Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Oct '09 00:07 / 1 edit
    I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I generally don't listen to him much any more mainly because he's on 12-3 here and I'm at work.

    I did take a little trip on Friday and after I listened to the news for a few minutes (and didn't want to turn on the sports stations to hear more about the Yankees' loss), I flipped on Rush for a few minutes, for old times' sake.

    It might be just me but it seems like he's totally gone off the edge. I remember him as a severely partisan but generally rational debater. He still speaks fairly well. But he went on this monologue about how Obama hates America and hates people with money and despises the Constitution, etc., etc.

    After listening for about 20 minutes, I did wonder whether anyone really can take this guy seriously any more. I suppose one could argue that he's a good counterweight to the Keith Olbermanns and Tom Friedmans of the World (who are just as crazy); but I'm not sure I like being associated with a movement with his name on it. Between him and Obama, I have to support Obama. Now, if only we could get Judd Gregg or Tom Ridge to run for President...
  2. 25 Oct '09 02:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I generally don't listen to him much any more mainly because he's on 12-3 here and I'm at work.

    I did take a little trip on Friday and after I listened to the news for a few minutes (and didn't want to turn on the sports stations to hear more about the Yankees' loss), I flipped on Rush for a few minutes, for old ...[text shortened]... upport Obama. Now, if only we could get Judd Gregg or Tom Ridge to run for President...
    How would you feel if the Dems passed the "fairness Doctrine" and banned him from the air ways?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Oct '09 02:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    How would you feel if the Dems passed the "fairness Doctrine" and banned him from the air ways?
    In terms of retail politics, I don't reckon they have any of chance of doing this unless they can produce a birth certificate for Obama or explain why the third tower collapsed in the way that it did.
  4. 25 Oct '09 06:45
    the democrats are probably just as happy to have rush out there.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Oct '09 17:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    How would you feel if the Dems passed the "fairness Doctrine" and banned him from the air ways?
    Passage of the "fairness doctrine" is just cause for armed revolution.

    Well, okay, slight exaggeration. But only slight.
  6. 25 Oct '09 17:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I generally don't listen to him much any more mainly because he's on 12-3 here and I'm at work.

    I did take a little trip on Friday and after I listened to the news for a few minutes (and didn't want to turn on the sports stations to hear more about the Yankees' loss), I flipped on Rush for a few minutes, for old ...[text shortened]... upport Obama. Now, if only we could get Judd Gregg or Tom Ridge to run for President...
    who knows, maybe if somebody just gave him his drugs he'd be calmer.
  7. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    25 Oct '09 20:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I generally don't listen to him much any more mainly because he's on 12-3 here and I'm at work.

    I did take a little trip on Friday and after I listened to the news for a few minutes (and didn't want to turn on the sports stations to hear more about the Yankees' loss), I flipped on Rush for a few minutes, for old ...[text shortened]... upport Obama. Now, if only we could get Judd Gregg or Tom Ridge to run for President...
    You are slowly becoming one of the enlightened ones!
  8. 26 Oct '09 02:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    You are slowly becoming one of the enlightened ones!
    Listen, just because one is conservative, like myself, does not mean they are a "ditto head". I listen to him occasionally, but that does not mean he does my thinking for me nor do I agree with everything he says. However, he makes good points at times thus he is worthwhile listening to I think. As for people like yourself, you think he is the devil and nothing he has to say is worthwhile. So be it.
  9. 26 Oct '09 07:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    How would you feel if the Dems passed the "fairness Doctrine" and banned him from the air ways?
    Probably about how they would feel if martians landed on earth, since both are about as likely. Only a select few Democrats have ever even expressed support for such an idea and no legislation has even been drafted. What's more, President Obama has opposed the idea on multiple occasions and he has the power of veto.

    The Fairness Doctrine is one of Limbaugh's favorite non-issues because he gets to sell disgust and anger (the products that have made him rich) and he gets to play the victim of some great conspiracy. And it sells well because so many of his sheep refuse to view anything he says with a critical eye. They refuse to think for themselves, let alone do their own research.
  10. 26 Oct '09 12:06
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Probably about how they would feel if martians landed on earth, since both are about as likely. Only a select few Democrats have ever even expressed support for such an idea and no legislation has even been drafted. What's more, President Obama has opposed the idea on multiple occasions and he has the power of veto.

    The Fairness Doctrine is one ...[text shortened]... ays with a critical eye. They refuse to think for themselves, let alone do their own research.
    Deluded as usual. LLOYD!!!!!!! If that's not the fairness doctrine in disguise I don't know what is. See below:

    The Khaki Elephant
    Politics on the Tusk
    15 August 2009
    Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New Attack-Free-Speech Czar
    The administration is calling him "the new FCC Chief Diversity Officer," but it's unclear whether or not there was and old FCC Chief Diversity Officer.. What is clear is that Obama has given America yet another Czar -- one of those ill-defined and unelected Washington power brokers who provide us in political carnage what they lack in qualifications. I'm not sure because my math skills are struggling with the current economy, but I think this would be Czar number 132 for the Obama administration. Guinness has been notified (naturally, I'm referring to the beer rather than the record book because I need a few stiff ones these days).

    More frightening than the fact that America now has more Czar's than pimple-backed baseball juicers, is the latest addition's background and intentions. His name is Mark Lloyd and he is . . . well, how do I deliver this to you gently . . . a socialist rube who abhors free speech and is dedicated to the eradication of opposition voices.



    In 2006 while at the liberal Center for American Progress Lloyd wrote a book entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America. In the book he presents the idea the private broadcasters (private business) should pay a licensing fees which equals their total operating costs so that public broadcasting station can spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. By doing so he hopes to improve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting currently at $400 Million.

    In other words, the wealth should be redistributed from successful private businesses and poured into public broadcasting through taxes equal to the total operating cost of the successful stations. That's just slightly insane since no company in America could survive paying Federal fees equal to their operating costs. But Mark Lloyd isn't concerned about their survival.

    It's no coincidence that Obama has put in place a Czar to attack-tax free speech in an arena dominated by conservatives: talk radio. You can bet television will somehow escape this "search for diversity," unless the Oval Office can figure out a way to single out Fox News with more than snarky comments fed through a teleprompter.

    In Lloyd's own words:

    “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level. Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded. This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”

    In the view of Obama's latest Czar, the market should never determine success. Instead, the government should determine what we can listen to. (sorry for ending that sentence with a preposition, but this frustrates the grammar out of me). The "Fairness Doctrine" may be dead, but the liberal state machine has not given up the fight to suppress the voices of those who oppose their will. They've just taken off the mask of "fairness" and replaced it with false faces of "diversity" and "localization."
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Oct '09 12:35
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Deluded as usual. LLOYD!!!!!!! If that's not the fairness doctrine in disguise I don't know what is. See below:

    The Khaki Elephant
    Politics on the Tusk
    15 August 2009
    Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New Attack-Free-Speech Czar
    The administration is calling him "the new FCC Chief Diversity Officer," but it's unclear whether or not there was and old FCC Ch ...[text shortened]... s" and replaced it with false faces of "diversity" and "localization."
    Is this the fourth or fifth time in the last two or three weeks you've spammed a thread with this cut & paste?
  12. 26 Oct '09 13:02
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Deluded as usual. LLOYD!!!!!!! If that's not the fairness doctrine in disguise I don't know what is. See below:

    The Khaki Elephant
    Politics on the Tusk
    15 August 2009
    Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New Attack-Free-Speech Czar
    The administration is calling him "the new FCC Chief Diversity Officer," but it's unclear whether or not there was and old FCC Ch ...[text shortened]... s" and replaced it with false faces of "diversity" and "localization."
    There seems to be this assumption that every idea that every czar has ever had during the course of his or her adult life will automatically become law now that they've become a czar. Maybe the word "czar" is being taken too literally here?

    But there's this thing called Congress. And in today's world where every other person has their own blog, if a proposed bill is the least bit controversial, you know there will be an extended public debate on the topic.

    I'm sure that any effort to increase funding for public broadcasting will either not happen or it will find a much less controversial source of funding.
  13. 26 Oct '09 13:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I generally don't listen to him much any more mainly because he's on 12-3 here and I'm at work.

    I did take a little trip on Friday and after I listened to the news for a few minutes (and didn't want to turn on the sports stations to hear more about the Yankees' loss), I flipped on Rush for a few minutes, for old upport Obama. Now, if only we could get Judd Gregg or Tom Ridge to run for President...
    Rush's tone in the 90's was similar to Olbermann's tone now. Back in the 90's, you had the sense that Rush knew that his side was "winning" - that it would only be a matter of time before all those liberals would be swept away and usher in a new Golden Age of Conservatism. In the mean time, it was so much fun laughing at the "futile efforts of a party and an ideology in decline."

    But now, Rush is very much aware that his side is "losing" - so instead of swagger, you get desperate anger and outrage. It is now Olbermann who has the swagger and is laughing at the "futile efforts of a party and an ideology in decline".

    In all likelihood, the conservatives and Republicans will eventually re-invent themselves and return to prominence. Whether either of these talkshows is still around when this happens remains to be seen.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    26 Oct '09 13:22
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Probably about how they would feel if martians landed on earth, since both are about as likely. Only a select few Democrats have ever even expressed support for such an idea and no legislation has even been drafted. What's more, President Obama has opposed the idea on multiple occasions and he has the power of veto.

    The Fairness Doctrine is one ...[text shortened]... ays with a critical eye. They refuse to think for themselves, let alone do their own research.
    The "fairness doctrine" (one of the great sleight of hand misnomers in history) used to be law. So, I'm not sure I'd treat it as something beyond the realm of possibility of returning.

    You're treating the fairness doctrine like we moderate Republicans treat the anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment and similar proposed extremist legislation.

    We dismiss the possibility of their coming into existence because we're frightened by the possibility of them passing, as we know that passing such extremist rules would go a long way towards squandering the moral authority of the parties we support.
  15. 26 Oct '09 13:48
    The "fairness doctrine" served a purpose in the early years when there weren't very many "channels" to choose from. It was important to ensure that people would have access to more than one point of view.

    But today we have almost an infinite number of "channels". Every issue has twenty sides and each side can be heard somewhere.

    I suppose there's the theoretical possibility that the "fairness doctrine" could return. But I assume that the American people would be overwhelmingly against it (otherwise, the doctrine would have already been re-imposed or it would be a major part of one of the party's election campaigns).

    More practically -- the whole notion that each issue has only two sides is extremely quaint. If the fairness doctrine was re-imposed, you would need to ensure that each of the twenty sides of every issue got equal time - which would be logistically impossible. There's only so much air time available to a given channel.