Quote :

"However, no matter the benefit, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT FORCING ITS WILL OVER MEDIA OUTLETS. I dont care if it benefits my view or not...."

lol

so i'm sure you've been extremely critical of the last years of FCC reactionary fines, right?

Quote :

"even though the idea usually has little or no moral ground to stand on."

moral ground?
i prefer my government to stand on legal ground

but you go ahead and make assumptions about what i do and don't support

hint - i don't support the fairness doctrine

2/2/2009 12:04:26 AM

So who's surprised the Democrats are trying to shut down Limbaugh now?

2/2/2009 10:18:15 PM

obama just made Limbaugh that much more powerful by mentioning him by name. rookie mistake i guess.

2/3/2009 8:58:41 AM

how is that a mistake? limbaugh's less popular than the republicans. why not tie them to a lunatic and bring them down a few more pegs?

[Edited on February 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM. Reason : l.]

2/3/2009 9:04:26 AM

the President mentioning you by name gives you credibility. I dont remember Clinton ever mentioning Limbaugh.

if you are really trying to say that Limbaugh does not have pull, then you have your head in the sand. you might not agree with him and you might think he is a windbag but he has a huge audience.

2/3/2009 9:20:31 AM

he's got a choir he preaches to... just like jon stewart... many are already convinced one way or the other before they even tune in

the fairness doctrine might be the best thing to happen to limbaugh... it was like when 2 live crew got their parental advisory sticker slapped on by tipper gore

the only thing that happened was sales went up

2/3/2009 11:41:10 AM

^ and i damn sure wouldn't have gone out and bought their album, if all that business hadn't happened.

2/3/2009 5:01:56 PM

And all of you who are worked up about this don't even listen to talk radio.

Except Republican18 and Hooksaw.

But lets be serious, its probably better for you guys' general level of stress that the shit you listen to goes off.

2/4/2009 2:05:09 AM

hooksaw's gone, son

2/4/2009 2:08:44 AM

the fairness doctrine wont hurt a guy like limbaugh. the doctrine will hurt radio stations who will basically be forced to put liberal shows on the air, who nobody listens to (air america anyone?). the liberal audience doesnt pay much attention to the radio as they generally get their information from the internet and TV....which they pretty much have on lock. its just a different dynamic I guess.

2/4/2009 8:12:53 AM

there's no way the feigned boogieman of the fairness doctrine could hurt limbaugh, that's why he loves to rave on about it

makes him seem dangerous... like a dude with a camaro and a mustache

2/4/2009 11:32:12 AM

The fairness doctrine will hurt radio. It will force radio stations to put crap on the air that no one wants to listen too, reducing advert revenues. Which in turn will stagnate the market are reduce the success of conservative talk radio.

The reason conservative talk radio is prospering is because of the lack of a conservative voice in the main stream media. If newspapers and tv were balanced, conservative talk radio would not exist any more than liberal talk radio exists. AM radio is the counter balance that has developed due to the imbalance of the main stream media.

2/5/2009 1:28:54 AM

Quote :

"Not only does this shit go against the Constitution, but it goes against the principles of intelligent thought and common sense."

On the other hand, talk radio isn't doing much on that front, either.

2/5/2009 8:30:19 AM

just because you dont agree with it? there is plenty of intelligent talk radio that stirs debate in our country...thats what its all about. dont you get that?

2/5/2009 9:43:14 AM

Talk radio isn't about intelligent discussion or debate. It's about making money off of rednecks. Don't you get that?

[Edited on February 5, 2009 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2009 9:50:40 AM

dude.

i thought you were dead

2/5/2009 10:39:22 AM

Quote :

"Talk radio isn't about intelligent discussion or debate. It's about making money off of rednecks. Don't you get that?"

are you trolling or serious? I dont know many rednecks that listen to alan colmes.

2/5/2009 1:31:24 PM

For that matter I don't know many normal people who listen to Alan Colmes.

2/5/2009 4:07:46 PM

For that matter I don't know many normal people.

2/5/2009 4:10:10 PM

For that matter, normal people have an average IQ hovering around 100... intellectualism isn't exactly in high demand in entertainment media.

2/6/2009 12:26:28 AM

Quote :

"I dont know many rednecks that listen to alan colmes. "

Only since he stopped doing the Hannity show.

2/6/2009 5:29:00 AM

nice one.

for those who brush off talk radio...do you not listen to NPR? Clark Howard? local people like brad and britt? surely even the most partisan of folks recognize the intellectual value those people bring to the table, even if it is just to the point of open discussion and the sharing of ideas.

2/6/2009 9:10:32 AM

Michigan Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow is calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Her call probably has nothing to do with the fact that her husband is a liberal talk-radio executive.

2/6/2009 11:06:14 AM

Saw that on drudge this morning... Took long enough to make it here

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM. Reason : Polly wanna cracker]

2/6/2009 1:07:41 PM

^3

People generally aren't talking about NPR when referring to "talk radio." I don't support the Fairness Doctrine - at all. But let's not act like folks like Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly or Levin or Beck or Ingraham are conributing anything to intellectual civic discourse in this country.

I oppose the Fairness Doctrine because the government shouldn't meddle in the editorial decisions of the news industry. That said, I think it's debatable how much damage it would ultimately do to intelligent conversation in this country.

2/6/2009 3:55:15 PM

firstly, are you stalking me or something?

secondly, just because you dont happen to agree with what they say doesnt mean that it lacks value. you are basically painting yourself a hack with a statement like that. its purely your own partisan opinion.

2/6/2009 4:08:17 PM

No, I say it lacks value because it is devoid of rational, intellectual thought. And go ahead and guess at my partisan leanings all you want, but for the record, I read/watch the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Weekly Standard, Special Report on Fox News, and many other conservative news sources on a daily basis. I am not opposed to conservative journalism. I am simply averse to the toxic stupidity of talk radio.

2/6/2009 4:31:02 PM

why should your opinion, or for that matter any politician's opinion, have any influence over the medium? because you or Nancy Pelosi think it is 'devoid' of rational thought doesnt make it so. those radio hosts are no different than any other op-ed columnist or jon stewart for that matter. they all have their place in the exchange of ideas. nobody is arguing that they are 'reporters.'

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2009 4:37:50 PM

I don't think my opinion should have influence over the medium. Where did you get that idea?

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. What does that have to do with me?

And yes, talk radio hosts are probably most comparable to Jon Stewart, who is a comedian, on Comedy Central.

But they are wholly different from columnists, who offer (generally) academic contributions to the public discourse. Let me know when the Washington Post prints an op-ed that reads like this:

"And the liberals? The LIBERALS? They just to want steal all our money and give it to POOR PEOPLE, so they can expand their base and establish a permanent one-party state! We will become the United States of Idiots! Garble garble garble!

Rush Limbaugh is a syndicated radio talk show host, and an idiot."



[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2009 4:46:49 PM

rush limbaugh is no idiot

you can call him a blowhard or a visionary

but he's no idiot

2/6/2009 7:37:11 PM

Quote :

"I don't think my opinion should have influence over the medium. Where did you get that idea? Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. What does that have to do with me?"

politicians think their opinion should have influence. they share your opinion. I was not using the literal 'you.'

pelosi (I think) is one of the prominent politicians who have spoken out for it.

2/6/2009 7:44:07 PM

Quote :

"lazarus chance exposed?? "

2/7/2009 2:08:52 AM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html

Quote :

"Even though no member of Congress has scheduled hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, it remains on a hot topic on both liberal and conservative shows. Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability." "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...." Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC. In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability."

This non-issue just seems to keep rearing its ugly head.

2/14/2009 2:01:20 PM

What about the big left money...ie George Soros...who funds all kinds of radical left organizations

2/14/2009 2:59:44 PM

exactly who I thought of when I heard clinton's quote.

2/14/2009 4:48:57 PM

2/14/2009 7:48:55 PM

^ "Black and White Night" ... one of the greatest concert videos of all time. Roy Orbison, one of the greatest voices of our time, backed by an unbelievable group of musicians and singers.

Back to the topic at hand. I don't believe in the fairness doctrine, but I do believe that this is a true statement by Nancy Polosi:

Quote :

"I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

I don't believe that Rush, et al, have contributed that much toward intellegent discourse, for all their opportunity.

2/14/2009 10:12:04 PM

Im not worried, dems would never want to limit free speech or mess with a free market. ANd we have been assured by the libs here that no way this happens.. thats good enough for me.

2/15/2009 11:53:21 AM

Quote :

"I don't believe that Rush, et al, have contributed that much toward intellegent discourse, for all their opportunity. "

why is it then that no liberal version of Rush has sprouted to counter the evil-conservative talkmen? even in today's political climate?

2/15/2009 12:03:47 PM

there's plenty of them

on tv

2/15/2009 3:14:02 PM

right.

liberal people dont care about talk radio. they arent listening anyway.

2/15/2009 3:54:03 PM

If liberals wanted to really have some credibility, they would come up with talk radio that could actually make a profit, instead of using backdoor government regulations to force it when the market won't support it. Pushing the Censorship Doctrine just exposes how weak left-wing ideology is.

2/15/2009 7:22:44 PM

Quote :

"rush limbaugh is no idiot"

Memo to Limbaugh: Try CTRL+F before blasting Dems for purportedly unsearchable bill

Quote :

"Summary: Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Democrats "have reformatted the [economic recovery] bill -- they've made it a PDF file when they posted it. ... And, so, you can read every page, but you cannot keyword search it. It's not a text file as legislation normally is as posted on these public websites. They don't want anybody knowing what's in this." In fact, as Adobe Systems notes of PDFs: "You can run a search using either the Search window or the Find toolbar. In either case, Reader searches the PDF body text, layers, form fields, and digital signatures.""

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902130016

2/15/2009 10:21:02 PM

of course Rush Limbaugh is no idiot. He has been making piles of money for years. That clown Franken couldn't stay in business, and it appears that he can't even steal an election in a Democrat state.

2/15/2009 10:45:56 PM

in Franken's defense, it helps if you have high-powered titans of industry supporting your efforts to evangelize the AM airwaves with propaganda to get the poor, under-educated masses behind a philosophy that puts increasing amounts of money in the pockets of these same industry powerhouses.

rush limbaugh is no fool. he knows which horses to bet on.

2/16/2009 5:02:44 PM

there are plenty of high-placed, powerful liberals out there. in the end, you have to be consistently entertaining and smart to have the kind of radio success Rush has. Franken really is neither for long stretches.

I really dont think its fair to call Rush's audience uneducated. do you have some demographics to back that up? I dont listen to him, but on the occasion that I have heard him, his topics were not for simpletons.

2/16/2009 7:23:50 PM

i said "under-educated"

anecdotally, i have consistently found the majority of Rush listeners to have either H.S. Diplomas or two-year trade school diplomas as their highest level of education. I personally started listening to Rush in the early 1990's, and have had a lot of conversations with rush limbaugh listeners.

I should try and find some demographic info to back this up, but lets be honest: his show just doesn't appeal to a very high caliber of intellect. his bloviations and logical fallacies are too much for the average college graduate to stomach for very long.

but he knows his audience and he leverages his extensive, high-profile political/industrial connections to great effect.

he is personally a smart and clever man. and one of the most successful entertainers in history.



[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2009 8:08:27 PM

Rush is only as stupid as the people he is debating.

Namely, congress.

I suppose he could take a more intellectual approach, certainly he is capable, but he is not aiming for that.

His aim is clearly to influence the most people possible for the greatest good as he perceives it.

He picks battles that he thinks need to be waged, but leaves others practically untouched. Take the FAIR tax as an example. I think it is intellectually obvious that Rush would support the FAIR tax, yet he says rarely a word about it. Why? Because it is not a viable goal in this country of apathetic government-teat-sucking-public-school-educated wards of the state.

Rush instead focuses on easy targets, the fraud of congressional democrats, any sentence that escapes Harry Reids mouth.

Rush does bring something different to the table. His greatest gift is reading between the lines and pointing out media group-think.

His success, while self-made, is not because he has created a new segment of society. Rather, he actually speaks to the theories and ideology that us less-educated conservative mongoloids tend to embrace. Silly things like the equality of all mankind without regard to race or politics. Silly ideas like the primary importance of the individual over the government. Or the idea that one should live one's life without regard to the approval of others. Rush's exuberance and dedication to maintaining a positive outlook despite circumstances is unparalleled.

Anyway, the Fairness Doctrine will be replaced by "localism" which will shackle talk-radio the same way the environmentalism does with many industries. Localism will give political activists a way to ban Rush and others like him for reasons that have nothing to do with the real reason for the ban. Its really brilliant, this idea of localism is political expediance and cowardice at its finest. I'll be interested to see if it actually comes to fruition. I suspect there are still enough people paying attention that the controversy that ensues will quench the effort to silence talk radio.

The real danger is the strings Obama will attach to internet funding.

2/17/2009 11:37:41 PM

Quote :

"Silly ideas like the primary importance of the individual over the government."

I dunno. Rush got a little crazy with the revenge thing in this recent radio rant...

Quote :

"We lost the election. But they're going to lose down the road. They will not control government forever, and when our turn comes, we are going to turn the power of government against the left.... We're going to build and use the big government that they have built and turn it right against them. We are gonna turn the power of government against the left, and against Democrats in ways they cannot imagine.... We are going to use the power that the left is centralizing in the federal government to punish them, to break 'em up, and to make them pay for this.... It's time they got a taste of their own medicine, and it's going to happen folks, because they're not going to hold power forever. We are taking names. We are taking names now. We are monitoring who on the Left is going to deserve payback, and it's going to be hell. This much I promise you." "

Doens't sound very 'limited gov't' to me. And I don't like the sound of these here "Boncentration Bamps"

2/18/2009 12:48:15 AM

the "payback" attitude employed by most in Washington is why NOTHING of value is ever accomplished.

2/18/2009 9:26:18 AM