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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenssy
i guess that s why he has the highest rated show on radio..


I will answer that conundrum with the following quote (with apologies to H.L. Mencken) that applies nicely to Canada, too!



"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American (talk-show radio listening) public."




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
You said, "I will answer that conundrum with the following quote (with apologies to H.L. Mencken) that applies nicely to Canada, too!



"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American (talk-show radio listening) public."

So here we go again, conservatives are too stupid to know what is good for them. I really do get tired of the same old blather.

What I would like to ask you and everyone else is, Doesn't it worry you when the President of the US uses the power of his office and the power of the DNC to attack a private citizen who holds an opposing political view?

This is Big Brother at his worst and people can clearly see it. I think that the billboard will backfire on the DNC and Rush's audience will increase over the next couple of years.

By the way, if I were Rush, I would buy all the billboards near his home and charge the DNC out the nose to put their ad on one.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarminer
What I would like to ask you and everyone else is, Doesn't it worry you when the President of the US uses the power of his office and the power of the DNC to attack a private citizen who holds an opposing political view?


And I'd like to ask you... What attack??? What are you calling an attack?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You said, "And I'd like to ask you... What attack??? What are you calling an attack?"

I guess you missed the statements by Barack Obama about Rush Limbaugh?

It has been widely reported that the current attempts to align the entire Republican Party with Rush originated with Rahm Emanuel. That's Obama's Chief of Staff. When Emanuel acts he does so with the power and influence of the White House.

By the way, Rush has an audience of 20 million and about a third of that audience are Democrats.

The RNC has a membership of about 55 million. The attempt to say that all of Rush's audience are Republicans or that all Republican's listen to Rush is ridiculous and childish.

I would expect better from a President who claimed that he would be above partisanship. What happened to the "Age of Post Partisanship"? Did this "Age" end in less than 2 months?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarminer
I guess you missed the statements by Barack Obama about Rush Limbaugh?


I know of one statement by Obama: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Is that what you're considering an "attack"???

Rahm said that Rush is the head of the Republican party.

Can a person say something about someone else without being accused of "attacking" them?



I would expect better from a President who claimed that he would be above partisanship.


Perhaps. But that still doesn't make a statement containing Rush's name an "attack". I think people are being MUCH too sensitive about this.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


OK, let's look at that statement in context. Obama did say, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." This statement was directed at the GOP members of Congress. It contains an unstated premise that all of the GOP listens to Rush and takes orders from him.

Don't you think that it is interesting that the President makes this statement and then the Dems locked the Republicans out of the negotiations on the "Stimulus Package"? When asked about it, the President says, "Hey, we won."

Then the White House Chief of Staff says that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP.

Now the DNC is trying to launch a billboard campaign against Rush in his home. I mean really, buying billboard space near the man's home.

You don't see a coordinated attack here?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarminer
You don't see a coordinated attack here?


Actually, I do, but it's not aimed at Rush Limbaugh. It's using Rush Limbaugh as the weapon and aimed at the GOP. Democrats are using a public radio persona to attack the Republican party, just like the Republicans used Micheal Moore to attack the Democrats. It's exactly the same thing.

The billboard is a direct result of Limbaugh's repeated, unpatriotic statement that he wants our new president to fail. He is the "Dixie Chicks" or Charlie Sheen of this administration. He spoke his mind publicly and now he's dealing with the aftermath.

I am against these games, regardless which way they go, simply because they're childish, but each person, from the common man to the president has the right to express their opinion.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I think the billboard is silly and useless, but the GOP has made itself subject to this kind of politics through it's own weakness and foolishness.

When the leader of the party has to publicly beg forgiveness for the "sin" of criticizing a talk show host, something is wrong.

The GOP right now has the lowest popularity polling of any political party since polling started, and they don't seem to be doing anything but digging the hole they're in deeper - they're tilting even more towards the crazy right as the rest of the country moves the other way. This is a recipe for irrelevance.

Which is too bad really, as I'd like to see a sensible opposition in place to keep the Democrats' spending and taxing habits in check. A one-party system isn't going to be good for anyone.

Then again the GOP stuck it's head in the sand and did nothing as federal spending ballooned under Bush, I guess there's not much hope they'll do it now.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Your argument fails on several fronts.

First of all, the premise that 'the R's did it to Michael Moore, so that makes it OK' is childish and immature. Bad behavior does not warrant or eexcuse more bad behavior.

Second, I don't ever recall President Bush calling out Michael Moore. Can you give some examples?

Bush didn't even mention Dan Rather when Rather had those supposed draft-dodger papers. Obama should take a lesson on how to conduct himself. He is embarrassing the US in the eyes of the world.

Third, Obama pledged 'change' and an end to partisanship. This is an example of the same old hypocrisy.

Fourth, your statement about Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail is a twisting of his words. He clearly explained that he wanted Obama's policies to fail. For you to continue to state that he made 'an unpatriotic statement' is nothing but deception and disinfo.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by lunarminer
You don't see a coordinated attack here?


Actually, I do, but it's not aimed at Rush Limbaugh. It's using Rush Limbaugh as the weapon and aimed at the GOP.


Then the Democrats should be attacking the GOP, not a private citizen proxy.

And it's not aimed at Limbaugh? Puh-leeze!
Who get's the billboard? Whose name is being bandied about?

You recently accused me of 'playing dumb'. Now who's playing dumb?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
First of all, the premise that 'the R's did it to Michael Moore, so that makes it OK' is childish and immature. Bad behavior does not warrant or eexcuse more bad behavior.


Where did I say it was "ok"? I said it was childish and stupid and that I disagreed with it. Check my FIRST post in this thread. One down.



Second, I don't ever recall President Bush calling out Michael Moore.


I didn't say he did. Two down.



Third, Obama pledged 'change' and an end to partisanship. This is an example of the same old hypocrisy.


He CALLED for an end to partisanship. He can't single-handedly end it. He doesn't have power over everyone. He's not a super-hero. He's not God. He made a true statement to the GOP. That's not hypocritical. Three down.



Fourth, your statement about Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail is a twisting of his words. He clearly explained that he wanted Obama's policies to fail.


If Obama's policies fail, the economy fails. Healthcare fails, the country fails. Limbaugh may disagree with Obama's policies, but he better hope they succeed anyway. Four down.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Then the Democrats should be attacking the GOP, not a private citizen proxy.


They ARE attacking the GOP. They're using Rush to do it. Just like the GOP used Michael Moore. There's no difference.



Now who's playing dumb?


I don't think you want to hear my answer to that.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Enlighten me.

How did the Republicans use Moore the same way the Dems are using Rush.

You did say that they never called out Moore by name, like they are doing Rush.

They are using Rush to attack the Dems, but the way they do that is by discrediting him. The only way you can discredit someone is by attacking their character. They may not come right out and say that Rush is an idiot, but you get the idea of what they are doing just by listening to them.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
How did the Republicans use Moore the same way the Dems are using Rush.


Source 1
Source 2
Source 3



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."




You did say that they never called out Moore by name, like they are doing Rush.


I didn't say that.



They are using Rush to attack the Dems, but the way they do that is by discrediting him.


What have they said? He's the head of the Republican party? How does that discredit him? It discredits the Republican Party, if anything. He wants Obama to fail? He said that himself! What have they said about Limbaugh that discredits him?



The only way you can discredit someone is by attacking their character. They may not come right out and say that Rush is an idiot, but you get the idea of what they are doing just by listening to them.


Even if this is true (and I'm not saying it is) what's wrong with giving the impression that someone is an idiot? The majority of people think Rush is an idiot!



[edit on 10-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Moore endorsed and campaigned for the Democratic hopeful. He put himself in the line of fire. That isn't the same thing as what they are doing with Rush.

I had your post where you said they never called him out up and waiting for you to reply with "no I didn't". But you waited to long and I gave up. Give me a while to find it. I happened upon it by accident.


I meant they are using Rush to discredit the Republicans, but you caught on to that. My bad.


Giving the impression of someone being an idiot is attacking their character. Even if alot of people agree with you.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Moore endorsed and campaigned for the Democratic hopeful. He put himself in the line of fire.


Funny how the argument has changed once again... And Rush didn't put himself in the line of fire with his constant barrage of attacks against Obama?



Giving the impression of someone being an idiot is attacking their character. Even if alot of people agree with you.


How is the Democratic Party giving the impression that he's an idiot?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Endorsing a canidate is a little differant. Rush did not endorse either canidate. I remember listening to him last year and he had quite a bit to say about both canidates, not all of it was flattering for both Obama or McCain. So yeah, it is differant.

I didn't say they were making him out to be an idiot. You asked where was the harm if the majority agreed and I answered.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Endorsing a canidate is a little differant.


So, let me get this straight. Are you saying it's ok for the Republicans to attack Michael Moore, because he endorsed the opponent, but it's NOT ok for the Democrats to attack Rush Limbaugh, because he verbally attacked the Dem candidate?

So, verbal attack is ok, but endorsing the opponent is worthy of attack?

Hello?



I didn't say they were making him out to be an idiot.


This isn't you?


Originally posted by jd140
They may not come right out and say that Rush is an idiot, but you get the idea of what they are doing just by listening to them.


This is just getting silly. :shk: I'm done.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
First of all, the premise that 'the R's did it to Michael Moore, so that makes it OK' is childish and immature. Bad behavior does not warrant or eexcuse more bad behavior.


Where did I say it was "ok"? I said it was childish and stupid and that I disagreed with it. Check my FIRST post in this thread. One down.


No, you said


Democrats are using a public radio persona to attack the Republican party, just like the Republicans used Micheal Moore to attack the Democrats. It's exactly the same thing.


That's an endorsement of their action.



Second, I don't ever recall President Bush calling out Michael Moore.



I didn't say he did. Two down.


Of course, you missed the point
Obama has used private citizens' names frequently in disparaging terms. Bush had more class than that.




Third, Obama pledged 'change' and an end to partisanship. This is an example of the same old hypocrisy.



He CALLED for an end to partisanship. He can't single-handedly end it. He doesn't have power over everyone. He's not a super-hero. He's not God. He made a true statement to the GOP. That's not hypocritical. Three down.


He engaged in hypocritical behavior all by himself. He said one thing and did the opposite. He is a hypocritical liar.

Strike three! Yer out!




Fourth, your statement about Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail is a twisting of his words. He clearly explained that he wanted Obama's policies to fail.



If Obama's policies fail, the economy fails. Healthcare fails, the country fails. Limbaugh may disagree with Obama's policies, but he better hope they succeed anyway. Four down.


No. The hope is that Obama will be stopped before he manages to destroy this nation. Maybe Congress will rise up against him. Maybe he will be impeached.



Originally posted by jsobecky
Then the Democrats should be attacking the GOP, not a private citizen proxy.



They ARE attacking the GOP. They're using Rush to do it. Just like the GOP used Michael Moore. There's no difference.


What I said before. Unacceptable on several levels.





Now who's playing dumb?



I don't think you want to hear my answer to that.


I won't engage in these taunts with you anymore.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
If you do not get involved in the actual campaigning then you should be off limits. Moore threw his hat in with a canidate, he got involved.

Rush did not.


I wasn't actually claiming they were calling him an idiot in a round about way, I was just using that as a way of saying that while not directly attacking him they are using non threatening words to convey their message. Which is not to listen to Rush or you we will make sure you will lose any credibility you have left.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You said


Democrats are using a public radio persona to attack the Republican party, just like the Republicans used Micheal Moore to attack the Democrats. It's exactly the same thing.


That's an endorsement of their action.


Pointing out that the Democrats and Republicans are using the same tactics against each other is an endorsement of those tactics??? What?

Wow. This is worse than I thought...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join