I thought only the retired and the unemployed listened to his Royal Fatass.

Though Limbaugh should be taken on, it should be by others in the democratic party.

Obama should not even acknowledge Limbaugh's existence.

Limbaugh will revel in being invoked by Obama He will spin it in his favor, talk about it endlessly and use it to create an even greater divide--precisely what Obama was hoping not to happen.

Cheers

"Limbaugh will revel in being invoked by Obama He will spin it in his favor, talk about it endlessly and use it to create an even greater divide--precisely what Obama was hoping not to happen."

True, but given that he is probably a negative for the Republican brand, that's just fine.

This is standard carping between Republicans and Democrats. Obama dropped a hint to Republican legislators that to get along they have to go along. Standard practice for any president. Otherwise no pork for them.

you don't make $75 mill a year for no good reason.

RUSH ROCKS!

Rush Limpbaugh and his kind will soon be dealt a fatal blow through the fairness doctrine. The American people have spoken and their voices were clear, the divisive policies of a multiparty system are on their way out to the betterment of this country and the world.

you right! It's a bad reason........Drug dealers make money like that too.

$1 trillion stimulus package.

Is Obama going to cut a Trillion dollars in wasteful spending?

Cool.

Rush Limpbaugh and his kind will soon be dealt a fatal blow through the fairness doctrine. The American people have spoken and their voices were clear, the divisive policies of a multiparty system are on their way out to the betterment of this country and the world.

#6 | Posted by BigDino

Perhaps the thought of censoring opinion that you disagree with via governmental fascism stirs your loins, but the "Fairness Doctrine" (sic) won't be re-instated.

It simply won't happen.

Sorry.

You are going to have to try and find some other way to stifle political opinion that you disagree with.

"You are going to have to try and find some other way to stifle political opinion that you disagree with."

And now, JeffJ will demonstrate how "political opinion" was "stifled" during the time period between 1949 and 1987.

Right, JeffJ?

Hans

Of course, the stifling of political opinion, from 1949 through 1987, explains why Adlai Stevenson won in 1952 and 1956, why Richard Nixon won in 1960, why Barry Goldwater won in 1964, why Hubert Humphrey won in 1968, why George McGovern won in 1972, why Gerald Ford won in 1976, why Jimmy Carter was re-elected in 1980, and why Walter Mondale defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Yeah! Nothing like stifling political opinion.

Hans

Hans,

You know full well how a re-instatement of FD NOW, would affect political discourse as it exists today.

Political-opinion commentary didn't come into existence, as we currently know it, until AFTER "FD" was lifted. Re-instatement of FD would make ALL political-opinion talk, of which conservative opionion enjoys a tremendous competitive advantage in this one medium, a thing of the pass.

You can sugar-coat and rationalize FD any way you want, but in application it effectively kills a medium - it stifles talk when applied. Oh, and it just so happens to disproportionately target 1 general viewpoint - conservative.

Anyhow, this is all academic - it simply isn't coming back. The Left will have to somehow soldier on with dominance of print media, publishing, education, academia, TV News and general reporting and journalism. I offer my condolences to the left that it can't have ALL of that dominance and NOT be able to squelch the one and only medium where it gets spanked - political commentary on the AM radio.

Please forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the left's inability to use government power to destroy the 1 medium where it doesn't have a competitive advantage.

"You know full well how a re-instatement of FD NOW, would affect political discourse as it exists today."

Today?

Of course, the existence of the Fairness Doctrine, from 1949 through 1987, explains why Adlai Stevenson won in 1952 and 1956, why Richard Nixon won in 1960, why Barry Goldwater won in 1964, why Hubert Humphrey won in 1968, why George McGovern won in 1972, why Gerald Ford won in 1976, why Jimmy Carter was re-elected in 1980, and why Walter Mondale defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Yeah! Nothing like stifling political opinion.

Hans

Hans,

You are completely off the reservation with your #11 post and are, quite frankly, being disingenuous if you fail to acknowledge that re-instatement of FD doesn't disproportionately target conservative opinion when applied.

Anyhow, I've gotta run for now - the wife wants to watch a DVR'd CSI.

Always fun chatting with you.

I'll try to check back in tonight.

If not, have a great weekend.

"but in application it effectively kills a medium"

A "medium" which belongs to the citizens of the United States of America.

Please forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the right's insistence on living off the property of the citizens of the United States of America without paying for such usage.

That seems to be a theme among the right.

Hans

yes, let u.s. shut down ALL the dissenting voices. pretty soon all'y'all'll be eating yourselves.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.

"I will trump you on that."

-----

And Obama will go for the Fairness Doctrine--and watch all hell break loose if he does.

And Obama thinks his talk is unifying?

He does think himself the messiah?

"yes, let u.s. shut down ALL the dissenting voices."

Yes. All the dissenting voices, shut down, explains why Adlai Stevenson won in 1952 and 1956, why Richard Nixon won in 1960, why Barry Goldwater won in 1964, why Hubert Humphrey won in 1968, why George McGovern won in 1972, why Gerald Ford won in 1976, why Jimmy Carter was re-elected in 1980, and why Walter Mondale defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Yeah! Nothing like shutting down ALL the dissenting voices.

Hans

It is not dissent America has been espousing under GW but hate and fear. BHO will ensure the true voice of America is heard and he has been given that right by the American people. Hate speech disguised as religous belief or conservatism will no longer be tolerated. This hater Limpbaugh is the first target because his defeat will send the rest running to their compounds. We will have peace and unity through one.

Murphy-
"Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

GW Bush, Nov. 2004

Murphy-
re: And Obama will go for the Fairness Doctrine--and watch all hell break loose if he does.

Is that where the folks with multimillion dollar paychecks (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) convince you that "your" voice will be silenced, just as they claim that "your" taxes will be raised?

LOL!

What I really loved was when Bush and Cheney claimed they had a mandate after the 2000 election.

Obama brought up Limbaugh precisely because Limbaugh said he hopes Obama doesn't succeed. Obama is giving Republicans good advice. The majority of the people in this country do not want Obama to fail. That doesn't mean Republicans have to agree with him on everything, but if they are seen to be nothing more than obstructionists, the American people will not be pleased.

Hans:

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are supposed to apply equally whether you PERSONALLY agree with the opinions or not.

If you think the "Fairness Doctrine" is a good idea, then you're either a fascist or don't understand what it _is_.

Seriously, false liberals annoy the shit out of me. Anyone who thinks the "Fiarness Doctrine" is good needs to stop calling themselves "liberals" and start calling themselves "Unthinking Democrat Zombies".

Yay transversal of keys! I want my spellcheck back.. it caught when I did it, lol.

And now, JeffJ will demonstrate how "political opinion" was "stifled" during the time period between 1949 and 1987.

Right, JeffJ?

Hans

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2009-01-23 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

There WAS no political talk radio during this time period, dumbass. And yes, you are a dumbass. Your question is wholly irrelevant, and utterly devoid of any knowledge about the history of television and radio.

The Fairness Act specifically made it financially useless to DO any talk other then sports, as you'd have to give equal airtime to everyone or face huge fines.

Seriously, douchenozzle. The Fairness Doctrine was shut down in the 1980's so that PBS stations could continue a left-wing bias unhindered. If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, then you're gonna end up with someone like Ted Nugent on PBS. It's _horribly_ wrong for the governemnt to regulate content based on _opinion_ displayed. If a Klan asshat wants to run his station, and he pays all the fees and runs his station in FCC guidelines, then it is a horribly fascist thing to do to tell him he has to have an "opposing viewpoint" on his station.

Actually, I shoulda just said,

"Just because something will hurt Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean it's a good thing. Learn to look past your own nose."

Hell.. I'm a radio station owner also! Lol. If you get your way, Hans you moron, I will have to allow a right-wing dick on my station for every left-wing show I carry.

Use your HEAD.

Call him a baby-raping newfie.

Jesus Christ that was funny.

You made some days with that one.

#27 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-01-24 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag

There was a reason I used that one on the Candian Tater. Trust me, "baby-raping" wasn't the insulting part of it.

I had a yankee friend tell me what the other part meant---I'd never heard that before.

It has entered my lexicon.

But it combined with the modifier was classic.

I thought only the retired and the unemployed listened to his Royal Fatass.

#1 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2009-01-23 08:27 PM | Reply

Apparently that includes the unemployable fatass we all know as Let-U-Spray

"You know full well how a re-instatement of FD NOW, would affect political discourse as it exists today. "

Well there is your problem! You consider selling advertisment "political discourse"!

A "medium" which belongs to the citizens of the United States of America.

Correct. And the current ratings-based system of determining what is and isn't played on the public airwaves is the closest thing to true democracy we can get.

Now, some on your side might call it tyranny of the majority, but then, at an attempt at "fairness" those very same individuals seek to tap the power of the state and institute tyranny of the minority. That ain't fairness, it's fascism.

"And the current ratings-based system of determining what is and isn't played on the public airwaves..."

You do realize that Arbitron has been around for some time now. Even before 1987. Or do you believe that radio made no money whatsoever before 1987?

"And the current ratings-based system of determining what is and isn't played on the public airwaves..."

Public. Exactly. And why should anyone use public property without rules?

Hans

"That ain't fairness, it's fascism."

Godwin rule.

Hans

"The Fairness Act specifically made it financially useless to DO any talk other then sports, as you'd have to give equal airtime to everyone or face huge fines."

Yes. We all know that between 1949 and 1987 there was no political discussion on radio and television. Nope. None whatsoever.

That certainly explains why Adlai Stevenson won in 1952 and 1956, why Richard Nixon won in 1960, why Barry Goldwater won in 1964, why Hubert Humphrey won in 1968, why George McGovern won in 1972, why Gerald Ford won in 1976, why Jimmy Carter was re-elected in 1980, and why Walter Mondale defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Because there was no political discussion on radio and television during that entire time. Nope. None whatsoever.

Hans

you don't make $75 mill a year for no good reason.

#5 | Posted by nanc

Yea, just ask bernie made-off-with-all-my-money.

"Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are supposed to apply equally whether you PERSONALLY agree with the opinions or not."

There's nothing in the First Amendment about protecting whatever speech on publically- owned airwaves. Nope. Nothing whatsoever.

Ask Howard Stern.

Hans

Though Limbaugh should be taken on, it should be by others in the democratic party. Obama should not even acknowledge Limbaugh's existence.

Agreed. Obama should pick bigger targets than a radio host who has grown increasingly irrelevant the last two elections.

"If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, then you're gonna end up with someone like Ted Nugent on PBS."

And I'm the one who supposedly doesn't know what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

"a Klan asshat wants to run his station, and he pays all the fees and runs his station in FCC guidelines..."

FCC guidelines? You mean, like a "Fairness Doctrine"?

Guidelines like that?

Hans

"Seriously, false liberals annoy the shit out of me."

And ignorant conservatives annoy the shit out of me, so I guess we're even.

Hans

The dems control all three branches of government, so why is Obama afraid of Rush Limbaugh? Is Barry trying to get the focus off the fact that he doesn't have a clue what to do about the economy or the Middle East? I bet Huckleberry Hans knows.

First-they select a perfect Manchurian candidate in Mc and then mop-it-up by eliminating the talk radio...and reps have no clue...nice ending. Time for the real opposition...

Obama should not even acknowledge Limbaugh's existence.

Limbaugh will revel in being invoked by Obama He will spin it in his favor, talk about it endlessly and use it to create an even greater divide--precisely what Obama was hoping not to happen.

#2 | Posted by Grendel

I agree 1 million percent with your first statement and with part of the second. however, i'm not so sure about the 'what obama was hoping not to happen' part.

A high approval rating can do some interesting things. If you attack the most popular guy in school, you can't win. If you beat him up, he gets sympathy and you are a bully. If he beats you up, well, everybody expected that and you are a loser.

We all learned 2 lessons with Palin.

1). Hers (and Limbaughs) philosophy only plays well in dark corners, where hate, rage and exclusivity ignite the natives. True conservatives (like me) hate the fact that conservative ideology has been hijacked by the religious and the stupid and the bigots.

2). A fresh 'airing out' of these new neo-con ideals is the best defense against them.

"2. On-air political debate/analysis was nearly non-existent under the old guidelines for the reasons others have cited: economics."

Which is exactly why why Adlai Stevenson won in 1952 and 1956, why Richard Nixon won in 1960, why Barry Goldwater won in 1964, why Hubert Humphrey won in 1968, why George McGovern won in 1972, why Gerald Ford won in 1976, why Jimmy Carter was re-elected in 1980, and why Walter Mondale defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Oh, and Meet the Press, from 1949 until 1987, was a show about laundry.

And Face the Nation, from 1954 until 1987, was a show about cosmetics.

Because "political debate/analysis was nearly non-existent under the old guidelines."

Hans

"(I sent you an email a day or two ago. Did you see it?)"

Re: travel plans?

Hans

If the guerilla campaign that Rush and others are fighting against the liberals really is getting to Obama then Al Quaeda is gonna kick his ass.

"If the guerilla campaign that Rush and others are fighting against the liberals..."

YEAH! Rush's Operation Chaos worked like a charm.

Just ask President McCain and Vice President Palin.

Hans

Obama doesn't and hasn't tolerated critics. Even while he was campaigning he tried to shut down many critics, so this is no surprise. Maybe Obama should call a whaaaaambulance.

The joke about the fairness doctrine is they want it for talk radio only. Now to be truly fair they should include TV, Newspapers, Magazines, and News organizations posting on the internet. But we all know that would never happen. There is no way the major networks and national newspapers as well as Democrats in congress would ever consider that. All they want to do is shut down talk radio.

Fuck democracy, right? Fuck freedom of speech too.

OBEY

"Not that one. The one about my cancer. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer and will have surgery March 5."

NO! I'll check now and answer back.......... !!!!

Hans

Rush Limbaugh is the most anti American citizen in the United States. His hatred for America and anything resembling freedom is disgusting. He uses the first amendment like a club to beat down American ideals of fairness and equality. The listeners that think he makes sense, are scum, pure and simple

"The joke about the fairness doctrine is they want it for talk radio only. Now to be truly fair they should include TV, Newspapers, Magazines, and News organizations posting on the internet..."

And I'm the one who supposedly doesn't know what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

Yes, it includes television and radio. They're broadcasting over the publically-owned broadcast spectrums.

Newspapers, magazines and those using cable-only channels (and satellite) and the Internet are NOT using publically-owned broadcast spectrums.

The joke is that so many don't understand this.

Hans

Oohrah

Been there ten years ago. Make sure you talk to them about saving one of the nerves. There are some benefits. For one--you don't have to worry about getting prostate cancer anymore.

and here is the first step to taking away me right of free speech.

the next thing this rezko afiliate will do will declare rush as hate speech and bring back the so called fairness doctrine..
and isnt it telling that it was probably liberals who came up with that bullshit name.

and do libs here care about my right and rush's right of free speech

FUCK>>..are you kidding me???

that NEVER makes a fuck to you

if every one listened to limbaugh we wouldn't be in this credit crisis. Limbaugh and Beck spell it out the way it is and the leftys can't handle such clear truth so they get angry. Obama and congress are going to destroy democracy and everyone will see that open talk radio is far more open and transparent than back room deals of congress and progressives.

I GOT LAID LAST NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

she said SHE WAS 82 but she LOOKED 69 TOPS!!!!!!
...........

i thought CIALIS was the PURPLE PILL

crap

oh.........AT LEAST I DIDNT pee on her
.......shes putting her teeth back in now

OBAMA SEZ: LISTEN TO ONLY ME, I THE LORD OBAMA WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, FOR ONLY I AM WORTHY OF YOUR ATTENTION . . . SICK SELF RIGHTIOUS BASTARD

"OBAMA SEZ:... . . . SICK SELF RIGHTIOUS BASTARD"

Who was President Barack Hussein Obama calling a "SICK SELF RIGHTIOUS BASTARD"?

Hans

Sure you do. Have you read the papers in the last 10 yrs. Look at the stock market et all.

Oorah sorry to hear about your situation. You are in my prayers, pal.

Mr Fair

I hate to be critical so early on but I agree with you who say a President shouldn't acknowledge a radio host, especially if said President is only picking on one side. Where's the Fairness ?

If he wants Congress to really get along, he can tell the Democrats to stop listening to whatever screamers they have on the Left.

Also - if I were a Congressman I would be insulted to have the President imply that I am not sharp enough to make decisions myself and that maybe I need Rush Limbaugh to help me.

I think that by all means Limbaughites should continue listening to Rush. I hate to break it to them, but the man really doesn't think all that well. It's a large reason you guys lost.

Did you mean retarded and broke listen to Limbaughass.

"I need Rush Limbaugh to help me (make decisions)..."

Millions say they do, right out loud.

Zed you're seeing things again.

Hans the . . . is called an elipse and it signifies a new thought based on a previous comment. Hans, you get a funny flag i laughed at your response.

"Please forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the left's inability to use government power to destroy the 1 medium where it doesn't have a competitive advantage. "

Who wants a competitive advantage with a redneck HS drop out audience that believes the earth is 6000 years old and had saddles for dinosaurs. You can keep that audience.

One thing we seem to agree with is that Rush is an entertainer. As such, the man has a schtick, an act.

A man with an act and out for laughs or other reaction is by definition not a rock of wisdom or rationality.

"You're seeing things again...."

Nope. Just listening to those endless "mega-dittoes".

It has occured to me, however, that Rush hires people to fawn over him on the radio. A "claque".

Would discovering that to be true hurt Rush's rep, I wonder? Or is it merely one more thing excused because he is an entertainer?

Or is it merely one more thing excused because he is an entertainer?

#75 | Posted by Zed

Zed now you're talking sense. We can actually agree: he is a RADIO ENTERTAINER. It is a schtick. Thank you.

But seriously: what is your sourcefor the assertion that nillions of these mega-dittoes say to themselves "I need Limbaugh"?

A Rush true story
An acquaintance I had to deal with from time to time was a big Rush fan. He was eager to repeat each little simplistic Rush comment (the blame America first crowd, etc). Rush had a TV show at the time which he never missed. One day Rush made fun of "ugly" young Chelsea Clinton. This acquaintance had a daughter with a face deformity, and constantly faced people ridiculing his daughter. When he heard that, he turned off Rush and never listened again. The simplistic buzz words were gone, no more all is "libs" fault, no more blaming others for his problems. How pleasant to now have an intelligent talk with him. He went from "acquaintance" to "friend" and he remains a Republican (just not a dumb one)

Rush Limpo is a radio troll.

He deliberately sez the most divisive, stupid and hateful shit he can dream up because he knows it plays well with his brain dead, hate fueled, Rtard audience and makes sane people go "WTF?!".

Obama is correct that if you come into DC spewing Rush inspired memes you aint gonna get anything useful done.

Rush is nothing but a race-baiting, proto-fascistical agitator with a big bank account and a low IQ.

His schtick plays into the power-that-be's "divide and conquer" strategy which has been so effective to date at keeping the electorate more mad at each other than they are at their leader's and their failed pro-corporate/ anti-people policies.

Obama is trying to garner a consensus that will allow him to get things done in DC and he is more than meeting the right half way there.

His warning here better not fall on deaf ears.

By adopting a hard headed, partisan hack type of attitude a' la Rush "I Hope he Fails" Limpo the remaining Rtards in DC can only further marginalise their own political careers and that of their increasingly irrelevant party.

Yer choice kidZ.

Choose Well.

Be Well.

/Only slighty hung over (thanx fer askin') and entering the Delightfully Raucus Drudge Retort as ya do
stage left.

VMA - you made 2 good points: 1) people can and do make their own choices and turn off the radio show they don't like 2) The average American has much more in common with someone from across the aisle than these damned message boards would imply.

if every one listened to limbaugh we wouldn't be in this credit crisis. Limbaugh and Beck spell it out the way it is and the leftys can't handle such clear truth so they get angry. Obama and congress are going to destroy democracy and everyone will see that open talk radio is far more open and transparent than back room deals of congress and progressives.

#60 | Posted by ewendels at 2009

THIS IS ABSLOUTLEY CORRECT

one thing that libs REFUSE TO REMEMBER ...

treasurer secty SNOW brought oversight to these things while he was there and when sent to congress it was defeated
ALONG PARTY LINES>>>>ALL DEMS VOTED TO NOT HAVE OVERSIGHT ON the mortgage and banks things

mORE HISTORY that libs just HAPPEN TO FORGET......

ALL DEMS VOTED NO

lets say that again

ALL DEMS VOTED NO

I think that by all means Limbaughites should continue listening to Rush. I hate to break it to them, but the man really doesn't think all that well. It's a large reason you guys lost.

#68 | Posted by Zed at

oh really..I remember him saying that mccain as the nominee would make a dem victory certain.........and only after he got the nomination did he begin to support mccain....a failed campaign waiting to happen because of its origins in democrat rich northest..................

As I've said before.

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot ENTERTAINER.

His listeners are fucking imbeciles because they believe what he says.

Do you believe mickey mouse?

"I remember him (Rush) saying McCain as a nominee would make a Dem victory certain...."

I remember hoping Romney would get the Republican nomination. My opinion? If he had the Democrats would have carried Georgia and North Dakota along with the rest.

If we agree Rush is a RADIO ENTERTAINER, why do you continue to point examples of his wisdom?

If you've ever listened to the man you know that when he's wrong about something that something rarely ever again sees the light of day.

I remember him (Rush) saying McCain as a nominee would make a Dem victory certain...."

I remember hoping Romney would get the Republican nomination. My opinion? If he had the Democrats would have carried Georgia and North Dakota along with the rest.

#83 | Posted by Zed at 2009

ah good one

here is what barry is really saying

we must silence any and all critics...
just like you cant question global warming and you cant even discuss negative ideas of evolution...( actuall charge from the issue recently)...

there is just no room for critics of the messiah and they MUST BE SILENCED

wow...thats real american isnt it

and AGAIN before I leave..

if silences the critics ISNT what he is saying..

then WHY IS HE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT RUSH.....

and OOPS forgot

you rarely IF EVER heard bush comment on the commentators.....the difference is bush has more class and knows he is doing what he thought was right and the media be damned...

"Why is he saying anything about Rush....?"

Oh, come on. Rush loves it. And, if Obama never said anything about Rush, Rush would respond with something like: "He's afraid to answer me".

Dogs get fat on shit as readily as sugar.

As a matter of fact, I've heard Rush state Obama is "frightened" to come on his show.

If nothing else, that ought to answer another poster who thought Rush lacks a large ego.

Nice, I love to hear about another person joining the large, staid, thoughtful, and caring middle of the nation. The freaks on either side can keep on with the anger and tribal rah-rah bs.
To most of you: when's the last time you had an opinion changed from what your 'group' tells you to believe?

Well, my "group" used to rail against Christianity, and I became a Christian. What does that say about me? Was I more radical or more conventional than they were?

"there is just no room for critics of the messiah and they MUST BE SILENCED

wow...thats real american isnt it"

It is outlined as a future outcome of democracy by both Allan Bloom, Tocqueville, and Fredrick Hayek.

Obama said "I won", the reply should have been "So did I".

What the intelligent Obama seems to forget is that these are also representatives of the people.

Oh, Bigdino, I wasn't aware that the American public had spoken and resoundingly came out in favor of the fairness doctrine. It's typical of a liberal to back something that squashes free speech. Libs claim to have the high ground on the 1st amendment but, through things like political correctness and the fairness doctrine, it is clear that you only want people saying things that are approved by you.

Liberals are the biggest threat to free speech in the history of this country.

Earth to obama, it is none of your business who they listen to.

oh no censorship of opposin voices i thougt this was
susposed to be a socialist leanin admim not a facsist one-did that narrowminded bush ever tell the dems who listen to or what to read
jasman

The GOP only lost because every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and
52 percent of the people reacted

like nine year olds. They want
ice cream. The other 48 percent know
they're going to have to
feed the cow and clean

up the mess.

Limpballs, as well as Coulter, Malkin, Cal Thomas and many of the righties who post here have First Amendment rights that I would defend to the (damnear) end. But let's never pretend that what comes from their mouths is not hate speech, pure and simple. herm

Some right wing talk show hosts like Michael Savage have been paranoiac about being shut down; they've been relentless and strident. It just might be that Obama was giving the signal to his regulator dogs to go after them.

I'm telling you guys. You're not going to recognize the America of today from the America four years from now.

I'm telling you guys. You're not going to recognize the America of today from the America four years from now.

#99 | Posted by Ray

Let's all hope so!

You know, I was reading Hans version of radio that conveniently left out the part about advertisers & paid time on shows that actually have listeners & figured I'd start there but this one takes the cake. Lets break it down for you progressive, smarter, libs who claim to be inclusive & all about choice:

A LESSON IN HYPOCRICY:

"It is not dissent America has been espousing under GW but hate and fear."

The spewing venom was incessant towards Bush. He's not even POTUS anymore & its shown no signs of letting up. You love Bush because deflecting about him deserved or otherwise, takes away from the fact that you have no true plan for your precious "change". Hate & fear are OK if they comes from the Left?

"BHO will ensure the true voice of America is heard and he has been given that right by the American people."

Not all of us. You guys seem to forget that A LOT of Americans didn't vote for BO & I for one remember the last election & how all of you whiners on the left felt "disenfranchised" although you weren't so much that as sore about losing. And the "true" voice of America is subjective isn't it? Further, it's not the President's job to "ensure" that in the first place just like it isn't his to stifle it. If he's "ensuring" then he's "ensuring his version". There's these things, freedom of speech, expression, which we're all supposed to have but according to you that isn't the case. You remember it. It's the one you guys invoke when you all get together to defend the jerk who throws shit on the Mona Lisa & call it art. That one! So, that's only for the left now too? Just want to make sure I'm following you.

continued....

"Hate speech disguised as religous belief or conservatism will no longer be tolerated."

Hate speech is the biggest bullshit PC term in history & THAT'S saying ALOT! Hate speech, zero tolerance, etc. AKA things libs make up to keep from having to actually DO anything, lip service. Blanket approach, eliminating the individual, shit conservatives won't put up with. And again, the definition of hate speech would be subjective wouldn't it? I thought libs hated intolerance? Oh, & lets not forget the religion bashing. Of course it's not just any old religion but Christianity. Meanwhile, the left will claim concern for America's image abroad by coddling terrorists & exposing us to further harm by their misguided stupidity. But I suppose hate speech is just A- OK when it comes from the left?

"This hater Limpbaugh is the first target because his defeat will send the rest running to their compounds."

Limbaugh scares the shit out of you & not for the reasons you claim. It's because he resonates with so many & doesn't give a rat's ass if he's liked or not whereas lefties have this overwhelming, therapy needing, desire to be "loved" by all. He cites sources & numbers that don't match yours & tells you what they REALLY mean to the future of our country because conservatives aren't scared of people learning whereas libs like the stupid, needy, and downtrodden because they're easy to manipulate & buy votes from for a 40 oz & some cigs. So if conservatives are running & being made to run by you guys, isn't that being "divisive" with the "us-vs-them" mentality? And of course being divisive is OK if it suits a leftist agenda?

"We will have peace and unity through one."

The single scariest thing posted because it proves that the left NEEDS a government official to tell them how to think, what to do, etc. You think government is the be all, end all, solution to all of your problems which is frankly lazy & sad. The one of course being the Messiah & peace & untiy means submission & stifling dissent.

Well, what we've learned is that the left wants special treatment. There's some news right? This is the participation trophy, focus-group, don't take score at the baseball game of inclusive, everyone's special crowd so I'm not surprised. Further, they want to hold others to standards to which they are both incapable & unwilling to be held to themselves. There's another surprise. There's a word for this folks: HYPOCRISY! And you guys have it in abundance! With this post, not only have you encouraged your government to circumvent the pursuit of happiness they're due, you've given the go ahead to stifle dissent & to use the POLICE POWERS of government to do it! Didn't I hear you guys whining about Bush & just this same thing on numerous occasions? But it's OK when its the left because you all know what's best for us don't you? Were you the patriotic guardians of freedom you claim to be, you would defend my right to listen to whatever I like even if you don't agree but libs are historically selective in their convictions. Way to bail on your values you puppet!

Oh & Mr. President, no disrespect to the office, but I'll listen to whoever the hell I want if it's all the same to you. And do please continue to come off like an arrogant wanna-be-dictator with delusions of granduer & over-reach on your liberal agenda. We'll be back in power sooner rather than later.

"And the "true" voice of America is subjective isn't it?"

The partisanship is amusing. However, I do remember, and still haven't gotten past, being called a traitor (and worse) because I pointed out problems inherent with the Iraq invasion escapade. So I'm not going to side with Republicans on this issue.

Public. Exactly. And why should anyone use public property without rules?

Except that your rules effectively kills the political talk format - a format where conservatives have a strongly competitive advantage. You have yet to acknowledge it.

You know full well that when applied, the political talk format on radio dies. It becomes economically unviable.

Furthermore, do you not see the danger inherent in government mandating through raw power that certain types of political speech are unsuitable for the public airwaves? Seriously???

The desire to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine is a desire to stifle conservative opinion through government power. Plain and simple. Radio stations currently carrying a political talk format will switch to a different format before they will willingly take a loss on their 'new', government enforced product.

You know this to be true yet refuse to acknowledge it.

Let's all hope so!

#100 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

It won't be change for the better.

RAY

Sweden went through this and came out the other end OK

Jeff

To add to my post at #99, I'm reminded how a Mafia chieftain just has to say he doesn't like someone and his followers take that as a hint to kill him.

This is what I think Obama was doing by mentioning Limbaugh by name. Not to kill, but to shut him down. Being the #1 talk show host, Limbaugh would be first on the hit list if anybody was to be singled out. Or they may go for a general approach like the Fairness Doctrine.

I've gotten to the point now when I try to predict political behavior, I try to imagine what a gangster would do. It's a good approximation.

What I find so ironically funny is that when levying criticisms of and hurling insults toward Rush and his listeners, liberals become the very thing they are trying to deride.

Your criticisms are hate-filled, simplistic, absolutistic and nothing but ignorant stereotyping.

It's exactly what you accuse Limbaugh and his listeners of doing.

It's hilarious to watch.

Now, as for Limbaugh...

Like so many people, he's a mixed bag. On the plus side he's witty, funny, clearly intelligent and demonstrates a pretty solid understanding of the political left. On the negative side he's a self-admitted shill for the Republican party, he does on occasion take complex issues and simply it down to an either/or scenario, he does paint with too broad of a brush WAY too often regarding the left and he does on occasion talk out of his ass.

Having said all of that his show has been syndicated for over 20 years now. He consistently has 15-20 million weekly listeners, blowing away ALL of his competition. Spin it any way you want, but if he were the embodiment of everything lefties accuse him of, he NEVER could have enjoyed this degree of success. Never. He puts forth a good, entertaining show, which is why he's so successful.

I've gotten to the point now when I try to predict political behavior, I try to imagine what a gangster would do.

That's a good way of putting it, Ray.

The Democratic party DID try to stifle Limbaugh a couple of years ago by spinning a comment he made about 'phony soldiers' WAY out of context. They even went so far as to draft an intimidating letter to his employers - he read the letter on the air, mocked it for what it was, put it on ebay, someone actually paid $2 million for it and he donated all of the proceeds to a charity that provides assistance for family members who lost their primary wage-earner in combat or on the streets fighting crime.

It was hilarious to watch the Democrats little stunt backfire. Just as it was funny to watch the so-called party of fiscal responsibilty get swept out of office this year. What's sad though is that the Democrats seem poised to take deficits to such a level that Bush and his Republican thieves will look like pikers by comparison.

PS - I don't believe the Dems will try and re-instate FD. They'll be more subtle. Obama's comment was but one example. They'll also likely use the far more vague FCC guideline of "localization" to harass certain radio stations and attempt to stifle opposing opinions much more stealthily.

Time will ultimately tell.

From the article:

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.

"I will trump you on that."

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

Of course he couldn't possibly be gloating. I love how this supposedly unbiased medium feels compelled to make excuses for Obama's comments so that they can't possibly be construed in a manner that is anything other than flattering toward the Messiah.

HA!
It's an OPINION show, and apparently his opinion is that we should all just sit back and trust big daddy Rush - because only a pill-popping college dropout with no public service experience could possibly know how to solve all America's problems.
I think the Prez. was right to say what he said, Flush is nothing but a hater & America doesn't really have time for his BS right now.
[BTW, for REAL entertainment on your AM dial, check out Art Bell, his callers make about as much sense as Flush's but are loads funnier and not nearly so frothing-at-the-mouth!]

#108 | Posted by JeffJ

#111 | Posted by Browncoat

It took all of 3 posts to have my point proven.

Nice work, Browncoat!

AU

I can only tell from what I read in the article.
It happened in the early 90s when the world economy was coming out of a recession. So they had that pulling for them.
It looks like the government had the reserves to buy out the banks and the banks were able to write off their bad debts.
I think Sweden only put off the day of reckoning, but we'll see.

The American problem is extreme. Government has liabilities, bonded and not bonded, of over $70 trillion and rising fast with the bailouts and buyouts.
Every country in the world is linked to the American banking system. It's a black hole that's pulling every country in with it.
The economic culture here is Keynesian. That means they are going to try to spend their way out.
They are in the process of nationalizing the banking system, but they're trying to disguise that fact.
This country had its Swedish miracle in the 80s. Not this time.

O I'm sorry, did you say something?

"If he (Rush) were the embodiment of everything the Lefties accuse him of, he could never put on a show...."

I'll wager I could find twenty-million people to listen to the sounds of kittens being tortured five days a week.

Rush Limbaugh has discovered he can make millions of dollars by being a lying ass. That insight goes back as far as the invention of money.

"Furthermore, do you not see the danger inherent in government mandating through raw power that certain types of political speech are unsuitable for the public airwaves? Seriously???"

Why do you insist on re-defining what the Fairness Doctrine is all about? You and I both know that the Doctrine doesn't talk about "unsuitable" speech. It says that if one side of a political opinion is aired over the public airwaves equal time must be given to those with an opposing political opinion.

JeffJ, it is telling that you've delved into strawman arguments, but not in a good way.

Seriously.

Hans

Rush Limbaugh has discovered he can make millions of dollars by being a lying ass. That insight goes back as far as the invention of money.

#116 | Posted by Zed

At least he didn't go into politics.

Limpballs, as well as Coulter, Malkin, Cal Thomas and many of the righties who post here have First Amendment rights that I would defend to the (damnear) end. But let's never pretend that what comes from their mouths is not hate speech, pure and simple. herm

-------------

The ACLU doesn't defend Nazis right to protest because it likes what they say.

"The desire to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine is a desire to stifle conservative opinion through government power."

Nothing's being stifled. Conservative opinion cannot stand toe-to-toe with liberal opinion.

Plain and simple, JeffJ.

Hans

Hans:

Your a loon. You claim to have read this but sitll have no idea what it's about. You're a gibbering idiot.

Nothing's being stifled. Conservative opinion cannot stand toe-to-toe with liberal opinion.

Plain and simple, JeffJ.

Hans

You are delusional! Conservatives for the most part don't have just "opinions" in the first place. We have the strength of our convictions whether you like it or not whereas liberal opinions rely on what's "hot" or "in" and who they're speaking to. No one is listening to Al Franken on the radio nor have they been.

Let's cut out all that superfluous verbiage in between (including the "continued" part) to distill it down to the actual message:

"A LESSON IN HYPOCRICY:

#101 & #102 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

Hans

"At least he didn't go into politics..."

You mean Rush will never run for office. Into politics he is up to his bloody elbows.

"Your a loon. You claim to have read this but sitll have no idea what it's about. You're a gibbering idiot."

So says the false conservative.

Hans

"No one is listening to Al Franken on the radio...."

He hasn't been on for more than a year. By the way, did you know that's Senator Franken now?

"You are delusional!"

... is immediately followed by:

"Conservatives for the most part don't have just "opinions" in the first place. We have the strength of our convictions whether you like it or not whereas liberal opinions rely on what's "hot" or "in" and who they're speaking to."

You can't make this stuff up. They willingly volunteer it.

Hans

But let's never pretend that what comes from their mouths is not hate speech, pure and simple. herm

No, lets never pretend that the term "hate speech" is anything other than a lib tool to help make it easier to silence & sue people. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH!

"Conservatives for the most part don't have opinions...."

Pish-posh. If they had "convictions" a lot of Bush's BS would have been shot-down at stage one. As it was for several years, y'all may as well have been convening Party conventions at Nuremburg.

He hasn't been on for more than a year. By the way, did you know that's Senator Franken now?

When he was on no one listened! Conservatives rule radio, admit it!

"By the way, did you know that's Senator Franken now?"

Funny or newsworthy?

Newsworthy or funny?

Always the constant conundrum here on the Drudge.

Hans

The government has no right to force anyone to air any opinion. The forced airing of opinions is, in fact, the complete and utter opposite of free speech. If someone wants to run Nazi hate 24/7, that is their right. It is your right not to LISTEN. You vote with your dollar.

Oh, and by the way, you gibbering idiot, it very much applied to television and computer media as well. Ask Quantum Link (now AOL) about how the Fairness Doctrine effected them. Ultimately it's all translated over those lovelyt little pipelines the govenrment laid down, and are public property.

You think it's at all a good idea to tell everyone that broadcasts over television or the internet they must give "equal time"?

You are a Fascist.

"Pish-posh. If they had "convictions" a lot of Bush's BS would have been shot-down at stage one."

Absolutely correct, Zed.

If they had convictions they would have, oh, I don't know, passed the so-called "Human Life Amendment" to the US Constitution, for one thing.

Why didn't they when they had complete control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch.

Oh, that's right: They had "convictions."

Hans

RAY

I heard someone on C-SPAN last week (can't remember who it was) saying we may end up creating a "Bad Bank" to absorb all the bad paper and get it out of the main banking system to restore solvency - as Roosevelt did.

Actually, I'm a liberal, you Fascist moron totally ignorant of history.

Just because I don't swallow Obama's cock no matter how much he lies to me doesn't mean I'm a Republican, you Fascist zombie.

Pretend Liberal.

Scum.

"The government has no right to force anyone to air any opinion."

Oh, the government, on behalf of the people, can and does pass and enforce rules on how publicly-owned assets are used. Speed limits sound familiar?

"Actually, I'm a liberal..."

ROTFLMAO!!!

Hans

Conservative opinion cannot stand toe-to-toe with liberal opinion.

Which is why Conservative opinion has an exponentially larger radio audience than liberal opinion?

Why do you insist on re-defining what the Fairness Doctrine is all about? You and I both know that the Doctrine doesn't talk about "unsuitable" speech. It says that if one side of a political opinion is aired over the public airwaves equal time must be given to those with an opposing political opinion.

And yet you STILL ignore the economic reality of FD in application. Radio survives on advertising dollars. The amount of advertising dollars a station can generate is completely dependent upon the ratings of their format. With the exception of niche markets, liberal opinion garners terrible ratings. Forcing a radio station to air a ratings-loser (liberal talk) makes the entire format economically unfeasible. The net result of all of this is that the entire format, both conservative AND liberal talk is ditched in favor of a profitable format. The Democratic party has no qualms about sacrificial lambs like Ed Schultz when they can effectively kill big players like Limbaugh.

JeffJ, it is telling that you've delved into strawman arguments, but not in a good way.

I've done nothing of the sort. I've made my argument and supplied my reasoning. You have STILL yet to address the economic arguments I've made. Until you do, this discussion is circular. You can talk about the "spirit" behind FD until you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the economic reality, the "results" of its reinstatement. Good intentions don't mean squat, outcome is what matters. In this case, the outcome is the nearly complete dismantling of a format of political expression - a forum which disproportionately targets the right.

"Which is why Conservative opinion has an exponentially larger radio audience than liberal opinion?"

Which proves nothing.

Conservative opinion cannot stand toe-to-toe (equal time) with liberal opinion, so "economic" "reasons" are concocted to defend why publicly-owned assets should not be subjected to rules.

"You have STILL yet to address the economic arguments I've made...."

There's a total of 108 words in that paragraph, and not one single acknowledgement that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't talk about "unsuitable" speech. It says that if one side of a political opinion is aired over the public airwaves equal time must be given to those with an opposing political opinion.

"Radio survives on advertising dollars."

And not a single radio station survived between 1949 and 1987.

Interesting.

Hans

Oh, the government, on behalf of the people, can and does pass and enforce rules on how publicly-owned assets are used.

We aren't debating whether or not the government can do this, we are debating whether or not they should.

In this country we have more diverse avenues for disseminating news and opinion than ever before.

Liberals already dominate in just about every other medium. You don't need to stifle conservative talk radio.

And not a single radio station survived between 1949 and 1987.

AM was dying a slow death. Opinion talk shows didn't exist because they couldn't.

Conservative opinion cannot stand toe-to-toe (equal time) with liberal opinion, so "economic" "reasons" are concocted to defend why publicly-owned assets should not be subjected to rules.

Concocted? I've laid out cause and effect. You still haven't refuted it, so I presume you can't.

and not one single acknowledgement that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't talk about "unsuitable" speech.

That was a figure of speech. I know what it 'talks' about, I also know what will happen if it's applied. It kills an entire format that is almost exclusively the expression of one point of view. It's a tool the Dems would love to use to censor opposing viewpoints.

It's a tool the Dems would love to use to censor opposing viewpoints.

JEFFJ

As right wing radio does right now. Just try getting through the screener if you differ with the dittoheads, or if you do having a reasonable discussion.

"Yes, the airwaves aren't privately owned... just as the air we fly through isn't privately owned or the seas we travel through aren't privately held.. As long as general guidelines are adhered to (ex: profanity) I don't see why the government should have an overriding interest in the specific content offered on commercial stations.

Ah! The government has the right to issue "general guidelines," as I've maintained.

So the argument is:

Some guidelines are good ("ex: profanity"), while the Fairness Doctrine guidelines are "bad."

Does that about cover it?

Hans

I heard someone on C-SPAN last week (can't remember who it was) saying we may end up creating a "Bad Bank" to absorb all the bad paper and get it out of the main banking system to restore solvency - as Roosevelt did.
#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

The bad paper will still exist. They're trying to keep Over-the Counter-Derivatives from the market, but all they're doing is shuffling around the chairs of the Titanic. They're what Warren Buffet called financial weapons of mass destruction. The OTC derivative market is ten times the world domestic product.

"AM was dying a slow death."

And the buggy whip industry was dying a slow death.

No doubt they're forever grateful for the burgeoning BDSM community for their revival.

Hans

Liberals already dominate in just about every other medium.

That's an Rtard meme, Jeff, and like most Rtard memes it is not reality based.

Here's Spud'll help ya out...

Corporate friendly propagandists and apparatchucks of the MIC dominate in every medium except the new media aka blogworld.

There. FTFY.

You don't need to stifle conservative talk radio.

Oddly enuff, Spud'll agree with you there.

The Fariness Doctrine is well past it's "best before" date. It's a can of worms that has been opened far too long to round up the worms and put them back in and for the most part it's also a canard, a false premise, a red herring.

The real debate here is...

"Should the FCC break up the virtual monopolies of MSM that exist in the US in order to allow for more diverse opinions to reach a broader audience?"

Spud's answer to that one is a resounding YES!

Wot say you?

Be Well.

Gawd, you righties are more puke-worthy than usual today.

The Fairness Doctrine allows only for equal time to be given to opposing viewpoints.

Either your message is so powerful and desirable that it can withstand the presentation of any opposing viewpoint, in which case FD would matter less than nothing to you. Or - your message is so vulnerable to opposing viewpoints that FD is the one threat you cannot abide the thought of.

Which is it, guys?

As right wing radio does right now. Just try getting through the screener if you differ with the dittoheads, or if you do having a reasonable discussion.

Do you not recognize the difference between a financitally-solvent show determining how to manage its content and the government stepping in and dictating what can and can't be said and by whom - and no, we are not talking about standards regarding profanity, lewd content, vulgarities, etc, as per Hans' deflection.

And the buggy whip industry was dying a slow death.

It was dying a slow death because it became antiquated - it didn't die a slow death because the government stepped in and mandated their product to be 'unfair'.

You're really grasping, Hans.

RAY

Did Michael Milkin have anything to do with creating derivatives or was he the "Junk Bond King" only?

Wot say you?

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand it makes far more sense than Draconion measures like FD. On the other hand, as someone who works for one of those evil media conglomerates, I have witnessed firsthand the dramatic improvement in operating efficiencies as a result of consolidation.

Corporate friendly propagandists and apparatchucks of the MIC dominate in every medium except the new media aka blogworld.

Corporate friendly? Like the coverage of the auto CEO's showing up to DC in private jets? You mean the Firestone/Explorer tire coverage? You mean rigged tests on automobiles to make them appear more dangerous than they are? You mean the 'balanced' coverage of global warming? You mean the 'unbiased' coverage of this past election? You mean how gun control is reported on? Illegal immigration? Abortion? The effectiveness of government entitlement programs?

I know I addressed more than your more limited claim, but hopefully you got my point.

AU
Milkin was one of the pioneers. At that time, I don't think he foresaw what it would turn into.

This book will give you an idea of the nature and magnitude of the problem if you are interested: The Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown.

Whore

Which is it, guys?

It's neither. You employed a lawyer's trick of framing your question from an either/or standpoint.

I've already stated the economic reasons as to why FD would kill an entire format. Thus far, nobody advocating FD seems willing to try and refute my assertion. I can only conclude it's because they can't.

Thanks, RAY

Ray/AU,

Have either of you read "The Trillion dollar Meltdown"?

What's cool about it is that it was written just prior to shit really hitting the fan.

Here JeffJ goes again equating having dollars to Free SPeech. Nothing but BULLSHIT from JeffJ of the HIGHEST order. What about the poor indipendent guy or gal who wants to get their message out but can't because they lack the coins to do so?? Why do You want to quash their Free speech rights simply because they lack the funding for a program?? How about reestabilishing the Fairness Doctrine back so we caqn have both sides shown/said. What are You afraid of JeffJ?? More people finding out what a ripoff the Right Winged Conservatives have been?? Is that why You are afraid of the Fairness Doctrine??

Larry

RAY/JEFFJ

Have either of you guys seen the exclusive photo of Rush Limbaugh crushing an 18 year old to the brink of death in the Dominican Republic?

I've already stated the economic reasons as to why FD would kill an entire format. Thus far, nobody advocating FD seems willing to try and refute my assertion. I can only conclude it's because they can't.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-24 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It's all about the Benjamins and fuck about educating the public on controversial matters including politics. Screw it if the average Joe wants to promote His political ideas but can't because he lacks the money necessary to compete or even pay for one airing on a local radio station. Freedom of speech should work for ALL not just those who have the money to do so. How dare anyone try and quash someones righty to educate the public on where they stand!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry

Larry,

What about the poor indipendent guy or gal who wants to get their message out but can't because they lack the coins to do so??

That's the nature of competition in this medium, Larry. If a format can't generate listenership, it will fail. If FD were re-instated, those very same poor indepentent guys and gals STILL won't get air time. Political opinion talk will cease to exist if FD were re-instated.

Is that why You are afraid of the Fairness Doctrine??

I've laid out my concerns. Either refute me on point, or you are just pissing in the wind.

How dare anyone try and quash someones righty to educate the public on where they stand!!!!!!!!!!!

I am doing no such thing.

Go ahead, if you want to get your views aired on the radio put out a product that generates listenership. The thing that's ironic is what you are advocating. You want the opportunity to get other viewpoints on the air and actually have that opportunity if you are talented enough. However, if FD were imposed, your opportunity ceases to exist because just about every radio station in the country would refuse to program such a format.

It's not about money, Larry, it's about listenership.

Air America was VERY heavily funded and it still didn't generate shit for listenership.

You can't blame Air America's failure on a lack of Benjamins, Larry.

That's the nature of competition in this medium, Larry. If a format can't generate listenership, it will fail. If FD were re-instated, those very same poor indepentent guys and gals STILL won't get air time. Political opinion talk will cease to exist if FD were re-instated.

Is that why You are afraid of the Fairness Doctrine??

I've laid out my concerns. Either refute me on point, or you are just pissing in the wind.

#161 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-24 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No it won't because they had no troubvles doing so back in the fairness doctrine dqays. Face the fgacts JeffJ You are afraid that the general pub lic bwill wise up to the dastardly deeds thye Conse4rvatives have spewed forth for those Years if they went back to the Fairness Doctrine. Oh and You can take Your economic conserns and shove them up Your ass JeffJ. That is the trouble now we are so worried about how fat the wallet is of Rush Limbaugh and not worried about educating the public upon matyters of politics and controversial issues. You just want one side told because they have the money. That attitude is what is killing America. Greed if they can not make money then they should have no voice. I say BULLSHIT. With Politics and things pertaining to matters of AMericas great importance how dare You want money for educating the public using public airwaves. GREED IS KILLING US JEFFJ DO YOU WANT THE KILLING TO STOP??

Larry

With the Big Three - Clear Channel, Cumulous, and Sinclair Broadcasting, all ultra conservative agenda companies - owning every 100,000 watt station in sight, it would be difficult for any startup, no matter HOW well funded, to be expected to thrive.

but you DON'T have the right to be heard.

#162 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-01-24 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The fuck You don't especially over PUBLIC AIRWAVES. Where the fuck have You been OohRah??

Larry

Hey oohRtah ever hear of the First AMendment and it's Freedom of the Press. where do You think being heard comes from. You can't have Free Speech without free hearing. It doesn't work that way.

Larry

With the Big Three - Clear Channel, Cumulous, and Sinclair Broadcasting, all ultra conservative agenda companies - owning every 100,000 watt station in sight, it would be difficult for any startup, no matter HOW well funded, to be expected to thrive.

It doesn't matter who owns the 100,000 watt stations. If people don't want to listen to what they are playing, they won't. Without ratings even such big players would have to change venue. They can't offer money-losing programming for any length of time. In short, their business plan is predicated upon what people want to hear, which is as it should be.

Oh and You can take Your economic conserns and shove them up Your ass JeffJ.

If you are going to take the level of discourse to such a level, it is pointless to discuss this with you.

The sum of your comments on this thread is pure emotion and little rational thought.

The only way the left can compete with the right is to start preaching the same hate the right teaches. Air America isn't as successful as right wing nuts like Limbaugh because their rhetoric is full of logic and reason. Hate sells much better. That's why the news is full of stories of people being hurt rather than people being helped.

Hate radio teaches hate for liberals because they say liberals would raise your taxes for welfare. They never talk about the help that money does for poor Americans.

Hate sells. Conservatives have the market cornered. Too bad many Americans are hate filled enough to buy it.

Hey oohRtah ever hear of the First AMendment and it's Freedom of the Press. where do You think being heard comes from. You can't have Free Speech without free hearing. It doesn't work that way.

Freedom of speech and press means having the government not tell you what you can and can't say. Furthermore, a quick study of history shows that the Framers were particularly concerned about political speech when it came to the First Ammendment.

Now that a new venue of political talk has emerged with the elimination of FD, it can be argued at a reinstatement would now constitute a violation of the First Ammendment.

Peopledon't care about dastardly deeds by conservatives. Hell---people don't even care who attacked us on 911. But get a blow job or tap tap for a blow job in a public rest room, and people are real interested in that.

Limbaugh is the best spreader of hate in America today--the dems simply can't spew enough hate to compete.

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand it makes far more sense than Draconion measures like FD. On the other hand, as someone who works for one of those evil media conglomerates, I have witnessed firsthand the dramatic improvement in operating efficiencies as a result of consolidation.

Too much power in too few hands is never a good thing, Jeff, even if it does have a positive impact on the bottom line.

I know I addressed more than your more limited claim, but hopefully you got my point.

Spud was already aware of yer point, Jeff.

Spud is not asserting that the US MSM is akin to the Soviet style propaganda system of old or even the more modern propaganda system employed by the Chinese.

America can still pride itself on having a mostly free press and that's a good thing.

Wot most people don't know and wot the MSM doesn't want to tell you is that it is not wot is allowed to enter the "realm of the expressable", as Chomsky puts it, that is important so much as wot is not allowed to be aired, discussed or debated in any type of comprehensive manner.

The fact that the US has a shameful history of supporting dictators to ensure lop-sided "super-power/client state" relationships for a start.

America controls it's own population with a "divide and conquer" philosophy that we can see evidenced on this board every single blessed day in term of partisan sniping and hackery obscuring real debate.

That's the "51/49% solution" that Spud is always on about in blogworld. With half the nations hands perpetually wrapped around the other half's throats and vice versa it leaves the throats of the ruling elites who are screwing the vast majority over unwrung.

TBC.

Be Well.

Either You believe in Free SPeech or You don't JeffJ it's as simple as that. You believe in what is profitable and that isn't good for America. You have to know both sides to make an informed decision. The way You want it JeffJ is if they can't afford it then they should have no voiuce on public airwaves. If they can't compete against Rush Limbaugh then they should have no voice. TRhat is Your shtick JeffJ it has always been Your shtick. You are more worried about profgitability and fuck educating the public. Sorry but that is Killing America. Greed. We aren't going to die because of an attack it won't be an attack that kills America. It will be greed and gluttony. Mark My words.

Larry

"I've already stated the economic reasons as to why FD would kill an entire format. Thus far, nobody advocating FD seems willing to try and refute my assertion. I can only conclude it's because they can't."

Jeffy:

I was trying to play nice, but hey, here goes:

Talk radio operates on airwaves that are publicly held - the property of the people of the United States. That means we have a collective right to demand that opposing points of view be presented, since no one point of view represents every citizen. The business model of talk radio, as it currently exists, depends on the presentation of one point of view, with no opposing viewpoint offered (this is as true for liberal talk radio as it is for conservative talk radio), in order to entertain its base. That makes it a faulty business model, because it depends on quashing the opposing points of view that our citizens have a right to expect on the airwaves they themselves own.

Now, you may say that someone not wanting to hear a conservative point of view can change stations, but the fact is, any station presenting All Conservative, All the Time is operating on bandwidth that belongs to everyone, conservative and liberal.

Conservative talk radio is on sufferance, amigo, and that sufferance is coming to an end. Conservatives have made a great deal of money appropriating bandwidth that belongs to everyone in order to present only their point of view, and a lot of people who hold other viewpoints are heartily sick and tired of that fact. What is being demanded is that conservative talk radio exist alongside other forms of audio entertainment, to sink or swim as it might, instead of stacking the deck entirely in its favor. You are absolutely correct that a revival of FD would kill the business model under which conservative talk radio propers, but what you are not speaking to is the idea that that business model may not - probably does not - have a right to exist.

Cont...

The propaganda is that the US brings democracy to the world and fights fascism and communism and dictatorships but the sad historical facts show that to be largely incorrect.

America's one sided support of Israel is an especially powerful example of the sophisticated propaganda system you live under with all those 244 to 2 votes in the UN (the 2 being Israel and the US) rarely reaching the eyes of the news absorbing "chattering classes".

The disconnect between public opinion and public policy.

Real coverage of America's wars.

The real reasons behind those wars.

In short, the Big Picture stuff.

The MSM can and do talk till the cows come home about CEOs arriving in corporate jets and exploding tires along with spewing a lot of flat out government propaganda like the Iraq war coverage which in many cases was a straight reading of the Pentagon handouts in Qatar being presented as some kind of in-depth "journalism".

See also: Quotes from so-called "Think Tanks" that express a MIC desired opinion that are presented as coming from an "independent source". That one slays Spud.

See also: All those ex-Pentagon types who also sat on MIC boards and were being paid by these same think tanks showing up in droves on all the networks in the build up to the Iraq war essentially making Bush's case for him.

George Washington, the father of yer nation, took a really bold step when he insisted on having an educated/informed electorate because he thought, quite rightfully in Spud's opinion, that the only way democracy could really work would be if it's citizenry was cognizant enuff of reality to be able to make informed decisions about the direction the nation should go in.

And instead we get fluff pieces, trivialities like the Anna Nicole Smith saga stretched out into weeks of coverage, the OJ Trial, the overlong and shallow election coverage, ads disguised as news and dumbed down pre-approved sound bytes.

A news service system that manufactures consent, that leads public opinion around by the nose rather than reflecting it accurately is a FAILed system, Jeff.

Of course these are the musing of a largely fictional, drug-crazed and totally silly-assed 8 1/2 inch tall talking potato from Canada so you might wanna take it all with a grain of gestalt.

^_^

Be Well.

/Sorry fer getting all long winded there but some ideas don't fit easily on the back of bumper stickers.

#171 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

That is known as a deflection.

Now that a new venue of political talk has emerged with the elimination of FD, it can be argued at a reinstatement would now constitute a violation of the First Ammendment.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-24 05:26 PM | Reply

No it wouldn't because You are aedvocating quashing speech that can not be paid for. Hence You are anti free speech and more about greed speech. What that means is whatever generates the Benjamins. If it doesn't Generate the Benjamins You don't want it aired because You are against the Fairness Doctrine hence You are against Free SPeech.

Larry

Gotta run.

This has been an excellent discussion and I will do everything I can to get back to it - Spud, Whore and Larry - I recognize that I am leaving this dangling and will try and get back to this.

...You are absolutely correct that a revival of FD would kill the business model under which conservative talk radio propers, but what you are not speaking to is the idea that that business model may not - probably does not - have a right to exist.

#176 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Wowsers.

Newsworthy Flag!

That's the second one today that Spud given out.

That's gotta be some kind of record.

Man, this place really *IS* growing up.

Cool is that.

Be Well.

I am leaving this dangling

~Jeff J

You and yer participles!

Be Well.

/No, Spud aint ever growing up fully.
//Spud suspects that leads to liver spots and such.

AU: "With the Big Three - Clear Channel, Cumulous, and Sinclair Broadcasting, all ultra conservative agenda companies - owning every 100,000 watt station in sight, it would be difficult for any startup, no matter HOW well funded, to be expected to thrive."

It doesn't matter who owns the 100,000 watt stations. If people don't want to listen to what they are playing, they won't. Without ratings even such big players would have to change venue. They can't offer money-losing programming for any length of time. In short, their business plan is predicated upon what people want to hear, which is as it should be.

#169 | Posted by JeffJ

If I wanted to open a competing car dealership because I thought people might like more than one brand for sale, but I needed a building and lot big enough to make a go of it and all those buildings weren't for sale, but owned by a conglomerate who wouldn't sell, I couldn't very well even TRY to compete, could I?

What we may need to take a look at are reviewing the regulations that allowed a handful of companies to buy up all the high powered airwaves for themselves - overturning decades where ownership of he public airwaves was fairly meted out, and a few companies with an agenda didn't control most of them in every major market.

That is known as a deflection.

#178 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-24 05:30 PM | Reply

That is no deflection. I was part of no discussion to deflect from. It was a simple deflectioon of fact. Limbaugh preaches hate for half of America---half of America supports his thoughts. Unfortunately they don't have the courage to start their own country. They would rather ruin this country. Their hatred knows no bounds.

This country was never joined after the Civil War. The South still hated the North--the North still thought the South was full of ignorant in breeders.

The opinion hasn't changed. This is two countries joined by a common language and Constitution, but still two countries.

"This country was never joined after the Civil War. The South still hated the North--the North still thought the South was full of ignorant in breeders.

The opinion hasn't changed. This is two countries joined by a common language and Constitution, but still two countries."

Does it matter north or south, your ability to see imaginary smokestacks on the moon?

Do both have their own car antenna Zoro's?

Do both have mongoloid idiots that believe Apollo 11 never went to the Moon?

If the answer is yes to any of these, you're right, they're ignorant inbreeders, regardless of location.

By this standard, listening to Geithner makes sense? Fine...don't pay taxes until it is politically advantageous.

Babuethal

Still talking out your ass. But thanks for bringing up the Smokestack again. I never get tired of showing it. What was that you saw? A still picture with appearing and disappearing smoke?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Let's see what people with brains think.

You can't tell a radio station what content it MUST carry. Or do you believe you can?

#187 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-01-24 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag

All radio stations are under guidelines by the FCC and must carry certain content and follow guidelines,such as how many commercials per hour,language used, and more.

But on public radio---there are even more specific rules. Don't forget--all rights come from the government.

"Let's see what people with brains think."

I agree, whackjob.

"You're really grasping, Hans."

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-24 04:51 PM

And you're losing your sense of humor, JeffJ.

this discussion is circular.

#138 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-24 04:26 PM

Hans

"Don't forget--all rights come from the government."

Only pathetic sheep believe that, buffalo baaaaaab.

(CNN) More than two-thirds of Americans approve of President Obama's job performance during his initial days in the White House, an approval rating that significantly exceeds the early poll numbers of his two immediate predecessors.

The new survey by Gallup the first conducted entirely after Obama took the oath of office Tuesday found 68 percent of Americans approve of how the new president is handling the job. Meanwhile, only 12 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's job performance so far.

The joke of all this is that the Republicans do not listen to Rush. He is pro conservative, not pro republican. That being said, having been singled out by the big "O" just keeps him in the limelight and he will 'cry' about it all the way to the bank! Not too many private individuals get to be acknowledged by a POTUS, guess Rush has gotten under his skin:)

How is it possible the messiah obama can not take the heat from a radio talk show host? Surely a radio talk show could not possibly bother the messiah. Shouldn't the messiah be working on getting me a job, paying for my home, and providing me with free medical care as he promised? Why is he wasting his valuable time worrying about what Rush Limbaugh has to say about anything?

If Obama got you that job, would you agree to work?

The point Obama was making is that Rush thinks Democrats and Republicans should be in some sort of ongoing knife fight.

The points I'd like to make are: 1) This country doesn't need a knife fight right now; 2) Rush is in no physical condition for any fight that goes beyond talking mess.

larry

how does your statement about cash to coverage make
sense when dems out spent thy reps this time and had cash left over-----everyone who disagrees with you ain't stupid they jus have formed different points of based on their experience
jasman

Simply, talk radio sells.

Then:

Republicans do not listen to Rush. He is pro conservative, not pro republican.

AM radio stations are limited to monaural broadcast, and after FM took over the music AM stations were sold cheap. The talk format mixed with sports broadcasts was developed by KMOX in St. Louis. It was conservative and profitable.

But it wasn't partisan back in the day. It was informative, and people didn't have their mics cut off unless they were really abusive or nuts.

Limbaugh is not conservative. He's a retrograde reprobate and preaches a return to the 19th Century and the same logic that prevented women from voting and allowed Jim Crow law to exist. The formula is simple. Take any social problem, especially if it's an isolated case, pump it up to an epidemic, and then prescribe a remedy that grandpa would approve of regardless of its effectiveness. It doesn't have to work, it just has to sound good.

The worse offense is to tell a half truth in order to skew an opinion. That's propaganda and we can find it most anywhere. I'd like to cross examine Hannity (probably the worst offender) with a cattle prod and a branding iron. Just the facts...and watch him stutter.

I know it's been watered down but we do have a law that requires Truth in Advertising. Why not Truth in Politics? That could be all encompassing and probably subject to complaint by both sides of aisle. Enforce such a law and the bullshit stops.

You RepubliKIDS are brainwashed by paid-to-lie LimpBong like sheep into actually hating "spread the wealth" (to you),
instead you love being programmed to "funnel wealth" only to the top Wealthiest
(Fact: Richest 3% got 97% of the Bush TaxCuts)

You RepubliKids always become easily enamored with the Wealthy so readily and actually believe that they do own your money, are smarter and better than you, and have every right to be made Kings in a Country formed entirely to escape Royalists!

How else can you explain your ditto-deranged love for "cuddly" Fat Pimply Pig LimpBong and Cheneye
- simply because they are Rich!!

I'm already tired of Obama. Is he suggesting that Republicans in Congress knock off for a few hours a day to listen to Rush?

What a stupid thing to say. How about this? "You know, President Obama, we could move things along if you'd quit getting your marching orders from Air America."

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? So does he.

I'm already tired of Obama.
...
#202 | Posted by rightisright

Good. 4 loooooong years. Enjoy!

I agree, whackjob.

www.badastronomy.com

#191 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-01-24 06:48 PM | Re

I've seen that link before little mind---it says a puff of smoke somehow appears, dissipates, and disappears on a still picture.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MORON

He put up differenct pictures from the Nova Program to match with the picture from MASA.

Nova says it is a video from NASA. It is only on the screen for two second---the smoke lasts less than a second.

Only your guy says it is a still. Your guy is a moron. I have the DVD of To the Moon You don't get movement inside a still picture. Things don't appear--move--amd disappear in still pictures.

And after all that his best explanation is---"something happened".

"Don't forget--all rights come from the government."

Only pathetic sheep believe that, buffalo baaaaaab.

#193 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-01-24 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag

The only rights that are worth anything come from the government. I see you don't say where you "think" rights come from.

That's because you are a moron. Check post #204.

I'm already tired of Obama.

So take a nap already.

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? So does he.

Yer not too bright are you?

Obama is refering to Rush's "I Hope He FAILs" statement.

Obama is saying that obstructionism for the sake of political divisiveness is wrong and that constructive bi-partisan co-operation in the name of accomplishing positive things for the entire country is right.

Now, are you willing to admit that you sounded pretty stupid just then?

Failing that, how about just admitting that Rush sounds pretty stupid all the time?

That Rush is a traitorous, divisive assmunch who needs to STFU and go DIAF?

A, B, C or D) All of the above.

Pick one.

Be Well.

Psst.... evidence that Limbaugh has flapped Obama. He flapped Clinton and Powell.

What a guy. All the Democrats are mad but pretending to ignore him. LOL.

Rush, you must have done something unliberal.

Sorry DethDud...Rush is correct in context....he's vastly popular...pseudointellectual bloggers aren't.....

"....he's vastly popular..."

And American Idol has wonderful ratings.

Hans

Sorry DethDud...Rush is correct in context....

Wot context are you talking about?

That's not even half an argument and it's all wrong.

he's vastly popular...

So was slavery at one point. People got over it.

pseudointellectual bloggers aren't.....

Who could you possibly be referring there?

Did you know that Jon Stewart called Limpo's remarks "arguably treasonous"?

And that Spud agrees with Stewart's assessment there.

Thanx fer giving Spud an idear fer a blog topic, btw.

Be Well.

he's vastly popular...pseudointellectual bloggers aren't.....

#208 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-01-24 10:18 PM | Reply

Hate sells better than intellect and reason. Big surprise. Limbaugh sells hatred of American liberals and small minds eat it up. Limbaugh teaches hate of freedom, and small minds come to orgasm. Limbaugh teaches hate for America, and his listeners buy every word. Sure he's popular--it's what he's selling that is the problem.

buffalo bob -- what's not to hate about liberals?:)

Spud is not asserting that the US MSM is akin to the Soviet style propaganda system of old or even the more modern propaganda system employed by the Chinese.

America can still pride itself on having a mostly free press and that's a good thing.

Good clarification.

And instead we get fluff pieces, trivialities like the Anna Nicole Smith saga stretched out into weeks of coverage, the OJ Trial, the overlong and shallow election coverage, ads disguised as news and dumbed down pre-approved sound bytes.

I have no counter for that - it is mostly true.

A news service system that manufactures consent, that leads public opinion around by the nose rather than reflecting it accurately is a FAILed system, Jeff.

Agreed - and also agreed that re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine isn't the answer for this. Not even close.

Rush limbaugh doesn't sell hatred of liberals, just liberal ideas. He makes fun of liberals, but so what, that's part of the act. Liberals are the ones who sell hatred for conservatives. When liberals want to increase spending on say school lunch programs by more than conservatives think is necessary - it is the liberals who say that conservatives are evil and hate kids. conservatives just think liberals are wrong.

Whore,

You are absolutely correct that a revival of FD would kill the business model under which conservative talk radio propers,

You are the first to actually acknowledge this - thank you for your honesty.

but what you are not speaking to is the idea that that business model may not - probably does not - have a right to exist.

Think about what I just re-produced for a moment...the business model is the expression of a certain political viewpoint that those utilizing the public airwaves want to hear. The expression of said viewpoint doesn't have a right to exist???

The argument from yourself and others is that we are talking about public airwaves. Usage and liscensing of said airwaves is paid for by private citizens, out of their own pocket, with no assurances that their product will generate enough listenership to drive advertising dollars to the point of solvency. Contrast that with the public education system. It's dominated by liberals and is controlled by the teachers' unions. It is wholly funded by taxpayer dollars, yet no mention is made of ANY kind of 'Fairness Doctrine' regarding cirriculum. Our education system sucks ass, when we look at its bottom-line results regarding things like graduation rates, literacy, basic math, an even rudimentary understanding of personal finance, US and world history, civics, etc. Yet, it is predominantly liberals running the entire show - wholly on the taxpayer dole.

My point being, if we are going to define the airwaves as publicly-owned, then it would be even more applicable to define the education system as publicly-owned. Some of you want to clamor for a 'Fairness Doctrine' for radio - you don't get to apply it selectively. Going further, I understand that FD limits itself to opinion, which is bullshit on its face. At least with opinion talk, the viewpoint of the commentator is worn on his sleeve. The listener has a good inkling to take what's said with a grain of salt - certainly much more so than an individual claiming objectivity, but who clearly isn't - a wolf in sheep's clothing, if you will.

And you're losing your sense of humor, JeffJ.

Sorry, didn't realize you were being jocular, Hans.

Par for the course, as you are surely aware, jokes often fly over my head.

#183 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I understand what you are saying, but your analogy is flawed. Car dealerships and radio stations are completely different industries, and although certain paralells can be drawn between just about any 2 industries, the differences are often vast as well.

Agreed - and also agreed that re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine isn't the answer for this. Not even close.

~JJ

Re-instating the FD, like going back on the Gold Standard as Ron Paul frequently likes to suggest, is quite simply, undoable.

That sed, the level of media concentration that exists in the US at present is simply unacceptable.

Revisiting and revising anti-trust laws from their current virtual monopoly state they have been lobbied into and changing them back into something that more closely resembles a diverse and healthy media landscape is the only possible immediate solution to this problem.

And it is a problem, Jeff.

Once any businesses get "too big too fail" or like Helliburton are the "only ones cappable" of performing a gioven function you are in serious trouble.

All that over and above the dimension of overly concentrated and overly corporate media concerns pereptuating Spud's 49/51% solution.

Short and sweet?

Putting too many eggs into too few baskets is a recipe for FAIL in any business sector.

Spud to Vernon: Put the cork back in the whisky bottle and go to bed.

Yer making a fool out of yerself once again.

Be Well.

The fairness doctrine if it includes Television would help republicans far more than hurt them. Could you imagine every time Keith Obermann or Chris Mathews tells one of their whopper lies someone sitting right there to call them on it.
Keiths head would explode.

Revisiting and revising anti-trust laws from their current virtual monopoly state they have been lobbied into and changing them back into something that more closely resembles a diverse and healthy media landscape is the only possible immediate solution to this problem.

As I've already stated, I have mixed feelings about this. Nevertheless, it makes WAY more sense than FD.

And it is a problem, Jeff.

Agreed - it's a problem at an educational level as well, and I am not talking about right vs. left opinion. I can't believe how historically illiterate young adults we are churning out. Surely you've seen the stats regarding the percentage of adults who can't even identify the 3 frickin' branches of government. Even on that front, I don't fully blame the system (although I did a bit regarding a 'fair' application of the 'Fairness Doctrine' - I am moving in a different direction at the moment). A good friend, more specifically, the wife of a good friend and I had an extensive conversation, over a couple of beers, about the public education system (she's a teacher). The point she made that really stuck with me was, you can't possibly expect a public education institution to be able to overcome the horrific effects of attrocious parenting. Even dedicated parents, in single-parent homes are simply stretched too thin; good parenting but in too small of doses.

Anyhow, apologies for moving off-topic...

My point being, on-topic, is that the poor educational system (regardless of cause) feeds the "American Idol" media coverage that you and Hans have alluded to.

Once any businesses get "too big too fail"

Absent bullshit government bailouts, no business is 'too big to fail'. See General Motors as Exhibit A. Having said that, I kinda think I just echoed the point you were trying to make with your comment.

Spud to Vernon: Put the cork back in the whisky bottle and go to bed.

Amen. A couple of times was sorta funny, now it's moved past annoying and into pathetic.

The fairness doctrine if it includes Television would help republicans far more than hurt them. Could you imagine every time Keith Obermann or Chris Mathews tells one of their whopper lies someone sitting right there to call them on it.
Keiths head would explode.

#220 | Posted by buzkiller

First off, FD is limited to public airwaves - Cable TV is exempt. Also, FD is limited to political opinion. It's reinstatement would overwhelmingly target conservative opinion.

Spud,

Forgive the rather poorly-expressed #221.

I kinda took a rather focused discussion and moved it into a different direction.

I was basically trying to point out that a bit of a relationship exists between the poor results of our public education-system (without trying to place blame for cause) and the "American Idol" nature of our media. One feeds off the other; at least to an extent - which was really the only point I was trying to raise.

It's reinstatement would overwhelmingly target conservative opinion.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-25 02:48 AM | Reply

I'm against it because "fair" is a pretty open interpretation, and it assumes only two sides exist in broadcasting. Sometimes, one side is just WRONG. The best way to have media sources for everyone is to stop letting 4 companies own everything. Competition = capitalism = america. Fuck monopolies.

That said, your analogy is flawed, jeff. Of course it would do more harm to the "right wing" radio, because they OWN 99% of the market. Saying it will unfairly target conservative media, is a bit like complaining that illegal immigration laws unfairly target mexicans.

I'm against it because "fair" is a pretty open interpretation, and it assumes only two sides exist in broadcasting.

That's a good point that hasn't really been addressed.

When it comes to political opinion on certain subjects, do only 2 positions exist? On the issue of say, the bailouts, it's possible to have more than 2 opinions? At the end of the day, enforcement and interpretation of what is and isn't fair is placed into the hands of individuals who most likely have an agenda of their own.

The best way to have media sources for everyone is to stop letting 4 companies own everything.

The thing is, that is changing largely without governemnt intervention. Spud often (and correctly IMO) touts the equalizing effect of the blogosphere. Well, it grows every day. When it's all said and done, most people desire the 'truth', or the closest thing to it, when it comes to acquiring information. If a corporate-dominated and/or a lefty-dominated, or both, become unreliable - then the blogosphere will prosper even more.

Of course it would do more harm to the "right wing" radio, because they OWN 99% of the market. Saying it will unfairly target conservative media, is a bit like complaining that illegal immigration laws unfairly target mexicans.

Agreed - the point being is that no other government measures are being seriously discussed that 'level the playing field' in other mediums where liberals dominate.

I was basically trying to point out that a bit of a relationship exists between the poor results of our public education-system (without trying to place blame for cause) and the "American Idol" nature of our media.

I think "american idol" is the biproduct of failecd schools, not the cause.

The causes are varied, but the two biggest factors from my point of view are:

The running of these schools for large profit has created a standardized testing system that doesn't TEACH material, just how to beat the tests, so the schools can get govt money. They're cheating the system in the long run because in the short run they don't wish to lose funding for books.(or their jobs)

And finally, ANYONE can get on a school board, which is unfortunate.

Jeff- Youre right that some libs want to unfairly kill the far rights radio monopoly, but it has damaged our country horribly by being an echo chamber for dogma.

The answer is to break up these companies. Limit the amount of ownership possible in media.

The govt also failed their duties in doing this for microsoft as well.

Why? Because monopolies have been pouring feed into the piggy trough via lobbyists for years now.

Fuck the "fairness doctrine". The only cure for the ills of our system is to follow the laws already established on the books. Break up the media monopoly and you'll see who the people want to listen to. Let the ratings decide in an equal battleground everywhere.

What, i can get a bazillion types of toothpaste but the best we can do is 4-5 companies owning every radio and tv station in the country? Bullshit.

Revisiting and revising anti-trust laws from their current virtual monopoly state they have been lobbied into and changing them back into something that more closely resembles a diverse and healthy media landscape is the only possible immediate solution to this problem.

Hans is right. And it wouldn't kick Rush off the radio.

As with our problem with illegal immigration(to revisit a theme) we refuse to follow the laws already on the books.

4-5 companies should not own the media, just AT&T were not allowed to own all phone service forever.

Sorry, I was quoting spud and attriubting it to hans. Apologies.

Sounds as if we agree for the most part, jeff.

I think "american idol" is the biproduct of failecd schools, not the cause.

I was attempting to say the same thing.

The running of these schools for large profit has created a standardized testing system that doesn't TEACH material, just how to beat the tests, so the schools can get govt money.

The concept was decent, but the methodology is flawed. Introducing competition always breeds better results. The problem lies with the measurement.

Allow me a personal anecdote:

Last year my oldest was in 2nd grade and happens to attend a good (IMO) public school. He and all of his classmates tested for the "MAGNET" program. He missed the standard acceptance by 2 points - which still made him eligible to be nominated for a re-test assuming both the teacher and parents agreed. Since he didn't make the 'official' cut-off, we never saw his initial results. No communication was offered and the reasoning behind the testing was vague. If our neighbor's daughter hadn't passed out-of-the-gate, we wouldn't have even known (our neighbor is also a good friend and we all talk on an almost daily basis) what the test was truly designed to measure, much less how our son performed. After some digging, we found at and requested a re-test - his teacher was very short regarding info, but did say that if any child in her class was eligible, it was our son. He re-tested and qualified. He has, according to our last parent-teacher conference, performed very well with this advanced cirriculum.

I think what disappointed me most was the non-committal, almost avoidant attitude of his 2nd grade teacher. It was as if she didn't want us to know all of the details. Going further, it's important to point out that I felt she was an absolutely phenomenal teacher. Off-the-charts in just about every other respect. Another friend within our community believes that much of this is a result of both pride and a bit of greed on the public school. First, they are evaluated based upon outcome, and to lose their top students to this program hurts their scores. Secondly, they feel that they are able to effectively manage a class to where the difference in cognitive ability within the same age-group is mitigated by the teacher's ability to juggle and customize the cirriculum to accomodate for range, within a set of guidelines.

Stirinthepot- One of my buds is a dr at a kids hospital.

You know how he can tell when meaps are being studied?

A bunch of kids being brought in for panic attacks. They spend two weeks just cramming like mad for these fucking tests. I understand that we need a way to measure what kids are learning, and how they compare to other districts/states. Important stuff for changing direction.

But...

They've gone too far with this shit. Instead of getting kids to think for themselves and learn, they cram for tests, enough kids are passed to get money, and then children that can barely read are shuffled through. It's sickening. granted, it's not third world bad, but its appaling considering what we WERE and ARE capable of.

The fairness doctrine if it includes Television would help republicans far more than hurt them. Could you imagine every time Keith Obermann or Chris Mathews tells one of their whopper lies someone sitting right there to call them on it.
Keiths head would explode.

#220 | Posted by buzkiller

If you are gonna accuse someone of telling lies and you want to be taken at all seriously you should at least be able to provide a single example of which you speak or you will be most likely be dismissed as a crank and a partisan hack.

/Just trying to help.

Fer example if Spud sed "Could you imagine if there was someone sitting beside O'Reilly when he told a lie like "The Socialist Canadian government taxes at 80%" (We don't it more like 34%) or "Bush's Tax Cuts did not lead to a deficit" (it did, very demonstrably so) or calling Canadian television "government controlled" (It isn't including the CBC which he cited specifically) then that would a legitimate argument.

See also: Rush Limpo's claim that Obama "isn't African American" but is really an "Arab" or his claiming to have "heard a rumour about Michelle's Whitey tape" which while possibly not techically a lie in that he may have heard such a rumour is a clear example of Rush perpetuating falsehoods under the guise of doing political commentary.

Or how about Ann Coulter's lie about Canada participating militarily in Vietnam?

And that's just the shiat from the top of me wee spuddish head.

Now, you wanna try that again?

Be Well.

The left wing owns NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and most newspapers.

Talk radio is the only voice us rightys have. And you want to take it away?

No.

I want ALL media broken up, regardless of ideology.

I am a liberal, and I think the MSM is broken. And radio isn't all you righties have. The MSM wanted a war in iraq so bad it was embarassing.

Why did they push the buildup so hard? Ratings. Money.

That's their core, stir. You think Rush is a righty just because he roots for the Red team?

All he cares about is money.

I think what disappointed me most was the non-committal, almost avoidant attitude of his 2nd grade teacher. It was as if she didn't want us to know all of the details.

She probably isn't used to parents giving a shit, to be honest. You sound really involved in your childrens lives, jeff....GOOD FOR YOU.

Most parents are too busy working 2 jobs a piece just to get by. Assuming there are two parents...

All comes back to money again, just like most everything does. Inflation in this case, is choking american families. Tehy have to work more and more for less these days.

PS- And yes, some parents are just fuck-ups that shouldn't breed.

Or how about Ann Coulter's lie about Canada participating militarily in Vietnam?

Not a lie, spud. She's really just that brain damaged.

The only cure for the ills of our system is to follow the laws already established on the books. Break up the media monopoly and you'll see who the people want to listen to. Let the ratings decide in an equal battleground everywhere.

I have very little problem with this.

I put in bold the summation of the entire crux of my position - let the ratings decide.

If the Left thinks that diversification of ownership is the answer - as long as ratings and listenership still determine success or failure - have at it.

What many fail to realize is the causation behind conservative success within this one medium. I personally theorize that it's a market-thing. Fairly or not, much of the rest of the media is perceived as biased left. This perceived bias creates a natural demand for a counter-punch. Think about it this way - if Rush were even as remtotely awful as his detractors assert, there is no way he could enjoy even a fraction of his success, particularly at a long-term level.

Market forces are powerful.

The left wing owns NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and most newspapers.

~Stir.

You really don't know, do you?

The MIC owns the vast preponderance of American media.

Hardly liberals, Stir.

Here, watch a cartoon.

if Rush were even as remtotely awful as his detractors assert,

Oh, he's very good at his craft on a technical level, but he's pig feces as a human being.

Honestly, I cannot understand his popularity at all. He lies, he's a jerk, he's a hypocrite. There are very few things I can say positive him. He's the worst POPULAR media dick I've ever heard.

And I think you're aware of how much I loathe 95% of the talking heads and liars in the media, jeff...

//Was trying to get back to Jeff at some point but got distracted
///Maybe tommorow, Jeff.

I'll try and check back, but I really think we've covered a lot, Spud.

Seriously to all on this thread - I appreciated the quality discourse. I haven't experienced this in quite some time at the Retort.

This happened at a time when I was just starting to write this place off - not so dramatic as a fan-fare departure, but reducing my time to little more than a perfunctory check of posts coupled with some trolling.

Regardless, it was good discussion IMO.

Best regards - enjoy the remainder of the weekend and debauch as much as is feasible!

This happened at a time when I was just starting to write this place off

Yeah, it's gotten fairly ridiculous around here again.

RUSH is the one of the few who speak the truth about all of obama's lies and he has only been in office for a few days!!! keep doin what your doin RUSH!!! MMMEEEGGGGAAAAA----
DDDIIITTTTOOOOSSSSS!!!

Some people have to hate someone for their survival. Their self-esteem is so damaged, this is how they "justify" and feel good about their own existence.

They will only "get smart" at the barrel of a gun.

The advent of the media is not for making a profit. The reason they have first amendment rights is because they are suppose to be the watch dogs of the American people against corrupt government and business practices that is counter to the prosperity of the majority of the people.

Using it as a business is directly against what our forefathers gave the media first amendment rights.

90% of our country's problem is because we have let the quest for the mighty profit dollar over rule our common sense of what keeps our government and people free.

Maybe somebody has posted this already.

Limbaugh's reponse to Obama:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

01/24 03:32 PM Interviewed by Byron York of the National Review.

"To make the argument about me"....

It's always been about Rush from the beginning.

Nanc - the 'fairness doctrine' won't eliminate Rush et al. All they need do is put a couple of liberal callers on the air and they've met the criteria. And to 'prove' that all liberals are wack-jobs they could make sure that only the wack-jobs get on the air.

"Market forces are powerful."

#240 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-25 03:42 AM

A truism writ large all across this country as Americans, once again, are opening their quarterly statements on their 401Ks, their retirement funds, etc.

Hans

President Obama should have ignored RL...his remarks only fuels Russ and his rantings...big error.

...but what you are not speaking to is the idea that that business model may not - probably does not - have a right to exist.

Think about what I just re-produced for a moment...the business model is the expression of a certain political viewpoint that those utilizing the public airwaves want to hear. The expression of said viewpoint doesn't have a right to exist???

The argument from yourself and others is that we are talking about public airwaves."

Jeff:

The expression of said viewpoint has every right to exist. But so does the expression of other viewpoints, in my view.

One thing a lot of anti-FD folks forget is that it would also apply to the so-called "liberal media" they deplore; Meet the Press couldn't present just a liberal slant on something, it would have to pull in a conservative viewpoint to balance that liberal presentation.

And FD applies only to political editorial content, not to entertainment or news. If Rush Limbaugh goes on his radio show to trash Obama's policies and legislation, that's political editorial content, and FD would definitely call for equal time to be given to someone representing an opposing point of view. But if Rush Limbaugh gives an interview to Salon Magazine where he says every liberal in America should be put in a concentration camp, that is news, and radio and television can cover the resulting brouhaha without having to give equal time to Janeane Garofalo (although they'd probably fall all over themselves trying to hire her for commentary, it's true).

Please understand - I consider myself a true liberal, someone who would take a bullet for Rush's right to behave like the pig I consider him to be. But the public airwaves belong to everyone, and if we know anything from our last few elections, it is that this nation is pretty evenly divided between its conservative and liberal factions. Why should Rush - or anyone else, conservative or liberal - get to use public airwaves to irritate the fuck out of half of the people who own them, without the slightest interference from anyone, let alone the presentation of an opposing viewpoint?

Unlike some of the whippersnappers here who are too young to remember when FD was the law of the land, I was dere, Sharlie, and I honestly think it worked better. We had an electorate more aware of how other factions besides their own felt, what they were working for, and how they intended to accomplish their goals. You don't get that from Rush's ravings; you get Rush's interpretation of the other side's platform and actions, which is not the same thing at all. Ending FD set the stage for the extreme polarization of the electorate we have today, and I for one am rooting for its return as hard as I possibly can.

I join you in your admiration for the adult tone and serious discussion that has appeared in this thread.

Limbaugh should be placed into gitmo and tortured.

The expression of said viewpoint doesn't have a right to exist???

Saying that owning 99% of a total market is unhealthy is somehow akin to denying their "right to exist"?

No Jeff, that's media saturation, the kind that would be unhealthy even if they were all sports chat radio stations or bubble gum pop radio stations.

However, because they are all political chat stations with a singular bent it goes beyond "unhealthy" and well into "lethal" territory.

The idea that every last scrap of media in the US outside of FOX and right wing radio is Liberal is complete and utter bullshit too, Jeff.

There is no liberal equivilant to FOX there just as there is no liberal equivilant to right wing radio (with the notable exception of Air America).

There were more Republican guests on Meet The Press while the Repubs were in office and there will be more Democratic guests on now that there is a Dem POTUS, House and Senate.

That's neither liberal nor conservative bias that's merely reflective of reality.

Jouralism is not Commentary.

The former is supposed to be impartial while the latter isn't.

Fox is largely made up of right wing commentary and even their so-called news has an obvious and odious right wing bias to it.

MSNBC has a couple of lefty leaning commentators in Olbermann and Maddow and Matthews but the rest of the time has fairly balanced news coverage.

CNN and the Big Three Networks all have an obvious corporate bias and very little commentary either way.

Describing CNN, MSNBC and the Big Three as uniformly liberal is not reflective of reality.

It IS however a commonly repeated meme on rightwing media sources so that might be where yer geting confused.

Be Well.

I think that the FCC needs to lower the number of radio and TV stations any one company can own and force a much higher level of ownership diversity.
If President Obama doesn't push through new regulations so that his side of arguments is well represented it will be hard to hold onto a strong enough coalition of voters to execute a strong agenda. The extreme right, represented by Limbaugh, are definitely endangering the future well-being of this nation in their strictly politically motivated partisan attacks. If President Obama's agenda is slowed or stopped by them it will be their fault when and if the economy gets significantly worse.

'Context' from Limpo? Woo Hoo! Let's begin deconstruction.

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

~Barack Obama (quoted by Rush)

Obama is the one making it about "getting things done".

Rush is one making it about "Me" aka Rush.

Obama is the one trying to make it about policies that impact people positively.

Rush is the one who is playing petty partisan games here.

Obama FTW.

Rush eats a giant FAILcake and his fat ass just keeps getting larger.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs.

Is Rush deliberately FAILing to get the point here or is he really THAT stupid?

The reason Obama is angry at ML CEOs and others using the emergency bailout money for frivolous purposes is because spending that coin on uberly expensive re-decorating and aquisitions rather than servicing debt and, in the case of the banking sector, restoring liquidity to the lending market is not justifiable and borders on the criminal.

/Or would be if "Section 8" didn't exist.

If it was just about pumping money back into the economy then they should have just cut cheques to every single man woman and child in the US and then told them to go out and shop till they dropped.

Rush's whining that Obama's plans amount to the Dems re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party is reflective of his anger at the massive FAIL that was Cheney's attempts at establishing a permanent Republican majority through Rovian tactics and has no basis in reality.

But the massive and justifiable anger at the corruption and incompetence of the Bush years will indeed keep the GOP in the political wilderness for the forseeable future. Rush knows this and has thus structured his reality-free narrative to fit around that fact.

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

~Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" (Quoted by Rush)

Ironic that Rush would quote this, although Spud does understand why connecting Saul and Barack hass been a perenniel RT meme fer some time.

Why ironic?

Cos Rush is the real radical here.

Not the good kind, btw.

Be Well.

I think that the FCC needs to lower the number of radio and TV stations any one company can own and force a much higher level of ownership diversity.
If President Obama doesn't push through new regulations so that his side of arguments is well represented it will be hard to hold onto a strong enough coalition of voters to execute a strong agenda. The extreme right, represented by Limbaugh, are definitely endangering the future well-being of this nation in their strictly politically motivated partisan attacks. If President Obama's agenda is slowed or stopped by them it will be their fault when and if the economy gets significantly worse.

#257 | Posted by danni

STUPID POST OF THE WEEK. Danni, I know you didn't sleep through the campaign and the record-breaking coverage of the Inauguration and I presume you can still see the media's Obama love-in going on right now. As I said in my post about Obama's approval rating: we Americans are very fair even with the incredibly lopsided pro-Democrat coverage. Why are you so threatened by Limbaugh?

Why don't you go out and meet some more Americans sometime, not just the ones you argue with in here and not the guy you clearly must be listening to all the time, to have formed such a strong opinion about him - of course I mean Limbaugh.

I would say that it amazes me that Limbaugh is any kind of issue. Except that we Americans are becoming more resistant to independent thought and analysis with each passing day, so I can't.

I am surprised he did not mention Glen Beck.

...pretty soon all'y'all'll be eating yourselves

#16 | POSTED BY NANC AT 2009-01-23 11:22 PM | REPLY | FLAG: The Great Destroyer of the English Language

"all'y'all'll"

I LOL'd.

I'm not sure it is sinking in yet, but you rubes have been duped a thin skinned nobody, a corrupt Chicago politican that will let the power of his presidency go to his head like no other in American history.

Can you imagine GW crying about Olberfilth like a pussy chickenshit?

Or whining about Merrill Lynch spending $80,000 on a rug, when he spent $150 milion to have the Hanson play pop tunes for his kids?

Hussein is still that street corner drug dealer at heart.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we will all see that soon enough.

God help America, cause Hussein ain't gonna.

"he spent $150 milion to have the Hanson play pop tunes for his kids"

Clueless.

Hussein is always crying about Hannity or Rush or Fox News, he's a pussy, a thin skined crybaby who also happens to be a egotistical meglomainiac.

A real bad combination.

When it goes bad, and it will, he will make Blago look reasonable.

Rex why are you not watching WEC on versus?

I am.....Gonna be another beat down on Jens.

And watch the Cowboy upset Varner.

I just had to comment on Husseins petty anitics.

"I won"

"Don't listen to Rush"

"Don't ask questions"

Dude is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

And FD applies only to political editorial content, not to entertainment or news.

Which is the precise format of Rush's show.

Why should Rush - or anyone else, conservative or liberal - get to use public airwaves to irritate the fuck out of half of the people who own them, without the slightest interference from anyone, let alone the presentation of an opposing viewpoint?

Because the ratings-based system clearly demonstrates that this format, within certain bandwidths, is what the majority wants to listen to. Why should a minority get to dictate what formats (outside of lewdness, profanity, etc) are acceptable to the majority?

Nobody is preventing opposing liberal viewpoints from being aired; Air America is a case-in-point. Having said that, the system is structured so that any format has to actually compete for listenership.

Compete.

An ugly word, I know, but it's how the world truly operates. It's not Libaugh's or the right's or anybody else's fault that the liberal talk format is simply unable to compete with the conservative talk format. I find it very telling that liberals who can't compete on a relatively even playing field, look to the government to squelch their opposition.

"Why should a minority get to dictate what formats (outside of lewdness, profanity, etc) are acceptable to the majority?"

Because the minority also owns the airwaves.

"a relatively even playing field"

You're joking, right? Do a little research into who owns the vast majority of that 'playing field'.

Because the minority also owns the airwaves.

um...Ok. So, the hell with what the majority wants to listen to, the minority gets to decide for everybody??

Do a little research into who owns the vast majority of that 'playing field'.

I know full well who owns a majority of the playing field. I also know that these owners have to provide formats that generate listenership in order to survive. Unless you are suggesting that they are so powerful that they can utilize the Jedi mind trick to force people to listen to their products.

"Because the ratings-based system clearly demonstrates that this format, within certain bandwidths, is what the majority wants to listen to. Why should a minority get to dictate what formats (outside of lewdness, profanity, etc) are acceptable to the majority?"

Jeff,

Because, unlike media operating in privately held channels (newspapers, magazines, cable and the like), broadcast media operate on bandwidth that is the property of the people of United States. All of them, conservative and liberal.

And your assertion that the majority wants to listen to this format is, at the least, suspect. It is definitely what a lot of people want to listen to, but the only "majority" I can agree with is that a majority of listeners wanting conservative opinion tune in to stations offering it. As I said earlier in this thread, our recent elections suggest pretty strongly that this nation is rather evenly split between its conservative and liberal factions. It's my opinion that that situation points to a lack of "majority" among conservative opinion listeners; the conservatives among us just happen to need their daily fix of Rush and Co.

Again, that's my friggin' bandwidth (and yours), and if Rush is going to use it to reap a fortune, I at least want his message tempered with another point of view. If his business model can't withstand that, then it's a faulty business model, the same as every other business model that depends on restraint of trade.

I would love Limbaugh and his type of broadcaster (on both sides of the aisle) to be a thing of the past, but you cannot legistate good taste. Once something like this happens, then it can grow and grow beyond control. You do not want to start telling people what they want to listen to. There is no law saying that talk radio must be right wing, it is just that right wing talk radio seems to be the only one that works. Maybe righties are illiterate and need people like Rush and Sean to explain things to them where liberal tend to read...who knows? This is for the free market and not for the government.

Fairness Doctrine- Who defines "fair?"

"Maybe righties are illiterate and need people like Rush and Sean to explain things to them where liberal tend to read"

?
No the liberals have their own talking heads too. The difference is they are usual high school drop out actors or bad musicians.

Salam,
That was a joke. Sorry you took offense to it.

"If his business model can't withstand that, then it's a faulty business model,..."

First off, I don't listen to Rush. I catch him on occasion on the car radio on a trip but only enjoy his musical parodies like, "I'm The Banking Queen" and such.
His "business model" must be successful though. The stations where he is syndicated MUST be making money or they wouldn't have him on. IF the stations are FORCED by the government to take on...say Air America..at a loss, wouldn't THAT be restraint of trade? I'm for keeping the government out of it ENTIRELY.

Perhaps the US gov't should seek to buy back licenses from the radio stations that they deem conservative. I really hope Obma does this because I am dying to see Savage file a RICO law suit against Media Matters for lobbying for this legislation. It will be fun.

"Maybe righties are illiterate and need people like Rush and Sean to explain things to them where liberal tend to read"

Are you referring to THESE liberals???

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=NyvqhdllXgU

Or THESE...?

"um...Ok. So, the hell with what the majority wants to listen to, the minority gets to decide for everybody??"

You've got it backwards...you're suggesting the majority gets to decide for everybody, and the hell with the minority.

"That was a joke. Sorry you took offense to it."

Mine was too. Anyone that truly believes you can just write one side off as idiots or lairs has got some serious problems.

Mine was too. Anyone that truly believes you can just write one side off as idiots or lairs has got some serious problems.

#274 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-01-26 12:38 PM

Also sorry I missed it. Yes, it was obviously also a joke.

The "Fairness Doctrine" really only came around as a major issue once again after AirAmerica failed. It kind of looks like the left wants the government to get rid of what they could not take on directly. I am not saying that is how it is, just how it appears.

"His "business model" must be successful though. The stations where he is syndicated MUST be making money or they wouldn't have him on."

Jest:

RTFM. What I said was that his business model is faulty IF it depends on the continued absence of FD. If he's actually so all-fired frickin' popular, then FD shouldn't matter to him at all.

But it does, and he isn't, and it will. Heh.