Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Yeah, that makes sense concerning "no difference" between the attacks.
I know you would agree with me that the two people, Limbaugh and Petraeus, occupy entirely different positions in society. That being the case, would you not agree that two different approaches to criticism might make the criticism more meaningful?
B
|
MoveOn's excercise of free speech drew outrage from the right. Now Limbaugh's excercise of free speech draws outrage form the left. The only difference is what side you're standing on.
Are you suggesting that Petraeus can't or shouldn't be the subject of free speech because of his position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro
Yeah, there are. As evidenced by the ABC news report the day after Limbaugh's broadcast.
Is the distinction of singular and plural where the heart of the matter lies in Limbaugh's comments now? If so, that's even weaker than the 110 seconds lapse. Couldn't Reid et. al. find something of more substance to play "Political Gotcha Back" with?
Here, let me try something. I'll spend the next few minutes finding some names of folks who've lied about their service - you know phony soldiers.
|
I pointed out the plurality because Limbaugh's defense/explanation was that he was talking about one person only.
I personally don't care what Limbaugh says because he's an idiot. Just like I don't care what ads MoveOn runs, for the same reason.
I just find it extremely hypocritical for people like Republican Rep. Jack Kingston to say:
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate leadership denouncing them."
Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.