LIMBOsevic is performing /committing TREASON

[UTUSN]

I used to monitor him closely for the first ten yrs or so of his circus, but having totally "got" him and written him off, these last few years I just catch snippets randomly.

Well, yesterday in the car I was completely breath-taken-away while he went into this over-the-top rant of total hatred, like, ten times his normal junk. I can't even begin to recap it. Words fail, are INADEQUATE: vitriol, vehemence, bile, viciousness, just can't find BAD ENOUGH words.

But it was something like, that he and all wingnuts like him are going to get even some day, that the Left can't stay in power forever and when the wingnuts get it back they are going to GO AFTER every Lib out there, that they are going to WIELD the "power of the government AGAINST" all Leftists, are going to USE the DOJ to prosecute and persecute all Leftists, are going to totally defund all Leftist groups specifically ACORN, and especially the one named individual SOROS, and on and on.


I mean this crap went on for a good ten minutes. Nowhere has any wingnut maligned and declared war on ANY foreign enemy like what he was doing against us wimpy Dems. It was like WE were worse than HITLER-STALIN-whomever.

I have SO not heard anything that vicious, not even recreations of historical propaganda. The problem is, it keeps getting said that he is JUST AN ENTERTAINER and that he DOESN'T BELIEVE the crap he is saying, is just playing for show and cash, but (1) the dittoheads DO believe the crap and (2) I don't see how SUCH CONVICTION can be faked (he really DOES believe it).

[SpiralHawk]

1. Draft dodging, drug abusers like Limbaugh typically seethe with...

misplaced resentments, while failing to acknowledge or to own their own gross shortcomings, and the massive problems they have created. Alas, this is a hallmark of the modern Republicon Homelander cabal of small-minded cronies.

[Winterblues]

16. Is that who the post is about?

The poster used some derogatory term that I guess they expected everyone to just know who they were talking about. How can we complain about Republicans not treating people with basic respect when we here do the exact same thing? What is so difficult about calling a person by their name?

[UTUSN]

21. I don't respect LIMBOsevic. Not Shrub. Not SCHIKELGRUBER. Not a whole lot of people.

In 8 yrs I never called Shrub by his own name. Who said it was difficult?!1 Hmm, I wonder why the poster ahead of you was able to figure out who I was talking about? Must not have been difficult.

[sailor65]

2. Annoying certainly,

but not treason.

[shadowknows69]

3. Having been in radio, only in a minute capacity in comparison to jackass but

I can tell you from experience that some radio listeners, more than I expected, are REAL fans, in the scariest sense of the word occasionally. They will literally worship the ground you walk on or the air you come over into their houses, and if hate is what you are selling them then that is what they will reap from it.

[roguevalley]

34. consider that man who went into a UU church and shot two innocent

people dead because he couldn't have access to the 100 People in Bernard Goldberg's book? These people are dangerous

[sakabatou]

4. No, this isn't treason

[UTUSN]

8. I humbly submit that betraying the very principles the country supposedly stand for and on IS

Little things like freedom of thought, of political affliation, political speech and choices. It's Anti-American, at least. And, while I certainly don't want to get into the 1950s game of calling unAmericanism, this is sickening and repugnant.

[JFN1]

17. I agree

He IS inciting violence and hatred in America. He WANTS to incite civil war. I don't care what his reasons are; if any of us went out on a street corner and started spewing this crap, we'd be arrested for incitement, without question.

I am so sick and tired of there being TWO sets of rules in this country - one for rich gasbags, and one for the rest of us...

[Igel]

19. Absolutely.

They must not be allowed to think like him. We need to preserve freedom of thought by ensuring purity of thought.

They must not be allowed to form groups and parties. Otherwise our freedom of political affiliation is at risk.

In order to preserve their--and our--political speech, the wrong kind of political speech must first be banned and only correct speech allowed. Only through banning speech can it flow freely.

And if their choices are wrong, they should be disallowed. Only through restricting choice can we find true freedom of choice.

Remember: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Therefore, to properly dissent you must first be patriotic and swear allegiance to the Party. Only then can you know whether your dissent is worthwhile or something that should be suppressed and rooted out.

Now, I *have* adequately supported what can only be satire on your part, haven't I?

It was satire, right?

[UTUSN]

20. Your point is simple and I fully subscribe to it. I am a lifelong supporter of

civil liberties.


I am reacting to the unspeakable HATE I heard and how it viscerally affected me, literally knocking the wind out of me. I grew up with the paradox of the ACLU defending the Nazis' rights to assemble and watching Black and Jewish civil liberties lawyers defending such hate groups.


You would do better to discuss the unspeakable impact of the hatred instead of delivering a condescending little lecture about the irony of my outcry. Kay?!

Some possible directions for discussion might have been how the LIMBOsevic phenomenon is nothing new in American civilization, how he might even pale in comparison to Father COUGHLIN and others, the cycles of anti-intellectualism, and some you might even add on yourself.


I grokked what YOU said. I don't think you did what *I* said.

[annabanana]

5. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is illegal.

Him inciting to riot like this HAS to be considered over the line....no?

[shadowknows69]

6. When/if the FCC ever gave a shit about such things

but they are owned by the almighty dollar and rating just as much as the people they are supposed to be policing.

[Laelth]

36. Political speech is different.

The Supreme Court protects (and strikes down laws that limit) political speech. It's the most protected form of speech we have. The Court is willing to allow states to pass laws limiting other kinds of speech. Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't political, but if it were, the Supreme Court would strike down any law passed by any legislative body in the U.S. if that law limited, or made illegal, speech the Court deemed political. Burning a flag, for example, can be a form of political speech, and it's protected.

I don't like what the Limp one says, but I must defend his right to say it if it's political speech.

:dem:

-Laelth

[groovedaddy]

7. And this is exactly why these nuts walk into a church and open fire, because they

hear this shit and act on it.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Another Squeaky Wheel...

It's game on in hate radio...the shriller and more over-the-top is the only way these blowhards can get noticed.

This frenzy started with President Obama's flippant remark about Rushbo and ever since all the hate spewers have tried to outscream, out "self righteous", out-fearmonger, out shout and make total asses out of themselves. It's almost like the battle of the shock jocks. One jock has a babe fake an orgasm on the air, the next needs to get two. It's all self-serving attention for the dwindling rabble that still take this shit seriously.

Remember, radio and hate radio are rapidly going down the tubes...Rushbo NEEDS you to listen...he needs anyone and everyone to listen as his corporate ship sinks into bankruptcy.

Cheers...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

13. We should all keep track of the sheeple-feed. . . . .n/t

[sharp_stick]

11. My hope wrt to the limp one

is that because he's looking quite a bit fatter than he once did, that is, even fatter than his previously bloated self.

I hope and hope that that prick manages to overexert himself with, apparently, a young guy in his pay in some Carribean country, hey some say he likes that sort of thing can't be denied if some say it. With the added benefit of some illegally obtained Pfizer products that could spell the end of the bloated POS and I for one would love to piss on the the piano box sized grave.

[bluestateguy]

12. It's not patriotic to go against a popular wartime president who won a majority of the vote

nt

[Occam Bandage]

14. And you're increasing the size of his audience, thus giving him more ad revenue.

Good job.

[UTUSN]

22. I am not an ARBITRON rater. And as long as you've been around DU you must have seen

your contribution here posted a thousand times, or even a brazillion. Just as others have scolded in this thread about my not restricting the freedom of speech of LIMBOsevic, I'll let you know that you ain't telling me what to do with my spare moments.

Listening to (or spying on) the opposition is defined as NOT burying one's head in the sand. Keeping friends close, enemies closer. Not cherrypicking intel. Et cetera.

[Laelth]

15. Not treason.

And I have sworn to defend his right to spew bile ... especially about American politics. Now, if he started advocating for the Chinese Army to come in and conquer America to get rid of us liberals, i.e. if he took the side of a foreign power and aided a foreign power against America, then that would be treason.

:dem:

-Laelth

[FiveGoodMen]

23. "All enemies, foreign AND domestic"

Why does he have to advocate the destruction of America by a foreign power in order for it to be treason?

[Laelth]

26. Not sure where the phrase you quote comes from.

But the Constitution defines treason as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The word "only" is key. The British abused treason law, and the founders specifically wanted to limit the scope of the crime of treason. I suppose if the Limp one actually made war against the United States that would be treason, but political speech, even the most pernicious kind, is not treason.

:dem:

-Laelth

[FiveGoodMen]

31. Suppose you're on the phone reading instruction to someone who's dismantling a bomb

The instructions that you're reading say to cut the green wire first or the bomb explodes.

You'd like to see the guy at the other end of the line killed, so you tell him to cut the red wire first...and he's toast.

Not a problem, though. You've exercised your right to free speech.

-- OR --

Suppose you're the pResident and you lie to start a war.

You know you'll be killing a million innocent people. But not a problem ... you're just using your free speech.

Happy Armageddon!

[Laelth]

35. I certainly don't think it's acceptable for the President to lie us into a war.

It's undoubtedly abuse of a sacred trust. I am just not sure it's treason, and Limbaugh owes much less to the American people than the President. As far as I know, the Limp one hasn't taken the oath you describe.

Thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[FiveGoodMen]

37. That still doesn't address the issue of intentional sabotage -- executed verbally, in this case

[Laelth]

38. I would agree that any person who intentionally sabotages the US is making war on her.

Said person would have committed treason if the intentional damage done was severe enough, but, to be perfectly honest, I am not familiar with the case law on "making war" against the U.S. I am familiar with the speech cases, though, and political speech is strongly protected.

:dem:

-Laelth

[FiveGoodMen]

32. As to where the quote comes from...

For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Seems to me that all of Congress have promised not to let the Constitution be trampled by lying sons-of-bitches who want some fascist or theocratic government in place of the one we've got now. Even if those bastards were born here.

If what Rush does isn't treason, then it damned well better be a violation of some law. Otherwise we'd better make such a law damned soon!

[UTUSN]

24. So advocating tactics directly opposite to the Constitutional principles

the country theoretically subscribes to is NOT the overthrowing of this country, with the practice of those directly opposed tactics MEANING an opposite form of country/government?

So Jane FONDA was a traitor but LIMBOsevic ain't. Kay!1

[Laelth]

27. As I read the Constitution ...

You can make any argument you like, even argue for violations of the Constitution, and doing so would not be treasonous. As I posted above, the British abused treason law, and in response our founders specifically limited its scope as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If Jane Fonda did, in fact, give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States (and I am not saying she did), then she committed treason as that crime is defined by the Constitution. From what I can tell, what the Limp one says is not treasonous. Words are never "making war," and the 1st Amendment strongly protects political speech.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MadMaddie]

28. He is inching ever so close to the line

He is subtly inciting violence against Liberals, Gays, Women, Minorities etc. Maybe, just maybe it's a game to him and he doesn't understand that there are very sick people out there that take him seriously.

I think he and other Repugs have actually miscalculated something....they are assuming that we are like Reid and Pelosi, they are assuming that if it comes down to it we will cower and retreat into dark corners so they can destroy this country. Well stupid is as stupid does......that's all.....

[Laelth]

29. You may be right. I don't listen to him.

There are, undoubtedly, laws against inciting riots and other acts that threaten public order. He may be violating one or more of those. My point is that the Constitutionally defined crime of treason would require overt acts of which I am not aware. So long as all the Limp one does is speak, he is not committing treason, imho.

:dem:

-Laelth

[RagAss]

39. So true....they have no idea what they're f*cking with this time.

[Initech]

18. Some day the ends will justify the means and that dipshit will get what's coming to him.

Until then, one can hope.

[eShirl]

25. in other words, they're going to resume where they left off

[Loki]

30. May the blood pressure karma train

make a stop at Rush's house of putrid flesh soon.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. There is no karma. Rush will only get what he deserves if we give it to him.