It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RDR17
 



Originally posted by RDR17
Look, I get that Rush say's things to get a rise out of people, and often those things are not politically correct or even true, but it still doesn't excuse the behavior of having a Nixonian type enemies list. Ignoring Rush would be far more effective, but what the Obama administration is doing is like what the Bush admin. was doing with Janet Jacksons Boob... they are trying to distract us. Don't let them.


Nixon's 'enemies list' is one thing. The danger is this type of behavior borders on McCarthyism.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.


So, then, it was actually a bad thing for the Bushies to out Valerie Plame, then, or did that not count because she was a civil servant at the time?

Also...like I said, you didn't cite the whole article, just the parts you figured were inflamatory. Sort of like cherry-picking somebody's words...that's the phrase you accused me of, right? (not even my words...just citing your article...the part you 'missed')
Tell me, if there is lying by omission...is there also hypocracy by omission?

Either way, you wouldn't be presenting this story if you could not use it to support your ideological position, so I find your statements disingenuous, to say the least. This is scarcely a non-partisan thread you've opened up here. Butter does, indeed, melt in your mouth.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
If you mean Rush, he is a public persona/figure. That makes him a target, certaionly a man as old and big as Rush can take what hes been dishing out for decades now.


As somebody who is also old and big, I think you ought to keep your talking points to the man's personality...not his morphology.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
There is a limit to free speech when it comes to the government. It can be classified as propaganda.


Yes. And the government is allowed propaganda. Where have you been for the past 8 years? I'm still waiting for you to illustrate where the Constitution states that the government MUST say out of this. As you did here


But when they turn that spotlight on private citizens, they have crossed a major line.


What line is that? Specifically. You keep making these statements with nothing to back them up.



He's rolling in the attention and the current ratings, which are through the roof.


Exactly. So he's hardly a victim. He's LOVING this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's encouraging it. Or perhaps he even gave the billboard idea to the DNC...




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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
haha Rush supporters swarming in to defend their hero - but come on lets be honest with ourselves; rush is racist, small minded, greedy. selfish. a lier, hypocrite and an egotistical moron.

don't you listen to his shows???

ATS should well remember that to critisize Bush or the neocons was capital crime number 1 for the last 8 years, you do NOT talk bad about the president -it's unpatriotic! unpatriotic to try and warn the ptb that the war in iraq is not going to work, etc BUT now like magic (lol no doubt due to the 'magic negro') it's patriotic to want your president to fail and the nation to collapse into economic ruin. To even suggest the government was involved in or capitalized on 911 was a huge crime, however with a 'shizlemanizzle' it's now patriotic to say that obama capitalized on the death of his grandmother for political gain - no doubt as obama's presidency goes on we'll here more nonsense from rush, same as al franklin and his ilk talked bad about bush.

i just hope that the dems can manage to stay classy, a little friendly jibe and light pranking is fine - don't let the lefts talking heads don't turn into cartoon character's like Bill o'liely, Rush and Michel More -dang we'll it's too late for some of them, is senk is our last hope?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Nice try at distraction, but your opinions on my ideology or motives contribute absolutely nothing to the thread.

It seems like you are attempting to turn this into a baiting session. I will not participate in that.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I'm just going to interject one more time into this thread and say, all this the "Bush admin did it where was the outrage then" then spinning it to try to use it as an excuse to justify this is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Bush and the Republicans are no longer in power now the Dems are, using the "Bush did it" excuse is lame and childish.

Especially considering the double standard presented to where if it was Bush that did this you all would be outraged. Yet, you justify it because the Dems are in power.

I see a complete lack of principle and a hive mind mentality abundant in this thread.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.


So, then, it was actually a bad thing for the Bushies to out Valerie Plame, then, or did that not count because she was a civil servant at the time?

Also...like I said, you didn't cite the whole article, just the parts you figured were inflamatory. Sort of like cherry-picking somebody's words...that's the phrase you accused me of, right? (not even my words...just citing your article...the part you 'missed')
Tell me, if there is lying by omission...is there also hypocracy by omission?

Either way, you wouldn't be presenting this story if you could not use it to support your ideological position, so I find your statements disingenuous, to say the least. This is scarcely a non-partisan thread you've opened up here. Butter does, indeed, melt in your mouth.


Did you want him to quote the whole article? He provided a link and a portion of the article.

Either way you look at it, them doing this is low class on the Dems side. There really isn't an excuse that will make them look good.

You asked him a question which he already answered in his post that you quoted.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Nice try at distraction, but your opinions on my ideology or motives contribute absolutely nothing to the thread.

It seems like you are attempting to turn this into a baiting session. I will not participate in that.


Actually, my point is that the thread itself was presented as a partisan baiting session, so it's too late to step back. And I am not looking at distracting you...certainly not by quoting you your own words. I am simply entering into the discourse you initiated. But if you wish, I'll leave you alone on the subject. I've said my bit.
Cheers, JC



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
There is a limit to free speech when it comes to the government. It can be classified as propaganda.


Yes. And the government is allowed propaganda. Where have you been for the past 8 years? I'm still waiting for you to illustrate where the Constitution states that the government MUST say out of this. As you did here


But when they turn that spotlight on private citizens, they have crossed a major line.


What line is that? Specifically. You keep making these statements with nothing to back them up.


The lessons of history have obviously been forgotten. Remember Hitler. Remember McCarthy.

You keep defending a government's 'right' to smear a private citizen. You yourself have argued that there is an 'implied right' to privacy in the Constitution in other threads. But you refuse to use the same logic here.

Very puzzling.




He's rolling in the attention and the current ratings, which are through the roof.



Exactly. So he's hardly a victim. He's LOVING this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's encouraging it. Or perhaps he even gave the billboard idea to the DNC...



He can hardly be faulted if the Democrat's failed strategies resulted in his great benefit.

It doesn't change the fact that a government should not smear private citizens over ideological differences.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The lessons of history have obviously been forgotten. Remember Hitler. Remember McCarthy.


And still, that doesn't answer my question about where in the Constitution it states that the government MUST stay out of this, does it?



You keep defending a government's 'right' to smear a private citizen.


And you keep criticizing the government for some free speech issue that you have yet to define, while you staunchly supported Bush's "free speech zones". Very puzzling, indeed.



You yourself have argued that there is an 'implied right' to privacy in the Constitution in other threads. But you refuse to use the same logic here.


No one is trying to get Limbaugh's medical records or other private papers or make him take a drug test. They're expressing their opinion. It's called free speech.




He can hardly be faulted if the Democrat's failed strategies resulted in his great benefit.


And I'm not faulting him. I say go for it! I think he's hoping this stays alive.



It doesn't change the fact that a government should not smear private citizens over ideological differences.


Well, I know that's your opinion, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not against the law or even something that's never been done before. Remember Cindy Sheehan? I don't remember you complaining about the government smearing her. Or Jane Fonda?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


You know, for the most part I really don't like Republicans or Democrats, but I must say that Democrats seem to be the most outraged when someone has an opposing view - as if they aren't even allowed to hold that view. This isn't China. We're not Communists here. What's the problem? If the other side is so stupid and ignorant, then shouldn't the Democrats have no worries, knowing that their own actions will prove their policies? It only makes me more sympathetic towards Republicans when I hear these extreme liberals who clearly make it more than a disagreement of policy. And this example is really small compared to some of the personal attacks I've seen from liberals.
More evidence of the stupidity of politics. Pointing fingers and making personal attacks when everything is going all to Hell.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Didnt mean to offend, I too am big, and lets face it, that is not something one can hide. Anyway I meant big as in Big boy, supposed grown up. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh yeah, and big mouth.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I'm still not seeing the problem with this billboard and (as was previously stated) how it's infringing on or hampering Rush's right to free speech? Is it gonna kick him in the butt and shove a ball gag in his mouth and put a bag over his head every time he comes out the house?

Rush can say what he wants, as can the DNC...no matter how childish they both seem to be.

The DNC is a private entity and can make up it's own rules.

Bi-partisan = Oxymoron. Political parties are partisan by nature, asinine and should be abolished. Vote for the person with the best ideas and not along party lines and we'd more than likely be a lot better off in this country.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I am waiting for a definition of private citizen. Are we not all from Barack to me, private citizens?? What exactly does this mean and why is it relevant to what two apparent juvenile behaving franchises are doing to tick each other off?? (Rush v. Dem)?? The OP keeps bringing up this private citizen argument, as the meat of it actually, yet how it pertains to the topic, I am not understanding.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


You know, for the most part I really don't like Republicans or Democrats, but I must say that Democrats seem to be the most outraged when someone has an opposing view - as if they aren't even allowed to hold that view. This isn't China. We're not Communists here. What's the problem? If the other side is so stupid and ignorant, then shouldn't the Democrats have no worries, knowing that their own actions will prove their policies? It only makes me more sympathetic towards Republicans when I hear these extreme liberals who clearly make it more than a disagreement of policy. And this example is really small compared to some of the personal attacks I've seen from liberals.
More evidence of the stupidity of politics. Pointing fingers and making personal attacks when everything is going all to Hell.


Agreed. It was a Bash Bush Festival for the last 8 years (and maybe rightly so). That was just fine with the Dems. BUT...if you say something bad about Obama...well, they just won't stand for it and would probably make it a crime if they could. If they would focus even HALF of the energy it takes to hate each other into solving the problems of this country, we'd all be better off.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I am waiting for a definition of private citizen. Are we not all from Barack to me, private citizens?? What exactly does this mean and why is it relevant to what two apparent juvenile behaving franchises are doing to tick each other off?? (Rush v. Dem)?? The OP keeps bringing up this private citizen argument, as the meat of it actually, yet how it pertains to the topic, I am not understanding.


I wondered this myself. Maybe he's alluding to the fact that the President should be above responding to smear attacks from other citizens...? But, that being said, Rush isn't just any private citizen. His words hold a lot of weight with a lot of people.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The bottom line regarding this whole mess is simple. Obama and his handlers, like it or not, MUST be able to rise above the critics!! He is the POTUS for God's sake.

He is still caught up in High School politics and for some reason he is acting like he is president of the student council. Basically, we have a wimp running our country. Less than two months and he can't take the heat. He is already blaming stress and fatigue for his poor treatment of PM Brown. He has an excuse for everything.

How long has Rush been on Radio? How many books has Rush written? How many controversial comments has Rush made? Rush makes no secrets about his opinions. He never has. Open your eyes Obama. Do you honestly think that you won't be publicly scrutinized for your decisions?

The liberal double standard is mind numbing. Obama is no better than a cheap third world dictator trying to silence his naysayers. Like it or not Barry you are the President of the United States of America and freedom of speech comes with the territory. Just ask all of Bush's critics.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Rush is a hate mongering old fat windbag! The more politicians respond to him the more cash he puts in his pockets. I was very disappointed when the current administration began to respond to him.

Even my own mother, one of the most conservative people in the nation, thinks Rush is too much. Just this morning she sent me an email saying that while she agrees with his politics, she finds his behavior and racism sickening.

Let Rush scream, he looks foolish and when leaders start to respond to some guy that is seeking ratings they look dumb too. That goes for Obama, DNC and the head of the RNC. red



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Free speech is good and all, but this is the second time the Dems have tried to smear a private citizen who has embarresed the President on a national level.

Both have crossed the line, but Rush has crossed that line going on what 20 years? It is what is expected of him. The President shouldn't resort to sarcastic remarks toward a private citizen and possibly give a go ahead to publicly humiliate him.

Rush is just doing his job.

The President is playing I know you are but what am I.


That is a rather hypocritical statement there...

You just basically said that its ok for Rush to do it but its not ok for Obama to do it....


Why is it ok for ANYONE to behave that way? It shouldnt be. It should be considered childish, no matter if one has been doing it for 20 years or if the other is playing I know you are but what am I. Its just childish.

BOTH sides should be embarrased for playing the attack politics game. Attack politics is so silly and out of touch with the real world...

Lets move on past attacks and move forward toward peace


[edit on 9-3-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join