1. After Michael Jackson’s prescription overdose, will liberals apologize for chastising Rush for being addicted to prescription drugs too?
2. Do progressives support firing the adulterous Republican Governor caught in Argentina?
3. Do left-wingers agree that Clinton should have been honorable and stepped down after he disgraced the Office by dipping his cigar in a chubby woman’s womb?
4. How would progressives and feminists feel if Hillary dipped a Cohiba in Obama’s womb?
5. How would a Hollywood Liberal feel if you caught A-Rod doing Obama doggy style, again? (I was at the baseball game that Letterman talked about A-Rod doing Palin’s 14 year old daughter, and I saw A-Rod finishing on Obama’s back, after he did both of Obama’s daughters)

Show me your selective outrage: Were you silent or did you condemn David’s words? Hypocrisy is an overrated crime.

Feminist icon Camille Paglia (<link>), “ I’ve constantly said, about Rush Limbaugh, for example--even though he and I don't agree politically, I have always respected him because I feel that he is a principled thinker--I think that any true intellectual finds it stimulating to listen to a principled thinker, a person who has a vigorous independent mind, a new way of approaching contemporary issues. It helps you to reexamine your assumptions and firm up your assumptions. And I think that's what's missing from our culture right now.”

In defense of Rush: Rush is a structured critical thinker, who presents his reasoned philosophy for 4 hours per day to 10 to 20 million people per week.

Successful radio talk shows require intimate confidence in the intellectual honesty of the host. Rush is our nation’s must successful. People would be able to detect BS, if Rush were intellectually dishonest. That is why there is no such leftwing discourse, because liberals must lie and distort facts and falsify their irrational dishonest agendas.

For example, Obama is so dishonest that he denies his socialist leanings, while he nationalizes industries and raises redistributive taxes. Obama could never carry on an intimate daily dialogue with the American people because he lies, distorts and conflates the truth. All leftists are likewise similarly dishonest, otherwise the free market would allow progressives to attract a similarly large audience, if their words rang true. The free market, where people have free choice, proves liberals too intellectually dishonest to attract listeners.

You chafe under Rush’s words because he is right, so you seek to silence him through name-calling and shutting him down through laws such as The Fairness Doctrine. Free Speech is being attacked because liberals cannot counter with a truth speaking demagogue of their own.

I’m waiting for heartfelt progressive apologies:

And how, without presciption drugs, did you get from Michael Jackson to Rush Limbaugh to the Fairness Doctrine?

Speed, huh?

Would be great for America

Wha???? How does Micheal Jackson become a spokesmodel for progressives? YOU ARE JUST SIMPLY ate up IN YOUR HATRED OLD FOOL. MJ is of the same hypocrisy as Rush bo. You get no apology whatsoever, Island Wacko. Matter of fact, wish Rush would join him. World would be a better place.

Whatever skinny-assed Jackson was on, it'd take a wheel barrow full of, to do Rush in.

Aren’t all effeminate black males spokesmen for progressives, or is Obama the only one?

No apologies yet: I’m seeing a lot of leftwing hate, but no nurturing and understanding…Rush was a victim of corporate drug companies, and as a victim he needs to be affirmatively lifted.

If Obama was truly a compassionate progressive, he would gently hold Rush in is womb and breastfeed him every thirty minutes

The Repub gov misused public money and public trust. He hypocritically used his family and some hocus-pocus family -guy rhetoric which obviously wasn't true (In the end,he's just a man.) YES. FIRE HIM. Clinton should have resigned immediately. There were some of us in the Democratic Party who wanted that, but weren't listened to. The result was a much easier promenade for George II, the idiot son. As for Dave, your comment, while not very original, was just as funny. Although, neither of you are still as funny as that one McCain tried to pull on us, picking Palin as a running mate. Still laughing about that one.

Thanks spread! That made my day!

Four liberals on this thread, so far, have asked for Rush’s death.

Don’t you all want taxpayers and the Welfare State to support Rush’s battles against corporate drug dealers?

fun on Friday. The likes of philby, NC, and Muffin get it, and they offer themselves up as willing foils. But..sometimes I wonder at the extent to which my lefter friends get it!

Here's your problem Island Wacko Jacko, you can't compare apples to oranges and call it an arguement. Obama is what he is. He was elected in country that has a system that would make such an event possible, whether you and your Austrian goosesteppers like it or not. BUT, that aside, I could care less about MJ or RL. I don't have time for either. Now Farrah Fawcett. That's worth a cry. Why? Just because asshole.

First, you might wish to be a little more specific in directing your idiotic questions to "Liberals" who are die-hard Michael Jackson fans because I can guarantee you that there are many who don't really give a shit.

With that said, her are my answers to your questions.

1. I don't give a shit. But I will say this. Many people from all walks of life are taking medication, including myself but don't have a public forum to condemn those who abuse prescription drugs...like Rush Limbaugh. There's a difference between having a legal prescription for pain killers and obtaining them fraudulently.

<link>

2.That's up to him and the people who elected him.

3. No because he knew all the republican windbags that were demanding his resignation were also dipping their wicks in places other than their wives. It was a nice way to say "Screw you! I'm staying!"

4. You need ot go back to school and study anatomy if you're speaking in reference to the President. Take a class in Etiquette and Protocol while you at it.

5. I don't know. I live in Florida. As I understand it though, Letterman was speaking in reference to the 18 year old who did get knocked up but the Palins saw an opportunity and thrust their younger daughter out there as target to their horror and shame. White trash, you know, you can relate.

I thought the joke was in very poor taste and you would have known that as well if you followed news outside of Fox. I heard it first on Countdown and Keith Olbermann also said it was in poor taste and children of politicians should be off limits to anything insulting or off color. The general consensus within the entire MSM agrees on this. Where the hell have you been?

Or is this some feeble attempt to overshadow the guilt you feel for laughing over the remarks made by your "structured critical thinker, who presents his reasoned philosophy" in reference to Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton?

Chafe under Rush's word? No. We laugh at him. We think he is a clown and we truly love the idea of Rush as the "Leader of the Republican Party" especially if all of his loyal listening sheep actually believe it as your numbers indicate that it represents only 3 to 6 percent of the population and that gives Democrats an even larger margin of victory.

One more FYI, the President of the United States said the 'Fairness Doctrine' doesn't stand a chance of getting past his desk and most Democrats feel the same way.

"Free Speech is being attacked because liberals cannot counter with a truth speaking demagogue of their own." Wrong again. His name is Barack Hussein Obama and he IS the President of the United States of America.

It must really suck to be you.....

with your hands up.

At least the small donkey/horse hybrid is not a politically correct hypocrite.

Should we move to abolish Orwellian thought control?

Do you support Hate Crime legislation?

When was the last time you called someone the “racist” pejorative?

How do you feel about, “that is so gay”?

When is it appropriate to criticize stereotypical rednecks and Christians but not other groups?

(<link> The standard playbook for revolutionaries is to seize all the television and radio stations first, and announce the rebels are the new government. The Left has already done this in America. Except for a couple of holdouts -- conservative talk radio and Christian broadcasts.

Obama has already taken over GM, firing and replacing its CEO and Board of Directors. Now he is angling to take over the banks by transforming TARP loans into common stock. Will he find some way to take over the radio stations next, or at least the remaining talk radio and Christian broadcasting stations?

The Senate immediately followed its approval of Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment prohibiting the Fairness Doctrine by approving an amendment from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) which provided for the FCC to "encourage and promote diversity in communications media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest." This language points the way, but it is still a sideshow.

The main frontal attack is not going to come through Congress, where talk radio audiences and Christian grassroots can be mobilized to stop it. It is going to come through regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which already has all the legal authority it needs.

The FCC is currently composed of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners. Obama has nominated a new Chairman, his long time pal Julius Genachowski, which would give Democrats a 3-2 majority once he is confirmed. WorldNetDaily reports:

Genachowski…advocates creating new media ownership rules that promote a diversity of voices on the airwaves. In fact, Genachowski is credited with helping craft the Obama technology agenda, which states: "Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

Local Soviet Councils
One of those "public interest obligations" of broadcasters has always been "Broadcast Localism," which is the responsibility of stations to serve the needs and interests of their local communities, as specified in the original Communications Act of 1934. Obama has already said,

I fully endorse a call for new rules promoting greater coverage of local issues, and greater responsiveness of the broadcasters to the communities they operate in. I also believe that broadcasters' license renewal requests, the periodic review required to ensure that broadcasters are complying with their public interest obligations to local communities for using the public spectrum, should require greater FCC scrutiny and public input should occur more frequently.

Indeed, the FCC has already endorsed a regulatory requirement that each station "convene a permanent advisory board made up of officials and other leaders from the service area of its broadcast station." These boards would enable stations to "regularly meet with community leaders and individuals from all sectors of the community" for advice on how to serve the needs and interests of each station's community. The FCC concluded in a January, 2008 report, "We believe that these boards will promote both localism and diversity and, as such, should be an integral component of the Commission's localism efforts."

Right now, the plan openly discussed for these boards is innocuous, with each station to pick who is on them, and just to meet with them once in a while to discuss issues and ideas. The FCC has noted, in fact, that Fox stations already do a good job of this on their own. But the TARP loans didn't seem so insidious in the beginning either.

These local boards provide an entering wedge that the Obamans can use to exercise greater control over local radio stations. New FCC regulations can take away station control over the boards, and provide for local politicians to appoint the members, or even for some process of local election. Or board regs can open up membership to Obama cronies from ACORN or similar left-wing organizations and labor unions. Or maybe Muslim activist groups in the case of religious broadcasters.

FCC regs could then start granting new powers to these boards. Maybe they could have a power to veto broadcast of some or all syndicated national radio talk shows on their local station. Or maybe they could remove shows where they find comments that they deem "racist" or otherwise inappropriate for their local community. Ultimately, the Obama-run FCC could try to grant these boards some of the powers of the station's corporate Board of Directors. Maybe these advisory boards could have a say in or determine who the station hires and fires. Maybe these boards eventually become the new Board of Directors, as happened at GM.

The term "Soviet" as in "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" referred to local councils "in the early political organization of the Russian Revolution in 1917," the dictionary tells us. Maybe these local "advisory" boards will serve a similar function in regard to radio stations.

The Constitutional Right to Listen
The federal courts have long recognized that the First Amendment protects the right of radio audiences to choose what they want to listen to, as well as the right of talk show hosts and callers to say what they want to say. In Rossignol v. Voorhaar, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held in 2003 that the First Amendment protects both a speaker's right to communicate information and ideas to a broad audience and the intended recipients' right to receive that information and those ideas.

Similarly, in U.S. West, Inc. v. F.C.C., the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held in 1999 that the two components of effective speech are a speaker and an audience, and a restriction on either of these components is a restriction on speech. In de la O v. Housing Authority of City of El Paso, the Fifth Circuit added in 2005 that the right to receive information is as equally protected under the First Amendment as is the right to convey it.

In U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., a pornography case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the First Amendment's free speech clause, the citizen is entitled to seek out or reject certain ideas or influences without government interference or control. Is there is now more constitutional protection for pornography than political speech?

This doctrine should constitutionally limit what the local advisory boards can do. If they start to veto particular nationally syndicated shows that local audiences want to hear, as reflected in ratings, then that should be unconstitutional on these grounds. Indeed, doubly so if it is because of the expression of conservative views, because that would be viewpoint discrimination.

Focusing on these audience rights reframes the debate from one between the local community versus corporate broadcasters and national radio personalities, to one between different segments of the local community, or maybe between local fringe activist groups, maybe some with national ties, and the majority audience of actual station listeners.

Forced Broadcasts
Another possible tack is for the local advisory boards to demand air time for liberal talk show hosts to offset conservative shows. Or the local Muslim activist group might demand that Christian stations broadcast Muslim sermons as well.

Forcing a station to broadcast content it does not want to support should be an unconstitutional violation of the free speech rights of the broadcaster. If a liberal talk show has miserable local ratings, then it should be seen also as not serving the local community.

Hang the Owners
Still another angle for the new Obama FCC would be to focus on regulation of station ownership. The FCC has also long had legal authority for such regulation as well.

The FCC could place flat out limits on how many stations across the country one corporation or individual could own. Clear Channel, the backbone of Rush Limbaugh's show, owns 145 stations nationwide. Citadel owns 23 stations, Cumulus 31, and Salem 28, and they broadcast mostly conservative talk radio. The government sponsors 800 liberal radio stations across the country through National Public Radio. But there is no threat from the Obama FCC to them.

The Center for American Progress, run by former Clinton Chief of Staff and now Obama pal John Podesta, has already publicly called for national station ownership limits. Since this is considered economic regulation, it would be very difficult to argue that this violates freedom of speech, unless it could be shown that the intent behind it was viewpoint discrimination against conservatives and Christians.

Just threatening such regulation could force station owners to drop some successful conservative talk shows and air some unsuccessful liberal talk shows. We could suffer the same result through this means as through the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Another means of hanging the owners would be through making license renewal proceedings into circuses, complete with clowns from ACORN, leftist labor unions, and assorted fringe pressure groups performing their acts at public hearings. The Democrats have already talked about requiring license renewals every three years rather than every eight. This would sharply increase the threat of stations losing their licenses, and make them kowtow to FCC control more readily.