Now Everyone Can Apologize To Rush Limbaugh

The Fairness Doctrine. Don't like what they say or how they say?

Take away their 1st amendment rights. Thats the plan.

It is sad. Really sad in a way though. The democrats are deflecting the heat on Obama by trying to make Rush Limbaugh the center of the storm.

This is so obvious that its pathetic.

Obama is still a far left liberal who lied to get elected and is trying to deceive the tax payers with more bogus Crisis language and his minions of marching clones are now attempting to camoflage his real intentions with Rush Limbaugh speak.

The GOP is in Crisis. So. Yeah. Well? The best the Democrats can do to cover up Barak Obama's socialist programs is talk about Rush Limbaugh non stop?

How sad for all of us.

Just posted mine to the Great One. What a cathartic experience.

I can now proudly say that I, too, groveled to God's gift to the GOP, the New Messiah.

Try it. you'll like it!

This is the acknowledgment you'll receive:

Apology Created!
Thanks for trying out the Republican Apology Machine at ImSorryRush.com! A copy of your "apology" has been emailed to you.

We hope you had fun seeing how Republicans who offend Rush Limbaugh can completely backtrack on their statements so quickly.

Please tell your friends about ImSorryRush.com and our Republican Apology Machine.

Thats actually funny. I can't wait till the one goes up for those who are sorry they voted for Barak Obama.

What goes around. Comes around.

This is a typical apology at ImSorryRush.com

(Yes, I know it's all very silly, and juvenile, and useless, and sad, and pathetic, etc....but its sure seems to get the attention of some...)

Dear Rush,

I’m so sorry that I called you an idiot. My comments were stupid. What I meant to say is that you are worthy of enormous respect. Yeah, sometimes I speak generically – seriously I wasn’t even talking about you. Everyone knows we Republicans like to say one thing and do another, right?

You and I both know that in reality, you simply want President Obama to fail in this time of economic collapse. How can I disagree with that? Please accept my sincere apologies, oh great leader of the Republican Party. Can’t wait to be on your show soon! XOXO

Sincerely,

Republican Congressman Eric Cantor (coming soon)

GS
Sorry to tell you, but Obama has explicitly stated he has no intention of re instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Never has, never will.
I think you owe him an apology.

HemmD

Why should we believe Barak Obama. He hasnt been truthful about one thing yet.

He ran as a moderate, then after elected switched headlong into being the Far left liberal we all knew he was. Time will tell. I banking on being right. I usually am.

I banking on being right. I usually am.

Yeah, at least twice a day.

"Why should we believe Barak Obama. He hasnt been truthful about one thing yet."

The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11.

Sorry dude but you'll have to come up with another boogey man to keep you firmly under the bed.

"Why should we believe Barak Obama. He hasnt been truthful about one thing yet."~Green-SCHEMES
****************
He's a politician. They say things to get elected. What you should do is pay attention to what they accomplish instead of their typical human failings. Would you like to compare/contrast with some GOP politicians when it comes to saying one thing and doing another after elected?

No, I didn't think so : )

Bill Clinton left us with a robust economy. Bushco left us flat broke and strategically vulnerable. Obama is trying to clean up that mess as best any politician can, using strategy, bending the truth when he needs to...whatever will WORK for the BENEFIT of the PEOPLE. Contrary to Bushco, the dems seem to be dedicated to the masses. The GOP seems to not only be incompetant, but be dedicated to a small cloister of super-wealthy.

To borrow from another "president" we'll let history be the judge of Barack Obama after his term(s) are over. The reason you GOP sheisters are trying to judge him now is because you fear he will succeed. You're tearing him down before he even gets going because his success in contrast to the GOP/Bushco COLLOSAL failure means certain death for the GOP.

I told you before, the best you can do is disburse and come back under another party name. Bushco's damage has been that bad. But instead of doing that you'll create conditions for unrest in a vulnerable America, tearing down our leader. Which amounts to treason...anything...the GOP has demonstrated repeatedly that they'll do any horrible thing to our country as long as it means "party survival".

There, I called you out. And yes, I'm saying what I really think...lol...

Davebo: The left will not put forth a "Fairness Doctrine" by that name, but already Durbin inserted a rider to an unrelated bill (the DC voting rights bill) which proposes the same dictates for 'fairness and balance."

CStanly,

You might want to research that a bit more because there is nothing in Durbin's rider about "fairness and balance". It's about ownership of media outlets and limiting the quantity of outlets one company can own in a particular market area.

Of course the Demint camp is braying about it. That's what the fairness doctrine is for. To keep folks like you and Greenie in perpetual outrage for reasons others can't understand.

Here's the text, Davebo, so readers can decide for themselves:

(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required- The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

I can see interpreting the first clause the way you do, but the second clause is much broader and certainly could be used to justify the need for 'equal time' in the manner that was done under the Fairness Doctrine.

Actually I can't see any other way of interpreting the first clause. As to the second implicating some type of return to the fairness doctrine I've gotta say that's A LOT more than a stretch.

It sounds a lot more like this which has been around as long as the FCC has.

Davebo: a number of prominent Democrats- including Durbin himself along with John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Jeff Bingaman, have said that they support the ideas behind the Fairness Doctrine. And those regulations themselves were supported on the same basis as what's stated in that amendment- that the FCC had the obligation of ensuring that 'public interest' was served by the use of broadcast spectrum.

It's still nothing resembling a "fairness doctrine" and that phrase or variants on it have been in use concerning FCC licensing for decades, including all these years that the fairness doctrine has been nowhere to be seen. You're really way, way off the deep end on this one, CS.

We'll see, Jim- and I'm only pointing out that this sets the stage for further regulations which would do exactly what the Fairness Doctrine did- allow the govt to determine who gets (and keeps) broadcast licenses according to the content of the broadcasts.

I am old enough to remember what the "Fairness Doctrine" really did. All I remeber is opposite responses to local TV editorials, from individuals and interest groups. I don't remember the ghost of Che Guevera poisoning our impressionable youngsters in the 1970's.

Rudi: What you are referring to is the 'equal time' rule, which was different than the Fairness Doctrine itself.