92 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
Something else to just be ignored as
attacking "wingers" by name and in this fashion just makes them more powerful. Rush has his own show and his own following. They pay to listen to him and he gets to say what he want's outside of slander and libel. Those who oppose the words of Rush should make more of an effort to win over his followers than to censor their "leader". To be perfectly fair here, however, it seems to me that I've just finished listening to 8 years of the current political leadership and the press battering the previous administration to the point it created such negative perceptions by the general populous that no success was going to be possible. It could seem that protected speech has become not just a constitutional right but a manipulative tool used best by "artful dodgers" and not for good purpose. It's time, IMO, for our political parties back away from displaying their elusive wares and let us see what they truly have in their pockets.
Use common sense
Rush endless supply of "hot air" has never provided any solution to any political problem. He may rally the troops sorta speak but he never does anything. However, for the DNC to go after Rush is another example of those in power squelching anyone that may disagree. This is not an isolated incident, afterall this was common fare back in Jefferson and Adams days as they snipe at each other in opposing rallying print. Also, to have FOX report this is another example of providing an outlet for their agenda as they were heavily pro-Bush and/or Republican. -----Willy
That's what EVERYONE said about Obama
....and he was a senator. Thankfully he managed to be "present", but seemingly lacking in voting ability.
.... the blowfish.
Rush craves attention, and the less given to him, the better.
There are far more important issues on which to focus.
Yes, our politicians have far more important issues to....
focus on than trying to organize an effort to silence those that disagree with them. I wonder why the DNC didn't start a petition to silence Obama when he started this skirmish.
Clay, there is absolutely nothing I could say that would be a satisfactory answer for you regarding anything to do with the new administration..
Your feelings for it go beyond disappointment and chagrin at the decision made by the electorate. Apparently you feel that avoiding any positive reactions to actions or proposals is paramount.
You are not alone as there are roughly 25% of Americans who share your concrete views.
Free speech is not limited to the Limbaughs and Coulters of this world. I think they are best ignored and would prefer that there have been no reaction from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. So far, to my knowledge, the DNC has not commented.
You really think what they are doing is okay?
Wow! I guess you do since you censored my response.
My feelings have nothing to do with the electorate's....
The new administration has made a new, unprecedented attack on his critics and now his party wants to attack their free speech, that very speech which is protected by our Constitution. Do those of us that support the rights and the protection of those rights guaranteed by our Constitution bother you that much?
Free speech, Angeline...
Angeline, free speech can extend to something like stating an opinion that laying sod on the D.C. Mall is not worth the cost. To use your own words with a twist, Apparently you feel that avoiding any negative reactions to actions or proposals is paramount.
What frightens me is that ignoring an opinion with which you disagree is one thing that is consistent with the principle of free speech, but deleting them when you have the power to do so is another matter. You can't have transparency when the window through which you observe things is boarded shut.
The problem appears to me, Angeline, to be that any opinion
disagreeing with the disagreeable Kabal fixated on extreme right opinion is that any opinion disputing it is turned into an attempt to deny Freedom of Speech. It's a cheap and unworthy tactic, but it's been working ever since Nixon so why bother changing now, but at least it's easy to see who the nattering nabobs of Negativity are. All 25% of them.
Does this mean that in the interests of fairness and balance we will not have to listen to these paid capons of the right and their wrong opinions any more, that their share of the airways will be filled with the music of Pierre Ben Susan or Django Reinhardt. I could have my own show, and play Django Reinhardt for approximately 36 hours with only a few alternate takes. I'd then go on to Ellington, and Basie, and Goodman and Shaw, I'll even play Frank Sinatra before 1948 when his voice went. Then I could segue into a discussion of the intricacies of bebop, and the glories of cool bop and Art Blakey the founder of Hard bop. Then we could settle in for the entire Blue Note Catalogue with Dexter Gordon and Horace Silver and Herbie Hancock and that endless superb collection of musicians. If somebody broke in with something political I could reply with the icy and personal logic of Thelonius Monk. Then perhaps a break for Beyond the Fringe and the Conceptionland Corporation, Firesign Theatre, and the Goon Shows. Should there be another kerfuffle, I'd bring out Francis Vincent Zappa, and Jazz from Hell, or You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore. See, music is more eloquent than we give it credit.
Perhaps Jonah would co-host a program on flamenco, and I'd get a chance to pull out Herbie Mann's extremely peculiar The Wailing Dervishes which has a Middle Eastern rhythm section, Chick Ganimian on Oud, and Herbie himself on flute. Perhaps if we played it loud enough over there people might stop yelling and start thinking. Sort of like here.
Well, I got...
Well, I got the implication in "we will not have to listen to these paid capons of the right", capon means a castrated male chicken.
But again I'm not perfectly sure about the word "Kabal" in "the disagreeable Kabal ". Did you mean cabal, as in group of conspirators?
You are perfectly correct, I mistyped, though I must look up
the origin of Cabal for my own edification. Cabal it is, and thank you Senor Vega.
Turns out I wasn't as wrong as I thought. I thought that
the word derived from Kaballah, and so it does. I was just using an older, and I believe English derived spelling, rather than American.
Fair enough, I've had Obama on ignore...
silence Obama when he started this skirmish.
His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in socialism.
With characteristic robustness, he said: "We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over and grab our ankles... because his father was black, because he's the first black president, we've got to accept this."
Your link says Obama's statements were "after" Limbaugh's attack.
Limbaugh's remarks were a response to remarks first made by Obama for people to quit listening to Limbaugh. Obama came out of the gate criticizing his critics and now the Dem's want to respond by calling for more attacks on his critics simply because they responded to attack against them. Obama's rhetoric is divisive and deserving of criticism.
RE : started and Limbaugh's remarks were a response
From your first link/post
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launches an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh after he said he wanted President Obama to fail.
From your second link
His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh , who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in socialism.
How does something that "followed", "start" something?
No responses will be accepted
.... as opposing opinion only, JP.
I am questioned re: my support of the Constitution because I consider the Committee's complaint as ill advised (for the reason illustrated by this thread), but hold the Committee had as much right to free speech as Limbaugh.
Best to drop it.
Is he a bigger "blowfish" than Al Franken?
Without a doubt.
Limbaugh is a bigger "blowfish" than anyone.
No. Rush sometimes has a valid point....
Having a valid point isn't good enough
if not expressed in a manner that can be properly tasted and absorbed. You can make the worlds best apple pie but shoving it and and then grinding it into someone's face won't get you their respect for your culinary art.
Yeah, Rush is better at that too.
Absolutely. On the basis of simple output, Rush's long
tenure as a Conservative blowhard, nearly daily for so many years, I'd have to say yes. Al Franken was always a comedian who moved into the political field when the airwaves became dominated by loud Right Wing extremists. Rush Limbaugh has always had pretentions to being a serious political commentator, as have all his fellow travellers in the Michael Reagan, Coulter, endless list of the same opinions through different mouths. Doesn't it puzzle you that there are so many commentators with the same opinions (mostly on radio). But then again I don't share the illusion that all broadcast media are dominated by liberals (if that were true, there wouldn't be so many Conservatives typing and flapping their gums, this is an either or situation, not a the media are all liberal, and all the people I like who write and are broadcast are not part of the media, that's utterly illogical). And if all mainstream media figures are liberals, what happened to Brit Hume. Did somebody wave a magic wand and turn him abruptly Right when he joined Fox, or did he hold those conservative opinions all along thus contradicting the "all media are liberal" contention.
C'mon guys, apply a little logic to the question. It is illogical to maintain that all media outlets which are tiny outlets of huge corportations are dominated by people out of step either with the American people as a whole, or with their conservative employers. And who is it that is employing all these conservative commentators. Little cooperatives of Conservatives who each put in a nickel or two to get their neglected views on the air? None of this makes any sense. But then neither does the former opinion that George W Bush represented the central mainstream of American opinion, particularly when it has been announced Republican doctrine that the lower the turn out the better it is for Republicans. Conservative votes are *hard* votes. They remain the same, and they turn out in the same numbers at each election. Democratic and liberal votes are soft votes. They don't necessarily remain the same, and they don't turn out in the same numbers in each election. It is Obama's and Clinton's gift that they were able to mobilize voters to turn out.
Now with regard to influence upon the voting public, the Conservative Right has a depressing effect on the turn out of the Democratic liberal left, unless those voters are motivated by a charismatic candidate. As it was Bush lost the over-all vote to Gore, along with serious questions about the vote in Florida, and there were questions about the Ohio vote "against" Kerry. But all the media's "Liberal" horses and all the newspapers Democratic men couldn't put Gore or Kerry into the White House. So the media, radio, TV and print do not have the power that some of you attribute to it. Therefore, the power of the liberal media is a myth, but the ability of the Conservatives to depress the turn out of Democratic voters has been demonstrated.
And nobody has given me 50 Liberal media personages of the strength of George Will or all the other guys, despite my giving you 3 names, how about Sam Donaldson, there's a 4th, and maybe Cokie Roberts, though both Donaldson and Roberts are far more critical of the Democrats than Will Limbaugh Reagan Matlin Coulter and company are of the Republicans, which means they are more even handed in their criticism which means they are less liberal than you paint them in your black and white world, but the Conservative commentators virtually never criticize the Republicans in any meaningful way, which makes them black and the "Liberals" kinda grey.
Rush is certainly a windbag but....
...that's no reason to try and take away his right to free speech. The people behind this effort are hypocrites in their effort to trample the Constitution.
Something missing from this thread?
Yes, the ability to read simple english and understand it.
To express an opposing opinion is not to destroy the first opinion, it is the first step to understanding or expressing opposition to it.
Clay the answer to your first question is NO.
Had a Democrat suggested that he wanted George WBush to fail
we would have heard all those nattering nabobs of negativism, the Right Wing Talk show hosts accusing the Democrats of trying to undermine the country and cause it to fail... Oh, yeah, that's exactly what they did say, and nobody (save perhaps myself, and I don't count) actually said that we wanted W to fail. Never the less, he went ahead and did it, costing our country dear.
Now we have a president whose slogan is Yes We Can and whose intent is to right the wrongs and the disasters of the last 20 or more years, and Rush "I don't believe in drugs except for me" says he wants the recovery of the United States to fail. The Recovery of the United States was the core of Obama's campaign, and is the core of his program now.
Now I don't care what the fat boy says much, because I've always found it a bunch of nonsense, but this really is over the top to wish your own country to fail, because that is what Obama is trying to do, save the country from the fiscal mismanagement of it's excessively well paid bankers and investors who sucked millions out of the system while shipping jobs abroad.
Given the wretched showing of his party, can't he just shut up for two seconds.
Years ago I posted nearly 50 names of talk radio people and spokesmen for the right, and Fixed News or is it Faux News personnel and others talking out of the wrong side of their face, and then asked for an equal number of real, honest to God dyed in the wool Liberals in the news media. I got no response except criticicsm of *one* of my choices which was probably just bad memory on my part.
So here we go again. I'll start. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Lou Dobbs. That leaves 47 more for those of you who believe in the fat boy. But you never heard any one of them say, boy I hope George W. Bush fails. They said, if he does this the consequences for the country will be grave, as if 5000 dead from Iraq and Afghanistan, as in neglected infrastructure since the Johnson Years, like what happens if we have a storm surge in Louisiana. Had you read Left Wing magazines you might have seen those topics, I certainly did. I also saw criticism of the destruction of the middle class, off-shore drilling in a National Wildlife Refuge, and the astonishing amounts paid to the CEO's of failing or losing companies. But Rushie believes not in the United States but in the Republic upon which the United States was modelled, Rome, where a few got rich and the rest were entertained with bread and circuses. The bread part seems to have been forgotten, but circuses we have by the hundred and thousand, all to distract the public from the issues that need to be addressed.
I was surprised when Obama won, but he won because he was able to mobilize the people who in the past had been discouraged, who had lost faith in the system, like when a nominally intelligent political commentator prays for the failure of the President.
Do you think it would be possible
for an opposition party to subtly create a failure or perception of it by the incumbent party without being obvious? I think it could. They'd need to have an information ally...that being the majority of the press. What percentage of the voting population really has a clue as to what these candidates plans are and are able to make their vote an investment in the betterment of the country as a whole rather than just their own selfishness? Isn't political campaigning a huge marketing thrust just like any TV add wanting you to buy something? Do you always feel these ads are fully honest in their promises? Personally, I could believe that opposition political parties have often done their best to toss rocks in the paths of their foes in an effort to undermine plans they know might succeed and then devise their own version of the same when they take power. Cynic? Yep.
Do you want me to count the number who wanted President
Bush to fail? That would be a huge number.
Say hello to Kelly for me.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 4)