L.A. Mayor to answer Rush Limbaugh race swipe »
Posted By jovial 5 months, 1 week ago in NewsA spokesman for Antonio Villaraigosa says the Los Angeles mayor is planning a statement in response to an ethnically-flavored drive-by served up by Rush Limbaugh yesterday.
Read Full Story at progressivenewsdaily.com »
Submitted By:
jovial
Grew up In Brooklyn. Joined the Navy in 1976 stayed in 10 years. Aircraft Electronics tech. Worked for Major Govt. contractor then settled in California ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 243
-
0%
jovial5 months, 1 week ago
You want to know why our country is so messed up? People let a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh on to the radiowaves.
Reply-
0%
aceofspades15 months, 1 week ago
Jovial - actually what is messed up is jerks like Limburger are trying to keep other voices from the radio
Reply-
-
0%
scott42615 months, 1 week ago
I'll answer that:
President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which lifted the cap on the number of television and radio stations a company can own in a single market. Clear Channel started buying up markets of all sizes (CBS/Infinity also sharing much of the pie in major markets) with a smattering of a few other companies here and there... The result has been very little competition. Since most media owners are conservative (and since a plethora of Rush clones were available in syndication by that point) it made since to program their dying AM stations with conservative talk (People tend to forget that - even though Rush Limbaugh has had his show since 1988 - and the meager success he had in the beginning he owed to the Reagan FCC repeal of the Fairness Doctrine - Rush's rise to fame happened with the election of Bill Clinton. And after 1996 and with many more affiliates added, he bashed Clinton all the way to the bank!).
Reply-
0%
donald515 months, 1 week ago
And Clinton regrets... while it was Reagan who vetoed the Truth in Telecommunications Act... with the plan all along with the Repugs to unleash the likes of Rush and Faux Fox Facts on Americans to deceive!
Reply -
0%
Will13135 months, 1 week ago
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT....
It's also very cost effective.. Stick someone like Rush in his studio--- actually in his house in Palm Beach, and flip a switch and you have the most listened to talk show on the radio.... because it's basically the ONLY talk show on the radio.. he can claim a large fan base only because he's on so many stations... in most markets he get ratings that are less than stellar...
He also used to PAY stations to carry his show.. in return he got a couple of live commercial spots to keep for his own out of each segment...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
So was the mayor offended by the remark that he thought he was a secret service guy or a Bill Clinton lacky? AKA Shoeshine boy. DO liberals and those taking issue with this believe something about the shoe shinning business that we don't know about? Please Lib's tell us how you feel about people who shine shoes for a living. Are you suggesting that you are better than that? Is a person who makes a living in that business somehow "below" you. Would the mayor say he would be embarrassed to be in that business. This is more PC run amuck. I would say move on there is nothing to see here unless it is the libs putting down people in the shoe shine business.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Also I am curious based on the term "race swipe" in the headlines. It appears that the racist stereotyping is being applied by those who are "offended" by the reference. My question to those that are offended is this. What race exactly is a shoe shine boy? Upon Reading Rush's comment I did not see that he referred to a particular race. He said "secret service guy" and "shoeshine boy" Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 1 week ago
Leave it to you, cape. Turn Rush's racist comment around to make it look like we're racist.
There is nothing wrong with a shoe shine boy. There's also nothing wrong w/being a Secret Service agent. The problem is with Rush's assumption that, since the man is Latino, he's a shoe shine boy or Secret Service.
Add to that his shock that this Latino is the Mayor of a major city, and you SHOULD see why we are "offended."
Actually, it's not even that I'm offended any more. This fool has said & done so many ridiculous things in the past that it's basically EXPECTED of him in these situations. AND HE NEVER FAILS TO LIVE TO OUR EXPECTATIONS!!!!!
>>Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?
Ask Rush. Apparently he's the one with the definitions.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Well I am beginning to think this is an internet hoax as I have read the entire transcript of this spot and am unable to identify where he made this remark. perhaps someone can pick it out as I can't find it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050...
"I spent more time talking to the mayor of Los Angeles. Clinton came in. I didn't see him 'cause couldn't hear so I had to sit close to my date. I'm focused looking at her, trying to hear what she's saying. I look up, and there's Clinton standing there, shakes my hand, is there for maybe 30 seconds, and goes to his table; comes back and has the mayor of Los Angeles with him -- and the mayor is going on and on and on about how excited he is to meet me, and I don't know who he is because I can't hear him introduce himself. He gives me his card. I said, "Whoa, this is the mayor of Los Angeles." So I did slide to the right, out of the booth, stood up, shook his hand"
Reply-
0%
jovial5 months, 1 week ago
Rush always edits his transcripts. I'm suprised at you Cape. That's the oldest trick in the book, akin to "the dog ate my homework"
Reply -
-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
As opposed to yours? You drop in with a drive by comment without actually verifying or showing us where the original quote is. Do you have a copy of the transcript where this quote was made other than the article that started this thread. From what I can see one does not exist. I could be wrong and invite you to show us where the original non-edited record is.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny5 months, 1 week ago
"He said "secret service guy" and "shoeshine boy" Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?"
Precisely. I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog. Hell, here in Vegas, a shoeshine boy makes pretty damned good money.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 1 week ago
>>I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog.
Are you intentionally twisting this? The ire comes from Rush's racist "He's Latino; he must be a shoe shine boy," and then his shock that this Latino is actually the Mayor of a large US city. To try to paint those angry with his racist attitudes as racist is either stupidity, intentional twisting, or just plain delusion.
Reply -
0%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
"I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog."
--Yours is essentially the same unbelievably lame argument Limbaugh gave following the remarks that derailed George "Macawitz" Allen's political career. He claimed one of his "Spanish" employees told him "macaca" meant "clown." You're very well trained, libsr.
Reply
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
CRYMTYPHON5 months, 1 week ago
CapeCoral implies that liberals despise shoe shine boys.
What a pathetic attempt to twist things.
Pathetic failed attempt.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 1 week ago
>>If Air America were profitable, it'd be syndicated just as much as Limbaugh.
If Air America on-line personalities paid to have their shows aired on various networks, they'd be as wide-spread as Rush, too.
BTW, isn't that called "Payola"?
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
Why won't cons simply admit that they can't compete when obliged to present both sides of an issue? Shows like Limbaugh's do relatively well because the right wing media know that cons see things in terms of black and white, aggressively seek opportunities to have their egos stroked and will flock to anything which validates their opinions and views.
You know this, DKL. Look at the way some of you wingers here bare your fangs when FUR-ners like Candida and others dare to express an opinion which doesn't square with yours. It's bad enough that you have to tolerate us American liberals who refuse to dance to your nationalistic tune but someone from another country? Well, that's just going too dang far, huh?
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib5 months, 1 week ago
Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine. Lib radio is a financial flop and even Al Gore has grown tired of pumping money into it. Liberalism is a big loser in the court of public opinion. No one pays to support the Lib media, as evidenced by the demise of the NY Times and Air unAmerican. Face it, when it comes to competing on an even playing field, Libs can't hack it.
Reply-
0%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
"Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine"
--Of course you'd think it was "unfair." The right wing media has always known that poorly educated cons are easily befuddled by legitimate debate and only want to be spoon-fed concepts and arguments that make them feel good. You cannot deny this. The bottom line is that you needed Ronnie Reagan to more or less unilaterally step in and, to your way of thinking, level the playing field. Let's be frank...
If you cons truly believed your arguments could stand on their own merits, you wouldn't need to sit glued to your tv sets every night watching Bill O'Reilly maniacally scream in the faces of his guests in order to feel as if your voice was being heard. You don't know what a level playing field is, baby.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib5 months ago
Unlike educated Libs like Rosie O'Dumbass, Janeane Garofalo, or basically anyone with a show on Air unAmerican. I'm still wating for you to be frank. O'Reilly isn't a Conservative, btw, and I don't watch him. You'd know that if you actually understood Conservative views instead of mindlessly repeating DNC rhetoric.
Reply-
0%
fourthtunz5 months ago
So who is a conservative that you support?
Rush? He's an entertainer/media mouthpiece, so he says what he's paid to say.
Rosie and Garofalo aren't really good examples because they're comediennes who say what they think, which is more than you can say for Rush or Oreilly?
How about your president or Ronald Raygun?
2 of the biggest spenders that ever came down the pike. Not very conservative.
The problem in America is that people aren't thinking about what would be best for the country, and name calling doesn't help.
What about Ron Paul? He's the only candidate that has really said what he's going to do if he wins, the rest are scary.
The liberal/conservative arguments are for talk show hosts and fools, this has no bearing on who really runs our country which by the way are the bankers. It's us against them and their ideology is money and we are their slaves.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
scott42615 months, 1 week ago
Now we have Air America, Nova M, and certain shows from Jones Radio. This is a harder sell in smaller markets where management will do nothing to promote it.
Since we progressives are yearning for real information, we have turned to streaming on-line and/or subscribing to XM or Sirius for our talk. We get our news largely from the internet.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners5 months, 1 week ago
"we progressives" - That would be "we liberals".
Times are really tough. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck. Dobbs - it's just terrible. Where's the lib talk shows? I want to listen to one (except Franken - I can't stand the lying arrogant jerk). I bet it's a right wing conspiracy that keeps the left wing radio from airing their views!!
Reply-
0%
tbkennedy535 months, 1 week ago
The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Dionys5 months, 1 week ago
"The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part. "
Sorry. The "liberal media" scam is one of the biggest myths of this decade. If you take far-left views and far-right views and come down squarely in the center of the two you will find *always* that the media falls right-of-center. Always.
As for the networks being owned by conservatives, one has only to look at NBC as an example, owned by GE (one of the largest contractors of the military-industrial complex) in turn owned by the bin-Laden groups (which quashed news stories about Osama through their influence).
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
tbkennedy535 months, 1 week ago
Where do you get your facts? "The "liberal media" scam"? Please present some data to supports that stand.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect5 months, 1 week ago
whiner...
Progressives don't really need all that many liberal talk shows. We're comfortable with what we got, since many of the regular cable network programs and over the air newscasts are moderate, fair, and balanced.
Limbaugh is more of a comedian anyway...in between Howard Stern and Don Imus. Listen to them once or twice, you realize that what they say is for shock effect only, and move on. The difference between Limbaugh and the other two is that he not only thinks he's funny, he thinks he's important, and sways public opinion...which he doesn't. He just shows us how ignorant he really is.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
I think sometimes the shock is when many of these programs play back the actual statements of the liberals and democrat(ic)s. The actual words from these people are shocking. For example Hillary and Obama saying they are going to confiscate the profits of a private company or industry. That is shocking to me. That is what Hugo is doing. That is what Putin is doing. Are we as a free nation going to advocate the confiscation of peoples retirement funds and stock purchases? These publicly traded and owned company profits are "owned" by the shareholders. Some estimate that over half of all Americans through retirement accounts and various other financial instruments are invested in the stock market.
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect5 months, 1 week ago
McCain's comment of the US staying in Iraq for a 100 years was a shock for me...but I haven't heard those specific comments from Hillary and Obama. I'll look for them...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
I guess you must be in shock that the US is still in Japan, Germany, and Korea then. I would also guess that you would be shocked that any move to pull out of Iraq now (despite how we got there) would be viewed by Islamic Extremist as a victory and would again give validity to the statements made by their leaders that the US is a paper Tiger and invite additional attacks on US interests around the world including inside our borders. Shocked? If the US pulls out of Iraq and there is a move to turn it into a base for Islamic extremists would you call for, as Obama does, the US to go back in?
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 1 week ago
>>I guess you must be in shock that the US is still in Japan, Germany, and Korea then.
We did not PREEMPTIVELY, on FALSE PRETENSES, invade any of those countries.
Iraq, on the other hand, is a completely different story. We invaded on cooked evidence & outright lies.
And Germany, Japan & Korea don't have the overwhelming majority of their citizens & gov't wanting us out.
>>a move to turn it into a base for Islamic extremists
In case you haven't noticed, the longer we stay, the more of a "base for Islamic extremists" it's becoming.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Again it matters not if you did not believe the intel supplied by all world intel agencies or not regarding Iraq. You can say hey it does not matter that Saddam was thwarting a peace process by supplying $25,000 to homicide bombers families. This action caused a huge surge in people being convinced that blowing themselves up in a Pizza parlor full of civilians was the right thing to do. You can ignore or disbelieve all of the reports that were generated under Clinton linking Saddam to Osama. See 1998 Bin Laden Indictment http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nl... Ignore that under Clintom the official US policy became regime change http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislat...
You can ignore operation Desert fox http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/ But you cannot ignore history forever.
Will you support Obama if he orders troops back in after he pulls them out?
Reply-
0%
bubba25 months, 1 week ago
Your URL to prove that the Clinton admin linked Iraq to Al Qaeda is an indictment. Where is the subsequent trial or investigation or conclusion?
Your own government - since Iraq was invaded - has proved that all of the reasons to invade Iraq were FALSE. The Republican controlled Senate in 2005-2006 conducted 2 investigations, and the Pentagon recently concluded a long investigation into all of the pre-war intelligence. All the investigations did prove that the Bush administration lied about all of the reasons to go to war - NO WMD, NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and NO connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
By the way, most of the rest of the world DISAGREED with Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
And your question is erroneous -- in a court of law they would sustain the objection to it as "leading the witness".
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months ago
"Bush administration lied " Not exactly true. The Bush administration had intelligence reports that were not 100% iron clad. That is why they are called estimates. I am not going to go into this in depth as there is no changing the minds either way. The President asked for a vote and received an overwhelming majority for the Authorization to use force. The UN had a vote and the vote by the UNSC was unanimous. The indictment was based on the belief and research of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Of New York, Mary Jo White and the FBI. I don't think they lied and believed the indictment contained true charges. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/prladen.pdf
Here is some additional information on the matter http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/fitzgeral...
Reply
-
-
0%
PapaWolf5 months ago
>>Again it matters not if you did not believe the intel supplied by all world intel agencies or not regarding Iraq
What DOES matter is that the intel WAS questionable, and if you're going to war, you better be D^MN SURE that the intel is correct - AND you better not be cherry picking the intel, like Bush was.
>>thwarting a peace process by supplying $25,000 to homicide bombers families
Those bombers whose families he supported are & were fighting an occupation by Israel. While abhorrent, and they ARE AND WERE abhorrent, they no more horrible than what Israel does on a daily basis in Gasa & the West Bank. And the US supports Israel unconditionally.
>>Will you support Obama if he orders troops back in after he pulls them out?
That all depends on the context. If Iraq attacks us or 1 of our allies, then probably. If not, the absolutely not - especially if he uses trumped up reasons like W did.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect5 months, 1 week ago
Yes, I am surprised we're still in Germany and Japan, two countries that we're supposed to be on relatively good terms with. They really should re-consider our presence on their soil. There's no need for us to be there...waste of our time and money.
At the rate we're going, we'll have bases in every nation in this world in about 750 years. But, at least we won't be far away from a McDonald's...
Reply-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect5 months ago
Define bad...or worse. Isn't it already bad? And what would make it worse? It's a nation that was in turmoil before we invaded because of one dictator, it's in turmoil now, and for the forseeable future, will be in turmoil.
What will our presence do? Will it bring total calm, while installing democracy? How long will that take? al-Quada presence has increased since we've been there...it will grow a lot more in the coming years, just to fight the US.
On this point I disagree with Obama..I would withdraw all troops over the next 18-24 months, and let the country fend and learn for themselves. We did the job Bush wanted...we rid the country of a dictator. Now...lets move on, and get out.
We can't save the world, no matter how admirable and desirable it may be.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months ago
In 1945, following the defeat of Nazi Germany, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France assumed control over the territory of a defeated enemy. With the inability of the wartime allies to devise a plan to govern Germany at the conclusion of the war, the three western powers embarked upon a separate policy that resulted in the transformation of their zones of occupation into the Federal Republic of Germany. This was a great moment in the annals of American foreign policy. Because the occupation led to the creation of a successful democratic state, military victory produced substantial long-term political gains. Not only was a great scourge defeated, but the coordinated actions of the western powers gave birth to a new and powerful ally. What lessons does this provide for how we should now conduct ourselves in Iraq? http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/may03/middleEast...
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf5 months ago
>>What lessons does this provide for how we should now conduct ourselves in Iraq?
Absolutely none, whatsoever. Germany was the aggressor & defeated enemy; Iraq was NOT the aggressor. And many Germans supported the ally effort to defeat Hitler; most Iraqis weren't into being bombed into a Democracy. And the longer we stay in Iraq, & the more horror stories of innocents killed &/or tortured, the more resentment the Iraqis will have toward us.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months ago
FYI: There was a war in 1990 between Iraq and the United Nations. (See UN Res. 661). The global fear was that Saddam would attack Saudi Arabia and reek havoc on the world economy by disrupting the oil flow from the middle east. Now you may hate oil but the fact of the matter it would have caused a major global crisis. The Current war in Iraq is a continuation of that war. In fact the US Military has never left Iraq since the 1990-1991 war. In fact the US attacked Iraq under Clinton. In Fact in 1998 under the Clinton admin' the "Iraq Liberation Act" was passed in congress. Also In 1993 Iraq participated in the attack on the US by providing material support in the bombing of the WTC. In that attack the plan was to kill thousands with a massive Chemical bomb (cyanide). http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
You may choose to ignore the history of post WWII Germany & Japan, Poland, Italy and current Iraq and the lessons learned but it is an ignorant approach IMO.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
I'm a proud "lefty looney" liberal and I don't see a problem with someone distinguishing their beliefs from liberalism and labeling themselves progressive. Does it bother you that real conservatives think you neocons have poisoned the conservative movement?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Spadecaller5 months, 1 week ago
It's amazing that a fat drug dealer and addict who used to ridicule recovering addicts and alcoholics has such a large following. Scary...
Reply-
-
0%
PsychoHosebeast5 months, 1 week ago
Apparently the people who negged this comment are long on criticism, but pretty short on evidence... OK, go ahead and believe it if you want to actually believe it's true, after all, that's what's important, right? Oh yeah, and Spade, you have a problem with peoples' weight? For someone screaming about people being prejudiced against Jews, it's pretty petty of you isn't it?
I'm no fan of Limbaugh, as a matter of fact, I'd be inclined to suggest that this uneducated hick take up stand-up comedy for a living... however, I like AT LEAST a little evidence when someone claims someone else is a drug dealer, thank you.
Reply -
0%
PapaWolf5 months ago
>>Dealer? That's a new one.
Isn't it common practice that when someone has a large quantity of drugs, which he did, they are arrested for possession with intent to sell? That would be considered a dealer.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
GWHayduke5 months, 1 week ago
Ah ha.
Here it is:
http://www.pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html
I got this from one of Goppy's posts.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk5 months, 1 week ago
Whats disconcerting are the people who listen to him and treat his ramblings as truth.
Reply -
0%
DaneL5 months, 1 week ago
Maybe, just maybe, he says what a large number of people agree with. Why can't the liberal talk shows show such a large audience? Could it be the message?
Reply
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners5 months, 1 week ago
Just shows you how many fat and drug dealing people there are in this country.
Reply -
-
0%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
clearly they can, since Bush was elected twice and we may never know how many unborn babies were snuffed out because of his illegal oil grab in Iraq. Sadder still is that cons don't even want to know how many people we've killed. After all, it's not like we went over there to spread democracy or anything. ;-P
Reply
-
-
0%
Georgia505 months, 1 week ago
Interesting that you liberals dismiss the court-admissible evidence that Bill Clinton used cocaine often, yet when Limbaugh's legally protected files are made public, personal privacy gets tossed and you're all over the issue of drug use for which topic your opposition is atypical.
At least have the decency to throw us a curve ball once in awhile...you know...like the ACLU did in defending Rush's privacy.
Reply-
-
0%
Georgia505 months ago
bubba,
I can't thank you enough for asking. Ok, let's take a stroll down memory lane (or, for you liberals, down convenient amnesia lane).
Remember the drug sting that put Roger Clinton behind bars? Oh you know...the one where Slick's law enforcement cronies sent him a heads up on the federal sting operation so he could dutifully step aside and let his half-brother take the hit? Yeah...that's the one. Roger was convicted by evidence that included a sting operation tape recording. And on that court-admitted recording, Roger stated that Bill snorted cocaine like a Hoover vacuum.
courtroom evidence on your own ---> you refuse to see
Rush's private records breached ---> like white on rice
No, I'm not defending Rush or saying he's without his problems. I am merely observing the selective criticism in here.
Reply-
0%
bubba25 months ago
I see ... so, what Clinton's brother said about Bill is "gospel truth" and undeniable documentation? And, Roger's sins 'automatically' convict Bill?
Don't think so ...
What courtroom evidence? Got some source links to share?
The evidence on Rush was documented.
The Republicans tried for EIGHT years to "get" Bill Clinton on something, and all they could come up with was lying about sex.
And during those eight years, the Republicans basically ignored the growing threat from Bin Laden and al Qaeda because of their obsession to 'get some dirt' on Bill.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
questionseverything5 months, 1 week ago
i thought clinton was the "did not inhale guy" and gw bush was the alchy coke head?
Reply -
0%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
Don't take this the wrong way but I get the distinct impression that you're toasted. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
0%
JoseMadre5 months, 1 week ago
Limbore is just a bad standup comedian.
BTW, I am more conservative than Oxy King can ever hope to be.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn5 months, 1 week ago
Sorry jovial I meant a pos not a neg!
This guy should not be on Air, but the SEC head is a GOPer and you know how they feel about each other. They are never wrong and never really mean what they say. This guy is a disgrace, had a DEM call for riots the right of this nation would have done everything to have his nuts and he would have been Call the biggest Anti American since Obama!
Reply-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners5 months, 1 week ago
Why can't they pass a law to outlaw Limbaugh? He must be breaking some kind of laws because he's a con.
And being the highest rated radio show - it just goes to show how many Americans are knuckle dragging, gun toting, religion clinging small town hicks who don't particularly like outsiders different from them. Why can't all Americans be urbane and knowledgeable like jovial?
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Interesting position to take on the Free speech issue. If you don't like what someone is saying have their free speech right revoked by the government. Sounds a bit like current communist countries standard operating procedure. Also an interesting view of Americans "knuckle dragging, gun toting, religion clinging small town hicks"
Not believing you are seriously posting here as this simply looks like flaming text but I am sure their are serious posters that agree with your comments.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk5 months, 1 week ago
"Interesting position to take on the Free speech issue. If you don't like what someone is saying have their free speech right revoked by the government"
Sounds a lot like Bush and his free speech zones.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
I am guessing that since you gave my comment a neg rating that you are one of those that agree that some Americans are as one poster put it "knuckle dragging, gun toting, religion clinging small town hicks"
In addition you confuse me. On one hand you do not agree with the practice of not inviting people to political events (or removing them) that have the intent of disrupting or are disrupting that event (Free speech?) but you are for revoking a persons right to free speech if you disagree with their point of view? That sounds like you have opposing positions on the matter and that you feel it is appropriate to selectively "allow" free speech but only if you agree with what a person has to say. Otherwise outlaw that right? Please clarify.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 1 week ago
>>On one hand you do not agree with the practice of not inviting people to political events (or removing them) that have the intent of disrupting or are disrupting that event (Free speech?)
You're assuming that ALL those forbidden to attend or removed were "disrupting" the event. Case in point was a government worker & her husband in Charleston, WV, when W put on a July 4 "celebration" that was actually a political rally - ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
This couple was removed from the "event" for simply wearing an anti-Bush tshirt - and listening quietly to his ramblings.
She was also fired from her gov't job it.
She subsequently won a lawsuit for the episode.
And that's just 1 example. ALL of this fool's events are carefully screened so they can try to get only the most ardent supporters present.
Reply-
-
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 1 week ago
Didn't hear about that one. But what difference does that make? Wrong is wrong. And the Bush admin has made a policy of only letting only the most hard-core supporters in & suppressing all opposing voices anywhere near their "rallies." Not to mention the implementation of "Free Speech Zones" - like that's really constitutionally legal; this whole country's supposed to be a "Free Speech Zone."
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 1 week ago
Your point is well taken. That is the reason I question Dunkirk and ask for clarification. If the liberials feel so strongly that a person should be able to disrupt an event based on the right of "free speech" then why would they call for someone, in this case Limbaugh, to be outlawed? "Why can't they pass a law to outlaw Limbaugh" It appears that Dunkirk and others advocate that the techniques used in communist countries and by the leaders of those countries Like China, Russia, and Hugo in Venezuela should also be employed in the US and in particular with people that do not agree with their point of view. I was simply asking for clariffication on this apparent position.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf5 months ago
Cape,
I understand your point, too. But it's not the disruption that should be allowed, it's the free speech itself. This admin has done EVERYTHING to keep opposing views out of its audiences, let alone ask questions - in a non-disruptive manner.
As for Rush, he calls himself an "entertainer" but carries on political advocacy with NONE of the restrictions of all other political advocates. After the '94 "Gingrich Revolution," he actually took credit for it. And as for censorship, Rush is the king of censorship. He does NOT allow opposing views on his show, he screens his phone calls, and another report posted here not too long ago showed that many of his calls are by employees & scripted.
And the reason we want him off the air is not for censorship. It's for his constant lies & spin, unregulated political activities, self proclaimed election tampering, & the list goes on.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months ago
Apparently you do not listen to Rush. That is his trademark. Meaning he reads the words and plays the sound bites of the opposing views for the whole damn show.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
