First they came for Rush Limbaugh

[oladub]

Oladub, I don't think my reading comprehension is off. You implied that Rush Limbaugh should be able to buy an NFL team, and that the league shouldn't have any right to refuse his offer.

Sometimes, money ain't the most important thing, ya know?

I not only said that Rush should be able to buy the team if he was the highest bidder, I am also saying that no discrimination should be allowed based on race, sex, color or, in Rush's case, creed. Substitute Jesse Jackson if you wish. You seem to harbor the the desire to discriminate, in buying and selling, as you see fit. If you are allowed to do that that everyone else should have the same right.

[1KielsonDrive]

Gnome, thanks for #3. Concise and accurate.

[barnesfoto]

" Its liberty that works when individuals are not discriminated against for being different"

Unless the individuals don't have papers or passport from the big government agency, then liberty goes out the window, and our "friend of liberty" assigns them a subhuman classification similar to "space aliens."

As for the amusing narcissistic wails of the mouthpiece of America's Sickest Cult, and its' followers, here's a perfect example of how these people see themselves as "victims".

[oladub]

"Unless the individuals don't have papers or passport from the big government agency, then liberty goes out the window, and our "friend of liberty" assigns them a subhuman classification similar to "space aliens."

True, Just like the nice folks that broke in through your basement window and decided to take up occupancy in your house and will even do your job for $5 less an hour.

As for the amusing narcissistic wails of the mouthpiece of America's Sickest Cult, and its' followers, here's a perfect example of how these people see themselves as "victims".

You apparently do not mind discriminating on the basis of creed either. I'm starting to see a pattern of intolerence here. What next? The abridgement of free speech? If Rush, or Ed, or whomever was just pushed off the air, then you wouldn't have to hear all those terrible things and than you wouldn't be so inclined to discriminate against who spends their money where. Step right up and choose your favorite way to discriminate.

[Lorax]

Sorry, but "free speech" does not include hate speech, or inciting violence among the masses, which due to Rethuglican, and Clintonian changes in the Fairness Doctrine allowed the monoploized market places where this bloviating assclown is heard by millions on a daily basis.

Pare back the number of markets where he is exclusive, and fairness will be restored.

[oladub]

Sorry, but "free speech" does not include hate speech, or inciting violence among the masses, which due to Rethuglican, and Clintonian changes in the Fairness Doctrine allowed the monoploized market places where this bloviating assclown is heard by millions on a daily basis.

Pare back the number of markets where he is exclusive, and fairness will be restored.

Actually the First Amendment says that no law abridging the freedom of speech can be made. Zero, none, nada. That does mean that your sensitive ears, and mine, will occasionally tingle. The flip side though is that more ideas, good and bad, are out in the open and lies can be dealt with by critics or proven to be wrong before they morph into something much uglier underground.The danger of 'fair speech' laws and other types of censorship far out weigh whatever controversial individuals have to say.

Instead of paring back markets, how about opening markets up? Allow easier access to the airwaves so more viewpoints can participate. I know of a local radio station that started up on the internet web site to play a diverse range of non top-20 music. It had to wait over two years before it could broadcast as a regular radio station plus cough up a lot of money to do so.

[vetalalumni]

" Its liberty that works when individuals are not discriminated against for being different"

Unless the individuals don't have papers or passport from the big government agency, then liberty goes out the window, and our "friend of liberty" assigns them a subhuman classification similar to "space aliens."

Is this what the "aliens" look like?

[Lorax]

Actually the First Amendment says that no law abridging the freedom of speech can be made. Zero, none, nada. That does mean that your sensitive ears, and mine, will occasionally tingle. The flip side though is that more ideas, good and bad, are out in the open and lies can be dealt with by critics or proven to be wrong before they morph into something much uglier underground.The danger of 'fair speech' laws and other types of censorship far out weigh whatever controversial individuals have to say.

Instead of paring back markets, how about opening markets up? Allow easier access to the airwaves so more viewpoints can participate. I know of a local radio station that started up on the internet web site to play a diverse range of non top-20 music. It had to wait over two years before it could broadcast as a regular radio station plus cough up a lot of money to do so.

Problem is, we can be tolerant of such speech to a point- otherwise we allow the next Hitler to stand there and expouse his ideas of "the final solution" on public airwaves.

Limbaugh uses these same public airwaves, our airwaves. Fox and others only lease them from us. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to keep one political viewpoint from poisoning the airwaves, by mandating time slots for all political viewpoints, including partial, and impartial news organizations.

This is not the case today. Under Reagan's Republican "leadership", the Fairness Doctrine was done away with, resulting in FOX and Clear Channel Communications controlling the majority of AM radio across the country. These organizations are both heavily tilted toward right wing propaganda.

Even Debbie Stabenow has advocated for a revival of the Doctrine, to better balance the airwaves.

Clear Channel in particular has removed liberal leaning talk shows and news organizations, even when they were beating Limbaugh in the ratings, often switching them to a sports format, as they did here in Miami, when AM 940 was ruined by this move.

We have 5 all-sports stations, none of them doing well, but Clear Channel would rather destroy a winning liberal format, that made money with advertising, in order to curtail the liberal message. There is no Fairness Doctrine in place to stop it, currently.

Ultimately the majority in this case is underserved in the marketplace, and done so with the public airwaves.

[ccbatson]

Absolutely Hitler would be allowed to express himself with full constitutional protection if he did so as a citizen of this country.

[oladub]

Lorax, Hitler did just what you are proposing. He censored the media. You are still sidestepping the first amendment's absolute intolerance for infringing speech. Not only does Limbaugh use the airwaves, so do Olberman, Maddox, Air America, and Ed. Do you want to regulate what they say too? Or do you just want to set up the next Republican administration do it for you? Then you will be quoting the First Amendment.

Government regulation, an artificial shortage of bandwith caused by government , and expensive government government licensing put the airwaves into the hands of the wealthy. The power brokers can more easily control the media which is very useful, for instance, in presidential primaries if there are fewer players. What we need to do is dilute such control by making more bandwidth available at a cheaper cost. Why should the federal government even be trying to regulate small stations whose signals don't leave their state of origin?

[Lorax]

Because it worked well for decades until the Reich decided to recind it under Reagan.

The right wing loves to give lip service to "competetion" until it's removed by one of their own in the White House, then we hear only crickets. Give me a break.

Bandwidth has nothing to do with it. Free access to the PUBLIC airwaves, especially on AM and FM radio is the issue here.

Let those who love propaganda PAY for it through XM or Sirius.

[oladub]

I don't think it worked so good for decades. We used to have just channels 2, 4, and 7. The diversity found on AM only radio wasn't much better back then. The radio programs all seemed to have religious programming on Sunday mornings if that's format you now miss.

I was defending freedom of speech. I agree with you that the right wing pays little more than lip service to freedom of speech. The right wing wants to exert control almost as much as you and some other posters here seem to want to. Before you were advocating 'fair speech' censorship and now you are advocating free access to the public airwaves. I prefer your second option although there still has to be some mechanism to keep everyone from jaming each other's wave lengths. Bandwidth allows for more stations.

[ghettopalmetto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[Lorax]

I don't think it worked so good for decades. We used to have just channels 2, 4, and 7. The diversity found on AM only radio wasn't much better back then. The radio programs all seemed to have religious programming on Sunday mornings if that's format you now miss.

I was defending freedom of speech. I agree with you that the right wing pays little more than lip service to freedom of speech. The right wing wants to exert control almost as much as you and some other posters here seem to want to. Before you were advocating 'fair speech' censorship and now you are advocating free access to the public airwaves. I prefer your second option although there still has to be some mechanism to keep everyone from jaming each other's wave lengths. Bandwidth allows for more stations.

I wasn't advocating "fair speech" censorship, only "hate speech" censorship- when it's on the public airwaves. Public is the key word here.

If someone wants to subscribe to a service and listen to Satan, or Rush Limbaugh, then I have nooooo problem with it. Just like pornography- if you wish to pay-per-view porn, then by all means, go for it.

When we collect money for leases on the public airwaves- that belongs to the nation, and, just like mandated prayer in public schools, it's a no-no.

The proper venue for AM hate speech is a pay-station.

I don't believe in any censorship, really, but the proper venue needs to be established, and in this case, already exists.

AM radio has come a long way from what you mention. There is great demand and interest in AM radio, if it was fairly alotted as it was in the recent past.

Four very popular left-wing radio programs were cancelled by Clear Channel here in Miami in favor of an all-sports format, which is failing.

Now we don't have even ONE left-wing talk radio program, and all of them beat Limbaugh in the ratings. It was Clear Channel's desire to control the political message.

[oladub]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The remedy is to try to elect Presidents who will nominate justices who enforce the following-

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a response: 3min20sec - 3min 47sec making the same point as Holmes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5HtPYv1FQ

Lorax, What on earth gives you the right to be our censor? What happens to your remaining station when the Republicans take over your hate speech censorship operation.

[barnesfoto]

"True, Just like the nice folks that broke in through your basement window and decided to take up occupancy in your house"

If you mean the people that established early European settlement of this country, one of whom was an ancestor of mine who came without a visa, then you are hinting at a historical precedent.

If you mean people that came here from Mexico [[which is in North America) without papers and lived in my house in Detroit some years ago, we entered a contract together, and they paid their rent religiously and took good care of my property, so please stop making up shit about them breaking in.

If your concerns for human liberty end when the humans don't have big government papers, there is a contradiction of terms and you should not call yourself a libertarian.

[Lorax]

The remedy is to try to elect Presidents who will nominate justices who enforce the following-

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a response: 3min20sec - 3min 47sec making the same point as Holmes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5HtPYv1FQ

Lorax, What on earth gives you the right to be our censor? What happens to your remaining station when the Republicans take over your hate speech censorship operation.

They already have due to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Didn't you read my posts? It's all in there. I'm not the censor here, our LAWS forbid the PUBLIC airwaves from being co-opted by one political party. IT'S ILLEGAL.

I'm sorry if I have to use all caps, but you don't seem to get it the first and second times I posted it.

If people want to pay for propaganda, they are free to do so, and we have mediums for that- cable TV, XM Satellite Radio, SIRIUS, etc. Knock yourself out with it, I could care less.

But keep it off the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves. Got it?

[Zacha341]

I'm not a Rush fan, but I'm concerned that he along with Beck are being held as the dynamic duo for ALL conservative thought, ideas, or dissent. Thus all such thoughts, ideas or dissent can be flushed down the toilet with them.

Rush and Beck are purposefully becoming the great and grand fly paper sheets by which any non-democratic party opposition is being stuck.

Not all thoughts and questions regarding the current administration are racist, nor is the is the questioning of policies all "marching" orders from Rush. How convenient if that were true.

Remove the head - the snake dies.

Nope, that's not going to happen. People are complicated and some ideas are self-sustaining, especially those re. the role and expansion of government in peoples lives.

Sure Rush is blow-hard. But his removal from the scene will not silence reasonable discent, much of which is now starting to bubble up from the democratic party itself.

This is especially so with the independents, who tend to be more content oriented re. policy and less party loyalist.

[Lorax]

Clean up public radio.

Either restore the Fairness Doctrine, or move hate speech to pay-radio.

[oladub]

barnesphoto, I am talking about people who come here illegally. The cure is to severly fine their employers, use some of the money to deport illegal aliens, and some of the money to maintain their cheating employers in jail for awhile. I have also previously addressed this issue regarding libertarianism. You are defining libertarianism as anarchy or anarcho-libertarianism - a position that does not regard borders or governments. I take the much less extreme position of recognizing government as a necessary evil, being regulated by the Contitution, recognizing borders, and funding it with my taxes. Systems usually don't work if they cannot at least be defined. Think of the hull of a boat. Leaking boats do not win races and sometimes sink.

I stand corrected. In your case, they didn't break in, you invited them in. I hadn't realized that you had personally poked a hole in the hull of our collective boat for personal profit. Ooops. I was just trying to make an analogy comparing allowing squaters in one's personal space with collectively allowing squaters in our communal space.

Lorax writes, "But keep it off the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves. Got it? "

Yes, you wish to censor. You want to somehow get voices and opinions off the airwaves with you do not agree.

[Lorax]

barnesphoto, I am talking about people who come here illegally. The cure is to severly fine their employers, use some of the money to deport illegal aliens, and some of the money to maintain their cheating employers in jail for awhile. I have also previously addressed this issue regarding libertarianism. You are defining libertarianism as anarchy or anarcho-libertarianism - a position that does not regard borders or governments. I take the much less extreme position of recognizing government as a necessary evil, being regulated by the Contitution, recognizing borders, and funding it with my taxes. Systems usually don't work if they cannot at least be defined. Think of the hull of a boat. Leaking boats do not win races and sometimes sink.

I stand corrected. In your case, they didn't break in, you invited them in. I hadn't realized that you had personally poked a hole in the hull of our collective boat for personal profit. Ooops. I was just trying to make an analogy comparing allowing squaters in one's personal space with collectively allowing squaters in our communal space.



Yes, you wish to censor. You want to somehow get voices and opinions off the airwaves with you do not agree.

You really have a hard time getting basics, don't you?

Yes, there is no room for hate speech on PUBLIC airwaves.

Restore the Fairness Doctrine, and PUBLIC airwaves can have everyone's voice heard, haters included. What about that don't you understand? Sorry, but the health care bill won't pay for a brain transplant, so I'm all you've got.

Your problem is you're afraid your beloved Rethuglicans will fold like a lawn chair when up against liberal talkers on AM radio, as they have proven time and again.

That's why the fascist run Clear Channel dumped successful, money making liberal shows in favor of Rush, whose numbers are in the toilet and have been for years.

And what's even more fantastic, is liberal AM talk radio, where it is allowed to exist, was STILL instrumental in getting Obama into office- "half the progressive brain tied behind their backs just to make it fair."

Admit it, you're paranoid you'll have to listen to liberal talk as well as fascist talk on AM radio should the Fairness Doctrine be restored- or you'll have to pay for it on pay-radio.

[oladub]

Lorax, We get it. We get it. You want to somehow determine what we can and can't listen to.

How is your 'fair speech' law going to work? How will the hate speech censors know when Rush or Jesse Jackson is going to blurt out some hate speech term unless everything is pre-screened or delayed. How are all points of view going to be presented? I haven't heard anything from the Moonies or astrologers lately. Will be have to give Glenn Beck equal time on Kieth Olberman's pre-recorded show while Ed gets equal time on Rush's pre-recorded show? How do you effectively prevent people from turning off Ed when he makes his retorts to what Rush said. It wouldn't be fair if people could turn off opinions they didn't want to hear. Maybe we should have loudspeakers on every corner blasting whatever un-hateful truths you want us to hear [[eg. All Rethugicans are Tush fascists who want to kill the poor.), just to make sure, like they do in North Korea.

Why not just expand the airwaves in ways I previously suggested to get more voices and opinions on the air before the Republicans eventually take over and use your precious 'fair speech' censorship law against you?

[vetalalumni]

Do any of you consider illegal immigrant a more appropriate expression than illegal alien? We understand the affect of connotation. We understand the dictionary regarding each word. We know how to present an argument or position strategically. Rhetorical positions align themselves interestingly.

[oladub]

Do any of you consider illegal immigrant a more appropriate expression than illegal alien? We understand the affect of connotation. We understand the dictionary regarding each word. We know how to present an argument or position strategically. Rhetorical positions align themselves interestingly.

"Illegal alien" is a legal term. Aliens are non citizens. They come in two varieties; legal and illegal. "Illegal immigrants" is a fuzzier term. Some illegal aliens are illegal immigrants - at least in their own minds. Some illegal aliens probably intend to eventually return home so they would probably be more properly referred to as "illegal residents". A tiny fraction of illegal aliens might also be passing through as illegal drug runners or even 9/11 terrorists. 'Illegal alien' would be all inclusive of aliens who are not here legally while 'illegal immigrant' is just a subset of 'illegal alien".

[vetalalumni]

"Illegal alien" is a legal term. Aliens are non citizens. They come in two varieties; legal and illegal. "Illegal immigrants" is a fuzzier term. Some illegal aliens are illegal immigrants - at least in their own minds. Some illegal aliens probably intend to eventually return home so they would probably be more properly referred to as "illegal residents". A tiny fraction of illegal aliens might also be passing through as illegal drug runners or even 9/11 terrorists. 'Illegal alien' would be all inclusive of aliens who are not here legally while 'illegal immigrant' is just a subset of 'illegal alien".

That was quick. Should have known you'd have an answer ready for that easy one [[for you) huh? . "Fuzzier", "at least in their own minds", "probably", "tiny fraction", and "might" made me laugh, but will go without further comment [[at least for now). You are consistent. I'll come back after a little research on the etymology.

Update - precedent conceded oladub. Gleeful usage is now understood. Better should not be expected.