Is Rush Limbaugh a terrorist?

[riddler 0]

Many of you are familiar with Rush's Operation Chaos, in which he encourages his listeners to subvert the voting process. Examples include having Republicans register as Democrats to vote in the DNC primary and get Hillary Clinton elected as the democratic candidate, rather than Barack Obama.

But on March 27, 2008, Limbaugh said "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here [of Operation Chaos]."

Last I heard, making statements like this - encouraging public damage and destruction - constitutes conspiracy to commit terrorism in the U.S. Here is the story of a Muslim cleric that was sentenced to life in prison for inciting others to wage war against the U.S. The only difference I see between these two is that Rush is white, not Muslim, and a friend to the GOP.

Why are Rush's statements acceptable, when Ali al-Timimi's earns him life in prison?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Trent 0]

Don't worry, they'll get him with that "fairness doctrine" thing soon.

Oh, hello again!

[AWL71 0]

You don't like Rush and that is fine but comparing him to a terrorist is a reach. Most people get the angle Rush is going for.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[riddler 0]

Quote

You don't like Rush and that is fine but comparing him to a terrorist is a reach. Most people get the angle Rush is going for.

Nope, I don't like Russh. But tell me how his statements about inciting violence in the U.S. differ from Ali al-Timimi's?

BTW - if you don't believe that Rush actually said that, here is a YouTube of the radio broadcast. You can judge for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QOSSZEA1so

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[livendive 8]

Quote

You don't like Rush and that is fine but comparing him to a terrorist is a reach.

What he said. Encouraging violence and destruction has nothing to do with terrorism. Having a funny name like "Barack Hussein Obama" on the other hand...that's irrefutable proof.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 3]

Quote

Don't worry, they'll get him with that "fairness doctrine" thing soon.

You say that as if it is somehow a horrible thing to require that opposing views be presented. It's called the fairness doctrine not because it requires equal time, just the ability for people to air opposing viewpoints and not be shouted down by station owners and hosts.

The Rush Limbaugh show pretty much was started because the fairness doctrine was done away with by the Reagan Administration, specifically by Mark Fowler the Reagan appointed head of the FCC.

Limbaugh himself admits this.

Noam Chomsky said, “He who controls the media controls the minds of the public.”

To deny opposing viewpoints is to encourage propaganda (which if you haven't figured out is exactly what the Limbaugh show has always been). The irony in all of this is how Limbaugh claims the "media elite" is in control when he benefits from the overwhelming control provided to Clear Channel Communications of PUBLIC airwaves.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

Radio is business. They should put on what they want and if it doesn't sell, move on. Why should government dictate what we hear? That's crazy to me. Sure, this means we'll have to put up with some dumb programming (not like TV doesn't have that in spades already), but it's business. If the NEWS media would do it's job, it wouldn't be a problem.

I know that many claim that major news media (outside of radio) isn't biased so what is scary about the "fairness" BS is that it seems it'd only affect what many see as the counterpoint to the mainstream media that they DO feel is biased.

Oh, hello again!

[quade 3]

Quote

Radio is business.

It's a business that is delivered via a limited public property.

What you're saying would be like a business that wanted to put on concerts in a public park. Then, they rope off a HUGE section of the park so that other businesses can't have the same access. Then, they don't play music, but start shouting a single political view point.

People -can't- really decide because they aren't given any other opposing viewpoints.

When businesses are allowed to do whatever they want through deregulation, they do, and not always to the benefit of society as a whole.

As I think we've found out recently, a little bit of government regulation really isn't all that bad of an idea.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

Quote

It's a business that is delivered via a limited public property.

What you're saying would be like a business that wanted to put on concerts in a public park. Then, they rope off a HUGE section of the park so that other businesses can't have the same access. Then, they don't play music, but start shouting a single political view point.

People -can't- really decide because they aren't given any other opposing viewpoints.

That's nonsense. If no one listens, it doesn't sell. They go out of business. Do you think that people listen to AM Talk Radio because there's nothing else on? Unlike the concert on the street, they have 100's and 1000's of other frequencies they can listen to depending on where they are. No one has to hear it and everyone can avoid hearing it if they want.

Having the government dictate what media says is a bad idea. I expect many people only think it's a good idea in this case because talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

You don't like Rush and that is fine but comparing him to a terrorist is a reach.

What he said. Encouraging violence and destruction has nothing to do with terrorism. Having a funny name like "Barack Hussein Obama" on the other hand...that's irrefutable proof.

Blues,
Dave

Have you noticed that Obama rhymes with Osama?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Radio is business.

It's a business that is delivered via a limited public property.

.

The concept of anyone or any organization owning electromagnetic radiation is absurd. Might as well claim to own the Sun or the Andromeda galaxy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Radio is business.

It's a business that is delivered via a limited public property.

.

The concept of anyone or any organization owning electromagnetic radiation is absurd. Might as well claim to own the Sun or the Andromeda galaxy.

I'll remember that the next time you power up an RC airplane. I'll just turn on a transmitter of the same frequency and start mashing the controls.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't like Rush and that is fine but comparing him to a terrorist is a reach.

What he said. Encouraging violence and destruction has nothing to do with terrorism. Having a funny name like "Barack Hussein Obama" on the other hand...that's irrefutable proof.

Blues,
Dave

Have you noticed that Obama rhymes with Osama?

Holy shit! I hadn't noticed, but you're right, it does! So much for voting for that guy!

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Radio is business.

It's a business that is delivered via a limited public property.

.

The concept of anyone or any organization owning electromagnetic radiation is absurd. Might as well claim to own the Sun or the Andromeda galaxy.

I'll remember that the next time you power up an RC airplane. I'll just turn on a transmitter of the same frequency and start mashing the controls.

be my guest. It's a shared frequency, so that's expected anyway. Which is why spread spectrum systems have taken over.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Radio is business.

It's a business that is delivered via a limited public property.

.

The concept of anyone or any organization owning electromagnetic radiation is absurd. Might as well claim to own the Sun or the Andromeda galaxy.

I'll remember that the next time you power up an RC airplane. I'll just turn on a transmitter of the same frequency and start mashing the controls.

be my guest. It's a shared frequency, so that's expected anyway. Which is why spread spectrum systems have taken over.

And do not exist in AM radio like many of the stations owned by Clear Channel on which the Rush Limbaugh show is carried.

Radio IS a limited resource and is regulated for the public good by the FCC. It was regulated slightly more prior to the Reagan Administration. That's all we're talking about going back to here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As I think we've found out recently, a little bit of government regulation really isn't all that bad of an idea.

Just like throwing gas on a fire isn't all that bad of an idea. And then throwing gas on the fire to put it out is even better?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,436]

>Why should government dictate what we hear?

Because the government protects, up to and including the use of force, their "monopoly" on a geographically limited chunk of airwaves. That means once you are granted use of that public resource, you have to conform to certain rules concerning what you do with the public resource.

[Skyrad 0]

Rush isn't brown enough to be a terrorist.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[grimmie 177]

Rush isn't a terrorist, he's just a really awful comedian.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Because the government protects, up to and including the use of force, their "monopoly" on a geographically limited chunk of airwaves. That means once you are granted use of that public resource, you have to conform to certain rules concerning what you do with the public resource.

And if you can't afford to keep the license, you lose it. If you can't afford to stay open because no one likes your programming, you change it. If you don't like what's on, you change the channel.

If the FCC wants to assign frequencies and ensure that no one is stealing them or overpowering them, or even saying dirty dirty words. Great. I really don't think you want them dictating the content of what is on those frequencies, do you? One more layer of government regulation that we do not need. Again, people wouldn't have any problems with it if it weren't the case that AM radio is predominantly conservative.

Oh, hello again!

[millertime24 8]

Thats actually got me to thinking. How, exactly, do they come up with ratings? I listen to primarily 3 different radio stations in my car everyday. How the hell do the "raters" know what Im listening to at any given moment?

Muff #5048

[quade 3]

Quote

Again, people wouldn't have any problems with it if it weren't the case that AM radio is predominantly conservative.

And what was it before the deregulation of the mid-1980s? Oh, that's right it actually -was- fair and balanced because it required access be given to opposing viewpoints.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,436]

>If the FCC wants to assign frequencies and ensure that no one is stealing them
>or overpowering them, or even saying dirty dirty words. Great. I really don't think
>you want them dictating the content of what is on those frequencies, do you?

They already do. As you said above, they limit what you can say ("dirty words.")

However, at a wider level, I would agree that as long as people have access to a wide variety of radio sources, then there is no need for enforced fairness. The Fairness Doctrine was originally created so that in areas where there were very limited numbers of broadcasters, one business/political group could not control public opinion. Nowadays such areas are the exception rather than the rule.

[Trent 0]

Quote

They already do. As you said above, they limit what you can say ("dirty words.")

I think that's a little different than dictating what kind of programming you have to do.

Quote

However, at a wider level, I would agree that as long as people have access to a wide variety of radio sources, then there is no need for enforced fairness. The Fairness Doctrine was originally created so that in areas where there were very limited numbers of broadcasters, one business/political group could not control public opinion. Nowadays such areas are the exception rather than the rule.

Well, we're now AT that "wider level". Talk radio (which is mainly AM) is a very very small spectrum of what is available to people in almost every corner of the country. You're more likely to have satellite TV in the middle of nowhere than access to an AM signal. I think the concept is outdated and is primarily partisan now.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

And what was it before the deregulation of the mid-1980s? Oh, that's right it actually -was- fair and balanced because it required access be given to opposing viewpoints.

I don't know... I only heard bad disco and 80's music on my dad's old AM radio-having car.

Is your definition of "fair and balance"... MSNBC? Because I think it's best to just let people choose what they want to listen to or see than to have the government decide.

Oh, hello again!