Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on March 22, 2012, 01:22:09 PM
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/22/radio-campaign-next-step-against-rush-limbaugh/
-
Yep.
Freedom of speech as long as it doesnt go against the party line.
I swear you may as well just start calling the Democratic party the "National Communist Party", they've gotten so bad many of their actions remind me of the Soviets.
I dont know how they got here. Far to many radicals coming out of college going into politics, methinks.
-
Need to add I made the big time on facebook with this link.......Mark Levin shared my link 8)
-
Need to add I made the big time on facebook with this link.......Mark Levin shared my link 8)
OBEY ! ! ! ! !
-
City Council OKs Resolution Urging Media To Curb ‘Racist, Sexist Slurs’
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/03/22/city-council-oks-resolution-urging-media-to-curb-racist-sexist-slurs
March 22, 2012 12:21 PM
LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The City Council has approved a resolution calling on local TV and radio stations to limit any “racist” and “sexist” comments on their broadcasts.
The City Council voted 13-2 to pass the resolution with a motion urging “the management of radio and television stations in Los Angeles to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles”.
Councilmen Joe Buscaino and Mitchell Englander cast the two opposing votes to the resolution, which was introduced on Mar. 7 by Councilwoman Jan Perry in response to a the controversy over recent comments by KFI 640 talk radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou.
The duo had recently drawn criticism for referring to the late pop singer Whitney Houston as a “crack ho” in February in the wake of her untimely death.
While largely a symbolic gesture, the resolution warned controversial comments from on-air talent like Kobylt and Chiampou along with others is “intolerable” and can potentially lead to “an environment where negative comments can go unchecked and corporate guidelines and policies are no longer being enforced”.
-
Jesus Christ.........
I thought they were all about freedom of speech? About people being able to express themselves? Guess not when it offends someone else, then their freedom of speech doesnt matter. ::)
Were heading down a slippery slope.
-
They can't just ignore him and change the station...he must be silenced. ::)
-
They can't just ignore him and change the station...he must be silenced. ::)
Cant handle being disagreed with, must silence those who dissent.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/22/radio-campaign-next-step-against-rush-limbaugh/
amen brother
I love how they howl when someone says something they think is wrong.
I think they really keep thier sheep hypnotized.
Its only way for them to make sense.
-
No one is challenging the dope addicts right to free speech
he can stand on the stree corner and say whatever he wants
he can blog, podcast, write a book, etc..
he doesn't have a right to the have a radio show
if that were the case then my free speech would be denied unless I also had a radio show just like the fat, drug addled moron
btw - I'm sure he's got enough money to buy a radio station and broadcast his racist, misogynist beliefs 24/7
-
This campaign doesn't represent all liberals. Sorry that is a fail on your part Coochie.
However, this group is allowed to voice their opinion just as Rush is.
-
No one is challenging the dope addicts right to free speech
he can stand on the stree corner and say whatever he wants
he can blog, podcast etc..
he doesn't have a right to the have a radio show
if that were the case then my free speech would be denied unless I also had a radio show just like the fat, drug addled moron
btw - I'm sure he's got enough money to buy a radio station and broadcast his racist, misogynist beliefs 24/7
Hey dude, with all bullshit aside. The next time you want to call someone a drug addict just refer back to that asshole president who flat out admitted to cocaine and weed use. After you read that that then you can just shut the Fuck up.
-
No one is challenging the dope addicts right to free speech
he can stand on the stree corner and say whatever he wants
he can blog, podcast, write a book, etc..
he doesn't have a right to the have a radio show
if that were the case then my free speech would be denied unless I also had a radio show just like the fat, drug addled moron
btw - I'm sure he's got enough money to buy a radio station and broadcast his racist, misogynist beliefs 24/7
Attempting to.censor.someone based on what they're saying is violating free speech.
Just because he has a national medium to speak on and you don't,.does not mean your freedom of speech is being violated. Your post makes no sense and is a pathetic attempt at justification.
-
This campaign doesn't represent all liberals. Sorry that is a fail on your part Coochie.
However, this group is allowed to voice their opinion just as Rush is.
Bullshit, liberals hate the truth. When truth is presented they literally lie their ASS off about it. This is flat out fact.
-
Hey dude, with all bullshit aside. The next time you want to call someone a drug addict just refer back to that asshole president who flat out admitted to cocaine and weed use. After you read that that then you can just shut the Fuck up.
do you know the difference with drug use and drug addiction
you're a drug user.....are you an addict (I'm sure some would say yes)
when you're doing so much Hillbilly Heroin that you go deaf then you have a problem
btw - why all the anger. Your fat hero admitted he was an addict
How did you miss that ?
they even had it on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99731,00.html
-
Attempting to.censor.someone based on what they're saying is violating free speech.Just because he has a national medium to speak on and you don't,.does not mean your freedom of speech is being violated. Your post makes no sense and is a pathetic attempt at justification.
having a radio show is not free speech
-
having a radio show is not free speech
What??
-
Again......liberal douchbag hypocrisy at its finest. These idiots are to stupid to see that eventually guys like Obama will come for them as well.
-
having a radio show is not free speech
Youre absolutley right, there is no right to having a radio show.
HOWEVER, when you have a radio show that is approved of by the owner/operator of the radio station, and you have an independant party trying to shut you down because they dont like what you have to say, that IS a violation of his right to free speech.
If the company airing his program wanted to shut him down because he violated their rules, thats one thing. But a 3rd party cannot have someone shut down because they dont like what he has to say. Sorry.
-
Air America failed....everything they do like this fails, otherwise they wouldn't say a word.
-
Youre absolutley right, there is no right to having a radio show.
HOWEVER, when you have a radio show that is approved of by the owner/operator of the radio station, and you have an independant party trying to shut you down because they dont like what you have to say, that IS a violation of his right to free speech.
If the company airing his program wanted to shut him down because he violated their rules, thats one thing. But a 3rd party cannot have someone shut down because they dont like what he has to say. Sorry.
the public has a right to protest what is on the public airwaves
the station owner can just ignore them if he wants
why do you think Media Matters does not have the right to buy advertising and express an opinion
plenty of right wing groups do it so whats the problem when a left wing group does it
isn't that just the free market at work?
-
do you know the difference with drug use and drug addiction
you're a drug user.....are you an addict (I'm sure some would say yes)
when you're doing so much Hillbilly Heroin that you go deaf then you have a problem
btw - why all the anger. Your fat hero admitted he was an addict
How did you miss that ?
they even had it on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99731,00.html
Yes I do. I was a counselor. I also can spot a blatant lair from a mile away. I also know that VERY few can do coke only once or twice without becoming addicted themselves and what about the weed? Seriously, think.
-
Yes I do. I was a counselor. I also can spot a blatant lair from a mile away. I also know that VERY few can do coke only once or twice without becoming addicted themselves and what about the weed? Seriously, think.
I know people who have done coke and pot and other stuff who aren't addicts and I'm sure you do too
Since Rush actually admitted he was an addict (and we'll ignore all the hyprocrisy regarding his statements about drug addics) why the anger when I call him an addict ?
-
I know people who have done coke and pot and other stuff who aren't addicts and I'm sure you do too
Since Rush actually admitted he was an addict (and we'll ignore all the hyprocrisy regarding his statements about drug addics) why the anger when I call him an addict ?
Please, do you really think Obama is going to admit to anything? Just today he shifted the blame about solylndra to the repubs after taking credit for it. He's a pathological lair.
-
the public has a right to protest what is on the public airwaves
the station owner can just ignore them if he wants
why do you think Media Matters does not have the right to buy advertising and express an opinion
plenty of right wing groups do it so whats the problem when a left wing group does it
isn't that just the free market at work?
I see youre still trying to argue semantics.
The public has the right to bitch, but they have no more right to silence him than he does to silence them.
Them bitching is of course not violating his free speech, but again, thats you arguing semantics. Were not discussing them bitching about what he's saying, were discussing what their ultimate goal is (having him taken off the air because they dont like what he's saying.)
They dont have the right to silence him. Period. If they did, it would be a violation of his free speech.
The only person that can shut him down is the station owner.
-
Please, do you really think Obama is going to admit to anything? Just today he shifted the blame about solylndra to the repubs after taking credit for it. He's a pathological lair.
Really? What a piece of shit Obama is. Its seems every fucking day it gets worse and worse, shift the blame, never his fault, always someone else stopping him from doing what needs to be done.
Pretty sure if Lincoln was alive today and he met Obama, he'd go commit suicide.
-
I see youre still trying to argue semantics.
The public has the right to bitch, but they have no more right to silence him than he does to silence them.
Them bitching is of course not violating his free speech, but again, thats you arguing semantics. Were not discussing them bitching about what he's saying, were discussing what their ultimate goal is (having him taken off the air because they dont like what he's saying.)
They dont have the right to silence him. Period. If they did, it would be a violation of his free speech.
The only person that can shut him down is the station owner.
again, I don't agree with the premise (not sure it's yours) that Rush needs a radio show in order to have free speech
he can stand outside the radio station and say whatever he wants
he can write books, podcast, etc...
no one is denying him free speech
-
again, I don't agree with the premise (not sure it's yours) that Rush needs a radio show in order to have free speech
he can stand outside the radio station and say whatever he wants
he can write books, podcast, etc...
no one is denying him free speech
No one is saying that he has to have a radio show!
He has one, and the speech he is saying on the radio is just as protected as it is on the street.
You dont have to have a radio show to have free speech, but he has one, and that speech is no different than anyone elses. If it wasnt, anyone could censor what is talked about on the radio so that only "approved propoganda" is discussed.
Free speech applies to radio, news, blogs, podcast, everything. You cannot censor someone from ANY medium simply because you dont like what he's saying.
If he has access to something to get his speech out there, its protected.
You logic is flawed. You think that since he could go somewhere else, its not a violation which is just wrong. With that logic, nothing is to stop them from banning his blog, cause he could talk on the street. Then they could ban him from talking on the street, cause he could just go talk at home. Youre logic leads to mass censorship.
-
No one is saying that he has to have a radio show!
He has one, and the speech he is saying on the radio is just as protected as it is on the street.
You dont have to have a radio show to have free speech, but he has one, and that speech is no different than anyone elses. If it wasnt, anyone could censor what is talked about on the radio so that only "approved propoganda" is discussed.
Free speech applies to radio, news, blogs, podcast, everything. You cannot censor someone from ANY medium simply because you dont like what he's saying.
If he has access to something to get his speech out there, its protected.
You logic is flawed. You think that since he could go somewhere else, its not a violation which is just wrong. With that logic, nothing is to stop them from banning his blog, cause he could talk on the street. Then they could ban him from talking on the street, cause he could just go talk at home. Youre logic leads to mass censorship.
and the speech of people protesting him is protected too
he has a right to say whatever he wants and anyone and everyone has the right to protest it
he is not being censored
as you've agreed, "no one is saying he has to have a radio show"
If he doesn't have a radio show he can still publicy speak, write, publish those exact same words
there is no censorship happening here
-
and the speech of people protesting him is protected too
he has a right to say whatever he wants and anyone and everyone has the right to protest it
he is not being censored
as you've agreed, "no one is saying he has to have a radio show"
If he doesn't have a radio show he can still publicy speak, write, publish those exact same words
there is no censorship happening here
WTF!!!
I just said in an above post that HIS right to speak on the radio show is just as protected as THEIR right to bitch.
No one is talking about them complaining, Im talking about their objective.
STOP ARGUING SEMANTICS!!!!!
They cant silence him anymore than he can silence them. As I said above. Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing, it makes you look like an ass.
Theyre not protesting him, theyre trying to have him removed from the air based on what he says. That is censorship.
If they were just protesting like you keep talking about, no one would care.
-
and the speech of people protesting him is protected too
he has a right to say whatever he wants and anyone and everyone has the right to protest it
he is not being censored
as you've agreed, "no one is saying he has to have a radio show"
If he doesn't have a radio show he can still publicy speak, write, publish those exact same words
there is no censorship happening here
Of course it's censorship. ::)
Do you even know the definition of such a simple term.
-
Of course it's censorship. ::)
Do you even know the definition of such a simple term.
He's arguing semantics.
At 1st he tried the "its not a cencorship if its on the radio, cause everyone would have to have a radio show for their rights to be taken. (makes absolutley no sense).
Then he tried the protesters rights supercede Rush's rights - "they people have every right to protest because they have freedom of speech too" (even though they arent protesting, theyre trying to get him silenced).
Wonder which way hell go next just to argue with people?
He's literally arguing points no one is talking or cares about, lol.
-
Of course it's censorship. ::)
Do you even know the definition of such a simple term.
then I'll go to Clear Channel and demand a radio show and if I don't get one then I'm obviosly being censored
-
He's arguing semantics.
At 1st he tried the "its not a cencorship if its on the radio, cause everyone would have to have a radio show for their rights to be taken. (makes absolutley no sense).
Then he tried the protesters rights supercede Rush's rights - "they people have every right to protest because they have freedom of speech too" (even though they arent protesting, theyre trying to get him silenced).
Wonder which way hell go next just to argue with people?
He's literally arguing points no one is talking or cares about, lol.
No, he's confused a person's rights with what constitutes censorship.
I'm sure by now you've realized he's not too bright.
-
then I'll go to Clear Channel and demand a radio show and if I don't get one then I'm obviosly being censored
That makes absolutley no sense.
You dont have a right to a radio show.
You DO have the right to say whatever you want on a radio show, IF you have access to one/can afford one.
Just cause you cannot get yourself on/afford a radio show to get your protected speech out there does not mean that someone is violating your rights. ::)
Youre whole premise and logic is flawed, and makes no sense, and its really making you look like an idiot.
BTW, youre above statement is the most idiotic argument ive ever had the misfortune of reading.
-
He's arguing semantics.
At 1st he tried the "its not a cencorship if its on the radio, cause everyone would have to have a radio show for their rights to be taken. (makes absolutley no sense).
Then he tried the protesters rights supercede Rush's rights - "they people have every right to protest because they have freedom of speech too" (even though they arent protesting, theyre trying to get him silenced).
Wonder which way hell go next just to argue with people?
He's literally arguing points no one is talking or cares about, lol.
you've already agreed he has no right to a radio show so what's the problem if it's taken away
being taken off the air because people object to your content is not censorship
BTW - who is conducting this censorship on Rush
Is it the goverment?
Are you tuning into Rush and hearing long spaces of dead air because parts of his show have been redacted
Does an owner of a radio show have a right to tell his employee what they can and cannot say on the air
is that censorship ?
Does he have the right to fire him if he violates the rules established by his employer?
is that censorship
Can I walk around my office saying whatever I want to anyone and then cry censorship when I'm reprimanded and/or fired ?
-
That makes absolutley no sense.
You dont have a right to a radio show.
You DO have the right to say whatever you want on a radio show, IF you have access to one/can afford one.
Just cause you cannot get yourself on/afford a radio show to get your protected speech out there does not mean that someone is violating your rights. ::)
Youre whole premise and logic is flawed, and makes no sense, and its really making you look like an idiot.
BTW, youre above statement is the most idiotic argument ive ever had the misfortune of reading.
and neither does Rush
-
you've already agreed he has no right to a radio show so what's the problem if it's taken away
being taken off the air because people object to your content is not censorship
BTW - who is conducting this censorship on Rush
Is it the goverment?
Are you tuning into Rush and hearing long spaces of dead air because parts of his show have been redacted
Does an owner of a radio show have a right to tell his employee what they can and cannot say on the air
is that censorship ?
Does he have the right to fire him if he violates the rules established by his employer?
is that censorship
Can I walk around my office saying whatever I want to anyone and then cry censorship when I'm reprimanded and/or fired ?
Your a fucking idiot and Im not going to keep arguing semantics with you.
If the owner of the radio station doesnt like what he has to say, he can take away his access to the radio station. Rush's right to speech is protected, the radio station agree's with his message, so he's allowed to speak on it by the radio station owner, AND NO ONE ELSE CAN STOP HIM. Besides the station owner. Otherwise is a violation of his freedom of speech. As the Radio station agrees with Rush's message, it becomes the stations speech, and a 3rd party trying to silence that station IS a violation of freedom of speech.
HOWEVER, a 3rd party cannot decide that they dont like what he has to say and shut him down. Thats not how it works here.
The speech is protected either way. But if the station owner decides he doesnt like it, he has to go somewhere else to get his message out. But no random fucking person can decide to take Rush off the air if they dont like what he has to say.
I cant figure out how youre so fucking stupid as to separate these points, its not all one way or none.
-
and neither does Rush
NO ONE SAID HE DOES!
However, the station owner doesnt mind, so guess what? NO 3rd party can tell Rush he cant say whatever the fuck he wants on SOMEONE ELSES STATION. That is censorship.
If the station owner doesnt like what Rush has to say and no longer lets him have airtime, thats NOT a violation of freedom of speech, because its the PRIVATE PARTIES medium, its up to him to decide what he wants playing on his station.
Once more - A 3RD PARTY CANNOT COME AND TELL A STATION THAT THEY DONT LIKE WHAT RUSH IS BROADCASTING AND TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE AIR, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH AND CENSORSHIP.
You cant even figure out what youre arguing can you?
Freedom of speech on radio is still freedom of speech.
Rush's freedom of speech is the stations freedom of speech. No other party can silence their speech because they dont like what the station is saying.
And YOU dont have a right to a radio station. You can afford one? Great, you can say whatever the fuck you want and no one can stop you because of the freedom of speech. But just because you cant afford one does not mean that the speech of others is not protected on it.
-
then I'll go to Clear Channel and demand a radio show and if I don't get one then I'm obviosly being censored
In the broadest sense, yes you are being censored.
That doesn't mean it's illegal. Not all censorship is illegal. Whether it's right or wrong, fair or unfair is always arguable.
-
Your a fucking idiot and Im not going to keep arguing semantics with you.
If the owner of the radio station doesnt like what he has to say, he can take away his access to the radio station. Rush's right to speech is protected, the radio station agree's with his message, so he's allowed to speak on it by the radio station owner, AND NO ONE ELSE CAN STOP HIM. Besides the station owner. Otherwise is a violation of his freedom of speech.
HOWEVER, a 3rd party cannot decide that they dont like what he has to say and shut him down. Thats not how it works here.
The speech is protected either way. But if the station owner decides he doesnt like it, he has to go somewhere else to get his message out. But no random fucking person can decide to take Rush off the air if they dont like what he has to say.
I cant figure out how youre so fucking stupid as to separate these points, its not all one way or none.
so the owner has the right to tell Rush what he can and cannot say and that, in your opinion is not censorship
I'm glad we agree on that
A 3rd party has NO ABILITY to directly shut Rush down
A 3rd part has every right to object to him and try to pressure the emloyer to take him off the public airwaves and if the owner caves in then it's the owner taking him off the air and you've already agreed that it's OK and not censorship for the owner to do that
again, I say none of this is censorship because Rush has every right to have his words heard, read, etc.. in multiple different formats
The public airwaves are not the same thing as the town square or the sidewalk
-
Why can't liberals just support a liberal radio host and compete in the arena of ideas ?
-
In the broadest sense, yes you are being censored.
That doesn't mean it's illegal. Not all censorship is illegal. Whether it's right or wrong, fair or unfair is always arguable.
I dont really agree with that.
No one is stopping him from going and getting a radio station to broadcast whatever he wants.
Just cause he cant/wont doesnt mean that others that do arent protected.
-
so the owner has the right to tell Rush what he can and cannot say and that, in your opinion is not censorship
I'm glad we agree on that
A 3rd party has NO ABILITY to directly shut Rush down
A 3rd part has every right to object to him and try to pressure the emloyer to take him off the public airwaves and if the owner caves in then it's the owner taking him off the air and you've already agreed that it's OK and not censorship for the owner to do that
again, I say none of this is censorship because Rush has every right to have his words heard, read, etc.. in multiple different formats
The public airwaves are not the same thing as the town square or the sidewalk
Jesus christ. Again, multiple pages for you to say "I want to argue cause your definition is different than mine".
If a 3rd party tries to shut down a show on a station because they dont like what is said, that is censorship. Period.
You dont get to decide what format/medium is acceptable and whats not. Any format that he can get his speech out legally is protected. The owner of the station has the right to decide because its his station, when they make and agreement and Rush starts talking, his speech BECOMES the stations speech.
Definition -
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body
Guess what - youre wrong.
-
I dont really agree with that.
No one is stopping him from going and getting a radio station to broadcast whatever he wants.
Just cause he cant/wont doesnt mean that others that do arent protected.
Ok, just to clear up something - freedom of speech protections apply to the government.
Nobody is "protected" from employers, private businesses open to the public, etc. You can't go into Macy's and start yelling curse words and claim free speech protection.
The government is not trying to shut Rush down.
Private groups are trying to censor Rush.
The issue is whether it's fair/unfair or right/wrong. Not protected/unprotected, etc.
-
Liberals NEVER want to debate ideas and issues. They want to shut down debate and shut people off.
-
Liberals NEVER want to debate ideas and issues. They want to shut down debate and shut people off.
Agreed.
-
Ok, just to clear up something - freedom of speech protections apply to the government.
Nobody is "protected" from employers, private businesses open to the public, etc. You can't go into Macy's and start yelling curse words and claim free speech protection.
The government is not trying to shut Rush down.
Private groups are trying to censor Rush.
The issue is whether it's fair/unfair or right/wrong. Not protected/unprotected, etc.
So again, boils down to semantics. Instead of the word "protection", its simply a matter of the fact that a 3rd party does not have the right to censor someone based on the fact that they dont like what is being said, as that is up to the discretion of the employer. Which, in this case, since the employer sides with Rush, would take an act of governmental intereance to shut rush down, which is what Ive been talking about the whole time, the end goal of this is to get Rush taken off the air, which would have to be done by the government.
-
Jesus christ. Again, multiple pages for you to say "I want to argue cause your definition is different than mine".
If a 3rd party tries to shut down a show on a station because they dont like what is said, that is censorship. Period.
You dont get to decide what format/medium is acceptable and whats not. Any format that he can get his speech out legally is protected. The owner of the station has the right to decide because its his station, when they make and agreement and Rush starts talking, his speech BECOMES the stations speech.
Definition -
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body
Guess what - youre wrong.
and if Rush can walk out the front door of the radio station an say the exact same speech then how is he being censored
again, free speech does not mean you have a right to a radio show (and if you disagree that's certainly your perogative)
If Rush loses his radio show he is not losing his free speech and just because I don't have a radio show does not mean I'm being denied free speech
that's about as simple as I can make it for you
-
Ok, just to clear up something - freedom of speech protections apply to the government.
Nobody is "protected" from employers, private businesses open to the public, etc. You can't go into Macy's and start yelling curse words and claim free speech protection.
The government is not trying to shut Rush down.
Private groups are trying to censor Rush.
The issue is whether it's fair/unfair or right/wrong. Not protected/unprotected, etc.
exactly
and it's fair for Rush to say whatever he wants just like it's fair for people to object and try to get him fired
-
and if Rush can walk out the front door of the radio station an say the exact same speech then how is he being censored
again, free speech does not mean you have a right to a radio show (and if you disagree that's certainly your perogative)
If Rush loses his radio show he is not losing his free speech and just because I don't have a radio show does not mean I'm being denied free speech
that's about as simple as I can make it for you
Dude........ NO ONE SAID RUSH LOSING HIS SHOW IS LOSING HIS FREE SPEECH.
The point has been the WHOLE TIME, that a 3RD PARTY CANNOT STOP A PRIVATE COMPANY FROM SAYING WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT JUST BECAUSE THEY DONT LIKE IT. Im not going round and round with youre stupid circular logic and what if scenarios.
A 3RD PARTY CANNOT TELL A PRIVATE BUSINESS WHAT A PERSON CAN OR CANNOT SAY ON THEIR AIRWAVES.
They can bitch, complain, pressure the business all they want, but they CANNOT HAVE HIM TAKEN OFF THE AIR from ANYONE BUT THE OWNER OF THE RADIO STATION.
-
exactly
and it's fair for Rush to say whatever he wants just like it's fair for people to object and try to get him fired
I SAID THIS RIGHT IN THE BEGINING YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Youve been arguing shit that never was being disagreed with just because it wasnt exactly how you worded it!!! (Semantics)
1st here -
The public has the right to bitch, but they have no more right to silence him than he does to silence them.
And then here when you kept arguing the same thing that I wasnt disagreeing with you about
I just said in an above post that HIS right to speak on the radio show is just as protected as THEIR right to bitch.
-
Dude........ NO ONE SAID RUSH LOSING HIS SHOW IS LOSING HIS FREE SPEECH.
The point has been the WHOLE TIME, that a 3RD PARTY CANNOT STOP A PRIVATE COMPANY FROM SAYING WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT JUST BECAUSE THEY DONT LIKE IT. Im not going round and round with youre stupid circular logic and what if scenarios.
A 3RD PARTY CANNOT TELL A PRIVATE BUSINESS WHAT A PERSON CAN OR CANNOT SAY ON THEIR AIRWAVES.
They can bitch, complain, pressure the business all they want, but they CANNOT HAVE HIM TAKEN OFF THE AIR from ANYONE BUT THE OWNER OF THE RADIO STATION.
and a 3rd party is not doing that
all a 3rd parting it doing is running advertisements expressing an opinion
that's it
so why the 3 pages of hysterics about "censorship" ?
-
and a 3rd party is not doing that
all a 3rd parting it doing is running advertisements expressing an opinion
that's it
so why the 3 pages of hysterics about "censorship" ?
Its the very definition of censorship.
The advertisement is merely a means to the end - the end is taking Rush off the air because they dont like what he has to say.
I dont give a fuck what their means of accomplishing their goals are - trying to force someone to shut up because they dont like what is being said, is censorship. \
Just running an ad campaign on why not to listen to Limbaugh would be perfectly acceptable.
Running a campaign with the objective of making it so he's no longer speaking on the air is censorship.
Their entire goal is censorship. Again youre arguing a completley different point. How they do it is a whole nother topic - the end result is censorship. They want Limbaugh censored.
Again - It is the very DEFINITION of censorship.
Last time im posting on this. Im done with you arguing non-points and semantics.
Oh, a quote from the article -
"This is not about women,” said Rachel Nelson, Premiere spokeswoman. “It’s not about ethics and it’s not about the nature of our public discourse. It’s a direct attack on America’s guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It’s essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation.”
-
Its the very definition of censorship.
The advertisement is merely a means to the end - the end is taking Rush off the air because they dont like what he has to say.
I dont give a fuck what their means of accomplishing their goals are - trying to force someone to shut up because they dont like what is being said, is censorship. \
Just running an ad campaign on why not to listen to Limbaugh would be perfectly acceptable.
Running a campaign with the objective of making it so he's no longer speaking on the air is censorship.
Their entire goal is censorship. Again youre arguing a completley different point. How they do it is a whole nother topic - the end result is censorship. They want Limbaugh censored.
Again - It is the very DEFINITION of censorship.
Last time im posting on this. Im done with you arguing non-points and semantics.
Oh, a quote from the article -
we've already agreed that Rush has no right to a radio show so losing his show is not censorship since he can still freely speak and publish his words
It's BIZARRO that you believe that another group expressing their right to free speech (buying advertising expressing an opinion) is the equivalent of censorship
doesn't someone actually have to be censored by the very definition of of that word?
dude you've crawled way out on a shaky limb here
the best thing for you to do is back up slowly and climb down the tree
-
we've already agreed that Rush has no right to a radio show so losing his show is not censorship since he can still freely speak and publish his words
It's BIZARRO that you believe that another group expressing their right to free speech (buying advertising expressing an opinion) is the equivalent of censorship
doesn't someone actually have to be censored by the very definition of of that word?
dude you've crawled way out on a shaky limb here
the best thing for you to do is back up slowly and climb down the tree
LOl its still censorship straw...its not as strong a degree but still censorship.
censorship doesnt mean complete and total removal of a thought. Not letting a thought or speech in a certain arena or platform is censoring that thought.
Fox censor the liberal speech on its network just like MSNBC, ABC, CNN censor the conservative speech on theirs.
-
Is wearing pants censoring the cock? (no homo)
-
Is wearing pants censoring the cock? (no homo)
It is in San Francisco
-
LOl its still censorship straw...its not as strong a degree but still censorship.
censorship doesnt mean complete and total removal of a thought. Not letting a thought or speech in a certain arena or platform is censoring that thought.
Fox censor the liberal speech on its network just like MSNBC, ABC, CNN censor the conservative speech on theirs.
so your argument is that the radio ads by Media Matters are censoring your thoughts and that's the new definition of censorship
I guess Rush is censoring left wing/liberal thoughts on his show
btw
are you serious man?
-
so your argument is that the radio ads by Media Matters are censoring your thoughts and that's the new definition of censorship
I guess Rush is censoring left wing/liberal thoughts on his show
btw
are you serious man?
Goodness gracious is this going to be another hypocrisey incident where you don't know the definition of a word?
Am I trying to get my thoughts on media matters?
Does media matters or run let every view point on their website/show? Well then of course they are censoring their website/show...
Post the definition of censor so we all know you at least recognize it even if you dont understand it.
-
Goodness gracious is this going to be another hypocrisey incident where you don't know the definition of a word?
Am I trying to get my thoughts on media matters?
Does media matters or run let every view point on their website/show? Well then of course they are censoring their website/show...
Post the definition of censor so we all know you at least recognize it even if you dont understand it.
you believe Media Matter running ad is somehow censoring your thoughts?
an ad running on radio is censoring your thoughts?
-
you believe Media Matter running ad is somehow censoring your thoughts?
an ad running on radio is censoring your thoughts?
They are doing it to get rush off the airways - not to engage in debate.
-
They are doing it to get rush off the airways - not to engage in debate.
don't tell me you believe in "thought censorship" too
come on 333 ?
-
don't tell me you believe in "thought censorship" too
come on 333 ?
Not at all - i believe in free speech, the more the better.
-
you believe Media Matter running ad is somehow censoring your thoughts?
an ad running on radio is censoring your thoughts?
Did I say that? Goodness you're a fuking moron...
You can't censor something that isn't there. I'm not trying to get my thoughts on media matters am I? How can thy censor something that isn't there?
Now post the definition of censor so you can look like the deranged morn you are
-
Did I say that? Goodness you're a fuking moron...
You can't censor something that isn't there. I'm not trying to get my thoughts on media matters am I? How can thy censor something that isn't there?
Now post the definition of censor so you can look like the deranged morn you are
yeah you kind of did
btw - running an advertisement on the radio is not the same as not talking about something (i.e. Rush not talking about liberal points of view on his show)
the idea of "thought censorship" is hilarious
LOl its still censorship straw...its not as strong a degree but still censorship.
censorship doesnt mean complete and total removal of a thought. Not letting a thought or speech in a certain arena or platform is censoring that thought.
Fox censor the liberal speech on its network just like MSNBC, ABC, CNN censor the conservative speech on theirs.
-
yeah you kind of did
btw - running an advertisement on the radio is not the same as not talking about something (i.e. Rush not talking about liberal points of view on his show)
the idea of "thought censorship" is hilarious
Lol what an idiot, not letting a thought(as in expressed thoughts) you moronic fuck, who in there right mind would read that and think thoughts?
Seeing as how you read into definitions what you want I guess it's no surprise...
Was the ad not aimed at getting rush off the radio station/air?
You know why we have different movie ratings straw? Bc the censor out certain content per rating, that doesn't mean that content doesn't exist it's still there just not it that movie.
You don't have to completely remove something for it to be censored, simply not allowing it in a certain arena is censoring it.
Why dont these ppl just not pay attention to him? I swear as many liberals must listen to rush as conservatives going by the amount of ppl that get pissy
-
Lol what an idiot, not letting a thought(as in expressed thoughts) you moronic fuck, who in there right mind would read that and think thoughts?
Seeing as how you read into definitions what you want I guess it's no surprise...
Was the ad not aimed at getting rush off the radio station/air?
You know why we have different movie ratings straw? Bc the censor out certain content per rating, that doesn't mean that content doesn't exist it's still there just not it that movie.
You don't have to completely remove something for it to be censored, simply not allowing it in a certain arena is censoring it.
Why dont these ppl just not pay attention to him? I swear as many liberals must listen to rush as conservatives going by the amount of ppl that get pissy
And, now you have liberals on MSNBC, attaching Rush (and the GOP candidates) to the death of that boy in Florida.
-
And, now you have liberals on MSNBC, attaching Rush (and the GOP candidates) to the death of that boy in Florida.
Arguing with liberals is pointless. They are beyond reason and sense in almost all respects.
-
Lol what an idiot, not letting a thought(as in expressed thoughts) you moronic fuck, who in there right mind would read that and think thoughts?
Seeing as how you read into definitions what you want I guess it's no surprise...
Was the ad not aimed at getting rush off the radio station/air?
You know why we have different movie ratings straw? Bc the censor out certain content per rating, that doesn't mean that content doesn't exist it's still there just not it that movie.
You don't have to completely remove something for it to be censored, simply not allowing it in a certain arena is censoring it.
Why dont these ppl just not pay attention to him? I swear as many liberals must listen to rush as conservatives going by the amount of ppl that get pissy
the ad itself does not in any way censor Rush (and doesn't censor your thoughts either)
If the owner chooses to remove him from a station that's the owners (or station manager or whoever) choice and he has every right to do that
It's not censorship
-
Just think if they did get Rush off the air. What will the libs listen too then? He does have the highest liberal audience of anyone on the radio. BTW, Straw...give it up and quit trying to defend your lame ass party. They should be dismantled.
-
-
the ad itself does not in any way censor Rush (and doesn't censor your thoughts either)
If the owner chooses to remove him from a station that's the owners (or station manager or whoever) choice and he has every right to do that
It's not censorship
The definition of censor disagrees with you but dont let facts get in the way you dumb ass...
while youre looking up the definition of censor, look up hypocrisey too ::)
-
The definition of censor disagrees with you but dont let facts get in the way you dumb ass...
while youre looking up the definition of censor, look up hypocrisey too ::)
which definition is that - the one you made up about "thought censorship"
btw - you should learn to spell or at least use spell check
let's do a quick review
Medial Matters is going to run radio ad's as described in the article:
The ads use Limbaugh’s own words about student Sandra Fluke, who told congressional Democrats that contraception should be paid for in health plans. Limbaugh, on his radio programs, suggested Fluke wanted to be paid to have sex, which made her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” In return for the money, he said Fluke should post videos of herself having sex. Under sharp criticism, Limbaugh later apologized.
In one of the anti-Limbaugh ads, listeners are urged to call the local station that carries Limbaugh to say “we don’t talk to women like that” in our city.
That the HUGE CENSORSHIP that everyone is bitching about except that not one word of Rush is being censored and if the station manager/owner/ etc... chooses to remove him from the air then that is not censorship either because that is the owners prerogative at any time
If you want to talk about hypocrisy let's talk about Rush saying Fluke had no right to testify before Congress when she and every other citizen have that right and yet Rush is bitching when someone objects to his words.
-
which definition is that - the one you made up about "thought censorship"
btw - you should learn to spell or at least use spell check
let's do a quick review
Medial Matters is going to run radio ad's as described in the article:
That the HUGE CENSORSHIP that everyone is bitching about except that not one word of Rush is being censored and if the station manager/owner/ etc... chooses to remove him from the air then that is not censorship either because that is the owners prerogative at any time
If you want to talk about hypocrisy let's talk about Rush saying Fluke had no right to testify before Congress when she and every other citizen have that right and yet Rush is bitching when someone objects to his words.
why dont you do your own research and post the definition here like I requested?
if your so sure...LMFAO
-
why dont you do your own research and post the definition here like I requested?
if your so sure...LMFAO
if anyone censors Rush it will be his boss and that is perfectly allowable just like in any other place of business
Media Matters cannot in any way censor him and running an ad is not equivalent to censorship, not even the bizzaro "thought censorshp" that you seem to believe exists
-
if anyone censors Rush it will be his boss and that is perfectly allowable just like in any other place of business
Media Matters cannot in any way censor him and running an ad is not equivalent to censorship, not even the bizzaro "thought censorshp" that you seem to believe exists
Nice try moron, the whole "thought censorship" only serves to highlight your idiocy. Only a fucking moron would think that that "censoring thoughts" equates to thoughts in your head and not expressed thoughts...LMFAO what a moron....
I can agree with that, Im glad to see youve come to understand the term censor and use it correctly.
The fact is though that media matters(or whoever is running the commercial) is advocating for the censorship of rush limbaugh...
why dont these idiots just not listen to him?
-
The fact is though that media matters(or whoever is running the commercial) is advocating for the censorship of rush limbaugh...
why dont these idiots just not listen to him?
One of the chief functions of government is to restrain evil. Broadcast indecency makes it extremely difficult to protect the general population's mental and physical health against corrupting influences.
-
One of the chief functions of government is to restrain evil. Broadcast indecency makes it extremely difficult to protect the general population's mental and physical health against corrupting influences.
Rush is evil?
-
Rush is evil?
Some people might define some of his on-air rhetoric as indecent. Even he apologized for the "slut" fiasco.
-
Some people might define some of his on-air rhetoric as indecent. Even he apologized for the "slut" fiasco.
Really? What about jersey shore? what about soft core porn on tv?
-
Really? What about jersey shore? what about soft core porn on tv?
What about them?
-
What about them?
It's drastically worse than anything rush has said.
-
One of the chief functions of government is to restrain evil. Broadcast indecency makes it extremely difficult to protect the general population's mental and physical health against corrupting influences.
LOL Really???
and who gets to decide whats evil?
why doesnt the govt end abortion then and put a stop to gay marriage?
does their reach only apply to private sectors or public sectors? I mean calling other americans enemies, barbarians at the gate and telling ppl to punish them seems pretty evil to me...
-
It's drastically worse than anything rush has said.
That's a matter of interpretation. I've only seen a few Jersey Shore episodes, but don't recall anything I'd define as evil.
I only read Getbig sporadically now, but I remember you posted a bunch of erroneous articles regarding birth control in the wake of the Sandra Fluke scandal. Those erroneous articles all stemmed from Rush's vicious, erroneous on-air attacks. You could say that liberal media lies, but the fact that Rush repeatedly called her a "slut" shows that he was being intentionally malicious.
-
That's a matter of interpretation. I've only seen a few Jersey Shore episodes, but don't recall anything I'd define as evil.
I only read Getbig sporadically now, but I remember you posted a bunch of erroneous articles regarding birth control in the wake of the Sandra Fluke scandal. Those erroneous articles all stemmed from Rush's vicious, erroneous on-air attacks. You could say that liberal media lies, but the fact that Rush repeatedly called her a "slut" shows that he was being intentionally malicious.
And Big Ed called Laura Ingrahm a slut as well. Why no outrage?
-
That's a matter of interpretation. I've only seen a few Jersey Shore episodes, but don't recall anything I'd define as evil.
I only read Getbig sporadically now, but I remember you posted a bunch of erroneous articles regarding birth control in the wake of the Sandra Fluke scandal. Those erroneous articles all stemmed from Rush's vicious, erroneous on-air attacks. You could say that liberal media lies, but the fact that Rush repeatedly called her a "slut" shows that he was being intentionally malicious.
plenty of intentionally malicious actions going around, you think abortion isnt intentionally malicious?
again whats the criteria on which the basis of whats evil and whats not?
-
And Big Ed called Laura Ingrahm a slut as well. Why no outrage?
Well, Ed called Laura a "talk slut". And it didn't carry over for several days. And he wasn't misrepresenting a position of her's out of malice. And he ended up taking a week of unpaid leave. And he apologized on-air the following day.The two events weren't really comparable.
-
plenty of intentionally malicious actions going around, you think abortion isnt intentionally malicious?
again whats the criteria on which the basis of whats evil and whats not?
Abortion is a medical procedure.
-
Abortion is a medical procedure.
your assertion was that its the govt job to protect ppl from evil...
whether its a medical procedure or not isnt important to your assertion. If its evil its the govt job to protect the ppl from it according to you.
symantics really, the main question is whats the criteria for deciding whats evil or not and who decides it?
-
your assertion was that its the govt job to protect ppl from evil...
whether its a medical procedure or not isnt important to your assertion. If its evil its the govt job to protect the ppl from it according to you.
symantics really, the main question is whats the criteria for deciding whats evil or not and who decides it?
I've never seen "semantics" spelled that way.
-
Media Matters is a joke. Where were they when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut? Didn't hear a word about boycotts, etc. Hacks.
-
Media Matters is a joke. Where were they when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut? Didn't hear a word about boycotts, etc. Hacks.
You must not have been looking very hard, then.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105250043
-
And Big Ed called Laura Ingrahm a slut as well. Why no outrage?
he said it once
there was outrage
he apologized and removed himself from the air for a period of time
Rush went on for 3 days and didn't just call Fluke a slut but lied about her repeatedly and called her much more than a slut
I'm still hoping she decies to sue him
-
he said it once
there was outrage
he apologized and removed himself from the air for a period of time
Rush went on for 3 days and didn't just call Fluke a slut but lied about her repeatedly and called her much more than a slut
I'm still hoping she decies to sue him
The Slut bag is now a public figure and has no claim at all. She is a national disgrace and a piece of garbage.
-
Nice try moron, the whole "thought censorship" only serves to highlight your idiocy. Only a fucking moron would think that that "censoring thoughts" equates to thoughts in your head and not expressed thoughts...LMFAO what a moron....
I can agree with that, Im glad to see youve come to understand the term censor and use it correctly.
The fact is though that media matters(or whoever is running the commercial) is advocating for the censorship of rush limbaugh...
why dont these idiots just not listen to him?
you're the one that brought up the idiotic idea of thought censorship in the first place
all the phony outrage about censorship when all Media Matter is doing is running a few radio ads
Pay attention - radio ad's are not censorship and it is literally impossible for Media Matter to censor Rush. The only way that could happen is if Rush becomes their employee and then they tell him what he can and cannot say
Media Matters, exercising their right to free speech by objecting to something Rush has said is not censorship
-
The Slut bag is now a public figure and has no claim at all. She is a national disgrace and a piece of garbage.
she wasn't a public figure until Rush ranted about her for 3 days straight and I don't believe being a public figure allows someone else to slander you
you're the lawyer so you tell me
Let's pretend you're a public figure in the same way that you believe Fluke is (in other words no one has a clue who you are until I start talking about you)
Let's pretend I have a radio show and I say that you're a child molester, advocate fucking farm animals, had sex with your mother etc.. (all complete lies as far as I know)
I do this for hours a day for 3 days in a row
You're now a "public figure" just like Fluke
Is this somehow not slander ?
-
she wasn't a public figure until Rush ranted about her for 3 days straight and I don't believe being a public figure allows someone else to slander you
you're the lawyer so you tell me
Let's pretend you're a public figure in the same way that you believe Fluke is (in other words no one has a clue who you are until I start talking about you)
Let's pretend I have a radio show and I say that you're a child molester, advocate fucking farm animals, had sex with your mother etc.. (all complete lies as far as I know)
I do this for hours a day for 3 days in a row
You're now a "public figure" just like Fluke
Is this somehow not slander ?
Why is it slander when she flat out lied and said she needed 3000 worth of birth control to cover her needs? The logical assumption that any reasonable person would make was that she was having insane amounts of sex other guys.
-
Why is it slander when she flat out lied and said she needed 3000 worth of birth control to cover her needs? The logical assumption that any reasonable person would make was that she was having insane amounts of sex other guys.
I see
you're still pretending she lied about something and I guess you believe that means Rush can lie about her and then it's not slander
is that correct
is that how the law works?
-
You must not have been looking very hard, then.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105250043
lol. Are you serious? That's it? Where was the Media Matters campaign to get Shultz off the air? Where were the boycotts? Pressure on advertisers?
-
lol. Are you serious? That's it? Where was the Media Matters campaign to get Shultz off the air? Where were the boycotts? Pressure on advertisers?
Like I said earlier:
Well, Ed called Laura a "talk slut". And it didn't carry over for several days. And he wasn't misrepresenting a position of her's out of malice. And he ended up taking a week of unpaid leave. And he apologized on-air the following day.The two events weren't really comparable.
Once again, there were major differences between the two events.
-
Like I said earlier:
Once again, there were major differences between the two events.
There is always a difference in the mind of a leftist looking to excuse away the same behavior they attack others over. Nothing new, same bullshit as always from the leftists.
-
Why is it slander when she flat out lied and said she needed 3000 worth of birth control to cover her needs? The logical assumption that any reasonable person would make was that she was having insane amounts of sex other guys.
You actually have to be completely illogical to make that assumption.
-
There is always a difference in the mind of a leftist looking to excuse away the same behavior they attack others over. Nothing new, same bullshit as always from the leftists.
No, it's not a matter of left vs. right. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to be completely obtuse not to see the differences between the two.
-
You actually have to be completely illogical to make that assumption.
Why?
-
Like I said earlier:
Once again, there were major differences between the two events.
He called her a "slut" and a "talk slut." There is zero difference between the two events, other than the reaction of liberals. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
And where was the Media Matters campaign? Is it limited to the blurb you posted?
-
No, it's not a matter of left vs. right. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to be completely obtuse not to see the differences between the two.
yeah ok - just like Mahr is different, chris mattews, et al, always an excuse from the lovable tolerant open minded leftists who do exactly the same thing they attack others over.
-
yeah ok - just like Mahr is different, chris mattews, et al, always an excuse from the lovable tolerant open minded leftists who do exactly the same thing they attack others over.
Mahr has actually lost a show based on public reaction to some of the things he's said. And there have been plenty on the right who have said things way worse than either Rush, Mahr, or Matthews and kept their jobs. Michael Savage's show, for instance, is basically his campaign for the undisputed title of "Scum of the Earth".
-
Mahr has actually lost a show based on public reaction to some of the things he's said. And there have been plenty on the right who have said things way worse than either Rush, Mahr, or Matthews and kept their jobs. Michael Savage's show, for instance, is basically his campaign for the undisputed title of "Scum of the Earth".
See I don't care one bit. I for free speech and think people should be able to say almost anything on both sides short of the perverbial shouting Fire in a theater.
Personally - I enjoyed Fluke getting called a slut for 3 days. I would not seek to curtail the same enjoyment that liberals get when Mahr does it to palin.
-
He called her a "slut" and a "talk slut." There is zero difference between the two events, other than the reaction of liberals. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
No, you guys are reaching.
-
See I don't care one bit. I for free speech and think people should be able to say almost anything on both sides short of the perverbial shouting Fire in a theater.
Personally - I enjoyed Fluke getting called a slut for 3 days. I would not seek to curtail the same enjoyment that liberals get when Mahr does it to palin.
I did not enjoy her being called a slut, but I would not try to prevent conservatives from voicing their opinions.
-
No, you guys are reaching.
I've just stated the facts. Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "slut" and a "talk slut," solely because he disagrees with her politics. This is the same "slut" who has adopted three kids, one from Guatemala and two from Russia. And the liberal response was almost nonexistent. No boycotts. No campaigns to get the guy off the air. There was a blip on the radar and probably high fives in the back rooms.
This is typical liberal hypocrisy.
-
I've just stated the facts. Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "slut" and a "talk slut," solely because he disagrees with her politics. This is the same "slut" who has adopted three kids, one from Guatemala and two from Russia. And the liberal response was almost nonexistent. No boycotts. No campaigns to get the guy off the air. There was a blip on the radar and probably high fives in the back rooms.
This is typical liberal hypocrisy.
HA! Exactly. It's always "different" when the liberals do it. ::)
-
I've just stated the facts. Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "slut" and a "talk slut," solely because he disagrees with her politics. This is the same "slut" who has adopted three kids, one from Guatemala and two from Russia. And the liberal response was almost nonexistent. No boycotts. No campaigns to get the guy off the air. There was a blip on the radar and probably high fives in the back rooms.
This is typical liberal hypocrisy.
Nope.
-
lol. Are you serious? That's it? Where was the Media Matters campaign to get Shultz off the air? Where were the boycotts? Pressure on advertisers?
if he did it for 3 hours a day for 3 days in a row and had a history of demeaning women (anyone remember FemiNazi) then you might have seen the same type of response that Rush is now enjoying
-
if he did it for 3 hours a day for 3 days in a row and had a history of demeaning women (anyone remember FemiNazi) then you might have seen the same type of response that Rush is now enjoying
Straw I may hate you and think your goal is to collapse America into a communist he'll hole, but I would defend to the death your right to say so.
-
Straw I may hate you and think your goal is to collapse America into a communist he'll hole, but I would defend to the death your right to say so.
why the fuck would you waste your energy hating someone you don't even know and who has no effect on your life?
btw - if you think I have some "goal" to collapse America you're more of an idiot than I thought you were
-
Ed = asshole.
Rush = asshole.
Hope this clarifies things for everyone.
-
you're the one that brought up the idiotic idea of thought censorship in the first place
all the phony outrage about censorship when all Media Matter is doing is running a few radio ads
Pay attention - radio ad's are not censorship and it is literally impossible for Media Matter to censor Rush. The only way that could happen is if Rush becomes their employee and then they tell him what he can and cannot say
Media Matters, exercising their right to free speech by objecting to something Rush has said is not censorship
LMFAO goodness only a person who didnt understand that advocating the removal of ideas from air waves was indeed advocating for censor ship would think that "thought" meant unexpressed thoughts...
OH WAIT...an idiot like that walks among us...
-
I've never seen "semantics" spelled that way.
way to side step my points...::)
nothing I didnt expect after you painted yourself into a corner...
-
way to side step my points...::)
nothing I didnt expect after you painted yourself into a corner...
::) Those weren't my thoughts. It was a quote from the conservative Focus on the Family Foundation.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/broadcast-decency/cause-for-concern.aspx
One of the chief functions of government is to restrain evil. Broadcast indecency makes it extremely difficult for parents to protect their children's mental and physical health against corrupting influences.
A group that has called it's fair share of boycotts. Just like these tools:
http://floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=23
and these nitwits:
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=441
and these morons:
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147515460
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147518171
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147516990
"Urge Fox to fire Alan Colmes for despicable comments about Santorum infant"
Those are just a few recent examples. Using public pressure to attempt to stifle free speech is a long, proud tradition for conservatives.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Maher: Hate Crime Laws Give "Liberals A Bad Name"
Real Clear Politics ^ | 3/24/12
Posted on March 24, 2012 8:18:09 PM EDT by Impala64ssa
On his HBO show "Real Time," host Bill Maher spent six minutes discussing his strong opposition to "hate crime laws." "One more aspect of this (Treyvon Martin case) which is hate crimes, and I know that you've (pointing to Andrew Sullivan) written about this. Some people think that a hate crime is a thought crime and this shouldn't be some separate category, a crime is a crime. It's an action. Is that what you guys believe? That's what I believe," Maher said to his panel comprised of Andrew Sullivan, Wendy Schiller and Glenn Greenwald. "It's totally what I believe," Andrew Sullivan said. "I don't want, in any way, the government getting into my mind, into my thought process." The discussion moved on to a specific case involving Rutgers student Tyler Clementi and his former roommate Dharun Ravi that is being labeled a hate crime. Last year, Clementi committed suicide after being hazed by Ravi. Maher says trying this case as a hate crime "gives liberals a bad name. Maher says Ravi was "a mean kid" but that he shouldn't face the amount of jail time he is looking at, 10 years in prison, for being "mean." "If it's against the law to be stupid, we're all going to be in jail eventually," Maher said to guest Wendy Schiller, who accused Ravi of attacking Clemente because of his sexual orientation. "He was a mean kid." "I just think this is what gives liberals a bad name," Maher also said. "Just this? Nothing else, just this?" Schiller asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I agree w Mahr
-
LMFAO goodness only a person who didnt understand that advocating the removal of ideas from air waves was indeed advocating for censor ship would think that "thought" meant unexpressed thoughts...
OH WAIT...an idiot like that walks among us...
all Media Matters is doing is running ads expressing an opinion
for censorship to take place there has to be some actual censorship
btw - have you heard the ads or just read the story at the beginning of this thread....like me
the story doesn't even say the ads call for Rush to be removed from the air
here is all I read
where is the censorship that everyone is getting so hysterical about?
The ads use Limbaugh’s own words about student Sandra Fluke, who told congressional Democrats that contraception should be paid for in health plans. Limbaugh, on his radio programs, suggested Fluke wanted to be paid to have sex, which made her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” In return for the money, he said Fluke should post videos of herself having sex. Under sharp criticism, Limbaugh later apologized.
In one of the anti-Limbaugh ads, listeners are urged to call the local station that carries Limbaugh to say “we don’t talk to women like that” in our city.
-
::) Those weren't my thoughts. It was a quote from the conservative Focus on the Family Foundation.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/broadcast-decency/cause-for-concern.aspx
A group that has called it's fair share of boycotts. Just like these tools:
http://floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=23
and these nitwits:
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=441
and these morons:
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147515460
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147518171
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147516990
"Urge Fox to fire Alan Colmes for despicable comments about Santorum infant"
Those are just a few recent examples. Using public pressure to attempt to stifle free speech is a long, proud tradition for conservatives.
agreed and its shit when they do it just like its shit now...
so why not come out and call it shit when either does it?
-
so why not come out and call it shit when either does it?
That was the point of the post, mctones. ::) Check the thread title. Check the posts in the thread.
-
Bullshit, liberals hate the truth. When truth is presented they literally lie their ASS off about it. This is flat out fact.
Oh look a blanket statement that can not be proven to be true. ::)
-
There is always a difference in the mind of a leftist looking to excuse away the same behavior they attack others over. Nothing new, same bullshit as always from the leftists.
You have just described yourself you know that, dont you..?