Is This Supposed to Be Funny?

Originally posted by generalissimo
The implication that there is no freedom of speech in the UK is certainly one of the absurdities expressed in your posts.

There is "no freedom of speech in the UK"? Where did I "express" this is my posts? Be specific.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Another hysterical accusation which consolidates your reputation as the forum's most unabashed and unrepentant troll and creator of lies and fabrications.

You are free to say whatever you want.

Originally posted by generalissimo
In light of the mean-spirited and borderline offensive views which come to surface, whether it be from Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, or Liebermann, it is nothing but a shameful display of disingenuousness and selective memory for you to claim my demand was solely a response to this specific incident.

But this is exactly it, generalissimo. I see you as an enemy of free speech, not solely in response to this specific incident, but because you consistently suggest "regulation" of views that you deem to be mean-spirited and offensive. So the disagreement between us, and our approach to freedom of speech, is crystal clear. I do not think there should be any regulation that in any way inhibits the expression of views that I (or you) deem to be mean-spirited and offensive.

Originally posted by FMF
There is "no freedom of speech in the UK"? Where did I "express" this is my posts? Be specific.

Obviously your preferred weapon of debate, when faced with the difficulty of defending your own preposterous claims and their implications, is that of playing dumb and hoping the opposition will grow tired of you and your tedious and otiose questioning.

Originally posted by FMF
You are free to say whatever you want.

Why not simply admit that you are inclined to make up lies about your opponents when you deem it convenient to do so? It would be so much easier and more interesting if you came up with something a little more substantial than this pathetic non-sequitur.

Originally posted by FMF
But this is exactly it, generalissimo. I see you as an enemy of free speech, not solely in response to this specific incident, but because you consistently suggest "regulation" of views that you deem to be mean-spirited and offensive. So the disagreement between us, and our approach to freedom of speech, is crystal clear. I do not think there should be any regul ...[text shortened]... y way inhibits the expression of views that I (or you) deem to be mean-spirited and offensive.

Another spectacular addition to the long list of acts in FMF's Theater of the Absurd.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Another spectacular addition to the long list of acts in FMF's Theater of the Absurd.

Actually FMF's characterization of you here is spot on.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Another hysterical accusation which consolidates your reputation as the forum's most unabashed and unrepentant troll and creator of lies and fabrications.

generalissimo: Obviously you have bought into the rights fundamentalist mindset espoused by the more irrational american contributors [...] your disgraceful defense of Limbaugh's vitriol [...] Perhaps this post of yours stems from a lack of understanding [...] surreal mumbo-jumbo posted by a few absolutist simpletons [...] you simply have total lack of understading [...] pompous and high-flown drivel [...] FMF's bizarro world [...] you seem to be incapable of grasping the content of my posts [...] the hollowness of your argument [...] the dishonest and cavalier manner in which you have misrepresented my words [...] a shameful display of disingenuousness and selective memory [...] you keep harping on the meaning of “staunch defender of free speech” [...] vicious hate speech [...] the absurdities expressed in your posts [...] your stubborn commitment to absolutist stances [...] Another hysterical accusation [...] the forum's most unabashed and unrepentant troll [...] creator of lies and fabrications [...] defending your own preposterous claims [...] playing dumb [...] you and your tedious and otiose questioning [...] you are inclined to make up lies about your opponents [...] this pathetic non-sequitur ...

Gosh. generalissimo seems to get really upset and offended very easily and, as he says, he just wants to promote intelligent and courteous political discourse. Perhaps we should let him be in charge of regulating mean-spirited and offensive speech. Let him be in charge of reining in and delimiting free speech, just a little bit; not a lot; as I say, just a little bit.

Originally posted by generalissimo
your disposition to decorate your prose with countless questions with little purpose [...] your tedious and otiose questioning.

The questions are not otiose and their purpose is to find out what "further regulation of talk radio" you propose. Here are a selection of the unanswered questions once again:

===================================================

So you are proposing "further regulation of talk radio": would this regulation in any way restrict or penalize Limbaugh for the comments he made in the OP?

Which sentence or sentences that Limbaugh said in the OP conveyed "hatred"?

Which part of the comments quoted in the OP was trying to "stir up" "hatred"?

Do you think someone should be able to successfully sue Limbaugh for saying the sort of things that are in the OP?

If so, on what grounds, specifically?

If not, then what are you actually proposing?

What do you mean by "hold Limbaugh accountable for his actions"?

In what way? Fines, dismissal, being sued, imprisonment?

Could you answer this question with specific reference to Limbaugh's "actions" as reported in the OP?

"While Limbaugh's comments were clearly insensitive, nothing he said is or should be punishable in any civil or criminal context." Do you agree?

What type of regulation would you like to see applied to other radio broadcasts such as, for example, NPR?

What mechanism do you propose for defining "the best interests of the people" before you set about regulating the free speech of broadcasters?

===================================================

You don't need to answer them all. Just answer a few of them. Any of them.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Actually FMF's characterization of you here is spot on.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to give attention to such claims if only they hadn't been originally stated by a deceitful troll like FMF and consequently reiterated by a self-described "RINO hunter", someone who would obviously find himself in the company of the worst of the american far-right.

Originally posted by FMF
generalissimo: [b]Obviously you have bought into the rights fundamentalist mindset espoused by the more irrational american contributors [...] your disgraceful defense of Limbaugh's vitriol [...] Perhaps this post of yours stems from a lack of understanding [...] surreal mumbo-jumbo posted by a few absolutist simpletons [...] you simp ing in and delimiting free speech, just a little bit; not a lot; as I say, just a little bit.

Gosh. generalissimo seems to get really upset and offended very easily and, as he says, he just wants to promote intelligent and courteous political discourse. Perhaps we should let him be in charge of regulating mean-spirited and offensive speech. Let him be in charge of reining in and delimiting free speech, just a little bit; not a lot; as I say, just a little bit.

No not at all, I haven't been offended by your groundless accusations, if anything I have found them amusing more than anything else. Obviously this is the kind of discussion that I ought to be having with someone who is prepared to listen and respond intelligently, something which you are either incapable or unwilling to do.
So far I have seen little evidence of my apparent hatred and disdain of freedom of speech, and I would welcome any justification for your claims, that is of course if you have any sense of dignity or integrity (which I doubt very much).

Originally posted by generalissimo
No not at all, I haven't been offended by your groundless accusations, if anything I have found them amusing more than anything else.

If you're not offended, what's with your full court press ad hominem posting style then?

Originally posted by generalissimo
So far I have seen little evidence of my apparent hatred and disdain of freedom of speech, and I would welcome any justification for your claims...

While I think the word "disdain" is apt, I haven't accused you of "hating" free speech. Why are you putting that word in my mouth I wonder.

Anyway, what evidence would you accept?

Originally posted by FMF
The questions are not otiose and their purpose is to find out what "further regulation of talk radio" you propose. Here are a selection of the unanswered questions once again:

===================================================

So you are proposing "further regulation of talk radio": would this regulation in any way restrict or penalize Limbaugh for the co ...[text shortened]...
You don't need to answer them all. Just answer a few of them. Any of them.

The problem FMF is that all of these questions have been answered before, in one way or another, and consequently they serve no purpose.

Unless you happen to suffer from some mental problem which causes you to have the memory span of a goldfish you should certainly be able to find the answers you're looking for if you read my posts.

I have to say that I find this all very tedious, I was expecting something more lively and worthwhile when I first engaged with you, and although your response has been mediocre so far (since you have devoted your posts almost exclusively to the propagation of explicit lies). I sincerely hope the shortcomings of your "argument" so far will be compensated by a more reasoned and developed reply in the future.

Originally posted by generalissimo
The problem FMF is that all of these questions have been answered before, in one way or another, and consequently they serve no purpose.

Unless you happen to suffer from some mental problem which causes you to have the memory span of a goldfish you should certainly be able to find the answers you're looking for if you read my posts.

I have to s ...[text shortened]... r "argument" so far will be compensated by a more reasoned and developed reply in the future.

Mmm. It seems you don't want to debate your own proposal. Ok. Whatever. I'm off to bed. Almost 12.30am. If you change your mind and decide to tell us more about your ideas for "further regulation" of the free speech of broadcasters, I will have a look tomorrow.