Andrew Breitbart -- A Great Beacon Has Died

[Brother Mark]

You make good points (as usual ). To your first point (bolded), I don't see how the type of media used and the viewers/listeners reached should mean differing standards. Which ties in to your second point (bolded)......I would be inclined to believe that people who tune in to Rush Limbaugh for the most part should know what they're getting with him (after all, for better or worse, he is well known). But that still does not excuse what he said.


I realize that those weren't the only two points you made, just the ones I responded to.

What he's referring to is law, not standards of decency. Those are two different things! Rush didn't break any laws that required editing. No one is going to prosecute him. What he did do was offend the standard of decency that we as human beings have. That's the uproar. And it has nothing to do with what forum he did it on. You think if he said such a thing on HBO we would not all be hearing about it in the same exact way?

[Liquid Tension]

No, he didn't. He said Maher wasn't the top left spokesperson. That was his way of saying he didn't agree with what Maher just because he (The sound) could be considered on the left. He said nothing about Rush being the top spokesperson for the right, and if you took it that way it was a simple misunderstanding,

The implication was there in the original post. His clarification post was probably posted while I was typing. If that's the case , yes, it was a misunderstanding.

so let it go.

Um...........yeah.............ok...............

[Liquid Tension]

What he's referring to is law, not standards of decency. Those are two different things! Rush didn't break any laws that required editing. No one is going to prosecute him. What he did do was offend the standard of decency that we as human beings have. That's the uproar. And it has nothing to do with what forum he did it on. You think if he said such a thing on HBO we would not all be hearing about it in the same exact way?

Got ya.

...........................

[GitRDunn]

You make good points (as usual ).

Why thank you, you have made some good points in this thread as well.

To your first point (bolded), I don't see how the type of media used and the viewers/listeners reached should mean differing standards.

Like I said, whether or not we agree with the differing standards can be discussed (I'm not sure where exactly I fall in that discussion yet), and it might make for an interesting thread. My point about the differing standards was that currently they exist and I think that is what TS was referencing when he talked about different standards.

Which ties in to your second point (bolded)......I would be inclined to believe that people who tune in to Rush Limbaugh for the most part should know what they're getting with him (after all, for better or worse, he is well known). But that still does not excuse what he said.


I realize that those weren't the only two points you made, just the ones I responded to.

You make a fair point there as well. For the most part, I think you are right and people should know what to expect from Rush because he is well known. However, I am sure there are still some people who don't know who he is and that might tune into a station he is on unsuspecting of what they are tuning in for. While a lot of people would not want to put on a rock radio station while they have young kids in the car, if they are in an unknown area and are just surfing through the stations trying to find something to listen to, they are likely to come across a rock station. Even though they might not want their kids listening to it for an extended period of time, they can feel safe knowing that there is a certain line that is not supposed to be crossed in radio and thus they shouldn't need to worry about flipping through the stations. If they are watching TV on the other hand, they know that you have to be careful when just flipping through paid channels. I would kind of classify them in 5ish categories. You have your free public TV and christian stations (usually local stations), then you have your free major networks (NBC, CBS, etc.), then the cable networks that follow mostly the same decency guidelines as the major networks (TNT, TBS, etc.), followed by the paid-for Cable channels that don't have many limitations (such as HBO and Starz), and finally the pay-per-view explicit channels. I realize this type of thing is a continuum and you could specify a lot of other, more specific points along that continuum, but this is a general idea.

[Liquid Tension]

Why thank you, you have made some good points in this thread as well.

Like I said, whether or not we agree with the differing standards can be discussed (I'm not sure where exactly I fall in that discussion yet), and it might make for an interesting thread. My point about the differing standards was that currently they exist and I think that is what TS was referencing when he talked about different standards.


You make a fair point there as well. For the most part, I think you are right and people should know what to expect from Rush because he is well known. However, I am sure there are still some people who don't know who he is and that might tune into a station he is on unsuspecting of what they are tuning in for. While a lot of people would not want to put on a rock radio station while they have young kids in the car, if they are in an unknown area and are just surfing through the stations trying to find something to listen to, they are likely to come across a rock station. Even though they might not want their kids listening to it for an extended period of time, they can feel safe knowing that there is a certain line that is not supposed to be crossed in radio and thus they shouldn't need to worry about flipping through the stations. If they are watching TV on the other hand, they know that you have to be careful when just flipping through paid channels. I would kind of classify them in 5ish categories. You have your free public TV and christian stations (usually local stations), then you have your free major networks (NBC, CBS, etc.), then the cable networks that follow mostly the same decency guidelines as the major networks (TNT, TBS, etc.), followed by the paid-for Cable channels that don't have many limitations (such as HBO and Starz), and finally the pay-per-view explicit channels. I realize this type of thing is a continuum and you could specify a lot of other, more specific points along that continuum, but this is a general idea.

Thanks for helping me understand your point of view. Didn't see it from that angle.

[GitRDunn]

The implication was there in the original post. His clarification post was probably posted while I was typing. If that's the case , yes, it was a misunderstanding.

Apparently you saw something I didn't. Oh well, it was just a misunderstanding and it's been clarified now, so it's water under the bridge.

Um...........yeah.............ok...............

Yea, looking back that last part didn't come across quite like I wanted it to. My intention was for that to mean, let's let bygones be bygones, but I was typing fast and didn't proofread, so I didn't catch how that came across. I wasn't trying to be snippy with you. Sorry!

[Brother Mark]

You make a fair point there as well. For the most part, I think you are right and people should know what to expect from Rush because he is well known. However, I am sure there are still some people who don't know who he is and that might tune into a station he is on unsuspecting of what they are tuning in for. While a lot of people would not want to put on a rock radio station while they have young kids in the car, if they are in an unknown area and are just surfing through the stations trying to find something to listen to, they are likely to come across a rock station. Even though they might not want their kids listening to it for an extended period of time, they can feel safe knowing that there is a certain line that is not supposed to be crossed in radio and thus they shouldn't need to worry about flipping through the stations. If they are watching TV on the other hand, they know that you have to be careful when just flipping through paid channels. I would kind of classify them in 5ish categories. You have your free public TV and christian stations (usually local stations), then you have your free major networks (NBC, CBS, etc.), then the cable networks that follow mostly the same decency guidelines as the major networks (TNT, TBS, etc.), followed by the paid-for Cable channels that don't have many limitations (such as HBO and Starz), and finally the pay-per-view explicit channels. I realize this type of thing is a continuum and you could specify a lot of other, more specific points along that continuum, but this is a general idea.

Here's the problem. Remember Howard Stern? Wasn't he on free radio before moving to satellite? (I may be mistaken.)

Anyway, much worse things get said on free TV these days than what Rush said. How many times in any given day do you think the word "slut" is used on broadcast TV? There are different standards for Rush because he's conservative and a threat. Not because he's on free radio or TV.

When the left wants to get rid of that word from all forms of free radio and TV (and I would be a supporter of that if they mean it!), then talk to me about not having a double standard. They just don't want Rush to use it for political purposes against one of their own. But it's fine for others to use it for entertainment in a TV show, or on HBO, or on MSNBC, etc.

[Liquid Tension]

Apparently you saw something I didn't. Oh well, it was just a misunderstanding and it's been clarified now, so it's water under the bridge.


Yea, looking back that last part didn't come across quite like I wanted it to. My intention was for that to mean, let's let bygones be bygones, but I was typing fast and didn't proofread, so I didn't catch how that came across. I wasn't trying to be snippy with you. Sorry!

No blood, no foul.

[Brother Mark]

Thanks for helping me understand your point of view. Didn't see it from that angle.

Keep in mind the things you can see on free TV and tell me if that is any worse or similar to what Rush said.

[catlover]

I can think of alot of reasons that would lead me to believe Andrew Breitbart was murdered. At the top of the list there is an ongoing movement by the liberal left to silence the conservative voices of the right. Last year Dr. Laura was silenced from terrestial radio, and even as I write this post there is a huge push mounted up by the same leftists to silence Rush Limbaugh. On the night Andrew died it is proported that he stopped at his regular bar to have his usual drink and swap stories with friends there roughly about an hour before he died he was seen leaving the bar. a drink spiked with adrenaline given to a man of his condition could have sent him to his death. Adrenaline disipates quickly in the body and is easily overlooked during autopsy as this substance is sometimes given to revive a patient who in cardiac arrest. At the CPAC conference Andrew Breitbart drew back the curtian as to who is pulling the strings behind the Obama puppet presidency alluding to these powerful men only as "silver ponytails". It is these men who put the words in Obamas mouth via teleprompter and cause him to do as they say. Andrew Breitbart was a man who knew too much. Knowing what he knew painted a sizable target on the mans head and the circumstances surrounding his life leave me to be very suspicious. If I could I would gladly trade my worthless life for his -- Such a very sad thing that he should die so young. - - - - Dravenhawk

Ok, so I started reading this thread b/c I lean toward conspiracies and wanted to see other people's opinions. HOWEVER, one line in your post, the last sentence, stood out to me more than anything. You are calling your life worthless? I didn't read all the posts but I couldn't find anyone else mentioning this. I think it's sad that you call your life worthless. Maybe you didn't mean it in the literal sense, but that's how I read it.