nativetexan Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Since when does the government decide who we should listen to? Censorship is here.... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/dems-launch-online-petition-rush-limbaugh/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Pretty ridiculous for the dcc committee to launch that petition. To me kind of reinforces the idea that they know no boundaries. Actually seems hypocritical to me that they think they have the right to petition such, unfortunately some folks will not realize what it is that they are signing up for when they sign that petition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Two things. One, censorship has been here a long, long time my friend. Two, when the next online petition actually accomplishes something it will be the first time one ever has. Paranoia inhibits growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Since when does the government decide who we should listen to? Censorship is here.... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/dems-launch-online-petition-rush-limbaugh/ In this case, I absolutely agree. Its one thing for someone acting strictly as a private citizen to advocate listening to, or not listening to, a particular show. But its something else entirely when a major political party, especially the party that has total control over the FCC and other regulatory agencies, starts telling US citizens who to listen to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativetexan Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Two things. One, censorship has been here a long, long time my friend. Two, when the next online petition actually accomplishes something it will be the first time one ever has. Paranoia inhibits growth. Paranoia is a fear of something which could happen. How can I be paranoid of something happening when it has already happened? Now, I am not scared of it because I am doing my part to counteract it. You contradicted yourself. Example.. The British might be coming!...Paranoia The British are coming!...Fact/Fear/Courage/Patriotism The British are here!...Now lets kick ass. <---I am here. I wouldn't be so bold as to say that I know it all about online petitions...Almost certainly, I cannot be everywhere at once. To assume you know is really arrogant, and complacent. Keep it up! You continue to drive my point home... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Paranoia is a fear of something which could happen. How can I be paranoid of something happening when it has already happened? Now, I am not scared of it because I am doing my part to counteract it. You contradicted yourself. Example.. The British might be coming!...Paranoia The British are coming!...Fact/Fear/Courage/Patriotism The British are here!...Now lets kick ass. <---I am here. I wouldn't be so bold as to say that I know it all about online petitions...Almost certainly, I cannot be everywhere at once. To assume you know is really arrogant, and complacent. Keep it up! You continue to drive my point home... So, since "this has already happened" you can no longer listen to Rush Limbaugh? He comes on the air here in 14 minutes. When you say things like "free speech is the next thing on the chopping block" that shows your believe that at least one other thing has already been put on the "chopping block." Yet you have no proof or factual information that anything has been "put on the chopping block." You also say "since when does the government decide who we should listen to?" Did you actually read that article? That petition is merely to "express outrage" towards Limbaugh and signing it is "telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama." Nothing in it is telling you who you can or cannot listen to or impeding on any of your rights in anyway for that matter. It may be a ridiculous waste of time...but wasting their own time is not illegal. btw- As defined by Webster's (please pay special attention to the 2nd definition: Paranoia... 1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations 2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others Me talking is indeed helping to prove your point, and that is you don't have one. Edited January 28, 2009 by muggs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotashRLS Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 How is Rush's statements/expressions of Obama, which are being publicly criticized, any different than the statements/expressions liberal media made about Bush over his run for and eventual presidency? It is a double standard when the liberals cry to their mommas that someone is picking on them!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Remember guys...after every Socialistic...er...Democratic...:D:D...president there was a Republican elected after him...after Jimmy Carter...there was Reagan...and that is a comforting thought! Obama is going to mess up BIGTIME and we are going to usher in a new era of Sarah Palin! :D:D Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 How is Rush's statements/expressions of Obama, which are being publicly criticized, any different than the statements/expressions liberal media made about Bush over his run for and eventual presidency? It is a double standard when the liberals cry to their mommas that someone is picking on them!!!!! It's not. It's exactly the same, and that petition is the typical liberal crying. But that's not the issue here. The original poster is saying our freedom of speech is going to be taken away. That's simply not true. That's all I'm saying, and if your ego boundaries will allow you, and you're committed to being honest with yourself, you have to admit that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 we are going to usher in a new era of Sarah Palin! :D:D That would be great, because she's obviously qualified. (tongue planted firmly in cheek). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotashRLS Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 It's not. It's exactly the same, and that petition is the typical liberal crying. But that's not the issue here. The original poster is saying our freedom of speech is going to be taken away. That's simply not true. That's all I'm saying, and if your ego boundaries will allow you, and you're committed to being honest with yourself, you have to admit that too. Your forgot your usual ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 That would be great, because she's obviously qualified. (tongue planted firmly in cheek). More qualified than any "community organizer", my friend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativetexan Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 So, since "this has already happened" you can no longer listen to Rush Limbaugh? He comes on the air here in 14 minutes. When you say things like "free speech is the next thing on the chopping block" that shows your believe that at least one other thing has already been put on the "chopping block." Yet you have no proof or factual information that anything has been "put on the chopping block." Hey, you were the one that said censorship is already here. "Yet you have no proof or factual information that anything has been put on the chopping block." You also say "since when does the government decide who we should listen to?" Did you actually read that article? That petition is merely to "express outrage" towards Limbaugh and signing it is "telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama." Nothing in it is telling you who you can or cannot listen to or impeding on any of your rights in anyway for that matter. It may be a ridiculous waste of time...but wasting their own time is not illegal. Do you understand what this leads to? When members of government speak out against someone who is exercising their right to free speech and "express outrage," what do you think the public is going to do who follow those particular members of government? Members of government have no business doing such things. Honestly, it is whining, but it is also a form of censorship because the government wants Rush to not say such things and is encouraging the public to follow in their path. btw- As defined by Webster's (please pay special attention to the 2nd definition: Paranoia... 1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations 2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others What's to be suspicious about? It's right there in front of me. Nor did I feel like I was being irrationally suspicious or distrustful. I don't sit in the corner and suck my thumb scared to death of Uncle Sam. What I do is push to have those people who choose not to follow the Constitution canned from making any decision on the future of this country. Me talking is indeed helping to prove your point, and that is you don't have one. Nope, my point is that you don't read into things and are perfectly happy with what you are fed. I'm not going to tit for tat with you over this either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nope, my point is that you don't read into things and are perfectly happy with what you are fed. I'm not going to tit for tat with you over this either. Dude...coming from a guy who tows the conservative line. I actually took the time to read into this situation and presented the facts. I don't give credence to any one side of the line and if I can I'll expose the hypocracy of both- and there's plenty of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 More qualified than any "community organizer", my friend! Where did I say Obama was qualified? Would you agree that his leadership skills are far superior to those of Sarah Palin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 You got me there, Obama does have good leadership skills I must admit...and they're going to lead America even further into catastrophe. Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotashRLS Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I felt their experience levels were quite equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 How is Rush's statements/expressions of Obama, which are being publicly criticized, any different than the statements/expressions liberal media made about Bush over his run for and eventual presidency? It is a double standard when the liberals cry to their mommas that someone is picking on them!!!!! There is no difference, this is correct. Pretty sad that the dcc has resorted to this petition, cannot recall any such type petition when Bush was in office. What exactly is the goal of the petition anyway, I did not ever see what the goal of the petition was other than to let Rush know what the dems "feel" about his comments??? With all the beforehand finger pointing(blame games) and whining, I can kind of foresee that Obama is not going to pull our government together, but going to further the divisiveness that he said he was going to fix. Sad thing is that it may not be all his fault, his party sure is not helping him. Part of being a leader is accountability and taking ownership, I just don't see it as of yet with Obama. I hate to say it, but I am afraid Rush may well be right on track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 With all the beforehand finger pointing(blame games) and whining, I can kind of foresee that Obama is not going to pull our government together, but going to further the divisiveness that he said he was going to fix. Is this the first time the two sides have played the blame game?? That's all they DO. I'm not sure when he said he was dong to fix this divisiveness...but even if he did...he's been in office a week! You guys seriously kill me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 The thing is Muggs, and don't get me wrong we all seriously love ya' buddy, Obama is EXPECTING that the GOP will just give in and cooperate with him. That's just never going to happen and we all know it. And when that doesn't happen he'll just say, and he's already said it, "I won. I'm the president, I trump." When the conservatives don't agree with him and the other looney libs, mud will be thrown, name calling will ensue and the conservatives will be driven even further underground than they already are. Then...Obama will make a huge blunder and next election the Republicans will have a good shot at the White House. Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Is this the first time the two sides have played the blame game?? That's all they DO. I'm not sure when he said he was dong to fix this divisiveness...but even if he did...he's been in office a week! You guys seriously kill me. We try buddy.:D If I am not mistaken Obama said he would pull both parties together, you know "reach across the aisles". This is part of leadership quality he was said to have, was it not? Do you argue that a good leader will work together with both sides to reach agreement? Guess I am a bit curious as to your definition of what exactly a good leader is Eric. Far as the blame game, you are correct, but usually the finger pointing does not come until after the fact, in all my life I cannot recall there ever being so much beforehand blaming. It appears to me as if they are making excuses before getting into things to soften the blows of the failures that may/will come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 The thing is Muggs, and don't get me wrong we all seriously love ya' buddy, Obama is EXPECTING that the GOP will just give in and cooperate with him. That's just never going to happen and we all know it. And when that doesn't happen he'll just say, and he's already said it, "I won. I'm the president, I trump." When the conservatives don't agree with him and the other looney libs, mud will be thrown, name calling will ensue and the conservatives will be driven even further underground than they already are. Then...Obama will make a huge blunder and next election the Republicans will have a good shot at the White House. Dakota Conservatives had the White House for 8 years and have control majority of the mass media (Clear Channel), as well as the majority of print newspapers across the Country. They're also one of two majorty forces in American politics, how are they underground? I've voted Republican in every election I've been able to, including the most recent. Them winning back the White House would be fine with me, as long as it's not Palin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotashRLS Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 We try buddy.:D If I am not mistaken Obama said he would pull both parties together, you know "reach across the aisles". This is part of leadership quality he was said to have, was it not? Do you argue that a good leader will work together with both sides to reach agreement? Guess I am a bit curious as to your definition of what exactly a good leader is Eric. Far as the blame game, you are correct, but usually the finger pointing does not come until after the fact, in all my life I cannot recall there ever being so much beforehand blaming. It appears to me as if they are making excuses before getting into things to soften the blows of the failures that may/will come. But instead, he opened the flood gates for all the personal agendas to be railroaded through before they lose the majority. Good bipartisanship there:mad: That BS HR 45 bill will jeapardize my Wisconsin EMT Licensure and Land Surveyor Licensure if I refuse to disclose. I am really, really mad. I personally am ready to fight for my rights NOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Conservatives had the White House for 8 years and have control majority of the mass media (Clear Channel), as well as the majority of print newspapers across the Country. They're also one of two majorty forces in American politics, how are they underground? If you haven't noticed, the party is extremely divided right now and has been made into a "negative eye-sore" by the leftwing media and all liberals in general. While Palin and McCain may have ignited the fire under the conservative base, they didn't exactly appeal to the moderates like Obama did. I'll wager at least 50% of all moderates voted for Barack. That doesn't do the Republican ticket much good now, does it? While Dems are celebrating their victory, the Republicans are trying to put together the shattered pieces of the party. And now we've got liberals telling us that if we want to contribute to the society we need to "get with it" and get rid of our conservative "fundamentalist" views. We're being told we should not listen to conservative radio. It's considered unfortunate that young conservatives are old enough to vote and too "immature" to vote for the right person. Trust me, as the President of the University of Sioux Falls Campus Republicans I have experience with that little tidbit. I've had some interesting "conversations" (me presenting sound logic and reason and she calling me evil, immature, bigoted and racist) with the President of the Campus Democrats. :D:D Yes, my friend, we are most certainly underground! Dakota Edited January 28, 2009 by Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 In this case, I absolutely agree. Its one thing for someone acting strictly as a private citizen to advocate listening to, or not listening to, a particular show. But its something else entirely when a major political party, especially the party that has total control over the FCC and other regulatory agencies, starts telling US citizens who to listen to. I wouldn't normally quote myself, but I haven't heard anyone give me a credible reason why we shouldn't be concerned when a "ruling" political party goes after an opposition political commentator and attempts to silence him? During the time that the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, did they put forth an organized effort to silence Air America, or Al Franken, or Janeane Garafalo? No! Nor should they. Now if Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or I want to say that Air America is deadly boring, Al Franken is an idiot, and Janeane Garafalo isn't worth listening to, that's fine. We're private citizens voicing our opinions. But if the Republican party went after them, as a party, that's entirely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.