The move to remove Rush

[audtatious]

Why do you care if you don't listen to him?

[ishkabibble]

Or should I have said, "satellite radio, CDs, iPods and other forms of delivery of audio entertainment"?

Nope, because that's where the analogy breaks down. When you are a dittohead, you are listening to the radio. It's a single stream of spoon-fed opinion, not picking and choosing amongst various sources.

Nor is CNN. Or Fox News. Or any other reporting. There's a continuum of "factual-ness", it's not one or the other.

I agree. But there are points along that continuum. Only listening to prepackaged extreme opinions just keeps the listener away from "factual-ness".

Oh, and I'm sorry, I missed the rule that says every media outlet has a duty to solve problems.

The people's job is to solve problems. Partisan hackery just gets in the way of that. The media's job is to report facts.

Note my quotation marks.

Note my lack of quotation marks in the original message. You're the one who started using them.

So what?

No, seriously. So what?

It's not an objective approach.

OK, so let me rephrase: "Automatically assuming that anyone who listens to a certain program does not engage in independent thought is ludicrous. "

Never phrased it as an absolute like you are doing. But I do I feel the minority of Rush listeners engage in much independent thought about politics. I feel the same way about people who regularly listen to any far right or far left pundits, not just Rush. They have a foregone conclusion and only seek out the evidence that supports than conclusion.

Dittoheads have the right to listen to Rush religiously, and I have the right to think less of them for it. What a country!

[AZhitman]

Twist it as you may, the bottom line is there's no space in this country for manipulation of content so as to ensure a broad spectrum of viewpoints.

The content is available. Should someone choose to only take in certain ideologies, that's their right.

My grandmother is not about to turn off her Christian music show to take in some gangsta rap, and that's her choice. it doesn't make her any less "informed" as to musical genres, she just chooses to fill her ears with something she knows will please and entertain her.

Again, if RL were a leftie nutswinger, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

And no, he doesn't "need to choose his words more carefully". Don't like it? Change the station.

[ishkabibble]

I'm not disagreeing with you about the right to do this or that, just stating my perspective of his fans.

The only twist going on is you are trying to frame me as making an argument that I'm not making. Rush can say whatever the hell he wants and his fans can suckle at his moobs all they want. Yet, I can think whatever I want about the lot of them.

If RL were a leftie nutswinger, the conversation would definitely be happening. Because Matt broke his promise that he would only post when drunk.

[audtatious]

If RL were a leftie nutswinger, the conversation would definitely be happening. Because Matt broke his promise that he would only post when drunk.

Who says I'm not drunk ishkabibblebabbleboi

[ishkabibble]

Because the weather has prevented you from making your usual batch o' moonshine.

[AZhitman]

Mmmmm.... homebrew!

[Cold_Zero]

Because the weather has prevented you from making your usual batch o' moonshine.

Bah, never ever under estimate the ability of Southern Indiana Hoosiers to adapt and overcome the elements.

[audtatious]

Except I'm from Georgia

[HashiriyaS14]

You mean the partial quote of his statement, right?

""So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?""

I know what he meant, but it doesn't matter what he meant. It matters what he SAID, out of context or no.

People in that position need to understand that they can be misquoted and so they need to phrase their comments in such a way as to deny that misquote. I'm not talking about whether he's right or not, I'm talking about whether the fallout from this will hurt or help the GOP. There IS fallout, and the fact that it was an out-of-context quote isn't going to make the fallout go away. This is how politics works, he should know that.

[audtatious]

Why would Rush care if there was fallout over a misquote? Why would we simply accept the media bringing drama out for headlines when we have bigger issues at hand? It's strange that the media had no issue when Colmes posted on his blog that Palins neglect caused her baby to have Downs or the others claiming the kid was her daughters kid and had Downs due to incest.

[OriginalWheelman]

It's largely because people equate Republicans and "the man". And if you're not hating "the man" you're not cool. They would have to turn that scrutinous eye around and realize that corrupt people can believe in anything politically. I can't people think party affiliation influences someone moral character.

[AZhitman]

^ Can't be any more astute than that. I concur.

[ishkabibble]

For once, I agree with you.

However, the Repubs keep telling us they are the party that is oh-so-moral.

[OriginalWheelman]

For once, I agree with you.

However, the Repubs keep telling us they are the party that is oh-so-moral.

It's called subjective morality. Their moral code is "tighter" than yours, so you perceive them differently. Moderate rights feel the same way about far rights as lefties do for the most part, and the inverse is true. It all comes back to the bell curve, the majority of people make up the middle, and the extremes become less and less popular. To the pirates in Somalia, I bet you look pretty conservative. They might think lightly of your "moral code" which is so conservative it would prevent you from stealing a boat or shooting someone.

[ishkabibble]

I see it as the leaders of the right claim to have a tighter moral code, but many have several divorces, hit on 16 year old male pages, solicit sex in restrooms, have drug problems, want to loofah up coworkers in the shower, break ethics rules, support corporate welfare, etc. Both sides pretty much behave the same regardless of their proclamations, and the Repubs end up looking more hypocritical WRT morality.

[OriginalWheelman]

We could focus on the bad apples of the Democratic party too. What about all those Dems not paying their taxes? Am I to assume that most Dems don't pay taxes based on a few examples?

[HashiriyaS14]

Why would Rush care if there was fallout over a misquote? Why would we simply accept the media bringing drama out for headlines when we have bigger issues at hand? It's strange that the media had no issue when Colmes posted on his blog that Palins neglect caused her baby to have Downs or the others claiming the kid was her daughters kid and had Downs due to incest.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.

Rush is getting a lot of attention from this comment. Do you think this attention will hurt him or help him? Do you think this attention hurts or helps the GOP?

Arguing about whether or not the attention should be there is retarded and we're not going to have that discussion. The attention IS there. What do you think of the ramifications for Limbaugh and for the GOP?

Again, I think it'll help Rush personally and hurt the GOP. The Republicans cannot appear non-conciliatory in a time of crisis, while Rush can afford to be much more hard-line and still be widely adored.

[audtatious]

We should be able to have any discussion related to the topic at hand as long as it follows the thread topic. I don't see it as retarded.

This issue is being blown out of proportion as another reason for the Dems to force the Fairness Doctrine into play as a way to silence critics. Let's face it, at this point it does not seem that the O wants any criticism and the Dems hate it. They are getting VERY little in the MSM and simply need to censure AM radio. Dems would love to press those who listen to "dissent radio" to utilize more mainstream media as it supports their agenda more. Based on a 2003 Talkers Magazine study, 27% of AM radio listeners are Republican while 53% claim they are independents which means 80% of AM radio listeners are technically non-Democrats. That's a lot of people the Dems would love force to feed their one-sided rhetoric to.

[CakeDaddy]

We could focus on the bad apples of the Democratic party too. What about all those Dems not paying their taxes? Am I to assume that most Dems don't pay taxes based on a few examples?

Yes.. we could, but why? This thread is about Rush and removing him. Try starting a thread about Dems and taxes... I'd love to chime in on it, but not here.

[Cold_Zero]

We kind of have one:zer...tions

Now, what I like focusing on is Democrat Representatives that commandeer National Guard assets (assisting with the Katrina natural disaster) to drive down to New Orleans to pick up money he had stored in his freezer. Hmmm.

But hey, this thread is about what Rush said and what impact it will have on him.

What tickles me to death is the fact that people run around proclaiming that Conservatism is dead, that the Republican Party will be out of office for YEARS and that Obama will have 8 years of unfettered power. I think this so called defeat will be good not only for the Republican Party in bringing it back to its conservative ideology, but will be great for Conservatism. We can finally shed the term 'Neo-Conservatism' and start up the term 'Neo-Marxist' and apply it in the same pejorative way that our opponents used it against us. Neo-Marxist this, Neo-Marxist that, he is a Neo-Marxist, they are Neo-Marxists, that is soooo Neo-Marxist, stop being a Neo-Marxist....

bud

[AZhitman]

...which again brings me back to my point (Cake did a great job of reminding us)...

"Removing" Rush. As in, enacting some sort of unnatural influence that would "remove" him from the airwaves... forcibly taking a person's llivelihood away... silencing a voice of dissent.

To all you who remember Tienamen Square, recall how you felt then, and apply the same standards to this situation.

[HashiriyaS14]

yadda yadda yadda

(no disrespect, just didn't want to quote the whole shabang, but I wanted readers to know who I was addressing.

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is the issue here and I don't get the sense that the majority of the left is out to silence Rush Limbaugh.

Or hell, maybe they are, but that's speculation and unless either one of us know them all personally, we're just slinging bull.

Honestly, as an Obama supporter, I'm GLAD Rush made these comments. I think that the shxtstorm surrounding them will keep GOPers and conservative media people from saying such divisive stuff in the future, or at least be a little more careful about the way they say it. I'd love to see the GOP return to actual viability, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon if they come off like a bunch of hardliners.

FACT: Centrism IS Electability in America.

If Rush becomes the grand poobah of the party due to a lack of other charismatic people among the ranks of the legitimately elected, and he continues to track farther and farther right and be more and more extreme, I believe it will tarnish the GOP's image.

I'm glad it happened this time because I'm hoping Republicans will come out and say "this clown doesn't represent us".

You can't just "remove" a media figure. If you take him off Radio, he'll be on TV or he'll write books or whatever. He's not removable. The Fairness Doctrine has zip to do with it.

I realize the thread title is "the move to remove Rush", but I am arguing that it is a silly thread title and a silly subject to debate. The man isn't going anywhere, he's a fixture of the American political media landscape and will remain as such until he dies of (almost certainly) congestive heart failure or a oxycontin overdose.

Rather than talking about removing the irremovable, let's talk about how he's affecting the party and ideology he claims to represent.

EDIT:

We can finally shed the term 'Neo-Conservatism' and start up the term 'Neo-Marxist' and apply it in the same pejorative way that our opponents used it against us. Neo-Marxist this, Neo-Marxist that, he is a Neo-Marxist, they are Neo-Marxists, that is soooo Neo-Marxist, stop being a Neo-Marxist....

^^This is solid gold stuff right here. I hope this happens, because generalizing sucks, no matter who's doing it. The term "neocon" has been rampantly misapplied to all sorts of people, and I'd get many lulz if the GOP managed to cook up some similar term.

Although "liberal" seems to get thrown around in much the same way. Hell, it gets applied to John Paul Stevens and he was appointed by Gerry Ford.

[audtatious]

You assume that anyone who listens to Rush believes 100% of what he says. Regardless, Rush is the #1 AM "conservative" talk personality and as such using his comments without using the whole context is a way to help enact the FD which would be the first step as a means stop dissent from the "conservative talk" base. If you don't believe that than simply look at who will be impacted by the FD. The failure of Air America is proof that Dem-minded people do not listen to AM radio for their news nor viewpoints in the first place. The objective of the Dems is to end or limit all AM conservative talk radio personalities. I you didn't get that from the thread then you should understand it now.

As far as the impact to the GOP, I really don't care. I feel the GOP is primarily a bunch of RINO's in the first place. If they were not then they would not have been spending like the Dem party. So, not only is Rush not a true representation, neither is the GOP themselves.

Why else would the Dems and Obama address this issue of what a talk radio personality has to say if they were not out to stop forms of dissent?

[Cold_Zero]

^^This is solid gold stuff right here. I hope this happens, because generalizing sucks, no matter who's doing it. The term "neocon" has been rampantly misapplied to all sorts of people, and I'd get many lulz if the GOP managed to cook up some similar term.

Although "liberal" seems to get thrown around in much the same way. Hell, it gets applied to John Paul Stevens and he was appointed by Gerry Ford.

Solid Hash. Couldnt have said it better myself and glad you picked up on the sarcasm....bud

[ishkabibble]

I think this so called defeat will be good not only for the Republican Party in bringing it back to its conservative ideology, but will be great for Conservatism. We can finally shed the term 'Neo-Conservatism' and start up the term 'Neo-Marxist' and apply it in the same pejorative way that our opponents used it against us. Neo-Marxist this, Neo-Marxist that, he is a Neo-Marxist, they are Neo-Marxists, that is soooo Neo-Marxist, stop being a Neo-Marxist....

bud

I hope so; they will have my support. Also, I'm tired of people claiming to be "traditional conservatives" while unilaterally defending the actions of the neocons.

[audtatious]

Neocon is used a bit too often. I prefer RINO

[ishkabibble]

Ok, we need some RINOplasty.

[audtatious]

That just reshapes the problem

[Jacko3]

Where was Rush Limbaugh when Bush and fellow republicons and republirats were spending $10 billion a month on phantoms and terrorists in Iraq? Its hard to suggest that Bush's efforts have actually made us safe in this nation. Afterall, Slick Willie (William J Clinton), did absolutely nothing and no one flew any aircaraft into any build9ing. Was Rush Limbaugh blind or dead to the data of deficits below created by republicons?????????

http://www.cbo.gov

I think Obama was right to take on Rush Limbaugh. Time has come for reality to be the best friend of US Citizens.