Limbaugh website featured image of Stalin with Media Matters logo on his chest
October 04, 2007 5:31 pm ET
On October 4, nationally syndicated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's website prominently displayed an image of former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin with a Media Matters for America logo over the left breast pocket of his uniform. The headline above the image read: "Stalinists Have Taken Over the Left," while the caption read, "They've gone beyond ideology to totalitarianism."
(Click on image for full-size screen shot)
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Sheer desperation ain't pretty.
As Republican power wanes and guys like Limbaugh lose their strangle hold on influence it's bound to get uglier before things get better.
Yeah, those fascists. Next thing you know, they'll be questioning the patriotism of those who don't obey the government 100%.
Too late. 1+1=3.
To late #2, War = Peace
Two words
Pax Romana
Every last one of you lefties who supports the 'fairness doctrine' is the obvious target of this comparison with Stalin. This site supports the fairness doctrine and its ultimate aim, censorship of the right and government regulation of all speech deemed by the left to be 'unfair' or 'politically incorrect'. The fairness doctrine is nothing more than a thinly veiled form of government censorship.
Stalin would be proud. You all should wear this badge of shame despite the fact that most of you are far too dense to ever comprehend what this political statement by Limbaugh is aimed at.
My advice to the lot of you: If you don't like the comparison with Papa Joe, then maybe you should rethink your position on government censorship programs like the fairness doctrine.
I don't support it, nor do the left-leaning radio personalities I listen to.
Next stupid point?
Don't encourage him. There are a million more stupid points where that one came from.
I love that picture! I want to make a poster out of it.
By the way, The Fairness Doctrine worked very well. Radio stations complied with it by alternating hosts of varying opinions, not censoring program content. As soon as it was eliminated, radio stations started hring only right wing commentators. Under the Fairness Doctrine, there was a very vital talk radio environment. Not any more.
Bring it back.
Yep, the fairness doctrine worked very well. All we will hear from some of the most ignorant right wingnut drooler types like the one above, is its censuring free speech or censuring right wingnuts. As you and just about anyone with a brain knows it couldn't be further from the truth.
Liberal whining about talk radio is a joke - literally.
Here's Jay Leno back when Air America launched:
"According to the New York Times, a group of liberal venture capitalists are in the process of developing their own liberal radio network to counter conservative shows like Rush Limbaugh. They feel the liberal viewpoint is not being heard -- except on TV, in the movies, in music, by comedians, magazines and newspapers. Other than that, it’s not getting out!"
Leno's exactly right.
Even if Leno is doing anything but making a gag -- and this is after the time when Donohue was fired from MSNBC, and before Glenn Beck was hired by CNN and Savage had his brief appearance on MSNBC -- why should the right wing be unanswered in any medium? I mean, have you looked at TV? Fully 1/3 of my basic cable is polluted by right-wing preachers, endlessly badmouthing liberalism. Look at the lineup on MSNBC: the right is definitely represented. The right just can't accept the fact that by far the most popular show is Olbermann's.
By the way, Clear Channel is also carrying two of the most popular lefty shows, Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. Air America's new management is showing a little more competence than the first bunch, and the overall quality and popularity of lefty radio is definitely on the rise. I don't want the "fairness doctrine," I just want some fairness. Right now, the right wing has a 9 to 1 majority in national stations, and frequently, in places like Ohio, lefty talk is removed and replaced by formats that sink it in the ratings. You'd almost think there was a conspiracy to throttle it.
Please tell which 1/3 of your cable TV is made up of right-wingers bad-mouthing liberalism? I am curious since I can only find a small handful of conservatives on
the tube, as compared to regularly scheduled right-bashers like Olbermann, Stewart,
Couric, Lauer (in addition to all the other morning show hosts including an occasional idiot crack from Al the weather guy), ¾ of the cast of The View, Matthews, and most
of the talking heads you see on network “news”.
I think you are mistaking a newly emerging desire for information “from all sides” with
the left’s loss of the vise-like grip it has had for years on opinion and news. What is wrong with a fair and balanced media?
Olbermann claims that his ratings beat O’Reilly’s. Maybe at his midnight showing when
everyone else has already watched the O’Reilly show in the early time slot, or one of Beck’s three earlier shows, or an earlier Hannity and Colmes broadcast.You did see how Lauer handled the O'Reilly controversey, did you not? Have you seen the examples of Couric stories on this site?
Are you really bringing in a show on comedy central to bolster your case?
Yes, because his target audience is the younger crowd. The "Rock the Vote" bunch, etc.. I would mention the big Bill Maher, but he has an HBO show, so he doesn't count. Does HBO have any conservative shows?
i see matt lauer having bill kristol on all the time, unchallenged, on the today show. presumably to impart his wisdom on why it was a good thing to go to war in iraq. it's beyond me why you ask advice of people who were totally wrong in this situation from the beginning.
Swift ...
Plus the press or print medium is also dominated by Republican'ts.
Liberal whining about talk radio is a joke - literally.
If anyone has been whining this week it has been the Reichwing media bloviators like Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. Two of their Gods, O'Reilly and Limbaugh, are getting called out on remarks that cold only, at very best, be construed as insensitive and they react as if the hammer and sickle has been raised over Fort McHenry. These morons are paid bloated salaries for polluting taxpayer owned bandwidth with lies and propaganda on a daily basis. For the money they make they should not be so thin skinned. I run a business that employs 162 people and every week someone says something far worse to me than these people have ever heard. If the criticism is reasonable I listen and make every effort to alter my behavior accordingly. Holding someone accountable for what they say or how they behave is not censorship. That is what MMFA does (among other things). The give and take of political discourse gets rough in this country. Surely they must know this and they dish out plenty. They are also richly rewarded for what they do and if they can't take reasonable (or even unreasonable) criticism they should find other employment.
Carlisle,
All you lefties love the picture, even the ones who won't admit it. Stalin's your hero. Freedom bad, communism good. Communists are just liberals in a hurry.
He that has light within his own clear breast may sit in the centre, and enjoy bright day: But he that hides a dark soul and foul thoughts benighted walks under the mid-day sun; himself his own dungeon.
Man, first Ann Coulters comments go over our heads, then we're too dense to understand political statements from Rush Limbaugh. I wish Republicans weren't such complex intellectuals, I want in on the jokes.
NL, nice post. However, I disagree with some of it. I believe that the Fairness Doctrine is only brought up by lefty's because they obviously don't do well in the market. Rush is big, Hannity is big, Bill O is big, Air America, well, sucks. Since the can't compete in the same marketplace because they lose, they pull this Fairness Doctrine trump card out. Air America would love to have the numbers Rush has.
What administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine?
The Reagan administration.
The Fairness Doctrine worked well for over 50 years. I've been a talk radio fan for over 40, and I well remember how it worked-- there was no censorship-- claims to the contrary are right-wing lies. Remember Joe Pyne? How else did Bob Grant get started?
The Fairness Doctrine would actually PREVENT stations from eliminating right-wing hosts.
The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than government suppression of political speech. The Fairness Doctrine caused radio stations to play non partisan programming so that they wouldn't have to deal with all the red tape. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed guys like Rush and Hannity to have air time, which is probably why support the Fairness Doctrine so much. You can't handle opposing points of view.
Those aren't opposing points of view. Those are neo-fascist liars. Personally, I'd love a conservative party that was honest in its goals and not sold out to crazy fundamentalist religious morons.
Nothing was stopping them from having radio shows before the fairness doctrine was axed. It is just plain STUPID to claim that mandating both sides of an issue be heard is SUPRESSING political speech. It is doing no such thing. There are actual valid reasons to oppose the fairness doctrine this is not one of them. There is NO QUESTION we have every right to say how OUR airwaves are used.
The fairness doctrine in no way is censuring political speech, it promotes it.
Only in the same way beer commercials promote hard work and exercise.
You're absolutely clueless.
im not sure how old you are, but it seems that you are getting all you info on what the fairness doctrine was from guys like el druggo and the heil one.
as has been noted, even when the fairness doctrine was in force, there were talk shows on all sides of the spectrum, and included those on the far right, such as joe pyne.
im not really sure the fairness doctrine could be reinstituted, however, the right's argument of an attack on free speech, is spurious. there is no free speech on the airwaves. the airwaves are owned by the people and private companies must be licensed to use them. part of their license is to serve the public, and i do not see that only carrying right wing talk shows truly serves the public.
the right constantly pointing to the bankruptcy of air america as proof that progressive radio cannot survive is also a spurious attack, as they are well aware that air america had a bad buisiness model and used too many on air hosts who had little or no radio experience. guys like ed schultz and bernie ward constantly trounce their right wing competition, because they are professionals at their craft.
im not sure what this has to do with the topic of rush comparing media matters to a mass murderer like stalin. unless rush is afraid that mmfa wants to send him to a gulag, which in fact might be beneficial to his health and help work off all that excessive weight he carries, and help him dry out from his recent drug filled stupor
the fairness doctrine posts strike me as ironic here. Limbaugh displays an image of Stalin wirh Media Matters on his chest. Nice. Simply for Media Matters posting his "phony soldier" iditoic remarks with full undoctored transcript.
Limbaugh is a fraud that is clear. But to attack MM without any kind of pretense at civil discourse, using Stalin I mean really is this democracy? It's vile ignorant and dangerous attacks.
I for one do not want my tax dollars supporting this mad man's rantings to our armed services in Iraq. General Clark is taking the lead here, and Congress had better be paying attention.
I don't want my tax dollars supporting this website either. But guess what, it gets special tax breaks and uses the internet, which uses communication systems that were given special breaks by the government.
as do the heritage foundation and several other right wing loony bins. But we weren't complaining about that. It's called quid pro quo, you should try it sometime.
The Fairness Doctrine is like bringing back Model T's and forcing everyone to drive them.
Back then there were 3 tv stations and a handful of clear channel radio stations. Now there are hundreds of cable stations and even satellite radio. It is an unnecessary and stupid idea designed for one reason and one reason only: to stop the left from getting their butts kicked by rightwing talk radio.
Oh yeah, the fact that the right has been consolidating their hold on radio, merging stations and controlling who gets on has nothing to do with it, right? Go ahead RINO and admit it. Y'all are just not wanting to hear another opinion, that's exactly why your side created fox news, to control the message. You could rename fox news goebbles global network and nobody would notice the difference.
The continuous drool from the regressive right claiming the fairness doctrine is censuring free speech when the opposite is actually the case is just one more example of why we need the fairness doctrine. The dishonesty of these regressive goons has no bounds.
Rush has been on the air for over 15 years now. Air America has been around for 3. And in those few years, some of those so-called terrible shows are beating Bill and Hannity in some major markets. I think Air America will do just fine. Don't forget that Fox News lost millions of dollars in their first 3 years on air
Air America went completely bankrupt and had to get bailed out by wealthy donors. They've been a joke ever since they started. I believe that the liberal host who you're talking about who has high ratings in certain markets is Ed Schultz who isn't a part of Air America.
Yeah, whatever. I started a small business this year, there is a reason they give you 3 years to post a profit. And Limbaugh's profit came in the form of republican donations the 1st year, not in advertising draw, so try another whine. I have plenty of cheese to go with it.
this link to talkers magazine shows that schultz and o'reilly have about the same number of listeners, 3.25 million plus. and yet schultz has about 60 stations and o'reilly about 400. that would suggest more than audience numbers at work.
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34
I'll redirect you to my comment about fox news. Now which billionaire do you think it was that financed them when they were losing millions in their first 3 years? Air America had bad management, they don't anymore and they are now starting to do well. Do you really think that those conservative nuts are putting out this great product that so many people are dying to listen to? They are spouting opinions shared by less that 1/3 of America. Of course with the right marketing, someone talking about things agreed upon by the other 2/3 will eventually do much better.
My take on the difference between right wing and left wing audiences?
The followers of Rush, Savage, Hannity, et. al. have to be told the GOP version of the 'truth' over and over until they can understand what the party line is. This takes a whole day of programming, what with all the twisting of facts necessary to get the dittoheads to understand why funding medical care for poor children is bad, why OxyContin without a prescription isn't bad, and why Senator Craig was doing what any one of us would do in a public restroom and assume a 'wide stance' while picking up stray toilet paper on the floor in the neighboring stall. I mean, c'mon.... I know we all care about litter prevention enough to pick up TP we see on a public restroom floor!
Oh yeah, and don't forget to blame Soros, Clinton, or Stalin for all the Phony Americans who don't follow the GOP mouthpieces...
Left wing talk shows only need to explain their opinion once, and their listeners get it. It gets boring to me when all they talk about for an hour is facts.... no entertainment value in that!!
"They are spouting opinions shared by less that 1/3 of America"
Hmmm. Then why is it that we've had a Republican President for the last 8 years? That's right. It's because the Democrats are extremely unpopular. It takes a pretty unimpressive party and some pretty extreme views to get beat by a candidate as bad as Bush.
Hmmm. Then why is it that we've had a Republican President for the last 8 years?
The Supreme Court (2000) and the mastery of fear mongering (2004).
Try again. The fact is the republicans are outnumbered by democrats by a large margin. If it wasn't for underhanded tactics by the right (i.e. voter suppression, voter caging, and other violations of federal election law) the republican party and neo-conservatism in general would die a timely and quite natural death. Your side simply can't win without cheating and you know it! Once the conservative agenda and it's 'free market' nonsense is laid bare for all to see it will wind up on the trash heap of history where it belongs. When enough Americans lose jobs due to NAFTA, CAFTA, etcetera there will be a populist uprising in this country like never seen before. I just hope it doesn't take another REPUBLICAN Great Depression to make it happen!
Don't count them out yet. They still have the Supremes and the Supremes have some seriously democracy altering decisions to make about voter ID.
Of course. People should never be required to show ID when they vote. They should just be able to vote multiple times in different polling stations without showing ID. Of course, the Democrats need all of those illegal extra votes. The Supreme Court should undoubtedly strike down such extreme laws that are supported by 85% of the American people.
Put up or shut up.
Give evidence of rampant voter fraud and give evidence that voter ID enables more eligible voters to vote than it prohibits.
Dot # 1
"During a Congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier...You have to wonder what's the point of that, if not to overwhelm the system and get phony registrations on the voter rolls...Acorn pushes a highly partisan agenda, and its organizers are best undestood as "shock troops" for the AFL-CIO and even the Democratic Party". http"//www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=11009189.
This is not information that MSM will eagerly expose or something you'll hear rom a tenured radica lindoctrinating students in one of our leftist institutions of "higher" learning.
Dot # 2 A 2004 Democrat (Colorado) playbook encouraged whining, howling, wailing, gnashing of teeth and writhing about voter suppression & intimidation...even if it didn't exist.
Dot # 3 "The new voting rights coalition combines mass voter registration drives - typically featuring high levels of fraud - with systematic intimidation of elected officials in the form of frivilous lawsuits, unfounded charges of racism and disenfranchisement...Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960's, Cloward-Piven (research, Google Cloward-Piven) zealots now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. This is a strategy of the left. Why do you think Spitzer wants to give illegal aliens NY State drivers licenses?
I see opinion, allegation and assumption but proof of nothing. You're going to have to do better.
How can voter ID possibly prohibit elgible voters? The law in question even stated that someone in the state government will even COME TO YOUR HOUSE and give you an ID card. The ID law is meant to prevent fraud. They're going out of their way to make sure that all registered voters have ID cards. There's no rational reason to oppose this law. The only possible reason to oppose this law is that you want more voter fraud.
Evidence, homeboy. I see nothing but rhetoric.
Thank you for buying the right-wing lies. Rush thanks you, Karl Rove thanks you, and Pudd'nhead Bush thanks you, rube.
There's a reason why every time they investigate these phony charges, they come up with nothing: it's because it doesn't exist.
Well said!! Such a terrible idea, citizens having to prove their identity in order to vote. How are the illegal (I mean undocumented) aliens suppose to vote? What kind of America are we becoming when you have to show an ID to vote?
You're unbelievable. Are you ever going to accept responsibility for defeat and the left's extreme unpopularity? Or are you just going to spout extreme far left talking points that have long been debunked? Until the left actually comes up with more mainstream ideas that are more suitable to the American people, we will never have another Democratic President. Whining about election results isn't going to get you anywhere and just makes you look unbelievably extreme.
You're unbelievable. Are you ever going to accept responsibility for defeat and the reich's extreme unpopularity? Or are you just going to spout extreme far reich talking points that have long been debunked? Until the reich actually comes up with more mainstream ideas that are more suitable to the American people, we will never have another Republican President. Fixing election results and purging voters from the polls every year isn't going to get you anywhere and just makes you look unbelievably extreme.
There, I fixed it for you. much better!
"Fixing election results and purging voters from the polls every year isn't going to get you anywhere and just makes you look unbelievably extreme"
Please provide documentation from a credible source proving your B.S. That's right, you can't because you just pulled it out of your rectal database. (Sorry Solon, I decided to steal your terminology.)
Ooooooh, noooooo! Why did I say that! Why, why?
Because it's true. Read on, rectal boy!
http://www.alternet.org/rights/62133/
http://matewan.squarespace.com/journal/2007/9/17/louisiana-purging-voter-rolls-of-katrina-refugees.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/18/85915/109
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html
http://stxc.blogspot.com/2007/09/voter-fraud-cases-in-bexar-county-get.html
http://www.progressiveindiana.org/node/269
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/06/con06219.html
http://anangrydakotademocrat.blogspot.com/2007/09/raw-story-purging-voter-rolls-in.html
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334&SearchID=73195662517954
That's just a few of the 119,000+ entries from Google. You have just been outed, time to crawl back up Rush's pimple butt for a breath of GOP air.
Sorry, I said credible sources, not far left web sites. Try again.
Oh, the "I don't recognize those sources as valid" argument. Here then, it's from Wikipedia which you have stated you like several times now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=purging+voter+rolls
Time to throw in the towel!
From what I read, there were only isolated voting irregularities on BOTH sides, and not a huge conspiracy on one side or the other. You should just give it up and accept the fact that you lost. Here's an example from the source that you linked to of Republicans being disenfranchised:
"One instance of calling voters with erroneous polling information triggered a lawsuit filed by the Ohio Republican party against the Ohio Democratic Party, Greene County Democratic Party and ACT Ohio, a 527 political action committee. The suit claimed that Democrats misinformed Republicans about the date of the election and told them certain documentation would be needed to vote. A temporary restraining order was issued.[13] The Democratic Party chair for that county acknowledged that mistakes may have happened, but said that Democrats had made no attempt to mislead voters"
One out of 119,000 links. The republican links far outnumber the democratic ones, so sorry RINO. You need to throw in the towel on this one.
Aww, heck, RINO! I couldn't quit just yet. You don't want the government intruding on the airwaves so I know you are gonna call the white house and yell at them for trying to control what Chris Matthews says on air! Go ahead, make that call. I'm waiting...
Thanks for the left wing source talking about the left wing commentator. Try again.
There you have it folks. RINO just admitted that he couldn't care if the government pokes it's nose into the cable business as long as the target is a "liberal". Any more questions?
Snoop,
I am beginning to think the same thing. I urged him to stand up for free speech after it was publicized that GWB and his goons were targeted those people with a disruptive t-shirt and he was very indifferent.
No. I just stated that you didn't cite a credible source, as usual. But nice distortion of my comment.
You should really study national polls. Take your pick. Why are there far more registered Democrats than Republicans, and why have Republican registrations been falling at a record pace? Why are the Democratic presidential candidates out-raising the Republicans by 2 to 1? Why do majorities support the Democrats on just about every issue now, including National Security and especially the War in Iraq? Oh, right, because the media are liberal. Well, continue in your dream world. It will make you so much easier to beat.
because you had a media that adopted a theme about gore, he's a liar, and kerry, he's a flip flopper, and did the work of the republican party.
Just keep telling yourself that when you wake up on a Wednesday morning in November 2008 to a Democratic majority in the House and Senate and a Democratic POTUS.
I can't wait to hear the sniveling, weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Propaganda Ministry of the Radical Right Christofascist Zombie Brigade.
Maybe we'll be treated to the OxyMoron, or his prettier but dumber clone Sheer Insanity, disemboweling himself with a RNC-logo'ed letter opener before a national audience in a fit of desperation and anguish.
Hope you enjoyed you short time in sun, you so-called "conservatives".
And I hope your blind allegiance to a morally, spiritually and financially bankrupt ideology and the drug-addled, retarded man-child you picked as your leader of it was worth it.
It's time for the adults to step in and clean up your colossal mess yet again...what is this; like the third or fourth time in the last hundred years or so?
I'm glad that you're a phychic and can see into the future. The last time I checked Hillary Clinton had unfavorable ratings of about 45-50% and was about tied with the Republican front runners. And that's even before the so called "Republican noise machine" gets geared up.
You may want to check this poll out then.
But at least you admitted that there is a republican noise machine who's purpose in life is to smear all democratic candidates because your party can't win on the issues.
And there was a Democratic president for 8 years before that I guess you guys were EXTREMELY unpopular then or else your bogus talking point is a bunch of hoeey. Bush LOST the POPULAR vote the first time so how unpopular were Dems THEN?
"Hmmm. Then why is it that we've had a Republican President for the last 8 years? "
Branding.
Of course, bankruptcy frequently happens in new business ventures, doesn't it?
You can ignore the polls all you want. The reason why this will not go away is because the right's influence is shrinking among the public.
Conservatives show unrelenting anger toward network news programs. Why don't conservatives acknowlege that network news is based on market principles? Why is it a free market decision when the right dominates radio but a theft by liberals if a TV network doesn't bow down enough to the right?
When the right stops harrassing "liberal media" I'll believe in the right's entitlement to own radio.
By the way, Rash was passing veiled threats to attack the not-for-profit tax status of Media Matters today. Censorship?
Conservatives aren't advocating that the network news stations be censored. We merely point out their basis. Liberals, on the other hand, are actively seeking to censor talk radio.
No they arent that is a lie. No WAY you can rationally call the fairness doctrine censorship. Maybe Rush TOLD you to think that but it is inane.
It is censorship plain and simple. The last time we had it, stations dropped all political programming so they wouldn't have to deal with it and putting money-losing programs on the air. It doesn't promote more voices, it silences them. That is censorship.
We own the schools too. Guess we better ensure that instead of 70 percent liberal professors, 20 percent are fired and conservatives hired in their place. After all, we OWN the colleges and we DEMAND fairness.
We also OWN the evening news. The next time Dan Rather wants to smear George Bush, old Dan will be forced to have Ann Coulter on.
Also, communications companies were granted large monopolies from the government, so we also OWN the internet. Now Hillary's Media Matters will be forced to let Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have columns next to Hillary's MM smears.
After all, the Fairness Doctrine should make everything FAIR.
You NEVER know what you are talking about. That is until the hivemind TELLS you what to believe. So there was NO talk radio until the fairness doctrine was over? Ever hear of Morton Downy Jr? Alan Berg, of course he was a liberal and was shot to death. Father Coughlin? Ya just pull stuff like this directly out of your ASS because you DONT have a cogent argument. You NEVER do. There is NO way it is censorship to mandate both sides of an issue be heard. It wasnt THEN it isnt now. Only by being a dutiful hivemind propaganda parrot could make anyone spew such nonsense.
Only a ignorant, brainwashed fool could claim that the MSM is "liberal"....oh, yeah; never mind.
Get a clue, Dittobot--the MSM is completely corporate. Real journalism is almost non-existant today and your blathering, bloviating, butt-headed master PigBoy is part of the reason.
About 80% of journalists are registered Democrats. The fact that the media is corporate doesn't mean a thing. Conservative doesn't equal corporate. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Polls show that the vast majority of the American people believe that the media has a left wing bias, so at least you're part of the very extreme minority who thinks that the drive by media has a conservative bias.
RH,
Who do you think sets the agenda for the news coverage? The journalists or those who run the station?
Also, how loyal are you to your ideals? How far would you go to support them?
Those who run the station, but the journalists still get plenty of say in how they deliver the news. I don't necessarily believe that those who run the stations are all conservative. Business owners tend to be economically conservative to moderate but also very liberal on social issues. They support a lot of the more pro corporate Democrats who are also very liberal on social issues. Bill Clinton is a good example. The business owners got along with him pretty well.
GE and Disney are both very conservative and they own two of the major three and one of the big cable outlets. Fox, obviously, is very conservative.
I obviously disagree. Your view of the political spectrum is from the left and mine is from the right. I believe that Fox leans to the right, but I don't think they're "very conservative." I think that their straight news is very fair and balanced and their commentary leans right. But if you tune into Fox when they're just giving the news it's really no different than CNN. It's just that their prime time shows like O'Reilly's have a conservative bent.
But CNN has shows with a conservative bend as well (Beck), what liberals have their own primetime political show on CNN?
If you look at MSNBC, they have Tucker and Scarborough for balance, nothing is like Fox.
Plus, have you seen the Today show lately? Are you going to tell me they have a liberal bias with their commentators?
Yeah, get back to us when you have the make up of the owners and program managers. Also a more detailed questionare showed that most journalists considered themselves neither liberal nor conservative and more progressive on social issues and more conservative on economic issues. I showed you that study before you just keep pounding the propaganda in the vain hope repitition will make it true. Wishing wont make it so Rhino
"About 80% of journalists are registered Democrats."
Good for them; it's a sign of education, intelligence and good judgement.
"The fact that the media is corporate doesn't mean a thing."
Naw, just that "profit" trumps everything else. Including, truth, accuracy, ethics and what's best for the Nation.
"Polls show that the vast majority of the American people believe that the media has a left wing bias,"
Of course they do. They've had that old lie shoved down their throats by every neo-nut moonbat blowhard for the past thirty years.
This site supports the fairness doctrine and its ultimate aim, censorship of the right and government regulation of all speech deemed by the left to be 'unfair' or 'politically incorrect'. The fairness doctrine is nothing more than a thinly veiled form of government censorship.
Care to explain how letting both sides have a chance to debate their positions and rebut falsehoods is censorship?
Or how about you just admit that what is really the issue is that conservatives are afraid of loosing market share among conservatives if they allow true debate and equality on their shows. Y'all don't want to hear debate, you want to be spoonfed and you pay handsomely for that opinion...
Snoop,
Please explain how liberals are not "given a chance" to debate? Considering they control much of the mainstream media, I am not following.....
C'mon, tommy you know where I am going. Fox news has liberal lightweights on who couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag, that's done on purpose to ensure a clear winner every night. O'Reilly cuts the mike whenever he is losing control, Rush does the same, etc. etc. etc. Letting both sides on is not censorship and you know it. This idea that the market should drive what we hear is pure bunk. Just because you can generate huge advertising dollars by driving a conservative message doesn't mean that's the will of the people. It just means it's the will of the rich.
Snoop,
There are scads more media outlets out there besides Fox News.......on TV alone, not to mention radio, newpapers, the internet......thousands.
All is well with the world.....
OK tommy, you definitely tried to snag me with that bait. But you really never did answer why allowing both sides have fair response time is censorship, did you? Now it's your turn. Care to nibble?
"But you really never did answer why allowing both sides have fair response time is censorship, did you"
It's censorship for the government to run a PRIVATELY RUN TALK SHOW. The end result of the government censoring talk radio is that talk shows like Limbaugh's and Hannity's will simply shut down, because the radio stations won't want to put up with all the red tape. The result is that conservatives like Rush and Sean will be censored by the federal government. And also, if a liberal radio host has a lot of talent and is generating good ratings, radio stations won't hesitate to put them on. The left just needs to find somebody who has more mainstream views that the American people can find acceptable.
It's censorship for the government to run a PRIVATELY RUN TALK SHOW.
Where are you getting your information from? No one is going to be censored.
The rest of your post is based upon this false premise.
Government is running it? Oh, that's got to be the dumbest statement of the day!
Of course they would be. They would force talk shows like Limbaugh's to book certain guests, and Limbaugh wouldn't be able to run HIS OWN SHOW the way in which he pleases. The government would be running his show for him. And the equal time provision would also force him off the air. It would force radio stations to play unpopular liberal shows, and they would have to eventually take the liberal show off the air because of horrible ratings. They would then have to take Rush's show off the air to make things equal.
You obviously have no clue how the doctrine worked, do you?
No, of course he doesn't. He only knows what Rushbo, Coultergeist, and Hannity tell him is "the truth" about it. Clearly this person hasn't been on the planet for very long, and really doesn't have any personal experience with the Fairness Doctrine; unlike most of the adults here do.
This is why he keeps making absurd claims about "red tape" and "da gubmint runnin' the stations" and the most absurd of all- that it would squelch free speech somehow; that it would unfairly advantage the "lib'ruls". He simply wasn't alive when it was in force, and only knows this culture of the screaming red liars and propagandists.
People like this don't realize that lies and propaganda aren't "different views". They are LIES, and that's all. He doesn't realize that we're all lessened and made poorer when we allow liars and propagandists to decieve us about important issues like war and saftey.
The Doctrine is different from the equal time clause. The Doctrine required that people who are criticized on talk radio be able to respond on the show that they were criticized on. In other words, if it were in effect today, anybody who Limbaugh criticized would automatically have the right to come on Limbaugh's own privately run radio show. That's exactly how the doctrine worked.
No, he doesn't.
But thanks to his slavish devotion to Professional Liars like the OxyMoron, he's positive that he is the preeminent expert on the matter.
It isn't hard to make a trained chimp think he's actually in charge.
And el Rushbo cranks away on the hurdy-gurdy...
More hivemind spewing. Just because the Oxymoron instructed you that you have to think that doesnt mean it has any real connection to reality
RINO:
Without the "fairness doctrine", is our current media governed by "free market" forces, audience appeal, and delivering the supply that is demanded?
You seem to say this is the case with talk radio, that you believe Liberal programs would fail, and that audience support justifies the likes of Limbaugh staying on the air.
But you ALSO say that MOST of Media is Liberal. If that's the case, wouldn't your free market claims apply, and demonstrate that there is a Liberal Media because that is what the audience demands?
I remember seeing the numbers of network (you say Liberal) coverage of election night 2004, as opposed to FOX NEWs numbers. FOX had 8 million viewers, while the networks had over 40 million.
It stands to reason, then, that consumers demand LIBERAL coverage FIVE TIMES the number of folks who demand Conservative biased coverage.
Come to think of it, that's about right. Bush is nearing 4 to 1 opposition in the polls.
Oh, and Rush's audience is about 13 million. In a nation of 300 million people, Rush appeals to only about 3% of the population.
So it seems, RINO, that all your argument proves (if your claims are correct) is that "conservatives" are a small, almost insignificant percentage of American consumers of news.
My point was that conservative talk radio has been very popular, because it's the only place that conservatives can go to hear their point of view. Talk radio, in effect, helps to balance out the liberal bias in the rest of the media. That's the main reason why conservative talk shows are so much more successful than liberal talk shows. Liberals can hear their point of view anywhere else in the media, so it isn't necessary for them to turn on the radio and listen to liberal commentators.
Seriously? The "only place?" Have you seen any cable commentary shows?
I should have said "except for Fox."
What about Scarborough Country, Glenn Beck, Tucker, the panelists on Hardball are usually pretty balanced (please, someone correct me if I am wrong). Ann Coulter got an entire show on Hardball, has any liberal commentator had one?
If you look at the Sunday shows, Cheney had those memos suggesting he liked Meet the Press so he could control the message.
There are more than enough places on TV, other than Fox, where conservatives can get their views heard.
Tommy, do you even want to debate? You almost (I repeat almost) always take the smallest portion of a post, and focus on that in attempt to avoid the big issue. Why? My thought is, you can't debate with credibility the larger issues.
I would certainly like to see you give it a try sometime.
Snoopy, I can't believe you would go on arguing this point after he's said that liberals control so much of mainstream media. That's a blatant lie and counter to the entire point that this website has been painfully proving for years. This is the same as always, not an honest argument. Sorry to butt in, but what can be settled with someone when part of their unchallenged premise is that the mainstream media is controlled by the left? It's dishonest from the start. Anyway that's just me. A stickler for reality.
What was I thinking? You can't talk sense to a brick wall. Oh well, at least I tried...
Easy they DONT control much of the mainstream media THAT is BS propaganda.
What don't they control besides Fox?
Easy they DONT control much of the mainstream media THAT is BS propaganda.
- solon / Friday October 5, 2007 12:28:29 AM EST
The dont control ANYTHING outside of the Nation, Progressive, In these Times, Mother Jones, Z, and a few other periodicals. You can keep repeating over and over and OVER that the media is liberal only the truly brainwashed could possibly take seriously that the same media that were nothing short of CHEERLEADERS for the invasion of Iraq are liberal mouthpieces. You would have to be braindead to take that seriously.
"The dont control ANYTHING outside of the Nation, Progressive, In these Times, Mother Jones, Z, and a few other periodicals"
And of course The New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, all the other big newspapers, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, current movies, most magazines, etc. I just thought that I would remind of a few more that you forgot.
RH,
Point to me one cable news stations where there are more liberal shows than conservative ones and list the shows.
Do we have to bring up the NYT banging the drums for war? What about ABC running the Path to 9/11 hitpiece? What about the Reagans mini-series being pulled from network TV? What about the Washington Post editorial board?
RH, it strikes me that threatened governmental regulation of the media is a far bigger issue to you than the government violating the free speech rights of its citizens. You will passionately debate media on a message board, but if push comes to shove and the government threatens the free speech of its own citizens, you are indifferent. Is this because it was people who did not agree with Bush that were being shut up? I will ask you again, what will you do, other than post on message boards to stand up for what you believe in?
ANYthing that's not FUXNoise is "lib'rully biased" and "owned/controlled by th' lib'ruls like Soros" - ie, the entire media. These people truly live in an alternate universe where white is black, up is down, war is peace, and freedom is slavery.
They really, really think that FUX tells them "da troof", while the rest of that durn "lib'rul media" lies to them. They really, truly believe this- apparently simply because FUX tells them they're "fair n' balanced".
These people will never, ever get it.
Hard to figure out what you mean by this, RINO hunter -- if anything. In all of the "left" sources you cite, are there no conservative commentators? The answer is, no. The New York Times has a number of conservative columnists, and publishes the conservative point of view. The Wall Street Journal has a very conservative editorial page, but its news section is excellent. Objective and factual, that's what a news operation should be. In fact, without a clear appreciation for the facts, there is no capitalism.
What the conservatives want in any question is easily seen by what they accuse the left of doing: you want a "conservative" news, or the domination of mere "facts" by the opinion of the "movement." Do you realize how radical, even totalitarian, that is?
Not until Rush TELLS him so
I don't want any side to dominate the news. I want the free market to work in the news media. If a news station is getting money from the government, then they have an obligation to be fair and balanced. Otherwise, they can be as biased as they want to be. That's why NPR should be fair and balanced because they get tax payer funding, and cable news stations like Fox can be as biased as they want to be,
You seriously think that any organization that calls itself "news" should be "as biased as it wants to be?"
That scares me. News and the truth should not be subject to free market forces, but rather be accountable to the truth and facts!
Sure all those cheerleaders to the runup to the Iraq war. The LA Times that FIRED their only REAL liberal editorialist Robert Sheer. Just because they are not in total slavish conformity to your rightwing propaganda doesnt make them liberal and no matter how many times you REPEAT the nonsense it will never BE anything but NONSENSE
Liberal control of the MSM? Gimme a break. The MSM has been walked over by Bush from Day One. They pretty much stood by and watched the Florida recount debacle, they bought Bush's WMD scam and they have pretty much allowed W a blank check on anything and everything. Thank God for the lefty blogosphere or we would surely be in some sort of dictatorship.
"Manndan:"
How do we know that "liberal" isn't being used here as anti-Semitic code by the conservative propaganda machine? THAT is a point which should be investigated.
Likewise with certain conservative Zealots and True Believers using "Wall Street" and "Hollywood" as--you guessed it--anti-Semitic code.
En 'n Ander Ding:
It's my understanding that conservatives are of the (howbeit deluded) beliefs that:
Not to mention the belief that "regulatory relief" will actually lead the Lower Classes into a New Golden Age of Industry, Self-Reliance, Personal Responsibility, Thrift and a Wholesome and Simple Home Life Based On Cash Economy--which, to the element, can best be illustrated by reading Robert Burns' poem "The Cotter's Saturday Night."
In Reality, however, "regulatory relief" may only be cover for excusing cartel behaviour which can only reduce consumer choices, raise prices, and worse. IG Farben, anyone?
Where is Air America when you need it?
Nobody is denying them a chance to respond. Who doesn't love a debate. My take is that they simply do not have much of an audience who listens. Air America would love "Limbaugh like" numbers, but you can't get them on your own You guys simply don't listen to your own. Start doing that and buy some radio stations. Compete in the marketplace instead of just crying"unfair". Nobody likes a whiner.
Buy some radio stations? How many radio stations does Rush own? ZERO.
In many markets, Air America is stomping Rush into the ground, but Liberals don't own the stations--conservatives do.
Perhaps someday some rouge government or large majority decides that every station will be communist, because they control the markets, will that be okay with you?
In many markets, Air America is stomping Rush into the ground, but Liberals don't own the stations--conservatives do.
I think that was my point. Buy the stations and put whatever type of format you want on. And I never thought the Doctrine was in any way censorship.
But you just said the real crux - own the stations, own the message. Regardless of whether or not the public owns the airwaves. Sounds like Goebbles Global News more and more...
What happened to the free market argument?
What you are speaking of is collusion and monopoly.
"In many markets, Air America is stomping Rush into the ground"
That's absolute B.S. You have nothing to back that up.
In DC, WMAL (Rush's station) has dropped from #1 to #15.
That is a strawman argument. The glove was thrown down, if you believe the fairness doctrine is censorship, explain why. Advertising dollars are controlled by a select few, they don't represent the masses, they represent a targeted market. Please, explain how doing away with targeted advertising is censorship.
Non-conservatives have a much larger audience. It dwarfs the right wing outlets. You call it the mainstream media. Its slanted to the right, but does a better job of balance than the right wing media does. Libs don't want to listen to some lying blowhard preaching hate, even if he is liberal. That's why libs have nobody like Rush.
Starting out, I think that the Fairness Doctrine is an unworkable idea that would ultimately fail in its intent of creating a diversity of viewpoints on the airwaves.
That being said, it doesn't do what you think it does at all. (Or you have a really incomplete understanding of Stalinism.)
The "Fairness Doctrine" would require equal time for opposing viewpoints be provided by any broadcaster licensed by the FCC. It would not censor blowhards like Hannity or Rush directly, merely require that equal time be given to airing content that contrasts them.
What would most likely happen is that not only would Rush and Hannity be gone but so would liberal commentators. Broadcasters would not want to deal with trying to comply with the law and would shift to sports talk, music, chat shows and the like and avoid political content all together. Nobody wins. (Well a Pyrrhich victory in getting rid of the Wingnut megaphones, but I digress.)
Now a Stalinist broadcast law would directly yank Rush and his brethren off the air, refuse any advertising that supports them or their causes and order that the approved broadcasters not refer to them unless it is necessary to point out their evil. Stalinism advocates removing your opponent completely from consciousness, making him cease to exist both literally and figuratively.
I just want people to stop believing the lies of these scumbags and treat them as the pseudo-entertainers that they are. Rush and company should be lumped in with Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge and Mancow, not with serious political content.
I also recall the days when the fairness doctrine was operative, and recall that, while debate was lively, all sides were heard.
Why do conservatives fear the fairness doctrine? If it is true, as they claim, that mainstream media is skewed left, a return to this doctrine would give them an opportunity for redress.
Every one of you IGNORANT wingnuts who keep saying that mandating both sides be heard on OUR AIRWAVES is some sort of censorship should get a dictionary. I long for the old days when people were ashamed of their ignorance instead of parading it around proudly. Explain how demanding both sides of an issue be heard could POSSIBLY be censoring ANYTHING? You are such a moron. Your ignorance is astonishing. It is you WINGNUTS that are like Stalin. Wanting only the approved message heard only Pravda and Izvestia and no challenge. You ignorant fascists should be ashamed of yourselves but you are either incapable of the emotion or just too stupid to understand the concept.
That post was an answer to NLwhatever
Why are you so intent on censoring political speech? Don't you think that it would simply be better for the left to become more mainstream and appeal to more than just 10% of the American people? You simply need to put hosts on the air who appeal to the majority of Democrats who are moderate, rather than putting hosts on the air who simply appeal to the far left.
Why are you such a LIAR. There is no possible way that mandating that on OUR AIRWAVES both sides be heard is censoring anything that is ignorant garbage. This has been explained to you a dozen times. You have never once made any argument about how it POSSIBLY could be. Your only attempts were to talk about equal time and other fantasies that have NOTHING to do with the fairness doctrine which has also been pointed out to you. You dont CARE. Truth, REALITY, they mean nothing to you. LIES and propaganda are all you care about. There is NO CENSORING period. Also I do not advocate the fairness doctrine which I have also pointed out to you several times. I am saying that we have a RIGHT to say how our airwaves are used and you keep LYING saying I am trying to censor somebody. Here is a clue. When you have to keep telling LIES to make your point its because YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
Interesting point, NL.
The problem with your reasoning is that you're making an ass-backwards argument. Under Stalin, the USSR allowed only an etremely narrow array of viewpoints to be publicly discussed, i.e. those that were approved by the Communist Party. Under the control of a few supper massive media corporations, we also face a situation in which a very narrow band of political opinions are allowed to be broadcast. The Fairness Doctrine would serve to EXPAND the number of viewpoints made available for the the public to hear ON THE PUBLIC'S OWN AIRWAVES.
So, unless you can provide examples of Stalin EXPANDING the number of viewpoints allowed to be heard, then you're drawing on an amazingly weak hand.
By the way, it is anything but censorship to deny one single political viewpoint a near MONOPOLY on access to the PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES.
The fairness doctrine worked very well, it is anything but censuring free speech, it promotes free speech. Most people that remember the fairness doctrine remember very well thought out comments on a wide variety of issues, it was very informative. Rushbo and so many other blowhards wouldn't last very long with the fairness doctrine because their basically full hot air and lies. Rush is a phony, a liar and a vile, repugnant excuse for an intellectual. He is getting so pathetic its nothing but fun to watch!!
It is a good picture of Stalin.
Don't flatter yerself, Rush is the king of all media.(if you don't believe me just ask him)
You'd be much more successful if you went after moveon.org. But wait, this is an unbiased site isn't it?
Change the scripted words a bit. I think it would look classy on a tee shirt.
OK Rush, not quite as funny as the Bin Laden D-Afghanistan, but not bad.
Shh, this is not funny. Rush is apparently furthering the conservative agenda that Stalin is in charge here.
The conservative corollary to Godwin's law meant that a Stalin reference was inevitable.
Dave, what do you think of the suicide bomber description of one of our troops?
Rush obviously said no such thing. He made an analogy trying to demonstrate that the soldier was being used for money and political gain. He never called him a suicide bomber.
What other people, in speaking in analogies, strap themselves with things and "walk into people?"
People who unknowingly allow themselves to be used by other people. That was what the analogy was about. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, obviously.
Nah, he was comparing him to a suicide bomber because he dared to call Rush out.
I think Rush, Hannity and the rest have disdain for anyone who disagrees with them whether they're military or civilian.
It's funny how rino can see the fairness doctrine as a tool of the left to squelch opposing views. Yet cannot, will not see these thug tactics from the guys he agrees with as dissent crushing tactics.
Why the specific mention of starpping things on a belt? The only kind of people I know who both strap things to a belt and walk into other people are suicide bombers. Are you really so biased that you cannot see this analogy?
RH,
You have to be kidding. Why, if Rush was not trying to imply he was like a suicide bomber, did Rush describe him being "strapped" with these "lies" and walking into people?
If Rush had said his head was filled with lies and he was used and paraded around to discuss them, that might be different. HE said that he walked into people strapped with "ammunition" (the lies) and walked into as many people as he could.
Why the mention of walking into people?
Bunk the analogy was made because Rush has no shred of decency and he wanted to plant the image of a suicide bomber. No one could possibly be dumb enough to not see that.
Bunk when making your sad appologies for the Oxymoron please remain within the boundries of the reality based universe
I prefer Satan R-Planetwingnut
You are entitled to your opinions, but just spare us the fake outrage so common these days when something equally idiotic is spouted from the left. You forfeit the expectation of civil discourse when you accept the kind of stupidity that regularly emits from Rush's orifices.
Dontcha just love this. PussPocket calls soldiers "PHONY," then paints MMFA as fascists because they reported what HE said. My God, it's so typical.
How many times have I seen Bush depicted as Hitler? Or heard the word Nazi to describe the Right?
So Limbaugh has chosen Stalin to depict the Left & calls you Libs all Socialists.
Both sides have played at this foolishness.
Politics 2007 ain't pretty.
"How many times have I seen Bush depicted as Hitler? Or heard the word Nazi to describe the Right?"--Jeter
Well? Those comparisons make sense. :-)
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about Liberals=Pinko Commie Stalinists;-)
Wow, how contemporary of you. Papa Joe McCarthy has a shiny new dime for you in heaven.
Jeter, I know you ar ebeing tongue-in-cheek, but don't you think that based on recent scientific studies, Stalin's style of leadership would actually be more appealing to the authoritarian-loving conservatives, not liberals.
Stalin supports censorship and so does Media Matters. That's the thing that they have in common.
The right supports censorship. They want us all to be good Germans while our leaders implement their imperialistic policies.
No they dont you are a liar.
RH,
Why is holding people accountable for their remarks censorship?
Sounds like SOMEONE is a little cranky after seeing his beloved Yankees get the crap pounded out of them by the Indians.
Well, the Nazis sure hated Stalin. Rush hates Stalin, too. So, using 'with us or against us' logic, Rush is a Nazi.
I'm not sure where I got that thing 'with us or against us' - all I know is that since 9/11/2001, I can only see the world in black and white.
Well, the Nazis sure hated Stalin. Rush hates Stalin, too. So, using 'with us or against us' logic, Rush is a Nazi.
That, actually made sense ;-)
Check out your Aristotelian logic. It's called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. It is, in fact, a con.
that right there is what we call the tranisitive property Micsha, good call, but it doesnt take a mathmatical property to claim rush is a fascist. all you need are ears.
on the Stalin picture:
this seems to me to be the journalisitic equivilength of sticking your tounge out at someone. childish and meaningless.
and to whoever said we (liberals) can not understand the depth of rushe's wit. Conservatives still have a reactionary fear of communism, anything they dont like is labeled communism. did i get it?
And in parting, Stalinism is so far and away from marx's philosophy its not even comparing apples and oranges, its apples and IBM's. everytime some conservative still living with the red scare lumps in marx and stalin i laugh heartily.
read a book, you will learnsomething
Ryan Gerbehy
Right. Stalin was actually a tsarist. His favorite political personality was Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible.
And, not surprisingly, Saddam was a huge admirer of Stalin, & yet an avid opponent of communism.
Yeah we have been pretty foolish on our side. We've been called Communists and Nazi's, pansies, pussies, gay, sissies and fascists to name a few. For years we didn't respond, nothing changed so now let's play a game, shall we? My game is called turn about is fair play...
My game is called turn about is fair play...
Snoop, doesn't that fall under the much hated [by Liberals here] of the But They Did It Too Defense?? ;-) You guys don't seem to approve of us using that one...
I'd be more inclined to describe this back & forth name-calling as typical 4th grade playground taunting.
The difference, at least for me personally is, I don't have spittle flying from my mouth or a bulging vein or a pulsing over my eye when Liberals throw around Hitler & Nazis to describe the Right...the Left, on the other hand goes bananas with a few pinko Commie Stalin references...and the spittle goes flying everywhere :-O
"The difference, at least for me personally is, I don't have spittle flying from my mouth or a bulging vein or a pulsing over my eye when Liberals throw around Hitler & Nazis to describe the Right...the Left, on the other hand goes bananas with a few pinko Commie Stalin references..."
Bait and switch. You personally, but the left... Are you saying large swathes of the political right don't go bananas over political slights? Also, the right has frequently used the fascist and Nazi labels to describe people on the left. Screaming "Nazi" isn't just for us pinkos anymore.
Couldn't Rash find a picture of Mao on line? Or Pol Pot? How about Satan? God what a tool. i just can't keep the spittle from flying i'm so upset about this. in fact, i'm utterly defeated by Rash's magnificent riposte. he has taught me that indeed HE is the one true deity, infallible in all things. i'm going to cut my hair into a cueball mullet and pop some oxy and serve at his feet.
Does that job provide dental benefits?
After all, even dittoheads get cavities. :>)
Snoopy, Dont forget the wild, viscious,rabid, angry phase. actually i think thats still the derision de'jur.
..and rapidly getting uglier, but I am thrilled that the Democrats are throwing it back at these guys. It’s long over do. The hard nutty right started this take no prisoner war which included taking down their own when they got out line or off message. Nothing was out of bounds. So watching bullies like Rush and O'reilly whine about how badly they are being treated is a joke.
I'll second that Lynn.
Just what I have been saying since I first got here.
Or heard the word Nazi to describe the Right?
Rush himself says he's a Nazi so we just extrapolated from there.
Actually Jeter, I believe Rush, O'lyley,and those of their ilk have the market cornered on branding those they disagree with as Nazi's.
Limbaugh had coined the ever charming "femanazis" for many years now. O'Reilley can't seem to sop his foaming mouth from spewing nazi, to Americans he disagrees with.
I haven't seen an image or reference to Hitler on MM branding either of these nut cases have you?
Actually Jeter, I believe Rush, O'lyley,and those of their ilk have the market cornered on branding those they disagree with as Nazi's.
Limbaugh had coined the ever charming "femanazis" for many years now. O'Reilley can't seem to stop his foaming mouth from spewing nazi, to Americans he disagrees with.
I haven't seen an image or reference to Hitler on MM branding either of these nut cases have you?
Yep, Stalin would have been a big supporter of a media watch dog organization. Imagine the lifespan of someone who pointed out a lie in his state run newspapers. I guess if one hates MMFA this would seem funny.
As far as what these people think is criticism or commentary, it's really just empty stuff, and simply leans on tired meaningless labels: "Stalinists" "the Left" "ideology" and "totalitarianism". If they had something meaningful to say, then why wouldn't they say it in specific terms?
Even folks in Russia probably don't ever accuse one another in such vague terms as "Stalinist"
Why use tired and empty words like "totalitarianism"?
I think that's the kind of word, "totalitarianism", that maybe two narrow groups of people use: one type that spends all their lives at the University, lost in meaningless abstractions and forever talking in terms of "-isms" and "-ists" and "-istics"...
...and then another type of crowd, who maybe read at a third grade level, but cover it up by using the same empty words that the University crowd uses: like "totalitarianism"
Besides being both void of specifics and empty of meaning, maybe this stuff is supposed to be funny.
None of what these people pretend to be funny, is truly even close: Can you imagine if the somewhat funny Jon Stewart and the leading-edge hilarious Stephen Colbert, thought they could get by, simply taking a worn-out picture of Stalin, and tacking a name tag or badge to it?
That's funny?
It is, only if someone is bound and determined up front to think it is; only to someone with no real sense of humor, but bound and determined to fake like they have one.
C'mon folks - where's your sense of humor? You gotta admit it's pretty funny!
Yeah, but not nearly as funny as these:
[link to www.macleans.ca]
[link to z.about.com]
Hey, those are funny, because they make sense ! Important ingredient in the ol' funny bone dept.
They were funny too and required a bit more imagination. Two thumbs up.
You gotta admit it's pretty funny!
It is?
Seriously, looking at it purely for comedic value, it's not that funny. It's kinda lame. It'd be as funny as a picture of Hitler with the EIB logo on his shirt pocket. Yeah, it might make a political point, but would anyone really laugh at it?
I get that Rush is making a political point, and he's welcome to do so (and MMFA is welcome to highlight it.) But if you really think it's all that funny, your humor isn't terribly sophisticated.
Even an off the cuffer by Colbert is ten times funnier, like when he referred to the President of Iran as "Ach-ma-dinna-move-on-dot-org-ah-zhad." Way funnier. Tell Rush to steal from Colbert.
It's "funny" on about a third-grade level, or in a Fox' lame & cancelled "Half-Hour News Hour" sort of way.
Rush is 1000% correct on this. MMFA likes to cut and paste words to further their leftist agenda. It's about time someone calls them on the carpet. I put my money on Rush to win this battle.
Whether Rush wins or not is basically irrelevant.
But when you can get the Senate Majority Leader to waste his, and our, time on the Senate floor, while conducting the people's business, calling a talk show host's words "unpartriotic", you've at least managed to gain relevance and probably more listeners. Good job Harry.
Does that mean MoveOn gained relevance and more members too?
I would probably say so. Same waste of time.
I disagree that it was a waste of time. It was time spent eroding the right to free speech...on both counts.
You're right on that, certainly.
Don't put a lot of money on it, Rush is quickly approaching the time where he decides to spend more time with his family.
[ does he even have family? ]
Not so fast. If he gets his wish and Hillary gets elected, he will top the heap for at least another four years.
[Does he... (Rush)... even have a family?] - THERICK
No, but I've heard he's had a few boys down in the Dominican Republic.
MMFA likes to cut and paste words to further their leftist agenda.
Prove it. Show us, we'd love to see your "evidence".
MMFA likes to cut and paste words to further their leftist agenda.- demsowndefeat
Just to rub in your victory, how about posting an example. That would really make you look like you know what you're talking about.
Proof is for pussies.
that cracked me up
I think what the trolls are saying is that there is no scientific way to analyze conservative media. Quoting it directly in context is not good enough. I guess we should just give up and assume that if RushhannityBOBortzbeckcoulter say it, it is naturally obviously and unquestionably true and virtuous by definition.
Defeat,
Yeah.... and to make things really, really, really, really fair, lets make Gonzo the referee and FOX Noise the raucus crowd!
I'm sure it will be an oh so very honest way of keeping track of the bout!
Hey GOPWANTSAMERICANSDEAD
We will gloss over your obvious difficulties with math and point out that your baseless assertion just shows how ignorant you are and basically nothing else. Nothing new. You are as worthless as a sugercone battleship.
1000% correct?
I Wonder why MMFA does not sue Rush for this?
Well that's certainly the correct D response. Sue him. Nice job. Thanks for playing.
You mean like when O'Reilly insisted that Fox News sue Al Franken? That silly Democrat O'Reilly! What WAS he thinking!?
You're on a roll, Bitter M!
Now hear this: Any web site that quotes anyone verbatim is now run by Stalinists.
And you will have your logo crudely photoshopped onto Stalin's picture.
You have been warned.
I find great irony even in satirical uses of 'Stalinism' and 'totalitarianism' by the political right to describe the political left.
From which side of the aisle does the vilification of those who speak out against the Iraq war emanate?
But Pete, more than one poster has already told us we have to admit it's funny.If we don't , it means we're humorless liberal sourpusses.
Either that, or we understand the fundamentals of humor, that is, a basic element of truth, as opposed to jokes based on the exact opposite of truth.
For further insight into the conservative grasp of humor, check out the 1/2 hour news hour sometime.
Actually, it seems that MMFA is really making a mark if Rush and Bill and Beck all have to blatantly attack MMFA in the same week. Noone will "win" this battle in the sense that Rush will still keep his loyal listeners (they have shown for years that it really does not matter to them what Rush says) and the visitors to this site (with the notable troll exceptions we know and love) will continue to think of Mr. Limbaugh as a plague on rational discourse. But I do think that many people who do not generally listen to right-wing talk radio are becoming more aware about the steady stream of crap that comes out of right-wing talk radio, and in that sense I think MMFA is fulfilling one of its main goals.
I've gotta believe that there's a few old timer soldiers who heard Rush's various comments and put it together with Rush's draft dodging and said "Enough's enough." There is such a thing as "going too far."
hah, that's pretty funny; and in *much* better taste than the "Betray US" ad.
Sure if you are a brainwashed moron
See? MMFA's getting to him. He's lashing out irrationally now...well, he does that all the time...but now he's focused his bullsh*t barrage at a website.
Pokin' the bear.
The Stalinist reference is to the fact that Democrats are trying to censor conservative radio through the "fairness doctrine," which would require stations to balance their left and right programming. Since leftist radio is unsuccesful, the stations will be forced to either lose money or cancel the successful right-wing programming.
Well you have the Limborg talking point down. Reality however not so much. The fairness doctrine wouldnt require equal time or a leftwing show for every rightwing show. It would only require both sides of public issues be heard and anyone attacked be given time to respond. You guys are just afraid that unless your propaganda goes out pure and without the other side being heard people will catch on how ludicrous it is.
MESSAGE TO RUSH:
Dude, you've already gotten your butt kicked...now you're just going to make it harder on yourself by p!ssing these people off even more. Don't say I didn't warn you...
That picture makes a nice desktop background (R click on the picture, select "Set as Background" . I always have a provocative desktop so visitors will ask questions and I can indoctrinate them with my far left stalinist views.
Now if he had Stalin holding Brock in a choke hold like Homer on Bart, maybe a small chuckle.
Mark, I'm having a hard time getting my head around your thinking… let's have a look:
Actually, it seems that MMFA is really making a mark if Rush and Bill and Beck all have to blatantly attack MMFA in the same week.
This statement might make sense if it wasn't for the fact that MMFA attacked both of these guys first; calling Bill a racist, then grossly misquoting Rush.
Noone will "win" this battle in the sense that Rush will still keep his loyal listeners (they have shown for years that it really does not matter to them what Rush says)How could you possibly know what Rush listeners think?
Seems a rather presumptuous statement.
By the way, Rush doesn't need to 'win' this battle, MMFA lost it as soon as they took the position they did.
and the visitors to this site (with the notable troll exceptions we know and love) will continue to think of Mr. Limbaugh as a plague on rational discourse.Well Duh. That's like saying all the vegans at a vegetarian convention are going to continue to boycott meat.
PS. Let me know when you're ready for some rational discourse.
But I do think that many people who do not generally listen to right-wing talk radio are becoming more aware about the steady stream of crap that comes out of right-wing talk radio, and in that sense I think MMFA is fulfilling one of its main goals.Well you keep thinking that, but the truth is; MMFA has one purpose and that is to to fuel its kook base into believing the message coming from the conservative media outlets is wrong-headed, immoral, and dishonest.
MMFA has a keen interested in seeing a democrat elected president and is therefore highly motivated to tell the story they tell.
It almost sounds as if you believe MMFA is somehow unbiased, lol.Your silly post was based on the false premise that MMFA MISQUOTED Rush. That is blatantly false. They quoted Rush VERBATIM. Since based on a false premise your post was worthless.
Solon. I know I should just ignore them, but I'm glad that you pointed out another dittohead calling complete quotes, transcripts and audio "out of context".
My favorite part was, in the middle of a long list of regurgitated Rush talking points, the accusation that somebody was presumptuous in saying they could know what Dittobots think. Har!
These right-wing fascists like Limbugh always label their enemies as communists/socialist, but they keep forgetting the communists/socialists they attack are the right-wing fascists themselves.Here is how a communist dictatorship works.1) A strong, centralized government and a few elites control the entire country.2) The government hoardes all economic and military power through tyranny, treats, and intimidation.3) The people have no voice or rights.4) The dictatorships are driven by compulsive power, hatred, militarism, and fanaticism.5) Ethnic minorities and religious groups are especially targeted, discriminated, and even murdered.Wait, this is the Hitler-type right-wing fascist dictatorships at it's truest sense.
It's Limpaw...who cares?
In all "fairness," Rush has invited Sen Ried to his program. I'd like to hear him give Rush what for!
In all fairness IF the fairness doctrine was to rise from the ashes it should include all type of media from newspaper editorials to blogs to speeches to websites ...you get the picture. The truth is it's all about censorship. The photo just about hit the nail on the head.
The truth is you Limborg hiveminders NEVER know what you are talking about. Since ANYONE can start a website or a newspaper they would NOT be covered by the fairness doctrine. Try to have some dim idea what you are talking about when mindlessly repeating what the Oxymoron TOLD you to think
Stalin, Commie, Lib, ect is a reference to the "policies" that the extream left is shoving down us Conservativies throat. I do not want my child to be forced to read "My Two Mommies", or as in NY State, "The Two Handsom Princes"... We also do not want socilized medicine forced upon us and rationed like EVERY SINGLE OTHER NATION THAT HAS TRIED IT ! look at France, England, Canada... All these health care systems are broke, bring in foreign Doctors with lower quality, long lines, rationed care, and bloated budgets. We Conservatives do not want our TAXES rasied any more, period. We do not want ANY GOV to tell us what we must eat, that we can't smoke, own a gun, work for ourselfs, have acess to Christian principales in our lives, celebrate Christmas, drive an SUV. Leave us alone, stop trying to be the "nanny" state like the USSR. Let Freedom from GOV controls ring.
On the flip side, we, as Conservativies have never told you Libs (commies) that you MUST attend church, pray, believe in God, eat meat, drive a SUV, smoke, carry a gun, volunteer to fight in the Millitary. We let YOU be the boss of YOU, not the FEDS. GET OUT OF MY WALLET FOR YOUR STUPID AND FAILED SOCILIZED PROGRAMS.
Please, name one single Gov program that is cost effective, makes money, is fraud free or even close, is not full of waste, corrupt, bloated and way over priced. NAME ONE, you will not be able to, but yet you want more and more and more programs that are PROVEN WASTES.
That, in a very simple set of facts shows the diff between why we believe that your party is leading America towards Communisium.
Clearly a Rush fan, you seem to have a bit of a problem recognizing the difference between facts and opinions.
If you believe that what you wrote is all facts then there is no convincing you, you have your own reality.
Take a pill, you're hysterical.
im sorry, what party had complete control of congress (and the purse) for the past decade or so, and too which party didthe presidency (regretfully and likely fraudulently) go too in 2000?
hmmm... i can wait. ill give you a hint, Rush is their water transporter.
On the flip side, we, as Conservativies have never told you Libs (commies) that you MUST attend church, pray, believe in God, eat meat, drive a SUV, smoke, carry a gun, volunteer to fight in the Millitary.
That's because we won't allow it.
I do not want my child to be forced to read "My Two Mommies"
The best way to combat this is to put your child in [a religious] private school. You will be able to sleep safe at night knowing that your child is not being exposed to tolerance.
"We do not want ANY GOV to tell us what we must eat, that we can't smoke, own a gun, work for ourselfs, have acess to Christian principales in our lives, celebrate Christmas, drive an SUV."
You're safe, because I've never heard anyone advocate what you're saying. Two of these things are not absolute rights, smoking and gun ownership, because smoking affects other people and the government has the right to restrict what kinds of guns you buy. But you still have the right to do those things.
Nobody says you can't celebrate Christmas. Nobody says you can't have Christian principles. You just can't push it on people who don't believe the way you do. Freedom from religion and all, you know.
So we don't want a government that tells us any of those things either. And to add to that list, we don't want a government that tells us we can't buy pornography, that women can't have abortions, that gay people can't marry, that pharmacists and hospitals can refuse to provide the day-after pill, that we can't choose to die with dignity instead of slowly and painfully rotting away out of reverence for the sanctity of life.
See, we want all the freedoms you want, and more. Since you want your government to stay out of everyone's business, go tell your "family values" Republicans to go to hell. Fair enough?
Rural electrification. If not for RE you ignorant rural wingnuts would still be reading in the dark at night. Hey I dont like being lied into a way. Nuclear Weapons, warrantless wiretaps, putting American citizens in prison for YEARS without a trial. I tell you what lets allow each American to decide for themselves what THEIR tax dollars are spent on. I am betting we have more money for education, less uneccesary wars. Why dont we do that?
I just HAVE to check into this home-schooling thing for my daughter. It seems like it has a very good English as a second language module.
I am curious of one thing: how much do you value education and do you think the government should stay out of it or should that be privatized? Or do you not believe in it at all? Do you believe in abolishing the US Department of Education?
sorry chuckie, but you repugs love to pass laws regarding what i do in the bedroom
and i am sure that when the time comes, you will be sending back your social security check and will refuse to use any medicare program
you must also now stop driving on the interstate, never call the police or fire departments, and never ever use your public library
and you really need to spend some time researching how the country was and how people lived prior to the new deal....many times it wasnt pretty, and life expectency was much, much shorter.
Bacci, I think you forgot to mention the internets.
In Rush Limbaugh Land,simply reposting a line for line,verbatim transcript of what he said invites comparisons to Stalin.Just imagine what would happen if MM stooped to HIS level! He'd flip his wig!
Lets face it:the reason Limbaugh does so well on radio is precisely because he's always been willing to stoop just that much lower than anyone else.He indulges in the absolute worst kind of innuendo and character assassination yet has the utter audacity to call it"excellence in broad casting".Please continue to follow this story MM.You've got this fraud on the ropes.
If the logo is a trademark, MMFA can get a cease and decist on the image. If not, I'd go with a picture of Hitler with the EIB logo in place of the swastika armband. I doubt El Rushbo would want to go to court since he drew first blood.
The neocon meltdown is awesome to watch. Hopefully it will be complete before Bush gets us into Iran.
So no attempt to challange the things libs force on conservatives as apposed to the this we have forced upon your side ?
To anyone rational that reads the list, it is very clear... The side that tries to force it's will upon traditions of America, our rights changed are the Left leaning Libs.
Please cite me when a Conservative has forced your child to read a book in 2 & 3rd grade that is against ALL you believe. Have we told you that you must drive a SUV or your taxes will be huge, have we said that you can or can not smoke or eat junk food ? No, no, again no.
Soviet style countries like the one that Hilary and other Dems are prposing is scary to me, I do not want to be told that I must have a tearly physical, it should be MY choice, not yours.
Try to focus Moon... Answer the challange
Please cite me when a Conservative has forced your child to read a book in 2 & 3rd grade that is against ALL you believe. Have we told you that you must drive a SUV or your taxes will be huge, have we said that you can or can not smoke or eat junk food ? No, no, again no.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Name the legislation that makes SUV ownership illegal, controls your diet and forbids you from smoking privately.
Hysterical much?
Please cite me when a Conservative has forced your child to read a book in 2 & 3rd grade that is against ALL you believe.
The Bible
Please maintain a semblence of coherence in your posts and you Conservatives need to stop forcing WARS down our throat with LIES.
Hey Roundhouse,
Show me where my assertions are incorrect...
You can't, typical Lib. Afraid to confront the basics that you want total Gov controls of every aspect of ALL of our lives. What our childern learn, what they eat, what they can watch / listen to, what car they can drive. Right down to where a fast food resturant can and can not operate (L.A. City Council)...
Those darn liberals and their commie zoning laws!!!!! Next thing you know they'll say that I can't operate a slaughterhouse next to a hospital, a strip club near an elementary school, a junkyard next to the reservoir or land airplanes anywhere I damn well please.
Those libs just want absolute control!!!!!
Look. Your personal attacks and wild misrepresentations reveal you as a person who may just be of low character.
And I'm not even sure what your point is, you're all over the place.
Make a reality based argument, a coherent one. Make an argument that is not pure insult and I would be happy to chew the fat with you until I stumble off to bed.
Hey ranter. You have already been taken apart here. You can continue to rant hysterically if you want but if you want an ACTUAL conversation you need to cough up the examples asked for.
Tbone,
In Ny and Nj at this ver moment childern in the 2nd and 3rd grades in public schools are being read, IN CLASS, the book called "Two Handsom Princes", it is the story of two gay Princes that fall in love and marry. Our childern have no choice, it is a part of the English portion of the class day. The other book is "My Two Mommies", a book about a young girl who has two female parents. That the gay agenda is being forced down our Conservative throats proves to me that LIB values are being forced upon us at an alarming rate.
So, do you think reading a book about gays will turn your children into raging queens? Do you have that little faith in your parenting abilities?
My children are exposed to IDEAS so that they are equipped to deal with the world such as it is, not cower in the corner and long for a return to (never existed) better days. Your fear factor is telling.
thank you tbone,
you disarmed that powder keg far better than my silly sarcasm would have.
That the gay agenda is being forced down our Conservative throats proves to me that LIB values are being forced upon us at an alarming rate.- mgarnett251924
I think what makes our friend M uncomfortable with talking about gay people is the reflexive fantasizing about having something shoved down his throat.Sounds like something he's trying very hard to not think about.
Do you mean like this:
http://www.worldaheadpublishing.com/titles/lumb.phphe said forced lois, no one forced anyone to buy that feermongering silly little book.
not like my friends in catholic school.
MG, maybe I can take a stab at it. As a chuch-going liberal, I would like to point out that conservatives don't own Christianity. I also hear that in Iran no-one has to worry about that homosexuality thing. I don't want government control: I don't like the idea of a Bush sponsored police state, I don't like the idea that I am a coward for opposing a morally bankrupt war, and I don't care what you listen to in your car.
And, while they are not classified as government programs, I am sure you would argue that the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security are pretty good.
That's probably enough of a completely off topic post string.
Well? I'm waiting...
MG, I forgot:
That "gay agenda", it's for respect and equality. I have a fat, leather bound book that has someone saying what a good idea it is to love my neighbors.
Loislap,
Nice try. Funny book btw, but it is NOT being read to YOUR child in a PUBLIC school as a part of the course. There is a HUGE difference.
But again, nice try.
The books I have refered to ARE a part of the PUBLIC school course in both NJ & NY at this very moment.
Plus, you failed to make any points about the rest of my observations, just cherry pick what you THOUGHT you could win on, but nope, you lose.
Mgarnett,
Prove to me that Homosexuallity is immoral, prove to me that it hurts more than helps!! you cant!! Typical Rep!! you lose!!
this is called satire to illustrate a point, your telling us to debate on the basis of opinion, specifically your opinion.
your opinions are your own, just as mine are my own. and only a reasoned and objective look at facts move opinions, not the other way around.
I doubt it's being read to your child in any school. I don't think you would even know that the book existed if Rush hadn't mentioned it on his show. Great example of a widespread lib conspiracy, something so out of control that it takes a talk radio host killing time and brain cells mentioning it before ti even makes the news.
Someone said the BIBLE was being forced to your child in a PUBLIC SCHOOL ???
Oh God, please tell me where so I can move there...
Remember, i said PUBLIC school, not private or Christian school.
And please don't go there, it use to be that we Christians COULD celebrate Christmas in the public arena, public places... Thanks to LIBS, that has been forced away also.
While we Conservatives were in charge, we didn't put back in the BIBLE to Public schools to force your kids to follow.
"Someone said the BIBLE was being forced to your child in a PUBLIC SCHOOL ???
Oh God, please tell me where so I can move there..." MGARNET
UTAH, now move there.
And please don't go there, it use to be that we Christians COULD celebrate Christmas in the public arena, public places... Thanks to LIBS, that has been forced away also.
Celebrate in private.
MGARNETT:
I'm very curious. I've read many of your posts, and now I see you claiming "WE CHRISTIANS".
I'm baffled, and need some help here.
Could you give us a few CHRISTIAN VALUES, like things in the Bible, with which you AGREE, and practices suggested in the Bible to which you personally subscribe?
See, MY Bible tells me to "judge not, lest YE be judged", and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and Jesus saying "as you treat the least among us, so you treat ME" and "love of money is a sin".
The message is to care for the poor, not to pursue money in place of humanity, to heal the sick, to be peaceful if at all possible, to value and cherish your fellow man.
Each of these values and teachings represent "liberal" views, which you seethingly HATE and REJECT. Your postings represent the most UNChristian philosophies and mindset that I have seen in a long while.
So tell us, how does your rock-ribbed Libertarianism/Rightwingerism comport with a belief in the teachings of Christ? You LOATHE the poor, you equate helping people with wasting money on the unworthy and lazy, you see people wishing to provide basic health care to all human beings in a compassionate manner and HATE this as a "socialist" notion that will "steal" your hard earned money. You REBEL at being told "how to live", when the Bible does ONLY that.
You should do some deep soul-searching, MGARNETT, and consider the wildly conflicting things you say in forums like this. You can be as you are and promote radical rightwing ideology of Social Darwinism and inherent greed without consideration for anyone else, or you can claim to be Christian.
To do BOTH destroys your credibility as being someone so conflicted and schizophrenic, that there is no logic, reason, or consistency behind your rantings.
Jesus DID warn us to beware the hypocrites.
"Stalinists Have Taken Over the Left," is exactly correct.
Socilized medicne, FAILED everywhere it has been tried. France is a VERY Lib country, but is now totaly rebeling AGAINST the Gov health care system.
Bloated Gov controls and social programs tat are a disaster.
SS broke, Medicare broke, Welfare broke, Public Schools broke, yet we spen more and more and more AND MORE, without ANY improvments, btw, I blame BOTH parties for that.
Socilized medicne, FAILED everywhere it has been tried. France is a VERY Lib country, but is now totaly rebeling AGAINST the Gov health care system.
No it hasn't.
And our healthcare system is in dire need of attention.
Loonz, It would appear you have discovered a new species of nutcase. Catagory 4,622.
I see your problem now. You seem to think hysterically ranting your baseless opinions were the same as making a cogent argument. Delusional but par for the course for the Limborg hivemind
Rush Limbaugh is nothing but a thin skinned bully who can dish it out but can't take it. He sounds just like every other fascist propagandist. As soon as he is criticized he lashes out like a big baby. If Media Matters says he's lied about something it because they are "Stalinist Totalitarians". It's exactly the same tactic that the Nazis used in their rise to power. Their critics on the left were "Judeo-Bolsheviks". Their critics on the right were "reactionaries".
And you know what? I know it has become a cliche for the left to denounce Bush and his friends as fascists but since he took office he and his Neocon cronies have met every single one of the 14 points that identify a fascist regime. Check them out:[link to www.oldamericancentury.org] on the left on the other hand haven't done anything to deserve the label totalitarian except point out how the Bush Administration has abused its power, trampled all over the Constitution, practically defecated on our liberties, and gotten us involved in endless war for endless peace.
But Chavez, you forget,
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Fox is News
A winner is Therick
Hey, what was that for?
the fox is news thing, i liked it. was not meant in a sarcastic way.
Cool, I misunderstood you to mean I was a loser.
Cool, I misunderstood you to mean that I was a loser.
Moon, for once, check a fact, look it up. THEY ARE BEING READ, the newspapers over the last week are full of the story.
But you'll never admit your wrong.
Didn't say the books weren't being read, just that they weren't being read to YOUR kids as well as implying that this is not a widespread phenomena.
Me, I think the books should be available but not required. Human sexuality is really not an appropriate topic for that age level except on a very simplistic level.
Now, tell me how there are no school boards anywhere in the country pushing "Intelligent Design" which is a purely religious doctrine as part of the public school science curriculum.
Tbone, if you really feel that way then would you oppose the BIBLE being read to your child in PUBLIC school ?
You said that you wanted your childern show a varity of topics and issues so that they will be better equiped. Does that work both ways ?
"Tbone, if you really feel that way then would you oppose the BIBLE being read to your child in PUBLIC school ?"
Would you want your child reading books in school that said there was no God?
There's a couple of places where it's very appropriate to read the Bible to children: Your Church, and your home.
What Loonz said although I would generally prefer that the Bible be taught (along with the Torah, the Koran, and others) in coursework related to religion and religious beliefs.
I would oppose any public school setting that tried to impose the Bible (or The Handsome Princes) as "Truths"
Loonz, yes it has. Canada's system is in horrible state, it's broke, it has HUGE waits, those that can afford to come here for medical care. In England, the are rationing care, same in France. So how and what makes you say that these 3 Countries are doing fine, it is not true, it is a LIE, plani and simple, France is working to reform right now, read, get out from the "womb to tomb" mentality, NO ONE SAID YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE, it is NOT in the US Constitution. It's not there, anywhere.
but there is that pesky little thing about Life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness.
emphasis on the life part.
Even if that were true (which it is not), our system is in worse shape.
How immoral would a society be to deny it's citizens mechanisms leading to good health, basic education, and protection?
And although these are not specifically pointed out in our Constitution, I would argue that the absense of any of these three prove the absence of a civilized society.
They do, it's call "Evolution", creationisim is NOT taught.
Again you lose, but nice try.
They do, it's call "Evolution", creationisim is NOT taught.
Again you lose, but nice try.
Where in the theory of evolution does it say or suggest that there is no God?
No doubt, Loonz. Good point. And where in the Origin of Species does Mr. Darwin insist his is the one true way?
Gerb, ok, so again where does it say all that is to be GIVEN to you by your Gov. ? Life, ok, good, your trying, but where is the Gov run part & the Socilized part ?
The part where it says Congress makes the law.
There is also that promote the general welfare thing. I think its hard to claim universal healthcare would not fall under that rubric
where does it say specifically that you have a right the own, lets say, a 9 mm glock?
...it doesnt ...
sorry to answere a question with a question, but your previous post exposed a flaw in your logic. you are expecting the constitution to cover all bases and all probablities. it cant, its twohundred plus yeas old.
and byb the by, socialized medicine is just a red scare buzz word to make dittoheads cringe.
And besides, where your basic human dignity man? you see someone hurt , you help them. you seem big on the bible, remember that nice little story about a samaritan?
Give, give, give, free, free, free, no need to work, Hilary will provide it ALL from the pockets of the "evil rich"... Guess what, we "rich" can NOT p[ay for it all even if you took 90% of our income. The cost is too great, YOU will pay for all the freebies.
Are you alright? Should we send medical help?
There's a bigger picture to consider. National healthcare (along with education and living wages) is in the same realm as national security. The more people we can gaurantee access to quality healthcare, the more vibrant and secure our country will be.
Ain't no gimmes about it. Woking people deserve a fair shake in return for labor.
....and in the end they will lay down their freedoms at your feet and say "Make us your slaves, but feed us."
And assuring that people have access to health care takes away WHAT freedom again?
Ok, roundhouse, let's analyze this hogwash that you posted.
National healthcare (along with education and living wages) is in the same realm as national security.
Ahem......the federal government has 2 constitutionally defined functions: 1. To provide for the common defense of the United States of America. 2. To provide for the general welfare of the people.
The national security issue is crystal clear. However, our government fails to protect our borders to this very day. We the people should toss every single politician in Washington out on their arses for this breach of contract.
The "general welfare" issue, unfortunately, is not so crystal clear. James Madison's interpretation of the phrase intimates that it states that the government has specific and limited powers that are discussed later on in the Constitution. At great cost to us, the politicians have ignored Madison's views and adopted a broad definition of the term. So now we have the monsterous Imperial Federal Government that the founders feared. A more recent revelation of the scope of government power can be seen as FDR spoke on prohibition:
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
So even the great Socialist himself realized the danger of big government and recognized the value of the rule of law. We know that the Government's powers are specific because of the language in the 10th amendment (any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved to the States and the people respectively, paraphrasing). So a broad, generalized interpretation of the "general welfare" phrase is contradictory to the specific nature of the Federal Government's power. Perhaps someday in the future we will demand that the "general welfare" phrase be defined by a Constitutional amendment and then we can get on with our lives, whatever form it may take. Anyway, enough rambling: What I'm saying is that you're assertion that healthcare, education, and wages are functions of the Federal Government just as is National security is 100% wrong because the power to control such aspects aren't specifically granted to the Federal Government as the 10th amendment mandates.
The more people we can gaurantee access to quality healthcare, the more vibrant and secure our country will be.
Every single person within our borders has access to quality healthcare, even tourists and trespassers. Access is NOT the issue. Cost is the issue.
Woking people deserve a fair shake in return for labor.
I'm curious to find out how you would define "working people". Would you say that Bill Gates is part of the "working people"? How about a judge or a lawyer? "Labor" is most always more mental than physical, so even the folks that sit behind a big desk and crunch numbers all day are "laboring". Face it, you have to exert some sort of mental power in ANY job. So when you say "working people", are you excluding anyone with an administrative job? Also, are you meaning to say that "non-working people deserve nothing"?
Well the Constitution says the Congress makes the law so they can do anything they want unless it is deemed unconstitutional.
Every single person within our borders has access to quality healthcare, even tourists and trespassers. Access is NOT the issue. Cost is the issue.
No they don't. If you don't have health insurance and your injury or condition is not severe, you either don't get treatment or your treated to some sh*tty healthcare.
Labor" is most always more mental than physical, so even the folks that sit behind a big desk and crunch numbers all day are "laboring".
I don't think one is superior to the other and the wage discrepancy is in no way justified. If you don't have the physical means to make a product, your "mental" labor is worthless.
So FDR was a SOCIALIST? I need to know if you are kidding or insane. As for saying everyone has access to healthcare that is ludicrous. If you cant afford it you DONT have access to healthcare.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.
YOUR take is like saying since anyone who can jump a six foot fence can get access to berries EVERYONE has access to those berries. A semantic trick that fools no one.
Last things first. Yes. Labor is labor and if you are a working citizen you should have access to quality care.
Cost is a barrier to access. We simply disagree that quality healthcare is a commodity to be readily purchased by the more financially disciplined among us. Not every person is born to be a saavy moneymaker. Tons of folks enjoy doing work that will never make them wealthy, they just love doing their work and doing it well. Why should they be penalized by a market that favors wealth over labor (both physical and intellectual)?
Now, first things last. I wasn't making a legal or Constitutional argument.
I was making a moral argument. A concensus building argument. That's the beauty of our country. Building consensus is how many positive changes are made in a democracy. Presentation of ideas and building support for it is what participation in our system is about.
Can you make a counter argument without resorting to hyperbolic references to socialism or insult? Or does the only ability you have to persuade include fear and ridicule?
Interesting, except for a couple of little things: The United States is NOT and was NEVER intended to be a democracy. I know you love to think that is was, but the cold, hard, insensitive truth is that our country was specifically set up to NOT be a democratic system. Sorry, the facts are the facts.
You said that not every person is born to be a saavy moneymaker. I would go so far as to say that nobody is born with the knowledge of how to make a buck. It has to be learned. However, every American born is rich beyond belief from day one. Time and personal choice either maintain our birthright or squander it. Barring extreme mental or physical hindrance, EVERY single person in this country is in the position that they are in based on the sum of the choices that they have made. Poverty and wealth are choices that we have made for ourselves. My opinion is that if you have chosen poverty as a lifestyle, then you should be free to endure the consequences that go along with it without government interference. Same for those of us who choose wealth.
I heard something very profound the other day in response to the phrase "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.":
The rich get richer because they continue to act in a manner that got them where they are. The poor get poorer for the EXACT same reason.
Man your simplistic thinking is just sad. So the poor CHOOSE to be poor. No one got a disease or in a tragic car accident. No one was born without the wherewithal to succeed. Everyone went to good schools. Take down that pin up poster of Ebeneezer Scrooge. You misread the book he isnt supposed to be a role model
The rich continued doing what GOT them rich? They continued to be BORN? Some people get rich through enterprise but most get there the old fashioned way. They INHERITED IT. Wait. I know you mean George W Gump. So you mean he will CONTINUE to be an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy average in school and bankrupting every bussiness he ever ran while trading off his families name. Sure I dont understand why EVERYONE cant do that. You are still searching for the Holy Grail of conservative philosophy. The rationale for why GREED and selfishness is the highest public good and Empathy and compassion are somehow a bad thing. Keep looking I think it is over by that unicorn next to the fountain of youth.
Come on, man. Read my post. "Barring extreme mental or physical hindrance" includes those who have disease or were in a tragic car accident. I'm talking about the filthy poor, the able-bodied lazy cretins who exert more effort into getting something for nothing than they exert into working for something. No one is born WITH the wherewithal to succeed. It must be learned. It must be a chosen path.
Do you believe that a person is only as smart as the school they attend? I would bring up an example of a young man here in St. Louis who attends a terrible inner-city high school. If your logic stands, then he has NO chance to make anything of himself, right? Well, this young man just received a full scholarship to Harvard. WHY? Because of his choices, that's why. He didn't rely on public schools to shape his destiny. He made the choice to become as educated as he could be on his own. He chose to spend hundreds of hours in the library or doing research on the internet. He chose to turn the Playstation OFF and put the learning cap ON. Even in the face of impossible odds, this young man choices that will ensure that he will not become another poverty statistic. And if he continues to make those same choices, he will become rich. And richer. You see, we're ALL billionaires when we're born. We're ALL Harvard students when we're born. Our choices along the way determine whether or not we will live up to our potential.
Contrary to your statement, MOST rich people DON'T inherit their fortunes. Try telling that to Bill Gates (college dropout) and Warren Buffet (his grandfather ran a grocery store). Here's your inconvenient truth for the day: Fewer than 20 percent of millionaires in this country inherited their wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
Listen, as long as you keep telling the filthy poor that they haven't done anything wrong and that "the system" or "the rich man" or fate is holding them down, you are NOT doing them any good. What do you think that young man in St. Louis would have in store for him if he was constantly told that he doesn't have opportunity and the "man" won't let him rise up. Try this: replace the words "less fortunate" and "fortunate" with "lazy" and "hard-working". We live in a country where ANYONE can rise out of poverty and become extraordinarily wealthy. Tragically, very few people put any concerted effort into doing so. Oh, and please read the entire link that I provided before you respond so that you don't look so uninformed next time.
bush lies, none of my business, and I won't fault you if you don't answer;
What did/do your parents do for a living?
My mother was a payroll clerk at a department store admin office, and my father installed garage doors and openers.
Whether you believe we live in a democracy or not is of no relevance. We live in a society in which the governors govern at the consent of the governed.
You missed my point anyway. People make choices to pursue that which makes them happy; happiness doesn't always come with a huge salary. Why should happiness be sacrificed to pursue wealth and why should woking people of modest means be barred from access to quality healthcare?
You're absolutely right. Government draws it's authority from the consent of the governed. Our appointed officials are trusted by us to legislate in our best interest. That is most certainly not a democracy.
And again, ACCESS to healthcare is hardly an issue. COST is the issue. Healthcare doesn't need to COST as much as it does, we can all agree on that. The SOLUTION, I believe, is where we differ. Some are calling for government interference or control to some degree, others say that the government should REDUCE it's involvement in the industry. I personally think that government should be our LAST resort. We haven't tried everything yet. There are brilliant economists who have blueprinted a healthcare system that would allow costs to plummet by upwards of 80%. Let's give these ideas some thought before our health is held hostage by politicians and legislation. My $0.02.
Yes, we do live in a democracy. See
http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
and
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
the second link ranks the US as a full functioning democracy. We elect the president. We elect represenatives. That is a democracy.
The US is ranked 37th in the world in health care, but we pay double what the Europeans pay. We get less and pay more.
"We elect the President"
Hmmmm.........Time to dust off the ol' Constitution, what do you think?
While you're at it, please show me which part of that document establishes our "democracy".
The whole document. You didn't even respond to my links.
The whole document?
The whole thing explains how our "democracy" functions and how we operate on the foundation of "democratic" principles and concepts?
Gee, I had no idea. So, surely the word "democracy" must appear in it AT LEAST once, right? I mean, if we're setting up a "democracy", surely we would identify it as such.
So this shouldn't take long to put this subject to rest.....What is the first occurence of the word "democracy" in the Constitution? I'm not asking for ALL instances, just the first one.
Nice try. All the Repubs/libetarians have the same talking points. I can read a whole novel and nowhere does the word "novel" appear in it--yet it is still a novel.
Language has meaning on how it is used. Politicians, journalists, professors, and just about everyone else refers to the US as a democracy. We all understand democracy to describe the country we live in. That is how language has meaning.
Again, you didn't address any of those links which looked at democracy from a systematic point of view and ranked the US as a democracy, the second one, a full fledged democracy.
So, you're acknowledging the fact that the Constitution doesn't contain the word "democracy". Good. That's a step in the right direction.
On next week's show I'll prove to you that democrats are the direct offspring of communists.
In other words, you can't refute my argument. Are you arguing that a novel is not a novel because it does not have the word "novel" in it? Are you arguing that the US is not a capitalistic country because the word "capitalism" is not in the constitution?
You won't address the links I provided because they systematically show how the US is a democracy.
I have addressed your links. I dismissed them as incorrect and biased. Just as you did when I mentioned Neal Boortz.
You don't agree with me, I get that. I am comfortable with the fact that the Constitution definitively shows how the US is NOT a democracy.
No, you did not address the links. You didn't even look at them as it appears. Simply branding something leftist is not addressing it.
And as I've pointed out below, it doesn't matter that the word "democracy" does not appear in the constitution. Do you also think the US is not a capitalistic society, simply because the word "capitalism" is not in the constitution?
Well, if the Constitution were specifically establishing a system of society, I would certainly expect to see the word "capitalism" appear somewhere. But, alas, the Constitution does NOT establish a society, it establishes a Government. Said government is NOT referred to as a democracy, therefore I can only conclude that the US is NOT a democracy. I just don't see it. We disagree. At least we have that opportunity. Thank you for your time and your thoughts.
A government certainly can be capitalistic, and it can promote capitalism. There is no reason for the US constitution not to include these words. If the founding fathers really felt the government should base itself in captiitalism, they could very well have set up the constitution that way.
No, I don't necessarilyl expect the word "democracy" to appear in the constitution, no more than I expect the world "novel" to appear in a novel.
In addition, the country has obviously very much changed from when the constitution was written. Certainly, only rich white men could participate. But it has changed from that.
You won't address the links I provided because you can't. The links provided a systematic evaluation of democracies around the world. It used criteria such as how much free speech you had, how fair elections were, etc--in other words, all the criteria that people use when they mean democracy. It determined that the US was a democracy.
And it is a demcoracy, since language has meaning.
I agree that we disagree. Good day, sir.
You have made a statement that no one in the world agree with, have offered no proof, have failed to acknowledge my arguments, and now are simply saying that we disagree.
Yes, we do disagree, because I use language accurately and do not make false statments.
I don't want to belabor the point, sir. I make statements based on my beliefs. You make statments based on your beliefs. We simply don't agree. Good day, sir.
Well, you are belaboring the point. I didn't argue simply from a belief. I cited two studies, which you could not even address, let alone refute. I am presenting an argument; you are simply presenting a belief.
And like I said, you apparently don't know what the phrase "good day" means, because you keep coming back for more. You are really sounding humorous, now.
Further, it is interesting that now you are simply pretending to express a belief. Here is what you said originally:
>>Interesting, except for a couple of little things: The United States is NOT and was NEVER intended to be a democracy. I know you love to think that is was, but the cold, hard, insensitive truth is that our country was specifically set up to NOT be a democratic system. Sorry, the facts are the facts.
You stated an assertion that you can't back up as a fact. You were certainly certain of your argument then.
BTW, those links you provided: Aren't they the same organizations that stated that the people of Iraq "elected" Saddam Hussein? Yeah, they're so accurate.
No. Now do you care to address the links or not?
Sure. They're both leftist organizations. There.
In other words, you can't refute the way they systematically determine the US is a democracy, so you resort to an ad hominem attack. I doubt the economist is a leftist organization, and for that matter, I doubt the other one is, either.
Well, if that's your opinion......
Neal Boortz insists that we're NOT a democracy. Would you care to address that?
Okay, you obviously don't want a serious argument. Neil Bortz is a document liar and has not done a systematic study of democracy. You can't address the links.
We are a democacy. You also havn't addressed the fact that language has meaning. If everyone calls the US a democracry because of the way our government is set up, we are a democracy.
Yes, of course. What a strong argument. Neal Boortz makes a determination that the US is NOT a democracy (as does virtually everyone elese in the world), and your response is that he is a "document liar".
I guess we're not so different after all. Let's start a brotherhood - "Ad Hominus Unum"
Neil Bortz is a documented liar. He has not done a systamtic study on democracy. Pointing that out is not an ad hominem attack.
Again, you won't address the links I provided, namely because you can't.
You have no argument.
If everyone calls the US a democracry because of the way our government is set up, we are a democracy.
If everyone says that oil companies are evil and are gouging us to death, does that also become the TRUTH?
You have no point, you have no argument. I will leave you with this:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The US is NOT a democracy, my friend. That is my opinion. YOU will not change it, as I will not change yours.
Not everyone says companies are evil. You certainly wouldn't get all professors, journalists, politicians, etc. to ever agree on that statment.
Pointing out what is in the pledge is laughable. The pledge wasn't even part of the constitution. I suppose by your reasoning, God exists because "under God" is in the pledge. Wow, who knew we didn't need theology and philosophy when we have the pledge of allegiance!
It is not a matter of opinion that the US is a democracy. It is a matter of opnion that X is a good or bad politician. That the US is a democracy is an agreed upon definition.
Well I certainly don't agree, so it's not unanimous, I suppose. I merely pointed out the Pledge because if it is "agreed" that the US is a democracy, it seems funny to me that the pledge states otherwise. Anyway, I've got to go. I know we disagree on this. I won't change your views. I really don't expect to. My opinion differs from yours (and most of the world, apparently) and I'm fine with that. Thank you for the debate, sir.
Again, what does the pledge have to do with whether we live in a democracy? The pledge also states we live under God--does that mean God exists? It is a silly argument.
I provided links that show how the US is a democracy. The links based this decision on crieteria such as how much freedom of speech we have, how free elections are, etc--the standards we agree make up a democracy. They found the US to be a democracy. This you have not refuted.
Thank you for the debate, sir. I understand your position. We disagree. Restating the argument over and over again by BOTH of us is getting us nowhere. Please understand that you have NOT changed my views as I realize that I have not changed yours. Good day.
You have not refuted any of my arguments, namely because you can't. You pretend that we merely have a difference of opinion, when the case is that I am stating something that can be backed up and have provided reasons, while you have not.
And apparently you also don't know what "good day" means. You have stated that about 4 times already but keep coming back and repeating yourself.
I have stated my beliefs. They are MY beliefs. YOU have not changed them. GOOD BYE.
It is funny that now you say you are merely expressing your beliefs. Here's what you said originally:
>>Interesting, except for a couple of little things: The United States is NOT and was NEVER intended to be a democracy. I know you love to think that is was, but the cold, hard, insensitive truth is that our country was specifically set up to NOT be a democratic system. Sorry, the facts are the facts.
In that post you stated your assertion as a fact. Now it is merely a belief, one which you cannot backup.
The Economist is leftist?
Just to be clear, the second link is from the economist.com and ranks Iraq 111 in the world, and labels it a "hybrid regime," not a democracy.
The Economist lost all credibility when James Wilson died.
Yes, of course. What a strong argument. The Economist makes a systematic determination that the US is a democracy (as does virtually everyone elese in the world), and your response is that James Wilson died.
Let me repeat: the US is a democracy.
Well, again, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. I just think you're misinformed.
Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you. But you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You have made a statment that the US is not a democracy, which means virtually everyone in the world is wrong. When I point to a systematic study showing the opposite, you merely resort to evasion and ad homimen attacks.
The "fact" is that the Constitution does not identify the United States of America as a democracy. I have formulated my opinion based on that "fact". Therefore, I think that the majority of the world is wrong. When I produced evidence supporting my opinion, YOU resorted to evasion, language interpretation and collective opinion. Like I said before, brother - "Ad Hominus Unum"
You apparently don't know what an hominem means. Nowhere does the US constitution say that the US is *not* a democracy. As I have pointed out, language has meaning. If everyone points to a bike and alls it a bike, and they mean a vehicle that goes on two wheels that has no motor, then it is a bike. You can't point to it and say "That's not a bike--it's a ten speed, and nowhere in the advertisement does it call itself a bike." That is the most fundemental definition of language.
Using your logic, a novel is not a novel simply because the word "novel" does not appear, and the US is not a capitalistic country because "captitalism" does not appear in the constitution.
Again, that's your opinion. I'm sure others agree with you. I, respectively, do not. So be it. Good day, sir, and thank you for your time.
Again, it is not my opinion. It is an agreed upon definition used by everyone in the world. You cannot simply assert something that is not true, offer essentially no proof, refuse to acknoledge my arguments, and then simply claim we just have a difference of opinion.
The US is a democracy.
Again, it is not my opinion. It is an agreed upon definition used by everyone in the world.
Well, not everyone. I happen to think otherwise. So much for a unanimous decision, I guess. You say the US is a democracy. I say it is not. I have told you why I believe that I'm right, and you have told me why YOU feel that YOU are right. We still disagree. I can't change your views and you can't change mine.
Thank you for your thoughts, sir. Good day.
No, it is not unanimous, but then it is not unanimous that the earth is flat. You can alway find a group of people who believe otherwise.
You have done nothing to prove your assertion and have not addressed any of my arguments.
errr, that should be:
No, it is not unanimous, but then it is not unanimous that the earth is round. You can alway find a group of people who believe otherwise.
Then I must be part of that group (the democracy/not democracy group, not the round/flat earth group). GOOD BYE.
No, I think you are part of the flat earth society. Do you know what good bye means?
Wow! Very cool. You tore down yet another bloviator. Good work, Funny.
You make it look so easy.
Jason's already had this "America is not a democracy" argument taken apart before. I find the "some guy on the radio said it, so it must be true" twist on the argument especially amusing, though.
Bush-lies, since the National Security part is crystal clear, can you explain the several hundred billion that I've contributed to over the last few years? What did I get for my money?
Hey, Amen Brother. I am 100% behind you on that one. You notice I mentioned tossing every politician out on the street for breach of contract, right?
I would love nothing more than to see every single military member that is currently outside of the country come home TODAY and get positioned along the borders to make sure that our "new residents" at least show the common courtesy of signing the guest book when they come in.
You will get no argument from me on this one.
If we had Canadas system it would cost us LESS MONEY as the money taken OUT of the system and going to insurance would go directly to health care. Take that picture of Ebeneezer Scrooge down off your bedroom wall. He WASNT supposed to be a role model. Caring whether your nieghbor LIVES OR DIES is a GOOD THING.
In my area, Fox rightie-radio is doing something odd: clipping a few seconds off either end of the spots they run, and running the spots a little fast. Besides being hypocritical liars when it comes to their politics, these guys are stealing from their advertisers! I shouldn't be surprised at corporate greed, I know, but this qualifies as eating their own, in a manner of speaking...
Has anyone else noticed this?
As a Maoist I think the Stalin thing is cute.
Power to the People!
Down with Capitalism!
This is what I would expect of a drug user and draft dodger.
Allen Stepro
USMC Ret
Wait a minute, Allen. This article is about Rush Limbaugh, not Bill Clinton.
Oh, wait.......same difference.
Hmmmmm, one is a college grad, one isn't. One has been busted for drugs, one hasn't. One is a leech off the other. BIG DIFFERENCE
Well nobody did bring up figures.
We're 40th for industrial nations in health care.
Similar for mortality newborn and the first year of life.
We spend more per capita on medicine and medical treatment than anyone in the world. This is sucess that we want more of?
If you coment on a groups intelligence, use some examples, just for grins.
Comunist Russia was I think best described as Thugism. Joe was the ultimate thug, so far. You could enjoy a similar, though smaller time, leader, by emigrating to North Korea. Good luck with that.
The Neocons (sorry Jeter) seemingly want to duplicate this failed system. Are convinced that they can make it work. I make its chances as good as trickle down ecomonics.
MGarnett may be my new favorite, in the wackiness and spelling categories. I keep waiting for him to bring up the military budget in all that whining about spending his money.
Its dittohead a go-go the last couple of days, the robot army is on the march!
I gotta admit, as annoying as they are, I do get some good laughs out of their creative spelling and punctuation, and the constant Declarations of Victory when nobody can decipher their babbling posts enough to respond.
McGnumbers is an example of exactly why Rush and his cohorts should not be ignored or dismissed as comedy. This is someone who takes the propoganda he hears as fact, not opinion, and feels a duty to disseminate it as loudly as possible.
No fact, no reality, no first hand knowledge, nothing but the spin he's been fed regurgitated as if it were indisputable fact etched in stone.
A Conservative walks into a bar. The Bartender says "HI"...The Conservative gets all upset and starts screaming, "WHY are you demeaning Rush?" ......
This is the insanity being portrayed by Rush and and the RIGHT. By the way, maybe Stalins' family will sue the Rushian for using his picture with the MM logo. Has Rush no heart? Has Rush gone too far in making Stalin look bad? Now you've done it Rush....you may have upset the Russian mob, not your Rushian mob, the real men. The ones that find you. If they ever come to your door Rush, just ask them for their papers.
Why don't you commies just hang it up and move to one of the countrys that you love , like Iran , China, North Korea? Rush has you beat before you even raise your limp fist.Rush rules and you can't stand it.Give up!!!!
Hey moron, why dont YOU take your black fascist heart and move to Guatemala where your fascism will be more appreciated and it wont pollute our good country. Oh and please for the good of the Planet I beg you DO. NOT. Breed.
RUSHLIM, It is "Your Royal Highness Commie Pinko Socialist and let us not forget Vermin" when you address me. And Rush, this is not edited.
Rush rules and you can't stand it.Give up!!!!- rushlim886759
Sorry, Rush's boyfriend. I've already accepted the surrender of the Dittobots on an earlier thread.If you can find it, I'll give you another chance.
OK, I'll help you - here is my acceptance of the dittobot surrender. Since some of you continue to whine, and even ask for us to give up, I'm going to make an incredible deal-
In the spirit of the Special Olympics,and second chances, I'm suspending terms of surrender until Sunday, October 7, 2007, 12:00 midnight EST.(that's 9pm West Coast, don't bother with the calculators.
More than 48 hours to stay alive.Until you meet the terms to initiate your argument , no post will be entertained as anything but horsesh*t.
Keep in mind. providing examples of phony soldiers lionized by the mainstream media does not win anything, it only qualifies you to begin the contest.
On your marks, get set, GO DITTOBOTS!
That might not be enough time for Rush to put it into their Hivemind
Actually that was being kind. He should have used a picture of Idi Amin. He looks much more like David Brock, and was about ten times as smart.
You win the most ignorant thing said so far by a member of the Limborg hivemind. Dont forget to tune into the Oxymoron and find out what you think TODAY.
Way to go Rush!!!
I thought it would have been more appropriate, acceptable, if Stalin was actually worshiping the Media Matters sign, like an idol. You know, false god, something like that. Worrying about what people think is false god worship too. Self image before God, things like that. Looks like he had a point worth considering if it's being covered. Actually, there's a better pic on today's site, really gets to the heart of the matter. You know, I've seen some pretty rough Rush descripters on Randi Rhodes show. Check the archives. Look, she's funny too. They're both funny. Enjoy the show. Either show, so long as we're free to hear the unedited/un-politically corrected version, but looks like time is short here. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone what you think, they might get Oh-fended.
You DO know you are a moron dont you Dave8?
Now, let's think about this a bit. Do we really want government deciding what meets the "Fairness Doctrine"?
Take, for example, a show like Limbaugh's. Is it okay to have, say Al Franken, on a show for the same amount of time? What about from a radical Islamist perspective? Should a representative of bin Laden's have a mandated show? What about someone who disagrees with Limbaugh and Franken on a given issue? Perhaps someone who believes that slavery based on race should be adopted in the United States?
Who gets to decide?
Is is a job for Brownie? I suspect he is still out looking...
It worked fine for the 40 years or so we had it so your strange hypothetical problems really arent relevant.
This is too funny, conservatives demand huge government in support of a huge military machine in support of national security which protects our health and safety, but then cry and wail when the government is asked to provide health and safety via a strong health care system.
To summarize:Maintaining an unparalleled killing machine in terms of cost and size is good for our health and safety.Creating a sensible healthcare system is bad for our health and safety.
Ok. Makes sense.
Pathetic. The only things Rush, BO, Savage come up with are slurs and smears. MediaMatters are Nazis! Communists! Socialists! Librruls! Terrorists! So while they revert to schoolyard name calling, Media Matters systematically documents their political, social and ethical depravity.
But since I am not media matters I can respond in kind to their name calling. Rush, BO, Weiner, you are all blow hards with a brain barely the size of a ping pong ball and an ethical structure somewhere south of Ken Delay.
In closing, for the parade of Rush Sheep who parade through MediaMatters and express their opinions..now that is FAIRNESS... I ask you once again, did Rush edit his transcript and tell his BoilButts that it was the entire transcript. Or was it someone else doing Rushs' voice in the first transcript.? Simple answer from any simple mind will suffice. Once again, Rush LIED to you just as he did during his "Days of O".
For you BB's, go back and listen to Mr. Limbaugh do commercials about "If you buy drugs illegally, you are supporting the terrorists". Do you recall or hasn't Rush reminded you of that lately. If these commercials are true, did your Liar, the "O" man, help support the terrorists or the SOLDIERS? And you know he did make those commercials, don't you? (Remember, before you apologize for him by saying he bought prescription drugs, that by doing so, you will admit that he committed a crime). I thought I'd give you that headstart because you won't hear it from him. As wise man, Leo McCauley once wrote..."I'd rather have a crumb with a bum than a steak with a fake". Guess you Rushins eat steak every day. Adieu and start thinking for yourselves.
"Adieu and start thinking for yourselves."
This from a moron who gets his talking points from the sissy David Brock, an admitted liar and discredited journalist.
What is untrue in the above post...the commercials? "Seek and ye shall really get pissed off when you find the truth." From ThePrince Of Wheels bible as authorized by my other Uncle, King James.
This from an incredibly ignorant closet case without the capacity for higher brain function. Who only knows what he believes AFTER Rush tells him.
Now that is inaccurate. Limbaugh should have had a portrait of Liberace with a Media Matters for America logo over the left breast pocket.
I can tell its getting cramped in Kevs closet.
Yeah, Kevin makes me think of (I think it was ) Jay Leno describing a proposed stage musical version of Brokeback Mountain - too gay even for Gay people.
WETHEPEOPLE:
"I for one do not want my tax dollars supporting this mad man's rantings to our armed services in Iraq."
The troops would overwhelmingly disagree with such a move. They have been listening to Rush for years and the vast majority of them love Rush because, unlike sissies such as David Brock and Pinky Reid, he supports them and their mission. Note that there is no outcry from the troops in Iraq to have Rush removed from THEIR radion station. If you effeminate morons knew anything about the troops, you would realize that.
Well Kev you are doing a good job solidifying your position as positively the most ignorant poster on this site. Going for the wolds record for stupidity I see. I think you are well on your way. You dont mind if we dont really pay that much attention to an ignorant bigot such as yourself do you? Thats nice now go play with the other special children and let the adults talk now.
Kevin1007, I was going to get ready for work at the Socialist factory but I will defie them thar Democrats and stay here to read your Literary POO-POO. Haven't had this much fun since turning on Rush for 10 miuntes yesterday. His constant blathering and protesting a little too much is, as the Rushian always says, just a "JOKE".
If am not moving anywhere...what is your response to that thar gem. Going to call Fox security? And, I don't like to use these words often but I think you are just some 16 year old punk who thinks he is stirring up emotions and anger on the website. I say that because you haven't read anything above a post since you've been here. This may be blasphemous to you but on Media Matters, they print and play what was said, and YOU decide. You are just on the wrong channel, Fox decides and you must repeat. Now, get your PB and J, turn on your XBOX and destroy the world. But in two years, I will be at your local enlistment office to cheer you on.
My kids used to watch a program on Nick that had a character named Mr. Gullible. This web site has a large number of Mr. and Mrs. Gullibles. Think for a minute, folks. David Brock is an admitted liar and a discredited journalist. Yet you gullible fools come here day after day to get your talking points. Never mind that Brock and his band of sissies lie about what others have said.
I'm a veteran and supporter of the troops. I suspect that 99% of you here have never served and couldn't care less about the troops. If you did, you would have gotten angry when:
- Pinky Reid called our troops incompetent.
- John Kerry called our troops stupid.
- Dick Durbin compared our Marines to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.
- MoveOn called an honorably general a traitor.
- Code Pink defaced a recruiting station in Berkeley.
This list could go on and on and on.
No outrage there. But when the sissy Brock lies about Limbaugh, why then you can feign as much outrage as you can muster.
omg....you found someone to procreate with?
that is a scary thought.
can you please post your address? i think i need to make a call to children services to report educational neglect, because in no way can someone as ignorant and missinformed as you be capable of providing for the education of our most precious resource.
Why didn't Media Myrmidons for Hillary's America include the reference to Jesse Macbeth made by Limbaugh in it's original story on 9-27-07? It was in the transcript and MMFHA omitted it to hype the story. These are the same tactics that were used by the Soviet Politburo. The Stalin reference is appropriate
getreal4once, you are in blatant violation of the terms of the grace period.I've been generous enough to postpone your surrender, please abide by the terms.
The
has been graciously extended, by me, until Sunday, midnight Eastern.Any posts attempting to explain the "phony soldiers" comments must meet the interim terms to be considered.Others will be mocked mercilessly.
OOPs. link didn't work. Once again, here are the terms of surrender, with the generous amnesty period.
Oh,O.K.
Now, back to the issue at hand. Media Myrmidons intentionally omitted the pertinent part of the transcript which explains Limbaugh's remark "phony soldiers", namely Jesse Macbeth. This is known as taking words out of context, intentionally changing the meaning of Limbaughs remarks during the conversation he had on his radio program. This false story was then advanced to the liberal friendly media outlets and Democrat politicians. If MM had included the Macbeth remarks in their original story, it wouldn't have gotten legs because it is obvious that Limbaugh was referring to Jesse Macbeth and others like Amorita Randall, Jimmy Massey, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and in an earlier era, Micah Wright and John F. Kerry. All were in the military and told tales of war atrocities, mass genocide, etc. to an anti-war press eager to run a negative story about the war. Upon further review, their stories turned out to be false, and were told in order to advance an anti-war agenda designed to undermine support for the war at home. This is what is known as enemy propaganda. I can forgive a buffoon like Tom Harkin, who claimed to have flown combat missions during the Vietnam war, later proven to be a liar, because his motivation seems to have been ego driven and to advance his political career. The phony soldiers' motives are much more sinister, because they are knowingly advancing propaganda to harm their country and their fellow servicemembers still in harm's way. The enabling anti-war media doesn't investigate the claims of genocide,etc.before running the story,or simply turns a blind eye to cracks in the story.SSG Massey's false stories of atrocities on Iraqi civilians was carried by the AP, USA Today and Vanity Fair in 2004/05. Beauchamp concocted stories of troop misconduct in Iraq, not as incredible as the genocide tales, but lies all the same, picked up by The New Republic to discredit the U.S. military. Amorita Randall was featured in a negative anti-war NY Times article claiming to have been a passenger in a Humvee that was blown up and was raped twice while serving in Iraq. She was later proven to be a liar, as she never served in Iraq.Wright claimed to be an Army Ranger during the 1989 Panama invasion, claiming the experience turned him into a peacenik as reported by the Washington Post, but later admitted he had never served. Kerry testified before Congress that American troops committed on a day to day basis war crimes such as cutting off limbs, cutting off heads, rapes, blowing up bodies, etc., but never providing names, dates, places, times or anything else to back up his claims. Nearly the entire mainstream media gave him favorable coverage when he ran for president in 2004, never questioning his claims. This brings us back to Media Myrmidons. Why was the Macbeth portion of the transcript omitted in the 9-27-07 original story, reported on by MSNBC, CNN and others?
getreal, which was your surrender, the 2 word post or the crazy no-paragraph one?
Can any conservative, posting on this sight, explain why the GREAT RUSH does not have guests with opposing views on his show? Could it be he fears being exposed for the lies he promotes. Just asking. Somebody please respond.
Now why in the world would anyone get the impression that Democrats are unpatriotic?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018659.php
Oh that one is easy. Because you are a bone ignorant MORON. No other reason.
Only 3/5th of Democrats believe we'll be better off if we lose in Iraq--Fox "News" poll.
Wow, 60% saw through their loaded question, not bad. Kev, you're a follower, keep following--right off their cliff.
60% calculated their answer to get the most political mileage out of it, just like your boss Hillary.
I wonder how many people will believe Stalin would support MM -- which is actually free speech--and how many think that "free speech" shouldn't apply to ideas they don't like.
Maybe Stalin would read and hear what people like Rushian said and decide for himself. At least Uncle Josef would listen first. You see he was good at not only snuffing out liars but being one himself. I must now take down his picture and have if re-painted. His jacket had a pin that said, "I LIKE RUSH" on it. Damn, I hope the government has a program to pay for it.
Finally...
TRUTH IN ADVERTIZING !!!
It is nice that it took long for Rush to please you. Congrats.
what the heck happened to my post?
I think it's pretty funny.
Notice what statement is under Stalin's picture on Limbaugh's site:
"Say it again: Global warming is a religion."
Folks, this is America's "leading political radio personality."
& you wonder how we elected a president that sees Iraq as the future 51st state, tortures with impunity even as he denies health care to children.
The fairness doctrine?LOLCmon people please,there is no'fairness" in that liberel rag!Its called "free market" people,you are all just upset that airhead america callopsed on its self,even with all its Democratic/DNC $$ and support ,which I'm sure this site and other Hillary/Soros funded groups/websites/talk shoes will do to!Americans dont like too have their country talked down about and slandered,we are proud Americans and spit on the Stallinists who try too stiffel our freespeech rights!
It shows that Media Matters is really getting under the skin of those on the lunatic far right.
Both Rush and Joseph Stalin have no tolerance for dissent and both shill propaganda as fact.
http://michellemalkin.com/
This isn't even bad taste, it's a bad idea of a parody.
Poor Rush, he really doesnt know what to do.
Media Matters would be crucified if they depicted Rush as Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels.
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The fairness doctrine would be in direct violation of the first amendment. Regardless of how you feel about it. It is unconstitutional
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
"Why didn't Media Myrmidons for Hillary's America include the reference to Jesse Macbeth made by Limbaugh in it's original story on 9-27-07? It was in the transcript and MMFHA omitted it to hype the story."
If you actually knew what you were talking about or had at a minimum listened to the unedited conversation you would of course know that Rush defamed dissenting soldiers as "phony soldiers" almost two minutes before he made any mention of the little known Jesse Macbeth.
While we are discussing it, any thoughts on why Rush might have felt the need to edit out almost 1:35 from the tape he posted in his defense?
Limbaugh didn't mention Macbeth until nearly 2 minutes later because that is how long the conversation with the caller lasted. After he let the caller talk about WMDs, the conversation ended and he immediately brought up "fake soldier Jesse Macbeth." One more time; why, O' Myrmidons, was the Macbeth part of the transcript omitted in the original 9-27-07 story that was picked up by the MSM?
Media Matters;
Was this site really founded by Hillary. I heard a soundbite that she claims that? Whats up?
now rush is back to attacking vote vets directly
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100507/content/01125106.guest.html
way to go fat boy
Bocciq=40,
Thanks for the link showing again that most comments from the left are laughable. Rush attacks the vets because he exposes it as a less than representative of all veterans and this makes him...what? Someone who tells it like it is.
Remember it is the left who has jumped at every opportunity to impune the military from Kerry's Ghengis Khan to now him saying that soldiers deliberately terrorize women and children in Iraq, Kennedy and Durbin calling them Nazis and using gestapo tactics and Murtha more than happy to call them 'cold blooded murderers' before an investigation. The lefties just LOVE the military!
Thank goodness that military men and women know who respects those willing to wage war in the defense of this country. They know the left would throw them under the bus if given an opportunity. They know the left desdains the warrior/citizen and that Media Matters (very little) and their ilk have done harm to them during this war and will do the same when it is convenient for them to do so in the future.
Media Matters(vl) Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
Thank goodness that military men and women know who respects those willing to wage war in the defense of this country. They know the left would throw them under the bus if given an opportunity.
So I suppose it was Democrats who didn't give the troops their body armor. And Democrats who didn't order the MRAPs in time. Its the Democrats who left the VA in shambles. Your ignorance is breathtaking.
Here is what is going on...
Our side will not budge... No compromises...
Your side will not budge... No compromises...
We ALL lose...
Rush, Ann, Sean and others on my side are WRONG...
Hilary, Reid, Murtha and others are WRONG on your side...
We ALL lose again...
As long as my side AND your side continue to throw insults at each other instead of hammering out VERY HARD compromises to the War (that I support & some of you don't) or the Socilized Health Care (that some of you support and I do not), then we are just ALL stuck.
Your side says that WE CONSERVATIVES are to blame for all that is WRONG with America, hey we ARE part of America too...
Our side says that YOU LIBS are to blame for all that is WRONG with America, hey you ARE Americans too...
How will this EVER end, you here at MM can not really believe that you can have it ALL your way, we Conservatives that listen to Rush can NOT think we can have everything our way...
But when I read the post here throughout all of the recent threads I only see stubborn hatered of the "OTHER" side. Hell, all of my posts up till now have been FULL OF SLURS, HATE, MY SIDE IS RIGHT, YOUR COMMIES and other stuff that I am not very proud of now. But wait, the responces to me and other Consevatives on this site have NOT been kind either, calling us NAZIS, RADICAL CHRISTIANS, POOR HATERS, RACISTS, ect.
When will both side (yes, me too) learn that we are ALL in this together, like it or not. We prove right here in these forums that America is DIVIDED, slit down the middle with BOTH sides feeling that they are the ONLY ones that have rights, feelings, thoughts and opinions.
We will we ALL stop name calling and just see IF, and I know it's a HUGE If, but if we can find ANY common ground, any place to compromise.
But just look back at these threads over the last 10 days or so. It really does not look like there is ANY uniting factor ANYWHERE other then our dislikes for each other.
I really do not know what to do anymore. I will NOT change my basic beliefs that American has far too many that want the United States to actualy LOSE a war, a poll showed that 1 in 5 Dems want the US to Lose, think it would be better for the World. Sorry, but that scares me. I can not give up my thought that calling a 25 year old in a family that makes around $80k a year is poor and needs MY money for Health Insurance.
The list could go on and on...
And from you side you would say that you will not drop your opinions that there should be Universal Health Care for all Americans, Socilized womb to tomb hand outs of all kinds, Increased taxes on "the rich", an END to the illeagle war...
See ? Where do we start to compromise ? What can we do ?
You folks of BOTH parties just watch how bad this post gets hammered... Watch the hate come out. Even here we will find NO civility, no compromises, so how do we expect to get along with each other and survive. My side is NOT going away, we are getting louder and stronger and pushing back against what we feel like is the decline of America, your side is NOT going away, it is ALSO getting STRONGER and LOUDER.
How does this end ?
I totaly admit that I have been a hater here as have many that fired back from across the fence.
Can anyone here list some areas that we "might' be able to really comprmise on ? I really mean this folks, can ANY of us that so truly HATE and DISPISE the other really work at all towards common ground for the good of us ALL ?
Please someone, start a list, cause i have no idea where to start.
He was right on target.