Rush Limbaugh nominated for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

[Marnie]

Well, try living in a liberal county if you are a conservative.

My son lives and goes to college in a VERY liberal city.

He has a bush chaney sticker on his car along with a \"save the baby humans\" sticker.

He has had things thrown at him. His car towed several times and his tires slashed 4 times.

He cant wait to graduate and leave that place for good.

what a scary thing for your son to go through and no doubt un provoked

godless barbarian liberals yielding burning sticks and exacto knives

i live in an extremely conservative and religious community and with the deputy sherrif as a brother in law i hear all sorts of scary stories too

in this case its the out gays, vocal pro choice, anti war and basically cars with liberal stickers houses with democratic yard signs who are not only having their property defaced but acts of violent crime acted against the person

2 cases in 2006 of a woman raped for being a lesbian and a man beaten unconcious because of an anti war sign he carried in a parade

low class evil people with violent tendancies exist in every sector of society

[Hypathia]

Most people proabably wouldn't understand the X thing but I think we all understand the confederate flag thing. To me sporting a confederate flag would be like some old german immigrant sporting a nazi flag.....saying it reminded him of all those nazi youth camping trips of his youth... not what happened to the Jews and others later.

I guess it's a matter of perspective but there probably shouldn't be laws against it. There is something in the law about "fighting words" though.

Schools have to maintain order and discipline so anything that disturbs that probably should be addressed in some way. This would include "half-tops" and skirts up to one's behind. These rules should be uniform across the board though; if the X carries some hateful meaning that should have been banned too.

What does an X mean?

Edited February 3, 2007 by Hypathia

[chapmac]

Most people proabably wouldn\'t understand the X thing but I think we all understand the confederate flag thing. To me sporting a confederate flag would be like some old german immigrant sporting a nazi flag.....saying it reminded him of all those camping trips of nazi youth not what happened to the Jews and others later.

I guess it\'s a matter of perspective but there probably shouldn\'t be laws against it. There is something in the law about \"fighting words\" though.

Schools have to maintain order and discipline so anything that disturbs that probably should be addressed in some way. This would include \"half-tops\" and skirts up to one\'s behind. These rules should be uniform across the board though; if the X carries some hateful meaning that should have been banned too.

What does an X mean?

these kids in school today public and private alike should be required to wear some type of uniform clothing

khaki slacks or skirts with white shirts

school is a place to learn

not a fashion show and not a political rally

keep it generic and safe for them all

[Marnie]

Schools have to maintain order and discipline so anything that disturbs that probably should be addressed in some way. This would include "half-tops" and skirts up to one's behind. These rules should be uniform across the board though; if the X carries some hateful meaning that should have been banned too.

Thank you so much for that mental image.

[Marnie]

these kids in school today public and private alike should be required to wear some type of uniform clothing

khaki slacks or skirts with white shirts

school is a place to learn

not a fashion show and not a political rally

keep it generic and safe for them all

This may well be the one and only time we ever agree on anything. I went to private schools all my life and had to wear a uniform. I think it's a good idea and have no problem with it.

[Hypathia]

Schools have to maintain order and discipline so anything that disturbs that probably should be addressed in some way. This would include "half-tops" and skirts up to one's behind. These rules should be uniform across the board though; if the X carries some hateful meaning that should have been banned too.

Thank you so much for that mental image.

You're welcome!

[chapmac]

these kids in school today public and private alike should be required to wear some type of uniform clothing

khaki slacks or skirts with white shirts

school is a place to learn

not a fashion show and not a political rally

keep it generic and safe for them all

This may well be the one and only time we ever agree on anything. I went to private schools all my life and had to wear a uniform. I think it\\\'s a good idea and have no problem with it.

whatever it takes to keep the children focused on school and safe

same thing for jewelry buttons stickers and such

if it can be seen walking down the hall then it dont belong

Edited February 3, 2007 by chapmac

[Hypathia]

It was refering to Malcom X. He was considered by many a black racist.

Oh, okay, thanks for the info.

Here's an audio clip on Rush's halfrican american remark if you want to hear it for yourself: <<link>>

It's been a pleasure talking people but I need to get off now. Have a good week everyone!

Edited February 3, 2007 by Hypathia

[ted]

I heard Michael Savage twice this past month <<shutters>> Why would you choose to listen to Michael Savage Butero, being a minister and all. He makes Rush look like a nice guy.

If our kids talked to each other at school the way Rush or Michael Savage talk on the radio they'd probably get expelled and we'd be giving those kids a talking to when they got home.

I'd love to start a station Butero but I have no knowlege of how to run a small business (so I'd end up bankrupt like 90% of the rest of the public that trys to go into business for themselves) also; I'm in the midwest and while I'm discovering that there are other liberals around here I've also been told it's not "safe" to let people know we're liberal because of all the dangerous slander that's been leveled at us over the past several years. I did finally get up the guts to put a license plate cover on that says I support stem-cell research and so far I haven't had my tires cut. One person did approach me and give me a "chewing out" though, called me un-American, un-patriotic, and satanic.

Even those who are in business for themselves and are liberal have to watch it around here. This "fear" can be laid right at the feet of people like Rush and MS and Sean Hannity as far as I'm concerned. It's a shame you have to be afraid in your own country, especially when you're a veteran. The most vocal liberals among us in this town are the elderly.

Hi Hy!,

This is the main thrust of the point!

Y'see, people like Rush were in the same exact boat as you, at one point in time. They faced the same decisions with the same fears: "I'd like to launch my own boat, but I fear it may sink." Not withstanding the odds against them, they went ahead and took a chance. Beyond all odds, some of these people succeeded. It is in this way that people like Rush, Hannity, and a few others made their mark and beat the odds against them.

At the time Rush was just beginning to launch out on his own, do you think his path was paved for him? No, he simply took and idea, and ran with it. If he would fail (which he actually did a few times before it took off) then he would fail.

Rush is unique in that no one else really did what he did before him. He had no real model to follow. All he did was understand that the media, at the time, seemed to be doing whatever they felt like because they held all the chips. Can you imagine what it was like for his first few weeks on the air on AM radio, a medium that had all but dried up at that time? It's hard to think of the mountain he had to climb back them because he's so big and established now, but in those days, he had to beat impossible odds to even break out. What he recognized was that there was a one-sided media out there, and there was a chance that someone with opposing views might just be a viable solution. In other words, he figured that there were people out there who might like to hear the other side of the news for a change. Turned out that he was right, and hasn't had to look back since.

Now that people like him are starting to get big, it now seems that a show or station with a decided liberal bent would be "alternative". What has happened is that, since liberals now cannot stop the EIB ship, they have gone into "victim" mode, and are now using the same technique that Rushed used when he first started: Use the "little guy" complex to add listeners.

The problem now is, it ain't working for them. No one wants to hear their stuff.

They are also not fooling anyone out there.

Their claims of oppression are not working, because what they offer is not "alternative" to the mainstream. What they offer, I would contend, is the mainstream, repackaged to represent a Robin Hood mentality.

The movement to launch liberal programming is currently failing because it's not an alternative voice at all. They are offering nothing which isn't already established in what is considered the "mainstream", and that is why they are failing by trying to use the same methods as people like Rush. In Rush's case, there really was no one else out there on a national level who was offering anything different. It was a racket that was well packaged and sealed. All Rush did was offer something that was opposite of what was out there, and people wanted to hear it. Simple as that.

So, some people like Al Franken decided that he would use the same technique to launch this Air America network. Hey, more power to him! That's America at it's finest!

Have someone attempt to strike out on their own and see what comes of it. It's the American dream in it's rawest form.

The big problem is that Franken failed to understand two things:

1. What he was offering was all over the airways in various forms already, and...

2. Not enough people want to listen to him in the first place!

Those two blunders, or failures to accurately base his launch on, were the reason why it is in such bad shape.

How could they possibly fail? I mean, this was to be the liberal flagship designed to ram the hull of all conservative talk radio, remember? Think of the names involed with the project, and who it's main money-people are? It was designed to sink the ship of conservative talk radio, pure and simple. It was well funded during it's launch, and had all the roads paved for it's beginning, so how could it fail? Well, no one really thought it was offering anything new, that's how.

Simply put: It failed because the other media outlets are aready presenting the same thing, and in a much fancier and established format

So, do they stick with it against the odds and carefully carve out a market in one city after another during years and years of hard times? No, they simply claim that the Government has to step in and cover for their failures, After all, we live in a time of instant gratification, and when we don't get it, we automatically look to the Government to fix whatever may be wrong.

Knowing that he cannot tread water in the market, they then launch into bringing back the "fairness" doctrine. How sad.

That would be akin to me or you starting a fishing business next to a few others in a coastal town and not having a good enough boat to entice customers, and then petitioning the town to force new rules dictating that the other boat owners had to give us 50% of their business, or they would be fined or shut down.

The idea simply slaps the face of free enterprise, and creates a bully in the market. If I own a radio station, I would like to be the final decision maker pertaining to what kind of things I would like to have on it. Simple as that. The fairness doctrine would force station owners to give equal time to shows that I may not want to carry.

Would you like to have to run a business that way?

And it's all born from a failure of a few people who made some bad business decisions based on a faulty read of their perception of an audience.

Listen, if you want to start a small business and put your money on an idea, then do it! Take the chance like so many have done before you, and do your thing. Everyone is a bit scared when they take a chance like that, but the only ones who make it are the ones that took the first step in the beginning of their careers. Without taking that chance, they never would have been successful.

I would figure that you would be pretty insulted if you wanted to start up a liberally-slanted radio station and the Government forced you to give 50% of your air time to people like Rush or Hannity, wouldn't you? I mean, does that sound "fair", after all?

That's what would happen if the "Fairness Doctrine" ever makes it to law again.

Think about it. What if you wanted to open a hunting store and had to give 50% of your floor space to PETA, just to make things "fair"?

Stripped down to it's bones, all I am saying is that if you want to go into business, then do so. Don't let anyone force you into an early failure simply because you are scared of a possible outcome within your community. Jesus didn't, Moses didn't, and millions of successful business people haven't, either.

Take the chance, and there's a hope that you can succeed. Don't take the chance, and you will fail every time.

Peace,

t.

[Marnie]

Hi Hy!,

This is the main thrust of the point!

Y'see, people like Rush were in the same exact boat as you, at one point in time. They faced the same decisions with the same fears: "I'd like to launch my own boat, but I fear it may sink." Not withstanding the odds against them, they went ahead and took a chance. Beyond all odds, some of these people succeeded. It is in this way that people like Rush, Hannity, and a few others made their mark and beat the odds against them.

At the time Rush was just beginning to launch out on his own, do you think his path was paved for him? No, he simply took and idea, and ran with it. If he would fail (which he actually did a few times before it took off) then he would fail.

Rush is unique in that no one else really did what he did before him. He had no real model to follow. All he did was understand that the media, at the time, seemed to be doing whatever they felt like because they held all the chips. Can you imagine what it was like for his first few weeks on the air on AM radio, a medium that had all but dried up at that time? It's hard to think of the mountain he had to climb back them because he's so big and established now, but in those days, he had to beat impossible odds to even break out. What he recognized was that there was a one-sided media out there, and there was a chance that someone with opposing views might just be a viable solution. In other words, he figured that there were people out there who might like to hear the other side of the news for a change. Turned out that he was right, and hasn't had to look back since.

Now that people like him are starting to get big, it now seems that a show or station with a decided liberal bent would be "alternative". What has happened is that, since liberals now cannot stop the EIB ship, they have gone into "victim" mode, and are now using the same technique that Rushed used when he first started: Use the "little guy" complex to add listeners.

The problem now is, it ain't working for them. No one wants to hear their stuff.

They are also not fooling anyone out there.

Their claims of oppression are not working, because what they offer is not "alternative" to the mainstream. What they offer, I would contend, is the mainstream, repackaged to represent a Robin Hood mentality.

The movement to launch liberal programming is currently failing because it's not an alternative voice at all. They are offering nothing which isn't already established in what is considered the "mainstream", and that is why they are failing by trying to use the same methods as people like Rush. In Rush's case, there really was no one else out there on a national level who was offering anything different. It was a racket that was well packaged and sealed. All Rush did was offer something that was opposite of what was out there, and people wanted to hear it. Simple as that.

So, some people like Al Franken decided that he would use the same technique to launch this Air America network. Hey, more power to him! That's America at it's finest!

Have someone attempt to strike out on their own and see what comes of it. It's the American dream in it's rawest form.

The big problem is that Franken failed to understand two things:

1. What he was offering was all over the airways in various forms already, and...

2. Not enough people want to listen to him in the first place!

Those two blunders, or failures to accurately base his launch on, were the reason why it is in such bad shape.

How could they possibly fail? I mean, this was to be the liberal flagship designed to ram the hull of all conservative talk radio, remember? Think of the names involed with the project, and who it's main money-people are? It was designed to sink the ship of conservative talk radio, pure and simple. It was well funded during it's launch, and had all the roads paved for it's beginning, so how could it fail? Well, no one really thought it was offering anything new, that's how.

Simply put: It failed because the other media outlets are aready presenting the same thing, and in a much fancier and established format

So, do they stick with it against the odds and carefully carve out a market in one city after another during years and years of hard times? No, they simply claim that the Government has to step in and cover for their failures, After all, we live in a time of instant gratification, and when we don't get it, we automatically look to the Government to fix whatever may be wrong.

Knowing that he cannot tread water in the market, they then launch into bringing back the "fairness" doctrine. How sad.

That would be akin to me or you starting a fishing business next to a few others in a coastal town and not having a good enough boat to entice customers, and then petitioning the town to force new rules dictating that the other boat owners had to give us 50% of their business, or they would be fined or shut down.

The idea simply slaps the face of free enterprise, and creates a bully in the market. If I own a radio station, I would like to be the final decision maker pertaining to what kind of things I would like to have on it. Simple as that. The fairness doctrine would force station owners to give equal time to shows that I may not want to carry.

Would you like to have to run a business that way?

And it's all born from a failure of a few people who made some bad business decisions based on a faulty read of their perception of an audience.

Listen, if you want to start a small business and put your money on an idea, then do it! Take the chance like so many have done before you, and do your thing. Everyone is a bit scared when they take a chance like that, but the only ones who make it are the ones that took the first step in the beginning of their careers. Without taking that chance, they never would have been successful.

I would figure that you would be pretty insulted if you wanted to start up a liberally-slanted radio station and the Government forced you to give 50% of your air time to people like Rush or Hannity, wouldn't you? I mean, does that sound "fair", after all?

That's what would happen if the "Fairness Doctrine" ever makes it to law again.

Think about it. What if you wanted to open a hunting store and had to give 50% of your floor space to PETA, just to make things "fair"?

Stripped down to it's bones, all I am saying is that if you want to go into business, then do so. Don't let anyone force you into an early failure simply because you are scared of a possible outcome within your community. Jesus didn't, Moses didn't, and millions of successful business people haven't, either.

Take the chance, and there's a hope that you can succeed. Don't take the chance, and you will fail every time.

Peace,

t.

Ted! Man what a great post.