Posted on 11/06/2009 6:06:35 PM PST by sushiman
Exactly...If Rush is behaving the way he is about Berg and Sinclair due to threats then this really is serious for **all** of us. It means the jack boots are marching in our streets ( literally).
You should sue!
You must not let this stand!
It's all up to you!
You are the center of the universe, and we are all depending upon you.
Rush is a smart man. He is a master of strategery.
My bet is that he knows that going after the birth certificate issue now, through the courts, is pointless because the court system moves at a glacial pace and Obama will been out of office for years before anything would be resolved.
However, if he keeps his powder dry until the 2012 Presidential campaign season begins, he can mobilize millions to DEMAND a legitimate birth certificate before he is allowed to run for a second term.
Obama has his first term, and there is nothing we can do about it in time.
We can deny him a second term based on the BC issue, and that's where the strategery lies.
I agree with both statements: His first priority is the integrity of his program, and he shouldn't allow a caller to force a topic that isn't on the agenda. Therefore, to satisfy both requirements, what I suggested in my first post here, and still suggest, is that Rush could have just stated that Berg and Sinclair aren't worthy of discussion, then went on to scold the caller for being dishonest about the subject that he intended to talk about, then goodbye and right on to the next caller. That would have dismissed the off-topic caller while also maintaining the integrity of his program. As it was, he somewhat dented the integrity of his program with his false claims that he'd never heard of those people. It might have been just a snap decision on his part to respond to the caller in that manner in order to end the call quickly, but it was cringe-worthy and not up to his standards. Like I said, it's not a huge deal, but it was a bit of a misstep, I think, for Rush to feign ignorance, especially for a guy who is usually right on top of everything.
Maybe you’re getting suckered by the left.
I don’t see the point in criticizing Rush when we have Stalinists trying to kill our nation.
Did I not just say that this isn't a big deal?
Yes, from this point on, let's not have any other discussions about anything else whatsoever, because of those damn Stalinists.
If you don’t take them seriously, you’d better start thinking about it.
Of course I take them seriously, but I don’t see the two activities as being mutually exclusive. What, I can’t be concerned about them and voice an opinion about a relatively minor Rush incident at the same time?
Just be aware you risk playing into the hands of authenticity-starved communists.
The poor things suffer from an almost incurable rage partly because they know the worthlessness of their own ideology—the unmarketability which prohibits open advocacy of their true policies—but also because they have an inherent affinity for rage itself.
Wow! By making a small comment on a web forum about the way Rush handled a caller, I’m playing into the hands of “authenticity-starved” communists? Sorry, you lost me on that one.
Kind of a lame way to get out of it, though, don’t you think? If Rush actually did know about these people (AND some people are never going to get it ...
Re-read this post here: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2380540/posts?page=3#3
Technicalities like "why he was on the air" are insignificant.Oh brother ...
YOU get YOUR show, YOU run it the way YOU want to ...
ALL callers are NOT created equal.
Geez. This NOT a difficult concept to grasp.
Which post?
I’ll be dollars to donuts that Obama’s FCC has literally threatened Rush’s licenceWhat's is his 'license number' anyway?
If I searched the FCC website/database would it be found there?
We must stay focused. Rush LIED to this caller and also to his 20 million listeners.dKOS (seminar poster)
It’s understandable if Rush just wanted to steer clear of the subject, but a trained broadcast professional like Rush needed to ad lib a more tactful way to dismiss the caller than to claim he never heard of Larry Sinclair.WHO IS Larry Sinclair?
I've never heard of him ...
I remember back when he was still mocking callers who talked about the New World Order.That hasn't changed; you must be thinking of Alex Jones ...
So? What's the big deal?
Haven't you ever been disappointed with somebody you greatly admire from time to time?
Nobody can agree with another person 100% of the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.