Posted on 03/08/2009 8:49:49 AM PDT by absentee
Ha! I love it!
With the obvious objective of silencing the only form of critical analysis left in the media. They will attempt to justify their destruction of talk radio by focusing on Rush Limbaugh.
This is from the March 2, 2009 Rush Limbaugh Show
...the administration is focusing now, ladies and gentlemen, on rule number 12 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network; isolate the target from sympathy; go after people, not institutions, because people hurt faster than institutions.
thanks for the POST, these idiots are PIS*ING IN THE WIND!!
For those of you who are sitting on the fence and do not think that Obama is a Marxist, is there anything that Obama has done in his first 45 days as President to make you believe he is not?
And with the fact that Rush Limbaugh is right 99% of the time and often quotes from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals do you really believe that Rush is making this up out of whole cloth and that he wouldn’t have been called out now by one of his listeners or somebody in the GOP if he was completely out to lunch.
I know.. it's horrible that he profits from such a catastrophe.
It’s a ruse to justify the “fairness doctrine”. A set of standards set by Washington to determine what you hear.
Your Rush envy is showing again.........
LOL!
Graham says Limbaugh doesn’t make Republican policy
[true, because no one person does]
The Greenville News, Greenville, SC | 2009-03-08 | Clark Brooks
Posted on 03/08/2009 1:34:16 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2202043/posts
cool!
i saw my first “impeach obama” bumper sticker a couple of days ago.
“nearly doubled”
In other news, the Dow has dropped +/-50% and U6 is at 16% although many people have stopped looking for work. 700 applicants applied for one school janitor job and job losses are over 500,000 per month. Tax hikes for charities, taxes for back taxes and elimination of mortgage interest will be used to pay for foreclosures and ACORN-supported house takeover/squatting incidents. Also, $1 million will be given to unroll and reroll the world’s largest ball of twine, and the Secy of Energy can hire his friends who may or may not be GS employees. The 0bamas feast on caviar, champagne, lobster and wagyu, but the PM of Great Britain receives 25 DVDs and plastic, toy helicopters during a state visit, conducted without fanfare and a notably ‘tired’ 0bama who was anxious to watch basketball.
How’s your 401(k) workin’ out for ya’? Got a job? Got a tax break? Like your $8 ‘stimulus’ yet?
Well if the demons want a fight over the fairness doctrine, the pubs should fight for complete fairness over radio, television and print media. Lets see how the demons feel about the major networks having to give equal time during their news broadcasts and the papers having to devot print space to differing opinions.
Rush has turned Saul Alinsky’s Rule #12 right back on them.
Well if the demons want a fight over the fairness doctrine, the pubs should fight for complete fairness over radio, television and print media. Lets see how the demons feel about the major networks having to give equal time during their news broadcasts and the papers having to devot print space to differing opinions.
IMHO there is not a chance in the world of that, for the simple reason that "fairness" is defined by journalists - who demand for themselves respect for the virtue of objectivity, but who would allow anyone but a "liberal" or "progressive" to join their ranks. It seems to me that the only intellectually consistent approach is to ask the court to refuse to accept any government action/law (read, McCain-Feingold) in which the unnecessary and unwarranted assumption that journalists are objective is a planted axiom.I strongly feel that that assumption is provably false because of the mere fact of journalism's commercial interest of in the unusual and negative at the expense of the important. But for the court merely to hold that it cannot logically be proven that journalism is unbiased - I hold that to be an unprovable negative - would suffice to delegitimate the Fairness Doctrine, McCain-Feingold, and indeed the entirety of the "campaign finance reforms" which have created the FEC.
Thats what the fight has to be about fairness for all or nothing. Because if its about journalism then all talk show hosts should have to do is call their shows news programs.
Thats what the fight has to be about fairness for all or nothing. Because if its about journalism then all talk show hosts should have to do is call their shows news programs.
Quite true - with the caveat that the "conservative talk show host" does not claim superior objectivity as the "objective journalist" does. And that is fundamental to their respective programs. "News" reporting which didn't claim objectivity, hence moral superiority over the "conservative talk show host," would be a different thing from journalism as we know it.And a talk show host who claimed objectivity would not be a "conservative" (I use scare quotes with "conservative" because the word does not do our philosophy justice since American conservatism is actually, in etymological terms, liberal and progressive - and favoring liberty and progress is not "conservative" in any other context than preserving the American tradition and Constitution. Anywhere else, those attitudes would not be "conservative." Destroying the freedom to progress by, for instance, developing our petroleum reserves, at what some call the hazard of climate change, is what would be conservative).
In reality the difference between the "objective journalist" and the "conservative talk show host" is the difference between a sophist and a philosopher (using the etymological definition of the latter term). I cannot undertake to pinpoint the difference between "objectivity" and "wisdom." Is there, after all, such a thing as "unwise objectivity?" And yet it would be risky for anyone to openly claim superior wisdom to a debating opponent because that is inherently arrogant:
sophist1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.philosopherIt is a form of arrogance to claim to be above labels, above "left" and "right" - especially when the person who does so then labels his debate opponent "conservative" or "right wing" or, the now-obsolete favorite, a "right wing cold warrior." It is a form of humility to accept a label when it fits. Said differently, the only way to even attempt to be objective is to assume that you are inherently subjective, inherently not objective. Only then will you make full disclosure of what you want to be true before discussing what you believe to be true.O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage.""Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
I note all of the above to explain that there is no room in the "objective journalism" tent for a "conservative." Let a "conservative" claim to be a journalist, and there will be war. Because the journalist takes his own objectivity, and thus moral superiority, for granted as a birthright - a veritable "title of nobility" as the Constitution puts (and prohibits) it. And of course the journalist is supported in that claim by the "liberal," the "moderate" and the "progressive" (none of whom, after all, holds any principle above the motive of getting favorable publicity from the journalist - or the journalist would not award them that positive label).
BTTT
Thanks for the ping; post. Great thread. Thanks to every poster. BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.