Al Sharpton Wants FCC to Ban Limbaugh

Sharpton Wants FCC to Ban Limbaugh

NewsMax.com
Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Liberal firebrand Rev. Al Sharpton is telling audiences that the Federal Communications Commission should take Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves because of perceived offenses toward racial minorities and other groups.

The attack was only the latest in a series of attacks by Democrats, including President Obama, who suggest that America's political discourse is being crippled by talk radio and cable news shows.

Specifically, Sharpton suggested that the FCC should establish "guidelines" or "standards" to regulate speech.

"You've got to remember that those stations that Rush Limbaugh is on and others are regulated by FCC, granted by FCC; they go back to them to get waivers," Sharpton said on his own radio show on Nov. 19th

"They go back to them to get consolidation," Sharpton continued. "They have the right to set standards. That does not impair your right to speak what you believe, but it does say that you are not going to do that to offend groups of Americans based on their race, their gender, their sexual status - none of that."

Sharpton's broadside followed a similar attack last week by Sen. Jay Rockefeller. The West Virginia Democrat went after both right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC.

Said Rockefeller during a Senate hearing: "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future."

And earlier this year President Obama himself lamented what he described as the sad state of political discourse hampered by iPods and cable TV shows.

"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations - none of which I know how to work - information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said during a commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia. "So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

Conservatives and civil libertarians are concerned by what they see as a growing tolerance by liberals to regulate and even censor the airwaves, especially as outlets like Fox News and shows like Limbaugh's grow ever more popular.

Limbaugh is the most listened to radio host in the nation with more than 15 million weekly visitors. Fox News continues to trounce its cable news rivals CNN and MSNBC in ratings.

"This is scary stuff," lamented an editorial in Investors Business Daily. "Strong speech has always been quintessentially American.

With the airwaves and cyberspace replacing soapboxes, it's more vital than ever to protect it against politicians favoring a new 'fairness doctrine' that would keep voters from being armed with the information and analysis that can be used to unseat them."

Another left winger attacking free speech.

Of course, nobody can point out "racist" comments by Limbaugh. Of course, these same people won't tell you that a black man (Professor Walter E. Williams) has guest hosted that show for years when Limbaugh is on vacation or sick. Of course, they never tell you that his call screener (James Golden) is a black man.

Oh, I get it. They're token employees. That's it! Has to be! There's no other explanation!

On with the race bullshit and the masses buy into it.

I'm not for censoring any talk shows, but you can't deny that talk shows like Limbaugh's alter the political course in the US.
Of course, I'm guessing you're trying to deny that....

Not denying anything. It alters the liberal take on many things. It's been quite some time since I listened to him to start with. But when I have listened, I've heard things on his show that the media never reported. Then, after he made a stink about it, it would get reported.

Yep, mind altering.

Yet it doesn't alter any conservative takes on things, and that's where the problem lies.

Why is that a problem? Everything else is a liberal take with our media. What is it with you people who can't stand when a conservative voice is out there to tell the other side of the story? Then we get skanks like Sharpton who make baseless accusations of racism. I serous get very tired of that shit and won't let it pass when I see it.

I said talk shows, not conservative talk shows. Whether it's liberal or conservative, it doesn't make a difference.

I'm all for Limbaugh being quieted. The man is nothing more than a hate monger. He abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it.

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm all for Limbaugh being quieted. The man is nothing more than a hate monger. He abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it.

How so? Once again, I'm going to demand that you back that statement up.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm all for Limbaugh being quieted. The man is nothing more than a hate monger. He abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it.

How so? Once again, I'm going to demand that you back that statement up.

Why should I? Even though Tom DeLay was convicted of a crime, you righties say that it was simply a smear campaign by the left. Even though he was convicted of breaking the law you righties cry foul. So why should I have to give any evidence that Rush Limbaugh is an asshole? There's already plenty of evidence for that floating around. Of course, then the topic becomes my definition of "asshole" versus yours.

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm all for Limbaugh being quieted. The man is nothing more than a hate monger. He abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it.

How so? Once again, I'm going to demand that you back that statement up.

Why should I? Even though Tom DeLay was convicted of a crime, you righties say that it was simply a smear campaign by the left. Even though he was convicted of breaking the law you righties cry foul. So why should I have to give any evidence that Rush Limbaugh is an asshole? There's already plenty of evidence for that floating around. Of course, then the topic becomes my definition of "asshole" versus yours.

Because you made the statement, that's why! If you're going to sit here and say something without backing it up, then you get called on it.

Delay was investigated by the feds and they dropped their investigation. That should tell you something to begin with. I don't like the man and never did even when I lived down there. But thanks for changing the subject.

TexasBlue wrote:Because you made the statement, that's why! If you're going to sit here and say something without backing it up, then you get called on it.

Actually I get called on it when it's something you disagree with. That's what my previous point (as well as the point of this thread) is really about. It's about picking and choosing what's "right" or "wrong". As I said, there's plenty of evidence out there against Limbaugh. He's an instigator. The evidence is there. Again, he abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it. It's not a freedom of speech issue. It's a hate speech issue.

And to be fair, Al Sharpton has become an attention seeker as of late (i.e. Don Imus). But in this case, he's right. The rhetoric needs to stop.

i_luv_miley wrote:Actually I get called on it when it's something you disagree with. That's what my previous point (as well as the point of this thread) is really about. It's about picking and choosing what's "right" or "wrong". As I said, there's plenty of evidence out there against Limbaugh. He's an instigator. The evidence is there. Again, he abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it. It's not a freedom of speech issue. It's a hate speech issue.

And to be fair, Al Sharpton has become an attention seeker as of late (i.e. Don Imus). But in this case, he's right. The rhetoric needs to stop.

I'm calling you on it because you don't back it up. When people call me on something, I provide evidence or links to back up what I'm saying.

Then provide the evidence. No doubt he instigates things but it's his right as much as it is any other left wing radio/TV person. I don't say that people "hide" behind the 1st Amendment. There is no such thing. That's something made up by people on your side... along with accusing others of hate speech.

Actually, the reason ILM cannot back up what he claims is because he is only parroting that which he has read or heard from others and has done zero investigation for himself.

I know these claims against Limbaugh to be false because I have not only listened to his shows, I have also read and listened to much of what his critics have written and said about him. I have the advantage of comparing the two bodies of information and making a reasoned assessment of the accuracy of his critics.

The long and short of it? They are full of shit.

Limbaugh is not a "hate monger" or a "racist" or a "shill for the Republican Party" nor an "abuser of the First Amendment."

The reason he is so vehemently attacked is simple; liberals can't stand it when the unvarnished truth is told about the left's agenda in the government or the private sector.

There are no other reasons.

So, as you can see Tex, ILM cannot back up his claims, because they are untrue, thus no evidence can be found for them.

I'm big on one backing up a claim based on fact. Opinions are another thing. I never make a fact based claim without providing evidence to what I'm saying.

I will agree that the likes of Limbaugh and Palin have a "right" to say whatever they want. But those two (and others, even some from the left) seem to take joy from spewing the vitriol. And then they have the gall to get pissed when others get pissed? Come on... They know what they're doing. What they might not realize (but I'll bet they do) is that some people actually believe what they say. That's what Sharpton is talking about. That is hiding behind the first amendment. IMO, it's an abuse of that freedom. If one is going to purposely stir up sh*t, that person should be held accountable for whatever results. It's like in football - it's not the person who picks the fight that gets penalized. It's the person who retaliates... IMO, that's what this thread is about.

As for "facts", come on... Most of what Tex usually posts is stuff from articles - and that is his right to do so. But those articles are usually one persons opinion. A person that he agrees with. That doesn't make them "facts" though.

That's enough ILM, you made your point.

i_luv_miley wrote:I will agree that the likes of Limbaugh and Palin have a "right" to say whatever they want. But those two (and others, even some from the left) seem to take joy from spewing the vitriol. And then they have the gall to get pissed when others get pissed? Come on... They know what they're doing. What they might not realize (but I'll bet they do) is that some people actually believe what they say. That's what Sharpton is talking about. That is hiding behind the first amendment. IMO, it's an abuse of that freedom. If one is going to purposely stir up sh*t, that person should be held accountable for whatever results. It's like in football - it's not the person who picks the fight that gets penalized. It's the person who retaliates... IMO, that's what this thread is about.

You want hate? You want true disgusting shit from the left?

"A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes Show

"..And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq 'We have our good days and our bad days.' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days' and pull the trigger." -- From a fundraising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club

"F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead." -- Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" -- Chris Matthews

"I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow....I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact." -- Bill Maher

"If I got (Condi Rice) a— on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them." -- Spike Lee

I got tons more. Lemme know if you want them.

i_luv_miley wrote:As for "facts", come on... Most of what Tex usually posts is stuff from articles - and that is his right to do so. But those articles are usually one persons opinion. A person that he agrees with. That doesn't make them "facts" though.

You leave out the part how those "opinion" articles usually have links to go along with them. Those links provide documented proof on what they're saying. It's also up to you to disprove what you think isn't fact. I usually have everything ready to go to back it up in that scenario. I don't post stuff that I can't debate.

But hey, if you get tired of them, you're totally free to post your own shit.

i_luv_miley wrote:That's enough ILM, you made your point.

And why do you have to drag that issue into the open? It's childish on two accounts.

I would love to see ILM post TRULY hateful speech from Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin (who seems to have suddenly been lumped into the fray here) similar to what you have posted from the left Tex.

It's one thing to level an accusation, Democrats are experts at that, and quite another to actually back it up with proof.

I see nothing in ILM's exposition that backs his position.

I'm still waiting for the proof.

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm all for Limbaugh being quieted. The man is nothing more than a hate monger. He abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it.

No let him carry on, if only for the comedy value. I mean, this guy still thinks that CFCs are harmless to the ozone layer

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:I'm all for Limbaugh being quieted. The man is nothing more than a hate monger. He abuses the first amendment and then hides behind it.

How so? Once again, I'm going to demand that you back that statement up.

Why should I?

I agree that the guy is an arsehole but you called him a hatemonger and you would do well to back it up. I have no love for the guy, particularly the dangerous misinformation he spreads about climate science and scientists but you need to back up your claims ILM.

dblboggie wrote:Actually, the reason ILM cannot back up what he claims is because he is only parroting that which he has read or heard from others and has done zero investigation for himself.

That accusation cuts both ways dbl. let us consider those who think themselves well informed about climate science simply because they parrot Limbaugh's ignorant rhetoric.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Actually, the reason ILM cannot back up what he claims is because he is only parroting that which he has read or heard from others and has done zero investigation for himself.

That accusation cuts both ways dbl. let us consider those who think themselves well informed about climate science simply because they parrot Limbaugh's ignorant rhetoric.

Touche! But, to be honest, I don't parrot Limbaugh's rhetoric, I have other sources for my position's on AGW, and some of them are, surprisingly, scientists. As you well know, not all scientists hew to the party line on this subject. Nor do my positions ignore the politics enmeshed in this issue.

dblboggie wrote:I don't parrot Limbaugh's rhetoric,

I never mentioned names

dblboggie wrote:As you well know, not all scientists hew to the party line on this subject.

Yes I remember very well that it is 3% of the community and that they have yet to provide an adequate forcing. Regardless though, nobody should be using this man as a credible source for any scientific knowledge, let alone for such an intricate and complicated science.

dblboggie wrote:Nor do my positions ignore the politics enmeshed in this issue.

Once again, until you can disprove the science you so readily dismiss, there is no point discussing the politics

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I don't parrot Limbaugh's rhetoric,

I never mentioned names

You didn't really have to, did you? I mean, it's not like it's a secret right?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:As you well know, not all scientists hew to the party line on this subject.

Yes I remember very well that it is 3% of the community and that they have yet to provide an adequate forcing. Regardless though, nobody should be using this man as a credible source for any scientific knowledge, let alone for such an intricate and complicated science.

3% is 3%. Besides, consensus is not science. And even within this alleged "consensus" there are widely varying views as to the extent of man's contribution as well as the impacts that warming would have, including at least one scientist who says that warming would be a net gain for mankind.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Nor do my positions ignore the politics enmeshed in this issue.

Once again, until you can disprove the science you so readily dismiss, there is no point discussing the politics

Au contraire mon frere! The politics are in full bloody swing, and in our case it has the government grasping at powers not permitted by our laws and that will do nothing to solve the very "problem" being used to justify these extra-constitutional usurpations.

You seem quite fine with the IPCC shouting fire in a crowded theater, while remaining blissfully unattached to the utter chaos that this is unleashing in the political realm. You are all problem and no solution on the topic of AGW; never a good or productive combination.

Unfortunately, whether I agree with the "science" or not, the politics of AGW already threaten our economy and me personally. I should think that there is very much a point to discussing the politics.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I don't parrot Limbaugh's rhetoric,

I never mentioned names

You didn't really have to, did you? I mean, it's not like it's a secret right?

Actually it was a general point aimed at the conspiracy theorists/denialist crowd.

dblboggie wrote:3% is 3%. Besides, consensus is not science.

You might think I'd get sick of repeating myself on this issue but I will continue to repeat it until you pay attention. Consensus in science means a lot because that is where the evidence points. In order to overturn that you need solid science on the sceptics side. Denialist rhetoric from the likes of Limbaugh is never going to cut it.

dblboggie wrote:And even within this alleged "consensus"

https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/science-f4/the-lies-that-climate-change-denialists-tell-t786.htm See number 3.

dblboggie wrote:there are widely varying views as to the extent of man's contribution as well as the impacts that warming would have, including at least one scientist who says that warming would be a net gain for mankind.

https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/science-f4/the-lies-that-climate-change-denialists-tell-t786.htm See numbers 8, 10 and 12.

dblboggie wrote:Au contraire mon frere! The politics are in full bloody swing, and in our case it has the government grasping at powers not permitted by our laws and that will do nothing to solve the very "problem" being used to justify these extra-constitutional usurpations.

The climate cares nothing for human constructs such as market trends, religions or constitutions.

dblboggie wrote:You are all problem and no solution on the topic of AGW; never a good or productive combination.

And you are all conspiracy theory and no substance. You can use all the ALLCAPS and appeals to emotion you like it doesn't change what the science says.

dblboggie wrote:Unfortunately, whether I agree with the "science" or not, the politics of AGW already threaten our economy and me personally. I should think that there is very much a point to discussing the politics.

I'm waiting for your thesis on why 97% of a highly qualified active research community is wrong. You don't know what you are talking about and it is clear that you do not want to. You have ignored all of the scientific articles I have presented on this issue only to repeat the same nonsense that the papers I present were actually dispelling.

Seriously, what is it with the baby boomer generation that they value only money in their own pocket? What is it about the baby boomer generation that gives them an air of entitlement to do whatever the hell they please and to hell with the consequences? What is it about the baby boomer generation that they don't give a shit about anybody but themselves? What is it about the baby boomer generation that they consider themselves so damned special as to deny reality when it doesn't suit their pre-supposed prejudices? Yet they say the younger generations are materialistic but at least they are not conceited enough to pretend otherwise.