I don’t fear Rush. I think is just a buffoon hawking adjustable beds

Hey, don’t knock the “Select Comfort” beds, I’ve had one quite a while and it’s great! The Moron only reads the words on the paper.

See Goebbels understood. Keep saying the same thing and dont let the other side be heard is BASIC PROPAGANDA 101

“I think there is a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them.”

Avram Noam Chomsky quotes

Or as Chomsky points out keep UNDERSTANDING of the issue far from the public. Just repeat dogma so there is no real discussion about the issue only dogmatic reinforcement THAT IS WHY IT IS FAIR.

The bussiness community pays for the lions share of advertisement why should we allow them to control the message COMPLETELY that is sent to the public on the way to becoming conventional wisdom?

I, as do millons of Americans, believe that RUSH is not only factual but is telling it like it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Then you are a brainwashed moron and need to seek professional help immediatly.

EugeneDebs Says:

The problem with this is that we had the fairness doctrine for a long time and this was NOT a problem that is because what the fairness doctrine said was NOT that everything said had to have a counterpoint but that if a PUBLIC ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED the other side had a right to be heard.

Not all public issues have exactly two sides. And when there are two sides, sometimes people want to express a point that’s somewhere near the middle of them. Political discussion ends up being too black-and-white as it is. You would just mandate that as a question of law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are grasping at straws with this argument it doesnt even make sense. Virtually NO issue has only two sides. That doesnt matter. As long as A counterviewpoint is allowed instead of a single constant “conventional wisdom” making viewpoint. THIS is what the Fairness doctrine was before no reason for it to be even different. Two other points. FIRST I dont care one way or another about the fairness doctrine as I have already said and TWO THIS IS ALSO NOT A RELEVANT ARGUMENT. You stated it was censorship. Giving the other side a view cannot possibly be considered censorship which was my ONLY argument here not that we need the fairness doctrine. The argument you made has ZILCH to do with why the fairness doctrine IS censorship as you have said in fact you have YET to make a cogent argument why it is.

Your evidence this is true is WHAT? We HAD THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. That didnt stop talk radio from being controversial as far back as Father Coughlin. Remember Alan Berg? He was controversial enough that someone SHOT HIM. So since that didnt happen last time when we DID have it I see no evidence this would all of a sudden be a problem.

You’re using anecdotal evidence for what is essentially a quantitative problem. But even so we couldn’t compare it quantitatively because the media landscape is vastly different today. There is a possibility of a “chilling effect” on media producers, as I have described. In order to want such a doctrine, there would have to be very good reason for it, enough to overcome such a possibility. I don’t see such a very good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not. I am giving EXAMPLES to show you argument was flat out WRONG. You said it would end up forcing shows to not have a political content at all or be averse to controversy. Showing that didnt happen when the fairness doctrine DID exist is a DIRECT refutation that it would. I mean what is your evidence it would except you keep saying so. As my examples make clear IT DIDNT BEFORE. THIS is also NOT an argument to why the fairness doctrine, which again I DONT CARE ABOUT, is censorship. Cough up some reason why requiring both sides of a public issue be heard is censorship or admit it is just a talking point without substance all this dancing around the subject and no decent arguments why it is censorship.

Nor is this in any way an argument to why it WOULD be censorship. There were plenty back then.

Making someone say something is much like making them not say something. I’d say that both constitute censorship, although of different kinds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My GOD, that was DUMB. No one is MAKING someone say something. Those using OUR airwaves are given a megaphone. Saying that when you address a public issue you have to surrender the megaphone for just a bit to someone who disagrees to COMPLY with the public service aspect that was ALWAYS PART OF THE DEAL of getting that megaphone isnt MAKING anyone say something it is ALLOWING someone who wants to the option. If it is about terrorism no one is going to press gang someone into supporting terrorism. If there isnt anyone arguing the other side fine. So no it is a completly different UNIVERSE than censorship.

The airwaves STILL belong to us. It is a PUBLIC and DEMOCRATIC decision how they are used.

Picture an encoded satellite transmission beaming to a dish, then through cables to people’s TVs and computers. The underlying assumption of your argument is that the public has the right to decide what the content of that encoded information entails. I have a problem with that as precedent for any argument. Once you grant that for one argument, it can be granted for many others. Information works just fine without content regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is a false frame. No one is saying you have to have so many comedy shows or so many news shows or so many liberal shows. There is a REQUIREMENT written right into the FCC guidelines RIGHT NOW that they perform a public service. It IS a democratic decision how this is done. This is NOT IN DISPUTE. I dont care which way this is decided but there is NO reasonable argument that it is censorship nor that there is any first amendment issue involved. The fact is it IS a democratic decision again this is not in dispute the Supreme Court has already ruled on exactly this issue, and YOU are trying to frame it so that it would be a RIGHTS issue for the USERS of our airwaves that would trump OUR ownership rights.
.

The deal we struck in the beggining was that in return for us allowing them to use OUR resource to make obscene buttloads of cash they would perform a public service. WE can decide how that is done and there STILL is no possible definition of censorship that includes demanding BOTH sides of an issue be heard.

I’d allow you a C-SPAN channel that just hosts debates on topical issues, but leave the other media producers out of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Absolutly not. First YOU dont get to tell EVERYONE what to do with the airwaves that BELONG TO THEM. There is a public service requirement EVERY LICENCEE KNOWS THIS. If they dont like complying with their obligation they can go into the dry cleaning bussiness. The media producers make THEIR money off of OUR airwaves. WE can decide what their public service requirements are. This is a public decision, NOT YOURS, not mine but then again I. DONT. CARE. Only that it BE a democratic decision and there is no DISPUTE THAT IT IS. Again the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. YOU are wrong its that simple. You seem to want to put the corporations profit making ABOVE our rights of ownership. ABOVE the people and what is best for the public. IT IS A DEMOCRATIC DECISION. I dont care how it ends up but there is NO CENSORSHIP aspect period. No reasoned argument can POSSIBLY be made that a rule saying that since WE give them the megaphone we also say they have to share it with opposing opinions is censorship. In fact it is like the opposite of censorship.

That is without doubt a correct statement, but it reveals the true problem with the “conservative movement”: they simply don’t know what is really going on. Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. have one mission: to distribute propaganda and misinformation in order to make blue collar Joes and blue-haired old ladies vote against their own interests and instead support the policies that only benefit the already rich.

Imagine if Rush had to actually stick to the truth! He would have a much harder time putting together a “conservative” argument against much of anything. I know that many think that the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary or somehow censorship, but would Limbaugh and Hannity really be able to stand up to the opposing view? Sunlight is the best disinfectant – and shining light on the lies and half-truths spewed by hate radio would open the eyes of a lot of people.

Remember: a lot of these people actually think that Palin should run for president in 2012. Get my point?

Oh Before I Forget: McSame:I don’t know why he would do that. Mr. Limbaugh is a voice of a significant portion of our conservative movement in America.

Obama Did It For A Reason; He Knows The Pig Man Is Full Of Hate And Along With The Pig Man’s Sidekick Parrot Boy, And Even The Pig Man Said It Himself That He Wants To See Obama Fail.

God I Can’t Stand These Rethuglicans!

Durr durr da duur durr *drool*

The trouble with America started when all the dems backed one athiest of taking the rights of prayer and bible reading out of our school system…

You’re complaining about Thomas Jefferson? OK, go ahead with that. If you hate America so much, why don’t you just leave it?

My self I will be sitting on the shores of costa Rica watching the smoke go up over here.

Well OK, thanks.

THE people that put this idiot in office ought to be tried for treason!

Hey, there’s a great system of democracy for ya. If people vote the way you don’t like, you try them for “treason.” Didn’t Stalin do that?

.

rwellsaction Says:

About nuclear weapons? It’s not about a ligimate country obtaining nuclear weapons, It’s all about a country either intentionally letting the weapons get into the wrong hands of a terrorist or being sloppy with the technology by allowing it to get into the wrong hands. Do any of you think that any terrorist wouldn’t hesitate to use these weapons against us in the USA?

I absolutely agree with you. It might be a good idea to elect as President someone from the Senate who’s main pet issue was nuclear proliferation and securing existing nuclear materials and technology worldwide. Maybe somebody like that Barack Obama guy.

.

cynical1 Says:

And whoever said all Republicans are RICH. HELLOOOOOO – what Democrats are POOR??? They are ALL RICH, all of them – making millions off of books, speeches, and other garbage. And what Democrat ever helped the poor????

Hellooooo. Well, most Republican’s aren’t rich, they just vote and act in ways that only help the rich and hurt everybody else, so you can understand our confusion. The fact is, on either side usually only rich people get into high office in this country – exceptions include Biden and Obama. And most prominent Democrats throughout history have made helping the poor a priority, so I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. Try flipping “Democrat” and “Republican” around in your statement and it starts to make a little bit of sense.

Do you people come from an alternate universe where everything is backwards?

.

rwellsaction Says:

#246 AMEN!!!!!

That wasn’t a prayer.

.

rwellsaction Says:

If you want to think 90 virgins could survive a hot place called hell, go ahead! The fool has said in their heart there is NO GOD!!!! This is the problem with the good ole people in the USA!

I have no idea what you’re talking about. None whatsoever.

.

dbadass Says:

Okay so I guess we can conclude that despite the public statements of the nation of Iran announcing their intention to nuke something we can’t actually point to these statements. Wonderful. More made up shit.

He told you, go look it up for yourself. It’s all over the place, you know, somewhere…

.

rwellsaction Says:

What is sin? What is right? What is wrong? Do you know the difference?

It’s wrong to lie to start wars, torture people, waterboard them, imprison them without legitimately determined cause, and enrich the rich at the expense of the public good.

.

rwellsaction Says:

There is none equal with another. There is one true living God. How you view it will not change that.

So you’re admiting that the “global war on terror” is in fact a religious war of Christianity against Islam?

.

rwellsaction Says:

Then where do you think morality came from? Do you think it was all made up by non christians, Christians? Who stands up for morality? Who stands up for imorality? Can you tell?

Check out John Locke sometimes. Morality, aka “ethics” is supportable through natural law. As for “who stands up for morality,” the answer is: progressives, across the board.

.

rwellsaction Says:

Democrats embrace imoraity! more democrats do not believe there is a God. On the other hand, Republicans embrace morality. Most republicans believe in one true living God!! What does that tell you?

You’re the pro- war, torture and poverty party. What does that tell you?

So if someone “believes the one true, living God,” while raping babies, they’re more “moral” in your eyes than an atheist who volunteers to help the sick? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying.

.

rwellsaction Says:

Who is arrogant?

You are. See above.

.

rwellsaction Says:

What a lot of people don’t know is that our fore fathers left to come over here and establish their own country (USA)to be able to worship the one and true living God as they saw fit because they were not allowed too.

England was, and is, officially a Christian nation. They came over here to get away from the restrictions imposed by having an official state religions.

.

independant13 Says:

However, you need to keep in mind while you are bashing Bush, that while in office he had a mostly democratic controlled congress, telling him when he was allowed to wipe his behind.

Not for the first 3/4 of his 8-year term. And for the last 1/4 of that term, the Republicans in Congress blocked anything the Democrats in Congress tried to do. Bush also started issuing vetos at that time. So, you’re exactly wrong.

.

independant13 Says:

And as far as I am concerned, Obama only wated to be president for the “glory” of being the first black to hold the office. I am sure there were more qualified and experienced Blacks that would have been better suited for the job, and I would have gladly voted for on of them, over bambi and the pet gorilla he calls his wife.

Does it make me a racist if I point out that you’re being completely racist?

.

independant13 Says:

WE NEED TO BE UNITED, AS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

Then get on board. Obama’s giving you every opportunity to do so.

.

rwellsaction Says:

It was not about denomination.

To the people who originally moved here from Europe before founding the U.S.A, it was all about denomination.

.

rwellsaction Says:

However, the Christian Jews are not the same and there is a big difference. One believes in the messiah the Risen Christ. One does not! Big Difference!

There are no Christian Jews. And you aren’t better than anybody else, bigot.

.

rwellsaction Says:

It’s the Christian religion that is alway’s under fire!
Not the others!

Tell that to the people under fire in the Middle East. You don’t even know what really being “under fire” for your religion is.

You’re the people starting the “fire.” We’re just defending common human decency against your attacks.

.

rwellsaction Says:

Think about it all you need to see is what each one of them stand for and embrace. It don’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The problem is that a lot of people calling themselves Christians come here and, in the name of Christianity, say that other countries should be bombed because of their religion, that women and homosexuals should have their legal rights stripped away, because the Christian God says so, and that Christianity should be enforced in schools and government on everyone else. Pretty much the same things that radical Muslims believe in other countries, except just change the name.

Based on what we’ve seen, what y’all “stand for” and “embrace” is tyranny and committing evil acts against your fellow human beings.

.

rwellsaction Says:

Yea! Just what I said the Christians are always the one’s under fire by you liberal dems! I agree we can start withing the church and clean up the hypocrits and phony pastors and Christians. I do not embrace that either!

Wonderful! I like to hear more from people who espouse a version of Christianity that embraces peace and tolerance, as Christ himself did.

.

rwellsaction Says:

But let’s let the chips fall where they may. Let’s talk about the liberals that stand for the same thing GAY marriages and are proud to do so.

Dammit, just when I thought you were getting somewhere… I’m proud to stand for allowing gay couples to enjoy the same legal rights that heterosexual couples do, so you’re talking about me now. Let’s do that.

I, as do millons of Americans, believe that RUSH is not only factual but is telling it like it is.

You believe his opinions are facts? See, we just believe that facts are facts. “It is” not like he “tells it,” because you can’t actually create your own reality.

Also I should mention most of the comments were posted at times that productive Americans are working. Exactly as Rush has said.

January 30th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Tweet! Flag on the play. I love it when y’all foul out.

.

scriobhaim Says:

The open secret is that the hate-mongers are those like the author of this article who will wantonly, gratuitously label anyone they disagree with with the labels “hate”, “fascist”, “racist”, “sexist”, etc.

PERSON: Hey, that guy said a racist thing, he’s a racist!
WINGNUT: No, you’re the racist for noticing!

PERSON: Hey, that guy’s spewing hate speech!
WINGNUT: That’s hate speech!

PERSON: Hey, that guy’s evil, stupid and insane!
WINGNUT: It’s evil, stupid and insane to say that!

Wash, rinse, repeat.

.

NoBama44 Says:

LMAO, and you aren’t a good little lemming? Let’s spend 825 billion dollars on things as important as Hollywood and The National Endowment of the Arts?

LYAO, and you haven’t actually looked at what’s in the stimulus plan, have you?

.

Outlawcajun Says:

And why is it when someone disagrees with some moron on the left, it’s HATE speech?

We only use that term for when your heroes advocate murdering people who disagree with them via hanging, gassing, etc. Which they have done.

.

Duckie Says:

I must “ass”ume that most of these comments are from DEMS…cuz most of the comments are mean spirited.

Because Republicans never say mean spirited things, right?

.

Duckie Says:

Duckie Says:

…and we still had our freedoms.

Habeus corpus. Signing statements. Torture. Extraordinary rendition.

.

wileyone Says:

It is unfair to expect everything from him. He is not the messiah.

We know. You’re the ones who use that word, not us. We understand he can’t do everything, but we intend to hold him to a high standard nonetheless.

.

ljayson Says:

…within a few years this country will be a true member of the Europeon Union, trading Euros not dollars. We are all entitled to our own opinion, and I do respect yours. Did Rush hit a nerve with the President?

The dollar weakened against the Euro under Bush.

Obama was only pointing out that Congressional Republicans should think for themselves instead of taking orders from wingnut radio pundits like Rush. He wasn’t criticizing Rush at at ll.

.

wileyone Says:

As far as waterboarding, I consider it a necessary evil. I am sure that terrorist have a good laugh about the bleeding heart liberals concerned with the rights of people who indiscrimatively murder our people.

I consider it evil, period. I am sure that the terrorists are having a good laugh about how the cowardly conservatives abandoned all of their “American” principles after one good attack and now indiscriminately murder their people.

.

liedetector Says:

Actually, obama, et al needs to learn to listen as he is misunderstanding and/or misquoting. Most likely he is just lying…

Explain, please. His quote was cited to you, and Obama wasn’t quoting anybody.

.

cynical1 Says:

I am sure none of you Liberals saw or heard Rush’s comments b/c all of your analysis and this ridiculous article takes what he said completely out of context.

Actually, the context you’ve provided is from a different part of his broadcast than the comment we were complaining about. If you already know you can’t win without lying (and you must) then save us some electrons and don’t even bother.

.

wileyone Says:

To dbadass
Yes, I can tell you how many lives were lost. Zero.

dbaddass asked how many lives were saved through waterboarding. You changed that word on purpose. You can’t win an argument without cheating, and you won’t get away with cheating.

.

wileyone Says:

Yes, the dogs are rapidly acquiring nuclear missles.

Put down the medication and step away from the computer.

The problem with this is that we had the fairness doctrine for a long time and this was NOT a problem that is because what the fairness doctrine said was NOT that everything said had to have a counterpoint but that if a PUBLIC ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED the other side had a right to be heard.

Not all public issues have exactly two sides. And when there are two sides, sometimes people want to express a point that’s somewhere near the middle of them. Political discussion ends up being too black-and-white as it is. You would just mandate that as a question of law.

Your evidence this is true is WHAT? We HAD THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. That didnt stop talk radio from being controversial as far back as Father Coughlin. Remember Alan Berg? He was controversial enough that someone SHOT HIM. So since that didnt happen last time when we DID have it I see no evidence this would all of a sudden be a problem.

You’re using anecdotal evidence for what is essentially a quantitative problem. But even so we couldn’t compare it quantitatively because the media landscape is vastly different today. There is a possibility of a “chilling effect” on media producers, as I have described. In order to want such a doctrine, there would have to be very good reason for it, enough to overcome such a possibility. I don’t see such a very good reason.

Nor is this in any way an argument to why it WOULD be censorship. There were plenty back then.

Making someone say something is much like making them not say something. I’d say that both constitute censorship, although of different kinds.

The airwaves STILL belong to us. It is a PUBLIC and DEMOCRATIC decision how they are used.

Picture an encoded satellite transmission beaming to a dish, then through cables to people’s TVs and computers. The underlying assumption of your argument is that the public has the right to decide what the content of that encoded information entails. I have a problem with that as precedent for any argument. Once you grant that for one argument, it can be granted for many others. Information works just fine without content regulation.

.

The deal we struck in the beggining was that in return for us allowing them to use OUR resource to make obscene buttloads of cash they would perform a public service. WE can decide how that is done and there STILL is no possible definition of censorship that includes demanding BOTH sides of an issue be heard.

I’d allow you a C-SPAN channel that just hosts debates on topical issues, but leave the other media producers out of it.

Yea! Just what I said the Christians are always the one’s under fire by you liberal dems! I agree we can start withing the church and clean up the hypocrits and phony pastors and Christians. I do not embrace that either! But let’s let the chips fall where they may. Let’s talk about the liberals that stand for the same thing GAY marriages and are proud to do so. Make no bones about it. That’s one thing for some within the churches to be found doing this secretly and hiding it and getting caught which in my opinion are sinners and lost people posing to be Christians and really aren’t. But to have people running for office that are not ashamed of their immoral acts and laugh about it, while doing it. THIS IS SICK!

This nation has already been destroyed by George, Dick and Carl Rove, (Who will soon be in prison). That’s the prime reason why the Republicans have been removed from office by the people of these United States. Your “Do Nothing” president has been replaced with a team that has already gotten off their “Rush Limbaughs” and are steering this country in the right direction, despite your anal negative attitudes and your attempts to make them look bad. And I did not say all Republicans are rich!! I said all real repuplicans are rich. The rest of you are just “Wanna Be Republicans”. You’ve been brainwashed by Rush, who by the way is laughing all the way to the bank!!
Biden Clinton, or maybe Clinton Biden and our First Gentleman “Wild Bill”.