like the Shari'a or Talmudic Law.

Right, that is why Bush got is partial privatization of SS through with the strongest Republican majority of his term in 2005 right? There were many republicans who didnt lock step with Bush but you wouldnt know that as every republican equaled Bush.

The rest of your rant is simple mechanics of an evolving political world. Nothing you said is anything we already dont know and one of the reasons you can expect a republican party to never go away. Conservatism evolves as much as liberals do.

Conservatism isn't evolving in the right direction though. Fiscal conservatism is dead, GWB killed it, buried it then built a strip mall on top of the grave. Obama is just shopping at that new strip mall. The GOP is embracing fiscal conservatism, but then it'll just throw it away at the first chance. Reagan did this, GHWB did this, GWB definitely did this.

And what about social conservatism? You cannot have both, a small government and social conservatism. By necessity, you need a large, powerful government to regulate people's behaviors. If you ban or restrict XYZ123, then you need regulatory agencies to ensure that XYZ123 restrictions are being complied with. If the GOP was really about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it'd drop all this social conservatism nonsense. What business does the government have over whether or not two dudes can get married? Does it even matter in the grand scheme of things? Individual rights only seem to matter when they apply to gun rights, for the GOP at least. The GOP has as big a boner for regulation as do the Democrats. Except that the Democrats want to regulate big business while the GOP wants to regulate your bedroom.

Finally, the GOP needs to revitalize it's image to appeal to people other than old white men and rednecks. That demographic is a dying breed. For whatever reason, the GOP has become the anti-immigrant, the anti-black, the anti-urban, the anti-everything except redneck hicks. Hispanics may be socially conservative, but if you constantly portray your image as being anti-Mexican and anti-South America, you can sure bet your ass that Hispanics are going to flee in droves. And that's what precisely happened in 2008. The GOP is 2 election cycles away from being insignificant unless it drastically revamps itself.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want Rush silenced. I want his right to monopolize public spectrum taken. Opposing views should air along with his. He should not be allowed a monologue.

He is a disease and a contagion. The antidote is sunshine and reason.

Opposing views do. Franken and Air America for one.

"He should not be allowed..." Interesting, that is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Oh wait, it is a "public" airwave so you can stifle free speech you do not agree with. That demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position, your philosophy. It cannot withstand the attacks of those who oppose your ideas so instead of being able to counter with better ideas, you simply shut down the voice of the opposition.

You idiot, I specifically said I don't want to silence Rush. I want the monologue broken. I want his ideas challenged as he speaks. I think Limpbrow is a dangerous psychotic and hate monger, a contagion disease carrier that is infecting an easily brain-washable segment of the population to emulate and think like him, and he is tolerated on private networks because he sells products to these same imbeciles who listen. I think he is a drag on the mentality of the nation, a retrograde force of Neanderthalism. I do not think it is right that the airwaves that belong to all of us should be given over to commercial interests that are willing to destroy the fabric of society to sell a product. I want equal time while he broadcasts for voices that show us what an idiot he is. I don't want Hitler to do all the talking. He is another example of how money is destroying our country. Garbage spewing for a buck and the fostering of hate and intolerance.

By the same token I believe that all networks should fund high quality news as a part of their right to broadcast on public airwaves.

His ideas are challenged all the time. Again, Air America is but one example of a liberal talk radio program that is available to anyone who wants to hear an alternative viewpoint.

If you want to stop his monologue, you are silencing him and any others with whom you disagree. He and anyone else has an opportunity in the marketplace to provide a commodity people want to buy.

I happen to be one of those neanderthals. So thank you for the move up to idiot level. However, I can never compete with your high moral stance, too ethereal for me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want Rush silenced. I want his right to monopolize public spectrum taken. Opposing views should air along with his. He should not be allowed a monologue.

He is a disease and a contagion. The antidote is sunshine and reason.

Opposing views do. Franken and Air America for one.

"He should not be allowed..." Interesting, that is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Oh wait, it is a "public" airwave so you can stifle free speech you do not agree with. That demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position, your philosophy. It cannot withstand the attacks of those who oppose your ideas so instead of being able to counter with better ideas, you simply shut down the voice of the opposition.

You idiot, I specifically said I don't want to silence Rush. I want the monologue broken. I want his ideas challenged as he speaks. I think Limpbrow is a dangerous psychotic and hate monger, a contagion disease carrier that is infecting an easily brain-washable segment of the population to emulate and think like him, and he is tolerated on private networks because he sells products to these same imbeciles who listen. I think he is a drag on the mentality of the nation, a retrograde force of Neanderthalism. I do not think it is right that the airwaves that belong to all of us should be given over to commercial interests that are willing to destroy the fabric of society to sell a product. I want equal time while he broadcasts for voices that show us what an idiot he is. I don't want Hitler to do all the talking. He is another example of how money is destroying our country. Garbage spewing for a buck and the fostering of hate and intolerance.

By the same token I believe that all networks should fund high quality news as a part of their right to broadcast on public airwaves.

His ideas are challenged all the time. Again, Air America is but one example of a liberal talk radio program that is available to anyone who wants to hear an alternative viewpoint.

If you want to stop his monologue, you are silencing him and any others with whom you disagree. He and anyone else has an opportunity in the marketplace to provide a commodity people want to buy.

I happen to be one of those neanderthals. So thank you for the move up to idiot level. However, I can never compete with your high moral stance, too ethereal for me.

Again, I don't want to stop his speech. I want to stop his monologue. He can say whatever he wants in any detail he pleases so long as a counterpoint is present on the same broadcast thereafter. His views need to be challenged at root. And what you call ethereal I call obvious.

 

[colonel]

let start "Operation Kaos" in the GOP,

 

[microbial]

So, no-longer Rush, but now Russia ("I want America to fail") Limbaugh is the new Kaiser of the Republican party. Well good luck with that.

Looks like his poll numbers (that were under Bush's numbers) are falling as we speak.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...ar_than_Bush_0303.html

 

[Fear No Evil]

I don't understand when Democrats try to give advice to Republicans on how to get back into power. Basically the argument says Republicans need to become more like Democrats. In the past 30 years, about 20 of them have been under a Republican President. So we, as conservatives, should take the advice of people who have only managed to lead 1/3 of the past 30? Seems like the DEMOCRATIC party needs to reinvent itself. And I think they have, as an extreme left wing party leaning towards socialism.

Sure the Republicans made mistakes, but not being conservative enough is not one of them. Disregarding the war, the next biggest criticism of Bush was his spending. So Obama takes that, triples it, and everyone hails it as being great. The free market system has let us down, but I don't think going the total opposite direction is the answer either.

I think the democrats are the ones in trouble at this point. They are in POWER, but they are in trouble. 2 years from now if people have had enough of this radical swing to the left by the Obama government - They WILL start to vote Republican.. And the ones that will get elected will be the free market conservatives. Obama had a wonderful chance to actually bring the country together - But he has chosen to give a big middle finger to 46% of the voters in this country.

The more radical he gets, the more he spends, the more its going to hurt the Democratic party. People are tired of him already and its only 45 days in. People weren't this against Bush in 45 days.