Billboard For Rush: Dems Putting Sign Outside Limbaugh's Home

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Attacking a private citizen like this is out of bounds and, if you ask me, immature.


But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?



Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush's campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. "We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party," he said of the documentary filmmaker. "That's why we gave him credentials to cover the 2004 convention and then turned the spotlight on him."


Washington Post

This isn't just a liberal strategy. Selective memory is an interesting thing...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I thought exactly that when I read the whole thing. This guy has said he wants our elected president to fail and we have little recourse in speaking to him publicly about how we feel about what he said.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


I don't condone that either, but I see the strategy in this instance though. It was during the election. Still wrong though.

Where is the strategy involving Rush? Elections arent for 3 years, unless President Obama is starting the longest Presidnetial campaign in the history of campaigns.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?


Did I fail to mention that I didn't start following politics until recently? So you can save your "Where were you the past 8 years" mobo jumbo for somebody else.

If you can debate the issues at hand then please do so, otherwise leave the ad hominem attacks at the door, it just goes to prove the SailorinAZ point.

Just to answer your question, I have a problem with any politician attacking private citizens. Doesn't matter which side of the isle the citizen represents.

I'll say it again, it is immature, tacky, and immoral. Our elected leaders are supposed to represent us. If you have a problem with what people say then attack the message not the messenger.

You might not agree with what Rush says neither do I, but I will defend anybody's right to free speech no matter how much I disagree with it. Because their rights are just as important as my rights.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


well there is 1 big difference, Moore uses facts, Rush uses lies and decetion


Yeah Moore uses facts. It is a fact the Cuban health care is alot better then ours. God forbid I ever need heart surgery, but if I do I'm not going to have it done in Cuba.

Moore and Rush are the same. They both have good points but mostly they blow alot of smoke.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
An interesting article on Limbaugh. From 1993.

The Leader of the Opposition - Meet Rush



But to a surprising number of conservatives there is a solemn appropriateness about Reagan's passing the torch to the 42-year-old former disc jockey and college dropout. Certainly if any conservative is in line to inherit the mantle of "The Great Communicator," it is the idol of the "dittoheads," the man who presides over the country's most listened-to radio talk-show. But his twenty million listeners a week on 616 stations also make him the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the cage in which American conservatism is languishing. "One reason he unites the Right is that he's the biggest kid on the block," says Terry Eastland, editor of The Forbes Media Critic. "People don't want to be lampooned on the air; politicians don't want to offend him because he's so popular."
...
"When Rush Limbaugh talks, you know you're listening to the real world," says Bob Dole.

Phil Gramm says Limbaugh "has had a profound impact on conservative thinking in America . . . He says things other people are afraid to say. As an opinion maker and thinker he is very intelligent and, like Ronald Reagan, a very effective communicator. There are many days when I think he's doing a lot more good than the Republicans in the Senate are doing."


And Rush is LOVING every bit of this attention. His popularity and audience are growing all the time. Rush is not a victim as some would have him made out to be. He's an engineer of his own fame.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jsobecky I highlighted the most hypocritical and ironic part of her statement. Amazing that she can actually use the words "leave behind the failed partisan attack politics of the past" in the same breath as calling for a derogatory statement to put up on a billboard!


I find it very telling that you left out the following part of that message:

If Republican leaders aren't willing to tell Rush, then we will. Americans want President Obama to succeed. Our country's future depends on it. Rooting for the President's failure is rooting for our country to fail.


I'd suggest that if you are dealing with hypocracy vis-a-vis partisan politics, that you not engage in it yourself.


There is absolutely nothing in the excerpt you cited that a) shows hypocrisy on my part or b) pardons a government for smearing a private citizen simply because he disagrees with them.

And your attempt to cherry-pick Limbaugh's words to create a false argument is tired. His words have been debated at length here, at is is a fact that he wants Obama's policies to fail.

But even if he wants Obama to fail personally, that is protected free speech. More and more people are turning to the idea that for America to succeed, Obama himself must fail.

Don't stray from the main topic: that it is never right for a government to smear a private citizen because of a difference in ideologies.

Obama has publicly named Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Fox News, and others in derogatory terms. He is an insecure little man. He debases the office of the president by resorting to these immature tactics.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by cornblossom
 


in the words of the president "WHAT DO YOU THINK A STIMULUS PACKAGE IS???" spending money at the printers and bill stickers is going to give money to the economy in a time advertising is down across the board, thus helping cash troubled small business!

All you angry dems, you want free speech right? a free market? all that stuff Rush loves so much? Well this is it, people who disagree can air their opinions!

Just imagine if a law was made to stop this happening, wouldn't it be called 'the fairness doctrine' or something? Rush can say he wants Obama to fail (after all in Rushland attacking your president isn't unpatriotic now Bush left) and I can say i want Fox to fail, Rush to loose all his money in bad stock deals and to end up destitute using gov handouts to buy those pain pills and blackmarket viagra he likes so much



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Where is the strategy involving Rush?


I think it's just that the Dems want people to think that this is their choice. Obama or Rush. Which party people are drawn to will make a HUGE difference in the 2010 (next year) midterm elections.


And I'm not so sure this billboard thing is about that. A LOT of Americans are pissed off and hurt that Limbaugh insists he wants Obama to fail and they want to say something back to him. I think that's the impetus behind the billboard.


Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
If you can debate the issues at hand then please do so, otherwise leave the ad hominem attacks at the door, it just goes to prove the SailorinAZ point.


Jesus, I didn't attack you. I asked you a question. I am debating the issues. I'm not the one getting personal here.




I'll say it again, it is immature, tacky


On this, we agree.


I will defend anybody's right to free speech no matter how much I disagree with it. Because their rights are just as important as my rights.


Except for the people putting up the billboard...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
reply to post by jsobecky
 


There is something seriously wrong with liberals and the liberal mind set.


yeah... it's kinda different when we copy the republicans and the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it...let's see...what is it you republicans always tell us??...QUIT YOUR WHINING, IS THAT ALL YOU PEOPLE CAN DO?

and as far as rush limbaugh? a man that has been divorced 3 times telling all you need to know about women...a man who who was a prescription drug addict sending out his maid to buy his drugs and then talking about taking personal responsibility and if someone uses drugs illegally they should go to jail...

[edit on 9-3-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?


You make this statement, then you make the next statement.



Jesus, I didn't attack you. I asked you a question. I am debating the issues. I'm not the one getting personal here.




Except for the people putting up the billboard...


If you can't see the difference between free speech, and a blatant attack on a private citizen authorized by the President's Administration, then there isn't any help for you.

There is a difference between free speech and government propaganda, and this billboard being authorized by the Obama admin. is political propaganda. In fact there are laws against government propaganda. Although I don't know if this falls into the constructs of propaganda law.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


uhmm...the democratic national committee is not part of the government, it's a private political party...sooo...it's not illegal. both parties put out ads during the election attacking people, and they could do it because they were not part of the government.

also, can you show me where president Obama "authorized" this? was it a signed document, memoranda, letter,??

[edit on 9-3-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife


But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?


You make this statement, then you make the next statement.


Dude. that's a QUESTION! See the little squiggly mark at the end??? I asked you a QUESTION. I did not attack you.



Although I don't know if this falls into the constructs of propaganda law.


It does not. Because it's an advertisement and there is no financial incentive.

The Coalition Against Censorship and Propaganda



This is not to say the government is prohibited from speaking on matters of importance. Had the government purchased advertising, and the advertising was labeled as such, there would have been no problem.


What the DNC is doing is entirely legal and falls under the heading of free speech. In fact, it could be seen as downright patriotic. Going against someone who has publicly repeated that he wants our president (and therefore the country) to FAIL.

This is overt, above-board propaganda. It's childish, but it's not immoral or illegal.

Propaganda



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jd140
Where is the strategy involving Rush?


I think it's just that the Dems want people to think that this is their choice. Obama or Rush. Which party people are drawn to will make a HUGE difference in the 2010 (next year) midterm elections.



One is a private citizen. The other is a politician. It is never right for a gov't to interfere in permitted free speech.



And I'm not so sure this billboard thing is about that. A LOT of Americans are pissed off and hurt that Limbaugh insists he wants Obama to fail and they want to say something back to him. I think that's the impetus behind the billboard.


Oh please! You're really grasping at straws here.

Puting aside for a moment your attempt to twist the stated intent of Limbaugh's words, it is not the responsibility of the US gov't to put up billboards smearing a private citizen for any reason.

That is the purview of MSNBC, Air America, and the private citizens. They can flood Limbaugh's phone lines and website if they are so offended.

The US government must stay out of it.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 



Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
If you can't see the difference between free speech, and a blatant attack on a private citizen authorized by the President's Administration, then there isn't any help for you.

There is a difference between free speech and government propaganda, and this billboard being authorized by the Obama admin. is political propaganda. In fact there are laws against government propaganda. Although I don't know if this falls into the constructs of propaganda law.


Absolutely right.
Notice that the issue of the gov't attacking a private citizen because of ideological differences is not being addressed here by the Obama advocates.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I guess that what Obama is doing should come as no surprise to us. After all, look at what was done to Joe the Plumber during the campaign. The Democrats have no problem with smearing a private citizen.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 




Originally posted by jimmyx
uhmm...the democratic national committee is not part of the government, it's a private political party...sooo...it's not illegal. both parties put out ads during the election attacking people, and they could do it because they were not part of the government.



Incorrect.

en.wikipedia.org...


The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal organization governing the United States Democratic Party on a day to day basis. While it is responsible for overseeing the process of writing a platform every four years, the DNC's central focus is on campaign and political activity in support of Democratic Party candidates, and not on public policy. The DNC was established at the 1848 Democratic National Convention.[1]

The Democratic National Committee provides national leadership for the Democratic Party of the United States. It is responsible for promoting the Democratic political platform, as well as coordinating fundraising and election strategy. Shortly after his inauguration, Barack Obama transferred his Obama For America organization to the DNC, along with its 13 million person email list, as restrictions prevented him from taking it with him to the White House.[2] Renamed Organizing For America, the organization also controls the BarackObama.com domain and website and is expected to work closely with Obama's New Media Director Macon Phillips, who will manage the WhiteHouse.gov - formerly Change.gov - website, though Phillips' duties technically fall under the White House umbrella, not the DNC.[3]




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
One is a private citizen. The other is a politician. It is never right for a gov't to interfere in permitted free speech.


And they're not. How have they interfered in Rush's free speech?



The US government must stay out of it.


According to whom?



Notice that the issue of the gov't attacking a private citizen because of ideological differences is not being addressed here by the Obama advocates.


I'll address it. I don't see the problem with the DNC or even the government publicly disagreeing with Rush. Disagreement is NOT an attack.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
And this morning on the Laura Ingraham show, she said that it was David Axelrod, Obama's chief advisor, who gave the green light to proceed with this latest persecution tactic.


And we're supposed to believe this why? Do you have a link to the transcript or anything?



All Americans should be outraged and terrified at this attempt to silence freedom of speeech.


No one is attempting to silence him. Too many people try to make "disagreement" out to be an attempt to silence. It's just not true. Besides, Rush has been spewing his filth at Obama since he joined to race for the presidency. He's been attacking Obama since before people even knew who Obama was. And NOW we're supposed to be concerned about poor Rush?

And isn't a billboard an exercise of free speech? Rush has a big audience and a platform from which to spew his racist, bigoted hatred... Why shouldn't the people be allowed to say something back to him?



Obama is directly responsible for this.


Interesting opinion. I would say he's given tacit approval, but I'm not sure it was his idea or anything.

Having said that, I think this is a really stupid and childish thing to do and I disagree with it. But I support their right to express themselves.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


You clearly Know everything you think you know. Imagine for a second, how would you look at it if Karl Rove and the Bush White House put up billboards outside the New York Time, the L.A. times, plus most other major newspapers, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, air America... or even just Keith Olberman's house. Would you be defending them? I highly doubt it.

Rush is not bigoted or racist at all. Same tired old sorry ass hatred spread by the left. It's pretty ironic that the ideology that espouses the virtues of diversity acts totally contrary to that all the time. Yes, diversity is good... unless it's a diversity of thought... those people that think differently must be destroyed. What a joke.

I voted for Obama because I desperately wanted to believe in a leader. Sadly, I am thinking I made a giant mistake. He's still got time with me, but the philosophy that Government and ONLY Government is the answer to all our problems is the exact wrong ideology to be pursuing at this time, in fact that's not change at all, that's just the same time's 1,000.

Obama... The same x 1,000. I wonder how that slogan would have worked.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


THE DNC IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! can you show anywhere, anyhow, any proof that it is???? why are you saying things that are blatantly false??



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I hope the Democrats put up a billboard right next to it condeming themselves - following the spirit of the "Fairness" Doctrine that they so covet.
More hypocrisy - it knows no bounds with the Liberals.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by jsobecky
 


THE DNC IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! can you show anywhere, anyhow, any proof that it is???? why are you saying things that are blatantly false??


Maybe they are not officially the government, but THEY CONTROL IT!!!!!!!!! What's the difference? Honestly, this is not a great argument for the left here. The President is erring by taking on Rush. Even if the President is right, he disrespects the office by attacking a radio DJ from the White House. This is so stupid I can't even believe it's coming from the team that sold the world on Obama. You'd think they be smarter than this.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
I hope the Democrats put up a billboard right next to it condeming themselves - following the spirit of the "Fairness" Doctrine that they so covet.
More hypocrisy - it knows no bounds with the Liberals.


Beautiful... LOL





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join