Rush Limbaugh nominated for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

[ted]

Talk radio really does not appeal to liberals. There is a market for it among liberals, but not near the market for conservative talk radio among hard core conservatives. This is not because there are more conservatives than liberals or anything like that. Instead, what it is, is that many conservatives simply don't like hearing any point of view other than the one they agree with. In contrast, many liberals (other than some of the practically militant college ones), want to hear a variety of points of view, even ones they do not necessarily agree with. Frankly, this is a personality characteristic of many liberals. Unlike many conservatives, they are not xenophobic, overly nationalist, authoritarian theocratic, or intolerant of different lifestyles.

Therein lies the success of someone like Rush Limbaugh. He felt that there was no real point of view other than from the big three companies (When I refer to the big three, I mean to say CBS, NBC, and ABC...) out there at the time. For years, you basically had these three, and a few others on radio and tv.

Those were the main choices you had. Once he had established that these companies were feeding the country whatever they wanted (however real or perceived the problem really was is still up for debate), he found his place and launched from the standpoint that he was the alternative to the "mainstream".

So, enough people bought into it, and off he went. It was a brilliant move, really, and one that the Democratic party is still recovering from, up until recently. This "exposure" resulted in them losing elections, and that's why we see the call for "fairness".

Do you remember any calls for bringing it back into a reality during the Clinton Presidency?

I don't anyway. In fact, I don't remember hearing anything about it up until the last year, or so.

Why do you think that is?

Now, as to this fallacy of "Liberals, on the other hand, want to hear a wide variety of opposing views, blah, blah...", you can put that cow back in the barn. That's a crock!

To imply that conservatives only want to hear what they already believe in, and liberals are the only ones who have a tendency to be open to hear opposing views is ridiculous. It's by listening to some of the liberal points of view that conservatives confirm how ignorant some of them can be in the first place!

(Kidding, Juuuuussssst kidding....)

The free exchange of ideas is what makes us a great nation. The problem is, people like Rush played up to an idea that the free exchange of ideas was being stepped on by the "mainstream" media in the first place, hence the "alternative media" label, and they decided to launch on that premise.

To an extent, they were somewhat correct, but personally, I don't think the problem is near the extent to what they make it out to be in the first place. But, it worked, and people listened.

Whenever we listen to any of these people, we have to keep an open mind and understand where they are coming from. Anything that they say should be checked out to see if it is true or not. That's up to us to make sure that we remain informed. If we were to only take Rush's word on things, we would handicap ourselves in the area of intelligence.

Look at matters of science, Liberals tend to base their views on science from what the scientific consensus is. They typically defer to the positions of the National Academy of Sciences, or other Scientific Societies. Many conservatives on the other hand almost see mainstream science as a big conspiracy, thus they get their scientific views dictated to them from guys like Limbaugh, or books written by Hannity or Ann Coulter.

The thing here is that people like Hannity and Rush try to make sure that things are not being crammed down our throat by "scientists" without being thoroughly checked out first.

You can't tell me that the scientific community is free from all forms of corruption, lobbyists, etc.

Each side has their own agenda, and it is reflected by these "scientists" who take one side or the other. Both are guilty. It's usually not so much a problem with raw data, but in how that data is read, and to what conclusions people come to with said data.

Both sides use their little pet words like "could be", "suggests", "is possible", etc, to form their little opinions and talking points. It's not like liberals are free of bias in that regard, as you seem to suggest, nor are conservatives running around with clean hands, either.

It's up to all of us to digest what is being said, and make the best possible decisions based on what we hear and see.

To say one group is more "open" to the idea of free thought is, well, not true.

It doesn

[forrestkc]

Marnie told me about XM and I went over there and checked them out; I'm gonna seriously think about that. Butero also told me about C Crane's transmitter and I just checked that out too. I must not be tuning into NPR at the right time; I ususally just get classical music....I'll start checking that more often throughout the day; it's on FM not a.m. here. I've heard a few shows on there from time to time and it sounded pretty balanced, not conservative, not liberal but I've only caught a few.

Funny thing, I remember Rush always smearing NPR and PBS so for years after I'd stopped listening to him I still didn't tune into either. When I had my son PBS had the best cartoons so I'd let him watch that station. The cartoons would stop at 6 pm and Jim Lehrer Newshour would come on and I'd be busy and just leave it on that station. I'd heard Rush smear a guy named Jim Lehrer but until then I didn't have a clue who he was (by this time it was 2003). After awhile I realized this was the guy and I thought his newshour was the best worldnews on television....far better than CBS, NBC or ABC.....It sure didn't sound slanted in any way to me. One Sunday we were channel surfing on the car radio and came across a show called "Prarie Home Companion" and it had another guy that Rush always belittled named, Garrison Keeler. I loved that show too! I liked Garrison Keeler but I'm usually doing things with the family when reruns of that are on. -- IMO Rush Limbaugh is not reliable on anything he says about people or issues. He's not out for the little guy; Rush is out for the big guy and his job is to get all the little guys listening to him out for the big guy too.

Some of the rural NPR stations cannot afford many of the public radio syndicated programs, so other than Morning Edition and All Things Considered, they play mostly classical. We have two NPR stations within range here, one is out in Lawrence on the KU campus and it plays mostly classical. The other one is out of Kansas City, Missouri, and it carries many of the syndicated programs. My favorite NPR program by far is Car Talk. I am not that big on Prairie Home Companion", although, I think its just because the humor is not crass enough for me.

Check out both Sirius and XM. We have Sirius, but I hear XM is good too. Sirius carries two NPR stations (XM only 1 I think) and it also carries all the CBC stations, PRI International, and BBC radio. Plus its music stations are commercial free. If you do a lot of driving, which we do going down to Texas and Arkansas to visit family, then satellite radio is great.

[ted]

Another thing Ted you keep making all these analogies, Christian radio vs rap etc. The Fairness Doctrine never applied there.

This statement concerns me Ted:

Currently, the main language of the opposition deals with political issues. That's by design, and the intent is to give "equal" time to opposing views. Sounds all warm and fuzzy on the surface, but the basic question still remains: What if you don't want opposing views on your station?

I mean, you own it, right? Maybe you would put them on to balance our you menu, but what if you simply just didn't want to? You would lose that option under such laws that are now being considered.

Think on that for a while.

Why wouldn't you as a consumer want opposing political views? I understand a station owner not wanting them; he's gonna want everyone listening to his station to believe exactly what he believes. What if the spin you're getting, as a consumer, isn't entirely true? Wouldn't you want to know? I know I want to know, I don't want someone telling me what I'm suppose to think when it comes to public policy. I want to hear both sides and make up my own mind. How can you make an informed decision about anything if you're not given all the information? The thing is, you can't, and that why some will fight this tooth and nail if it comes up again.

I guess it all goes back to people hearing what they want to hear; being entertained; having their ears tickled. As for inciting hatred, that's exactly what Rush does, and in my opinion, after listening to him last week after a several year break he's gotten worse about it; but he really didn't say anything new that I hadn't heard him say already over 13 yrs ago. Just look at some of the "Rush" adjectives people use on this very forum, A CHRISTIAN FORUM, when they're talking about liberals or democrats. If that doesn't tell you something about propaganda I don't know what will.

As for boycotts, Christians use that too and I've gotten appeals to boycott shows I don't even watch but that doesn't seem to matter to some of the Christian leadership.....they ask people to boycott shows that other people like to watch......doesn't matter that I don't watch it. You have more of a selection when it comes to television, you can change the station, when I change my radio station I get the same show. I do however believe that where television is concerned there should be some "decency standards" like there used to be. A few rules never hurt anybody....and sometimes rules are good. But yeah sometimes too many rules can be very, very bad. I don't think decency rules or fairness in radio rules fall into the "bad" category.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree at some point on this.

I don't know that there are that many or any new stations since Rush started; our area has the same stations it always had, they're just owned by fewer people now; a few people own several stations.....less independently owned stations. Looks more and more like a monopoly to me and I thought monopolies were suppose to be agains the law since Teddy Roosevelt's day. Obviously those with political ties have managed to find a way around that though. Same goes for newspapers. Same goes for television stations too; just look at Sinclair Broadcasting.

I make the analogies simply to bring you where we could end up if laws like that are brought back.

Looking back, you are probably correct. Liberals only want the fairness thing back as a means to force people to give them time on stations where conservative shows are the main fare.

In that regard, the target will remain on the backs of conservative radio programming, and not shift to other subjects, like religion or music format.

Then again, these other areas will now have a precident to build there case on, won't they?

That's my only point in making the analogies, anyway.

For now, the push is to force owners into giving liberal points of view equal time on the stations they own, and that's bad enough.

Why wouldn't you as a consumer want opposing political views? I understand a station owner not wanting them; he's gonna want everyone listening to his station to believe exactly what he believes. What if the spin you're getting, as a consumer, isn't entirely true? Wouldn't you want to know? I know I want to know, I don't want someone telling me what I'm suppose to think when it comes to public policy. I want to hear both sides and make up my own mind. How can you make an informed decision about anything if you're not given all the information? The thing is, you can't, and that why some will fight this tooth and nail if it comes up again.

As a consumer, yes. As a business owner who owns a radio station, no. I think that should be my choice as to whether or not I provide for opposing views. If I don't feel like doing it, then so be it. If I do, it's because I want to, and that's that.

It should be my choice, not the choice of the Government, and that was the point of that quote you used. If I chose to run nothing other than circus music for 24 hrs a day, it should be my choice, and not the choice of the Government forcing me to air anything else.

Same goes for political speech. If the consumer would rather tune my station out and listen to another who had a more balanced approach, then I would have to adjust my programming to meet the need, or simply lose out on listeners. It's that simple.

Once I lose out on listeners, I lose out on advertisers just the same, so I would have to make some decisions based on that, and I shouldn't be forced to give 50% of my air time over to someone else's view simply because the Government said so to protect one party or another.

That's what's going on here, in reality.

If the Government wants to ensure that there is a network out there that gives equal time to both views, then they need to get into the radio business and launch a platform.

But, once they do that, they will have to cater to all of the other political views from other parties- after all, it wouldn't be fair to exclude the Green party or the Libertarians, would it?

That's another issue that people are not thinking clearly on right now. So far, all of the talk has been about giving liberals equal time on the radio talk show waves. Fine, so be it, says the mighty Government. But, what do you say when the Greens, the Libs, the Constitution Party, the US Communist Party, and a host of others come forward and demand equality?

What then?

Given that there would now be legal precedent for the Government to dictate everyone gets "equal" treatment, and would be able to force private radio networks to provide time for opposing views, how would you accommodate all of the other parties? Under a "fariness doctrine" you would have to give them equal time, right?

t.

BTW- I'm still waiting on the name of the conservative voice in radio or tv prior to Rush...

[Hypathia]

It was neither conservative or liberal before the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. And it was abolished right about the time Rush started getting noticed nationally. The only talking I remember were like hog reports but I wasn't exactly a news hound back then either.

Look at what all you just admitted in your past few posts Ted; you admitted that the radio is affecting what people are doing in the voting booth....so listeners are regarding their "entertainment/talk radio" as news. The Fairness Doctrine is about protecting both politcal parties; those who are against it are trying to protect the republican party only. Truman was President when the Fairness Doctrine came about at the same time the FCC was established. It was in place for almost 40 years. I don't know how they handled groups like liberterians and the green party. I know these other parties want to debate during nationally televised Presidential debates and they don't get to. So I don't know how the FCC handled that question before under the Fairness Doctrine.

Are you a business owner or a consumer? I'm a consumer, I'm a little guy...a worker bee... so I'm looking out for me and what's best for my family; the big guys can and will look out for themselves too; they're not looking out for you and me that's for sure. With some fair ground rules in place it makes it possible for little guys like you and me to at least form our own opinions.

I'm not against the big guys making an honest buck but I don't believe stacking the deck to get people to vote things into law that favor them is right. Have you ever looked up what all Newt Gingrich did to stack the deck in favor of the republicans when he became speaker of the house in 96'? He even said that they had to control the "language" to control the debate. I think the republicans want ALL the power for themselves and will do anything to keep it and Rush is doing all he can to help them do it. Everybody wants power up in Washington but at some point you have to think of the people and what's best for the whole country. We masses out here need to exercise scrutiny when it comes to both parties and we need information.

I can see I'm gonna have to buy an alternative.

[RustyAngeL]

amen

[ted]

It was neither conservative or liberal before the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. And it was abolished right about the time Rush started getting noticed nationally. The only talking I remember were like hog reports but I wasn't exactly a news hound back then either.

Some would contend that the airwaves and the networks were decidedly slanted to the left, before the appearance of conservative talk radio. Before that, there was no real voice for them.

I guess that much is up for debate, but they did a decent job of showing the slant, and built on that to build their audience. If it wasn't true, perhaps they would not have the following they do?

Look at what all you just admitted in your past few posts Ted; you admitted that the radio is affecting what people are doing in the voting booth....so listeners are regarding their "entertainment/talk radio" as news. The Fairness Doctrine is about protecting both politcal parties; those who are against it are trying to protect the republican party only.

Lol!

I didn't "admit" to anything, really. Admitting to something like that would imply that I am part of their movement, which I am not. I could care less about "liberal" or "conservative" leanings. I think they do an equal amount of damage to the country, and need to stop playing little baby games so we can move ahead as a nation.

I just showed that talk radio was having an impact on elections, and that it's a subject which the liberals are starting to pay attention to. It's why we see the call for the Fairness Doctrine's return. Liberals tried to match the conservative movement in talk radio, but fell flat on their faces. So, the natural thing for them to do is to turn to the Government to save them, like most anything else they do.

That's why we see the interest in bringing back the fairness garbage.

I don't agree with everything Rush says. I usually listen to him out of pure entertainment, and rely on other formats to get my news. Hannity is someone I can only take in small doses, and he's mainly entertainment for me, as well. Same with someone like Franken. To take either of these people seriously as news people is dumb. But, I do like to hear what they have to say on some of the subjects. I like the idea of having the whole story told, but against the idea that the Government should be dictating what a private business owner should be airing.

If someone doesn't want to air a view, then so be it. Someone else can come around and air that view.

The Fairness Doctrine is being brought out of the past as a means for liberals to have their views out with equal time. Big deal.

They know they can't compete in the open market with their views, so they figure they will make laws to help them. I find this interesting because every poll I see shows that most of America is pretty liberal or at least mid travel on the political spectrum. Why then, would liberals have trouble getting their message out?

Well, I don't think that they do have that trouble. What I think is that many people could care less about their views, and are kinda sick of hearing about them.

Also, I think people are not hearing anything new with liberal radio. They get it beat into them on all of the networks and most of the cable news channels in the first place.

Add in most of the internet, all of Europe, 98% of everything coming out of Hollywood, and other mediums, and I would say that the liberals have quite an easy time of getting their message out.

Enter Rush, and his merry band of copycats, and you have a new medium, which could be brushed off up until about ten years ago. Then, they got people thinking about how the news is presented to them, and it started affecting how people vote.

Personally, I think most of them go way beyond the message, and are now so far out to the right, that you have to keep that in mind when listening to them. For the most part, all you are getting is the right wing version of Michael Moore and Al Franken. If you can keep that in mind, things are ok.

Those who are against the return of the fairness doctrine are mainly concerned with Government intrusion into the airwaves and private business. It's the reason why it got canned in the first place, not because it may turn out that there may be one side who hogs the attention. It was finally seen as Government getting into private business too deeply, and it was sent packing.

The return of the fairness doctrine is not about protecting both parties, if it was, there would be an obvious bi-partisan calling for it.

It is being called for by only one side, and that is the side that is having "trouble" getting their views out, which I think is pretty petty in the first place.

Are you a business owner or a consumer? I'm a consumer, I'm a little guy...a worker bee... so I'm looking out for me and what's best for my family; the big guys can and will look out for themselves too; they're not looking out for you and me that's for sure. With some fair ground rules in place it makes it possible for little guys like you and me to at least form our own opinions.

I'm not against the big guys making an honest buck but I don't believe stacking the deck to get people to vote things into law that favor them is right. Have you ever looked up what all Newt Gingrich did to stack the deck in favor of the republicans when he became speaker of the house in 96'? He even said that they had to control the "language" to control the debate. I think the republicans want ALL the power for themselves and will do anything to keep it and Rush is doing all he can to help them do it. Everybody wants power up in Washington but at some point you have to think of the people and what's best for the whole country. We masses out here need to exercise scrutiny when it comes to both parties and we need information.

I'm a consumer, not a radio business owner. I like to think that I am smart enough to go out and seek many forms of information out there and use it to make informed decisions. I would also like to be assured that if I ever got into the radio business, I would have the relative freedom to make my own schedule and put what I wanted out, and not base my format on anything that the Government predetermined for me. It makes no sense to me.

If the Gov wants to give equal time to each (remember, make sure they give equal time to the other parties, too... ), then they can create radio stations and give equal time to all of them. That way, they can ensure that equal time is given to all parties. It's when they force private owners to do this that I get upset.

Let the private business owners do what they want, and let others offer opposing views, if they so choose, I say. Maybe an owner would want to split it up? Well, so be it. Let it be up to them.

If Fox News wants to load up with conservatives, let them. If CNN wants to pump the liberal drum, then let them. If they want to mix it up with opinionated shows, then more power to them. We have the choice to change the channel or turn it off. We also have the ability to let their sponsors know that we are not happy with their choices, too.

To me, "fair ground rules" means that I would not be prohibited from being able to get my shows out to the airwaves due to regulations about "fairness". It would mean that I could put out what I wanted, conforming to decency laws already enacted, and within my own decision making process. I would also hope that the "other guy" would have the same chance.

That's where fair ground rules would end for me. If my station happened to be doing better than the other guys based on what I was offering, I certainly would not want the Government stepping in and telling me that I now would have to clear 50% of my programming to make room for the shows that the other guy was offering, would you?

Would that make good business sense?

As well, if my company was the one failing, I certainly would not want the Government going to the other guy and telling him that he has to make room for the shows I have failed with.

As for the desire to keep power, both parties are doing the same thing. Both of them want to be the ones making all of the decisions, and both of them want the powerful chairs. While the right has Rush, Fox News, and a few others, the left, by some arguments, have everything else on their side. They both use the media to achieve their political goals. Saying that one does and the other doesn't is wrong and untrue.

The will of the people dictate who will be in power. It's the basic premise of our Government. We figured it would be a good idea to have the people vote who they want to represent them, and it's been that way ever since. It's never been a "fair" system, but one which gave the people the right to choose.

If things were to be absolutely fair, then we would do away with elections, and simply dictate that the Senate would consist of one liberal and one conservative from each state, each state would appoint equal numbers of each for the House, and the Presidency would alternate between the two parties every four years. One time a liberal, and in four years, a conservative would take over, and so on...

Would you be for or against something like that? After all, it seems fair, right?

But no, that wouldn't be America after all. Here, we have the chance to look at the issues of the day, and make our choices based on their positions. If one party, who seemingly have 80% of all media in their back pocket can't seem to convince people to vote for them. that shouldn't be the problem of a private business owner who happens to think that putting Rush's show on instead of Franken's will make him a few more bucks as a business decision.

Both parties get the same amount of money from the Fed to run their campaigns coming out of the gate. In doing that, the Government ensures fairness. Anything they make outside of that is a matter of their own resources. Even then, their are plenty of election laws to try and balance the field.

Both parties cheat their way through the process, of course, and the loser each time calls for "election reforms".

Kind of amazing, when you think about it.

Anyway, sorry to dwell on such a matter. I just can't stand when people try to cry to the Government when their side isn't winning at the time, and I can't stand when the Government steps in to a matter like this and mandates what private business owners can do with their air time. It opens up a door for other such legislation to come in, and could force people to make all kinds of concessions which they may not want to make with their business. Right now, the issue is political air time, but what comes next?

Peace,

t.

[Axxman]

As to the bone in your nose comment. Look it up in snopes:

Claim: Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh once told a black caller to "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

Status: True.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

uh...this is exactly what Snopes says....

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me again," a claim which dates to at least 1990, with the incident supposedly having occurred as far back as the 1970s. -- I don't where you are from but supposedly is a pretty vague word that DOESN"T intone FACT.

Nearly all the information available on this subject is anecdotal, with no documentation and no specifics mentioned other than that the alleged quote was something Limbaugh "once said" or uttered "as a young broadcaster in the 1970s." -- Again, like I said, no hard proof that this was or is an exact quote.

Seems you are almost as unreliable as wikiquote on this one.

However, because I am an honest person, I gave ALL the facts. I stated that this wouldn't even be a story if Limbaugh hadn't "supposedly" apologized for making such a statement. His apology came 17 yrs ago in a Newsday interview. Rush "supposedly" brought it up as something he regretted in his career. He didn't have to bring it up, and the fact that he did should mean something. This "supposedly" occured during his first job as a disk jockey at a Top 40 station.

This item is registered as TRUE on Snopes because "to the best of their knowledge" Rush has not denied making the statement during the interview.

At best this is a comment made by a Morning DJ 30-35 yrs ago, and apologized for 17 years ago, of his own volition. SUPPOSEDLY!

[hmh]

Rush Limbaugh opened the doors for conservative talk radio during a time when it was only leaning toward the left. Give him credit where credit is due. I've listened to Air America, and found more hate talk and slander than on Rush's program, and he will openly tell you he is BIASED! Yet the Air America bunch do nothing more that offer personal attacks on conservates, and yet that's the exact same thing I'm reading on the threads on this post. Why is it that most who are liberal must attack someone personally? Is it because the liberal position has no substance? Or is it that hate is part of the liberal stance? I offer no apoligies when it comes to supporting a conservative view, especially when real proposals are made to fix problems, instead of dumping money into it and raising taxes to support the waste. I have to say this thread is really a prime example of the seething hate that unfortunately seems to perminate the liberal viewpoint. And it's unfortunate because those who want to add "What would Jesus say" are either not aware or blinded about the hatred being spewed by their view points. It's like political correctness. It's done nothing but cause problems and now most can't take a joke and look at problems realistically without worrying of offending others. You know what? Lighten up or else you might find yourself having a heart attack at work and no one noticing for five days because no one cares anymore.

[Giaour]

OK,

So far we have discussed;

XM radio

PBS

Air America

etc.

Funny how topics morph.

I say CONGRATS RUSH!

Like himm or not, he has made huge strides and accomplishments in radio.

Funny how just 1 man can cause such a change and an uproar.

[chapmac]

OK,

So far we have discussed;

XM radio

PBS

Air America

etc.

Funny how topics morph.

I say CONGRATS RUSH!

Like himm or not, he has made huge strides and accomplishments in radio.

Funny how just 1 man can cause such a change and an uproar.

rush is to be congratulated for getting exactly what he makes millions of dollars doing

using people to get other people talking and stirring up the pot so he makes millions more dollars

he found a niche and is raking it in

so congrats to rush for being a smart business man