How can anyone condone Limbaugh

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: irwincur


Then there was silence. I was more refferring to the total legal climate.

I think you're backpedaling, since your original post was specifically oriented toward enforcement of decency laws, which did occur under Clinton. I worked for two different US Attorney's offices during the Clinton administration, and we were relentless in prosecuting fraud, drug trafficking, and other federal crimes.

What laws are you saying were not enforced under Clinton?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: irwincur
Can we assume you were equally critical of efforts to silence Howard Stern, the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, the CBS Reagan movie, etc.? You also railed against the hypocrisy of the right, true? Surely you aren't a hypocrite yourself?

Can you read... My post did not even mention this. Quit straying because you cannot answer the basic tenants of liberal belief.
Duh. Of course you didn't mention them. You ignored them. That was my point. Here's what you said:
  • Just normal liberal hypocracy. They love personal rights, yet when in power they are the first to limit them - because well, the common people are too stupid to control their own lives. Really irritating that most liberals miss this message from the mothership.
Quit hiding from your own words.


But, yes I do support free speech. I don't care what people say, other than they can say it. Now there should be a level of personal responsibility that no longer seems to exist. If you are selling lies (like Moore) it should be noted that his movie is fictional not factual. But there is no need, and has been no attempt to silence him or anyone else.
There you go again. Moore's movies are factual. The facts selected and the way they are presented are intended to sell a particular point of view. That does not make the movie fictional.


Furthermore, in the case of the Dixie Chicks and CBS, it was their viewers and fans that put the pressure on.
Speaking of deception. The pressure came from well-organized campaigns by the right.


[ ... ]
Now about my first point. The left runs on a 'protect ours rights platform'. However, the left when in power is the first to limit personal rights. The extremes of leftism are socialism and communism - two government forms where personal rights do not exist. Everything is for the group.
Empty rhetoric. Bleat on.
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Limbaugh is just a media darling, like O'Reilly, Moore, and any other 'political commentator' or 'political activist.' This is especially true of radio show hosts and TV hosts, most of whom are on the air because they simply like to hear themselves talk or because they have personalities and voices which fit the bill.

They don't know anything more than you or I know, they don't get their sources from any other special sources than you and I can. There is NOTHING special about Rush Limbaugh. He is just on the radio because the producers know people will listen to him, and they can make money off of the advertising. Look at Howard Stern. Why is he on the radio? Because he will make the radio station(s) and broadcasters money. Nothing more. People who hail Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Moore, or any other person as 'informed' and 'brilliant' are deluded.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Limbaugh is just a media darling, like O'Reilly, Moore, and any other 'political commentator' or 'political activist.' This is especially true of radio show hosts and TV hosts, most of whom are on the air because they simply like to hear themselves talk or because they have personalities and voices which fit the bill.

They don't know anything more than you or I know, they don't get their sources from any other special sources than you and I can. There is NOTHING special about Rush Limbaugh. He is just on the radio because the producers know people will listen to him, and they can make money off of the advertising. Look at Howard Stern. Why is he on the radio? Because he will make the radio station(s) and broadcasters money. Nothing more. People who hail Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Moore, or any other person as 'informed' and 'brilliant' are deluded.

I couldn't have said it better.

:thumbsup:
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
But, yes I do support free speech. I don't care what people say, other than they can say it. Now there should be a level of personal responsibility that no longer seems to exist. If you are selling lies (like Moore) it should be noted that his movie is fictional not factual. But there is no need, and has been no attempt to silence him or anyone else.

"Selling lies"? Certainly that's your opinion. The right-wingers in this country seem to fall all over themselves in an effort to "prove" Moore lies when all they can come up with are a bunch of technicalities. "Oh yeah, Moore showed one clip and then followed it with another clip that actually happened before the first clip." Oh brother. :roll:

Furthermore, in the case of the Dixie Chicks and CBS, it was their viewers and fans that put the pressure on. Those fans have the same rights, the right not to listen or purchase. And the right to say what they want. Stern is making an issue out of existing laws that are just now being enforced. If he had a real problem, he should have complained when the laws were originally written - not amended. It is actually pretty sad that many laws were not enforced during the Clinton administration. New ones were just placed on top of them.

It's one thing to personally choose not to listen/purchase/watch or whatever for your own personal reasons. That's fine. But when you try to remove a piece of media -- whether it's a book, film, song or radio talk show -- so that nobody else can view it either, then you've crossed the line into censorship. Don't like something, fine don't watch it, however don't go around telling me what I can or can't watch.

Now about my first point. The left runs on a 'protect ours rights platform'. However, the left when in power is the first to limit personal rights. The extremes of leftism are socialism and communism - two government forms where personal rights do not exist. Everything is for the group.

Why don't you give us a specific example instead of your partisan rhetoric?
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just normal liberal hypocracy. They love personal rights, yet when in power they are the first to limit them - because well, the common people are too stupid to control their own lives. Really irritating that most liberals miss this message from the mothership.

LMFAO!!! If the soldiers were given broadcasts of lets say the Al Franken show, you would be the first one to stand up and cry liberal bias conspiracy!
 

phantom309

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2002
2,065
1
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just normal liberal hypocracy. They love personal rights, yet when in power they are the first to limit them - because well, the common people are too stupid to control their own lives. Really irritating that most liberals miss this message from the mothership.

Yeah, stupid liberals. Next thing you know they'll be outlawing abortion, birth control and most kinds of sex, passing legislation allowing Americans to be arrested and held without charge, forcing everyone to practice the same religion, and censoring the Internet and the media.
 

Cobalt

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2000
4,642
1
81
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just normal liberal hypocracy. They love personal rights, yet when in power they are the first to limit them - because well, the common people are too stupid to control their own lives. Really irritating that most liberals miss this message from the mothership.

And who proposed the patriot act? I'm sure it was liberals right...
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Actually - it was, well the Democrats proposed it originaly, as well as the Homeland security.
Bush tried to fight the Department of Homeland Defense, then decided to declare it as his
when it became clear that there was support for it beyond his agenda.

Partiot Act got BUSHwhacked by Ashcroft and company into an all imposing power grab to place the power structure of the Republican Party above all others and use the phrase 'Partiotism' to goose-step all over the civil rights anyone that questioned the direction of the Bush Agenda.

Falsify the data and question the patriotism those who dare to challenge the deceipt.
GOP Bait-and-Switch.
 

MrGrim257

Banned
Jun 9, 2004
89
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
L.A. Times Op/Ed

<CLIP>

"Do the right thing." These were Secretary of State Colin Powell's words of advice to the Wake Forest University class of 2004 in his May 17 commencement address. Then Powell issued an incontrovertible condemnation of the actions of U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners: "Our nation is now going through a period of deep disappointment, a period of deep pain over some of our soldiers not doing the right thing at a place called Abu Ghraib?. All Americans deplored what happened there."

Well, perhaps not all Americans. There's at least one American who has publicly praised, condoned, trivialized and joked about the abuse, torture, rape and possible murder of Iraqi prisoners. This American does not appear to be going through "a period of deep pain." This American has instead called the abuse "a brilliant maneuver" and compared it to a college fraternity prank: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation," he said.

He excused the actions of our soldiers this way: "You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"

Who is this American so unlike "all Americans," as Powell described us? Rush Limbaugh, host of the nationally syndicated radio program, "The Rush Limbaugh Show."

Limbaugh, of course, is entitled to express his views, however bizarre, ill considered and offensive. I would never dream of telling him what he should or shouldn't say. But that doesn't mean that radio stations have to pick him up. Just as he can speak his mind, they can choose to air his show or not.

That's why I was stunned to learn that one full hour of "The Rush Limbaugh Show" is broadcast every weekday directly to our soldiers in Iraq and around the world ? to nearly 1 million U.S. troops in more than 175 countries and U.S. territories. Moreover, it is the only hourlong partisan political talk show broadcast daily to the troops.

Limbaugh's show is broadcast by the Department of Defense's American Forces Radio and Television Service, or AFRTS. According to its website, "The AFRTS mission is to communicate Department of Defense policies, priorities, programs, goals and initiatives. AFRTS provides stateside radio and television programming, 'a touch of home' to U.S. service men and women, DoD civilians and their families" outside the continental United States.

Why should American taxpayers pay for the broadcasting of such inexcusable views to U.S. troops? Why, at a combustible moment like this one, would we be funneling Limbaugh's trivializations to our men and women at the front? Does Limbaugh's pro-torture propaganda really qualify as "a touch of home"?

On CNN on June 2, Pentagon official Allison Barber defended the continued broadcasting of Limbaugh, saying broadcast decisions are "based on popularity here in the States." But Barber also acknowledged that AFRTS based its programming decisions not only on ratings but on content too. Barber explained that AFRTS did not carry Howard Stern's radio show ? which draws more than 8 million listeners a week, but which has also recently been the target of massive FCC fines for "indecency" ? because "his issue is one of content that is not appropriate." AFRTS carries programming from National Public Radio, but only news and features. It does not carry any partisan political talk show other than Limbaugh's.

By choosing the Limbaugh show over any other, even in the wake of Limbaugh's recent remarks, the Pentagon and indeed Congress, which holds AFRTS' purse strings, deems his content to be "appropriate." I disagree, and along with 30,000 other Americans I signed a petition at the website mediamatters.org calling for Limbaugh's removal from AFRTS.

In general, I believe all reasonable views should be aired. Quite aside from the Abu Ghraib controversy, I'd like to see AFRTS broadcast a fuller range of political views to our troops rather than giving Limbaugh a monopoly at the microphone ? and I applaud the Senate for approving an amendment to the defense authorization bill offered by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) that calls on AFRTS to provide political balance in its news and public affairs programming. But in this case, nothing short of removing Limbaugh will suffice. The issue goes beyond ideological balance ? this is an issue of national security and national unity.

Limbaugh's comments, and their tacit endorsement by the U.S. government, send a message to U.S. servicemen and servicewomen that torture is not a subject to be taken seriously and that these are actions that can be excused. Nothing could be more wrong than that.

Why even bother posting an L.A. Times Op/Ed piece? You'd dismiss a piece from the Wall Street Journal or Weekly Standard just as quicly as a conservative would dismiss this.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just normal liberal hypocracy. They love personal rights, yet when in power they are the first to limit them - because well, the common people are too stupid to control their own lives. Really irritating that most liberals miss this message from the mothership.

LMFAO!!! If the soldiers were given broadcasts of lets say the Al Franken show, you would be the first one to stand up and cry liberal bias conspiracy!

Agreed. I'm no fan of either man, but I make sure I listen to both whenever I have the stomach for it.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: MrGrim257

Why even bother posting an L.A. Times Op/Ed piece? You'd dismiss a piece from the Wall Street Journal or Weekly Standard just as quicly as a conservative would dismiss this.

Ahem - it's an op-ed piece. It's not meant to be neutral. It either sparks discussion or it doesn't, but it's not being presented as a piece of unbiased journalism.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
I am supprised that no one has noticed that the letters AFRTS is just the word FARTS rearranged so it would not get caught up in censorship.

Bleep
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
You know what would be ideal? It would be ideal if AFRTS presented a diversity of viewpoints. Leave Rush on or whatever, but balance his perspective with someone of the opposing viewpoint. Fair &amp; balanced and all that crap...
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know what would be ideal? It would be ideal if AFRTS presented a diversity of viewpoints. Leave Rush on or whatever, but balance his perspective with someone of the opposing viewpoint. Fair &amp; balanced and all that crap...

That isn't as easy as it sounds. Limbaugh just isn't THAT important.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I was in the United States Army for 10 years and I feel the need to speak out. These soldiers were forced into this situation where they had a superior place over them from Military Inteligence. Military Intelligence probably warped their minds and convinced them they should do things that they normally would not do for the "Good of their Country!". If you know nothing else about the military you should know that no soldier, much less a group of soldiers can do anything in a Unit that their commander or commanders do not know about. Nothing can happen in a military unit like an MP unit that is not talked about by other people in the unit.

MP's are some of the strictest and sometimes the craziest bunch of GIs that I have ever had the honor of working with. In my heart I know they are capable of such things because they are in law enforcement. However, before I would charge any of them I would have had a Courts Martial for their Unit Commander. He (or she) would have been the first to go on trial. I might have started with the Battallion level Commander as well. There is no excuse for this action.

The second thing I would do is investigate Military Intelligence.

Then and only then would I consider charges against the men.

Limbaugh has some very valid points. When people are thrust into difficult war time conditions, they tend to become a product of their environment. You can not expect military men and women to come back from Iraq as normal healthy human beings. They are probably sufferring from any number of mental conditions just having to serve in a combat zone. Soldiers are trained and expected to be tough. Often it is more play acting than reality. They are just as scared and fearful as anyone else. I would expect they deserve a second chance. If you can give a person a second chance that is an alcoholic, why not a soldier who volunteered to protect you?

It is also against the Forum rules to attack one person like this. This sounds like some kind of a personal attack. I dont much listen to limbaugh much anymore, because I think he is too polarizing to one side due to politics. I tend to listen to shawn hanady and even mr Savage. However, one thing I will say about Limbaugh is he has a good ability to read what people mean and what they are thinking when they say and do something in public. He is very good at looking at the evidence and seeing what motivates people to do the things that they do.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Rush is an entertainer, plain and simple. The fact that he uses political material for for this entertainment does not make him a political commentator. Rush is to politics as Jeff Foxworthy is to rednecks (no sleight intended). His show does not meet any realistic criterea as political information for the troops.

The only problem I have with Rush and his show (I have listened to him occasionally) is that to many people take it way too seriously and find it meaningful.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The guys on strong narcotics, you have to take that into consideration.

Um, celebrities like to call them "pain pills." That way, it doesn't sound like they are so heavily addicted. :)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Not sure if this was brought up or not, but there was an amendment passed unanimously that seeks to force the Pentagon to ensure fairness and balance on teh AFR network. Here's a little blurb from Salon.com.

I especially thought the comments from Limbaugh were completely without merit. How is this amendment "akin to censorship?" Apparantly fatboy doesn't understand the notion of censorship very well does he? Not only that, Limbaugh lied about some "senior Republican senator" helping to "scuttle the amendment." Which never happened. An outright lie from Rush. Who'd ever guess?

Service men and women around the world who tune in to American Forces Radio may soon be hearing a more balanced mix of political commentary -- and not exclusively the partisan rants of Rush Limbaugh. A Senate amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- passed unanimously earlier this month and attached to the pending defense appropriations bill -- calls on the Pentagon to ensure fairness and balance on the AFR network. Currently, Limbaugh's program is the only long-form political talk show broadcast daily to the nearly 1 million U.S. troops who listen to American Forces Radio in 177 countries.

"Liberals, moderates and independents contribute to funding for American Forces Radio through payment of their taxes, just like conservatives do," noted Harkin in his Congressional Record statement about the amendment. "There is no reason that American service members should receive lengthy right-wing commentaries with regularity on American Forces Radio's talk service, without some balance from competing views as part of that same service." Harkin is urging American Forces Radio to find room for a long-form liberal commentator.

Limbaugh has attacked Harkin's amendment, saying that it's akin to censorship. But in a peculiar twist, Limbaugh told listeners on his June 18 show a self-aggrandizing tale about how a senior Republican senator had stepped in on his behalf and helped scuttle Harkin's proposal -- an account the senator's office flatly denies.

...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Here's some more on the bizarro lies being spewed by Rush on this particular topic. From the same article:

Last week, while attacking Harkin's American Forces Radio amendment, Limbaugh opted for misinformation, telling listeners the senator's proposal was designed to "to get this program stripped from that network." Yet in his Congressional Record statement, Harkin specifically noted: "I am not calling for American Forces Radio to pull Rush Limbaugh's commentaries from their talk radio service."

That Limbaugh would misrepresent Harkin's public statements is not surprising in view of his many other deceits. For instance, on June 17, he told radio listeners that the 9/11 commission had found "that [Sept. 11 mastermind] Mohammed Atta did meet with an Iraqi intelligence agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001." In fact, the commission found the exact opposite: "We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

More puzzling, though, was Limbaugh's apparent decision to fabricate a story involving Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Discussing American Forces Radio during his June 18 program, Limbaugh told listeners, "He [Stevens] sent me a fax today with a revised [Harkin] amendment. They've gone in and they fixed the amendment. They -- they've watered this thing down. Whatever the Harkin amendment was, it now doesn't mention my name."

According to Stevens' spokeswoman, Courtney Schikora, the senator did call Limbaugh and fax him a copy of the Harkin amendment. But neither Stevens nor anybody in his office sent the host a "revised" amendment, "watered" it down or removed Limbaugh's name. The last part would have been impossible, in any case, because Harkin's proposal never mentioned Limbaugh. Schikora adds that Stevens does not oppose or want to alter Harkin's amendment, since it simply reaffirms the network's existing mission, specifically regarding fairness and balance.

Nonetheless, on June 18 Limbaugh seemed to relish recounting the now-disputed encounter with Stevens: "I called him and because Ted Stevens is the senator from Alaska. Stevens did something yesterday to revise this and he sent me the -- well, the -- the -- the -- the new amendment. And he said, 'Is this OK?' He said, 'Do you have any objections to this?' [laughter] And I -- I looked at it and said, 'Am I allowed?' [laughter] 'Am I allowed to object to an amendment to the defense appropriations bill when I'm not a senator?' I mean, I can as a -- as a citizen, obviously, but, I mean, any citizen could object. Doesn't matter."

Even some of Limbaugh's closest watchers were struck by the strange tale. "It's an extremely curious thing," says Media Matters' Brock, the author of "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy." "We've documented a lot of things Limbaugh has said that are false and wrong. But this seems to be on a slightly higher level: making up a story about a sitting, powerful Republican senator, and one that makes him look bad. That's asking for trouble. Of course somebody's going to check it out."

After the July 4 congressional recess, Harkin is set to meet with Pentagon officials to discuss his broadcast concerns. His spokeswoman says preliminary talks with American Forces Radio have been "very friendly," with officials expressing a willingness to resolve the issue. Perhaps the network will soon make room for a liberal voice.

Wow, I really want to see a dittohead defend this load of crap... Oh brother. :roll:
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
MonkeyDeal -

Reading you above post made me realize -
Limbaugh's 'Tinfoil Hat' fell off - they got him !
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
MonkeyDeal -

Reading you above post made me realize -
Limbaugh's 'Tinfoil Hat' fell off - they got him !

Yup, more lies in dittoland. I wonder if it's the drugs talking? Or perhaps the stress from his 3rd divorce?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
eh, he's always amusing. fundamentally a hipocrite anyways, calls any media outlet that isn't right wing liberal. whats moderate anyways? its slightly left of right right? course that means to them moderates do not exist:p ;) course calling for the "media" to be truthful and unbiased... doesn't apply the same standards to himself. just does the opposite, to the extreme no less. fundamental hipcrisy is the base of their existence.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Doboji
Rush Limbaugh = Michael Moore

Same concept different venue.
In related news, AAFES has announced that it is pursuing Fahrenheit 9/11 - meaning Moore can also be heard on U.S. bases, albeit briefly.

Mr. Bill, Mr. Bill! Teh company supporting teh 'eval neo-con military' ain't gonna show dat! Oh teh horrar...