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

Loveable little fuzz ball.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by Gemwolf]

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]

It is okay for Rush because that is what he is paid for, that is what his devouted "ditto heads" expect and that is what he is good at.

Is it childish? Of course it is

It is not okay for President Obama to do this beause that is not why we elected him, that is not what we pay him for and that is not what this country needs.

MSNBC had a nightly segment called Lame Duck with a bad pic of then President Bush underneath the title. Each night they destroyed anything Bush said or did. President Bush didn't point out the "journalist" as the head of the Dems nor did he tell the Democratic Senators not to listen to her. He ignored her unproductive critism.

President Obama should atleast take that from President Bush's play book. Ignore all unproductive critism.

This back and forth between President Obama, his cabinet and Rush is more then childish. He has a country to run. Just because Rush does not agree with President Obamas policies doesn't mean he should be called out in public.

reply to post by jsobecky


I don't give a damn about Rush but the Pelosi, Reid, Obama move to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine should scare everyone.

Odd how people are all for Free Speech until the speech disagrees with them

Originally posted by jd140

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


Exactly

If they cared they would lay all that aside between elections. All the more reason that one Party having complete control is insanity. When either Party gets control they do more harm than good.

reply to post by BRQuick

Originally posted by BRQuick

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.

The point is, Rush is a citizen. He is not a politician. He is not the government. He does not write or sign the laws. His words do not hold the power of law.

Governments should not use their power and influence to intimidate and smear any citizen, whether Rush Limbaugh or Joe the Plumber.

This is tyranny at it's worst.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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.

That is actually covered by the Fourth Amendment. Your argument fails.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Governments should not use their power and influence to intimidate and smear any citizen, whether Rush Limbaugh or Joe the Plumber.

What about Cindy Sheehan?

This is tyranny at it's worst.

Do you know what that word means?

tyranny

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" Thomas Jefferson.
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Putting up a billboard to send a message to Rush Limbaugh is not tyranny! Distasteful, childish, yes, but not tyranny!

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is actually covered by the Fourth Amendment. Your argument fails.

That makes no sense whatsoever. My argument stands. Still waiting on your explanation of how the Constitution protects Rush's right not to be sent a message via billboard...

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

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They're expressing their opinion. It's called free speech.

That is actually covered by the Fourth Amendment. Your argument fails.

What?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see the corrolation. How does the 4th apply?

reply to post by intrepid


It applies in the sense that BH made the argument that Limbaugh's personal, private papers were not being revealed:

www.law.cornell.edu...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

That part of the amendment stands alone.

Edit: It can also be considered harassment:


It can also be considered harassment:


en.wikipedia.org...

Types of harassment

There are a number of harassments that fall into this category.

* Bullying
Harassment that can occur on the playground, school, in the workforce (may it be sexual harassment or verbal harassment) or any other place. Usually physical and psychological harassing behaviour perpetrated against an individual, by one or more persons.
* Psychological harassment
This is humiliating or abusive behaviour that lowers a person’s self-esteem or causes them torment. This can take the form of verbal comments, actions or gestures. Falling into this category is workplace mobbing. Community Based Harassment — stalking by a group against an individual using repeated distractions that the individual is sensitized to, such as clicking an ink pen.
:
*Stalking
The unauthorized following and surveillance of an individual, to the extent that the person's privacy is unacceptably intruded upon, and the victim fears for their safety.

*Mobbing
Violence committed directly or indirectly by a loosely affiliated and organized group of individuals to punish or even execute a person for some alleged offence without a lawful trial. The 'offense' can range from a serious crime like murder or simple expression of ethnic, cultural, or religious attitudes. The issue of the victim's actual guilt or innocence is often irrelevant to the mob, since the mob relies on contentions that are unverifiable, unsubstantiated, or completely fabricated.

*Hazing
To persecute, harass, or torture in a deliberate, calculated, planned, manner. Typically the targeted individual is a subordinate, for example, a fraternity pledge, a first-year military cadet, or somebody who is considered 'inferior' or an 'outsider'. Hazing is illegal in many instances.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by jsobecky]

These are the same people that wanted Bush to fail. That's the problem with these wingnut liberals...they can say something about someone, but turn the tables and it's just so awful, forgetting all the while, they have done the same thing. All that cryin' ought to solve the drought problems.

reply to post by jsobecky

How is "I'm Jen O'Malley Dillon, the new Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee. " the government harassing a public multimedia mogul? I have a suspicion Rush just might have something to do with the billboard himself.

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?

Being a Libertarian, I'm not a big fan of Rush.....that being said....please provide a couple of examples of his "racist, bigotred hatred." I listen to him a couple times a week, and I just don't hear that. I hear a neo conservative that I agree with 30% of the time, but I can't recall much racism. I often hear individuals, that don't take the time to put one of his rants in context, call him racist. But rarely would I consider them correct in their classification.
Cheers!

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.

yeah that fairness doctrine is terrible for you republicans...oh since it seems you haven't read about it, here it is...TERRIBLE, JUST TERRIBLE!!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I can't stand Limbaugh. But I support his freedom of speech 100%. I happen to agree with what he said this time. But regardless of whether or not we agree with him, he still has his constitutional right to freedom of speech.

And when it's the very government who is attacking Mr. Limbaugh and his freedom... Austin, we've got a problem.

Clearly, the government is becoming bolder and bolder... not even making much of an effort anymore to hide the fact that we're in a totally fascist state. Corporate America and the big banks run the show now. They tell Obama when he can and can't take a dump. And the increasing military presence on main street, combined with all the FEMA camps that they claim don't exist..... there's an evil smell on the wind.

If they keep pushing the American people around like this, it's only a matter of time before they start pushing back... hard. And it ain't gonna be pretty nor friendly.

I just urge everyone to stop thinking about liberal/conservative, left/right, blue state/red state, black person/brown person/white person. That stuff doesn't matter. That's how they divide you and have you fight amongst each other.

Last I heard, there were 31 states who have prepared or are preparing walking papers for the fed. gov't. Let's hope that number rises to include every single state and every single person who lives in those states, all standing together as one solid unit. All together now.... kick their arses to the moon.

Let's run these rascals out of town... with their hair on fire.

Can someone please explain how the government is officially attacking/endorsing attacking Rush? I thought it was just the one lady starting a funny email campaign, from a Democratic group, not an executive order from our President by any means!

Makes you wonder why the Dems are still campaigning doesn't it?

They hold the White House, both Houses of Congress, and it looks like they'll get to appoint their share of Supreme Court Justices.

So, why the campaign tactics? I thought that they won? They keep telling us that they won.

Maybe they're afraid that they won't ever win again?

[edit on 10-3-2009 by lunarminer]

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Can someone please explain how the government is officially attacking/endorsing attacking Rush? I thought it was just the one lady starting a funny email campaign, from a Democratic group, not an executive order from our President by any means!

You really haven't heard anything President Obama has said about Rush or that he told Republican Senators to play ball and not to listen anything Rush sasy?

Or you just don't like the man so you don't think anything said about Rush is bad.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?

If you cannot realize the dangers of a government smearing a private citizen, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Yeah, you would think the President would be above this sort of silly crap. One thing is for sure, it sure is getting more people to tune in to Rush to listen to what all the fuss is about and ya know more often than not when callers are calling in they are mentioning how they were against Rush but now see they made a grave error in judgement voting for Obimbo so I hope it all comes back to bite Obimbo in the butt.

i guess that s why he has the highest rated show on radio..

Originally posted by siryancelot
please provide a couple of examples of his "racist, bigotred hatred."

I did. Here

Top 10 Limbaugh Racist Quotes

Originally posted by Albertarocks
And when it's the very government who is attacking Mr. Limbaugh and his freedom...

I have yet to see how "the government" is "attacking" Limbaugh... No one has shown specific instances with sources of these alleged "attacks". The President said, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Is that what you're considering an "attack"???

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah, you would think the President would be above this sort of silly crap.

Actually, I do. That's why I (and others) keep asking what he has said, exactly that's got everyone up in arms at Rush's defense. Is it too much to ask that we all know what Obama said that's such an "attack"?