Where's the outrage against Rush Limbaugh?

[dyna]

Originally posted by: BigRig04
dude, NO. Stop believing what these stupid smear campains what you to believe and look at the entire conversation in context. I cannot stand these people who freak out over an out of context quote.

here's is the best representation i can find about what was talked about and what context it was in.

On his Sept. 26 show, where the controversy started, Limbaugh spoke with a caller and referred to "the phony soldiers." After the call finished, Limbaugh told his audience: "Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a 'corporal,' I say in quotes. Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks -- briefly -- 44 days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero...."


He's talking about a 100% phony soldier. someone who said he was what he was not. He claimed he was a purple heart recepient and was in Iraq, and he was not. This is flat out pathetic how people are foaming at the mouth about this "phony soldier" thing. It's a joke.

Nice explanation.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The Republican Party is the party of hypocrits. What else do you expect from them? Nothing new here, folks. Move on (no pun intended).

I'd agree with you more if you said "Our political system is full of hypocrits."

 

[Stoneburner]

Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers
2) The way he stated that, "speaking of phony soldiers" makes it CLEAR he was not referring to macbeth in the first instance.
3) He called Jack Murtha a phony soldier, who is anything but.
4) He called a caller a phony republican (in essence) because the caller said the war in iraq was a waste.
5) he edited his own tapes to make the macbeth conversation and the other conversation closer in time.

 

[BigRig04]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers
2) The way he stated that, "speaking of phony soldiers" makes it CLEAR he was not referring to macbeth in the first instance.
3) He called Jack Murtha a phony soldier, who is anything but.
4) He called a caller a phony republican (in essence) because the caller said the war in iraq was a waste.
5) he edited his own tapes to make the macbeth conversation and the other conversation closer in time.

1) To clear up the reference, yes, he brought the phony soldier thing back to the topic at hand.

2) It doesn't make anything "clear". He was on a topic, brought up more info about said topic.

3) I haven't heard much about the Jack Murtha reference, I'll look into it.

4) (I just listened to this conversation http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 ) No, he didn't call the caller a phony republican, he just said he's never heard a republican sound like this caller, this caller sounded just like a democrat.

5) He was having a conversation with the second caller...He could have just cut off the caller then jumped into his MacBeth info, but he didn't.

 

[Stoneburner]

"Speaking of Phony soldiers" ... doesn't that mean he was not referring to jesse macbeth 2 minutes prior?

He said "no you're not a republican" to the first caller.

He edited the tapes, and the transcript.


If all that still makes you think he's clean on this, then I have to wonder how you felt about Rush limbaugh attacking Kerry for the botched joke a year ago.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: BigRig04

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers
2) The way he stated that, "speaking of phony soldiers" makes it CLEAR he was not referring to macbeth in the first instance.
3) He called Jack Murtha a phony soldier, who is anything but.
4) He called a caller a phony republican (in essence) because the caller said the war in iraq was a waste.
5) he edited his own tapes to make the macbeth conversation and the other conversation closer in time.

1) To clear up the reference, yes, he brought the phony soldier thing back to the topic at hand.

2) It doesn't make anything "clear". He was on a topic, brought up more info about said topic.

3) I haven't heard much about the Jack Murtha reference, I'll look into it.

4) (I just listened to this conversation http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 ) No, he didn't call the caller a phony republican, he just said he's never heard a republican sound like this caller, this caller sounded just like a democrat.

5) He was having a conversation with the second caller...He could have just cut off the caller then jumped into his MacBeth info, but he didn't.

Why won't all of you defending Rush just admit that he is back peddling from his No Real Scotsman fallacious argument?

Face it, he got busted because he stepped over the boundaries on this one and touched one of the few groups he isn't socially allowed to try to adhere his usual brand of labeling to. Once you do, we will all be able to move on (pun intended).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
LOL; I swear I heard a bit from her taking credit for starting MM.

Not just MediaMatters, but Center For American Politics as well. She claims to have been instrumental in getting both off the ground. These smear campaigns are part of the big Clinton attack machine. Expect it to get a whole lot worse as Election 2008 comes to fruition...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Sinsear
LOL; I swear I heard a bit from her taking credit for starting MM.

Not just MediaMatters, but Center For American Politics as well. She claims to have been instrumental in getting both off the ground. These smear campaigns are part of the big Clinton attack machine. Expect it to get a whole lot worse as Election 2008 comes to fruition...

Can you guys continue your daisy chain in a thread that is actually dedicated to HRC claims? It would also be nice if any of you could provide a source for your claims that can be validated.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: BigRig04

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers
2) The way he stated that, "speaking of phony soldiers" makes it CLEAR he was not referring to macbeth in the first instance.
3) He called Jack Murtha a phony soldier, who is anything but.
4) He called a caller a phony republican (in essence) because the caller said the war in iraq was a waste.
5) he edited his own tapes to make the macbeth conversation and the other conversation closer in time.

1) To clear up the reference, yes, he brought the phony soldier thing back to the topic at hand.

2) It doesn't make anything "clear". He was on a topic, brought up more info about said topic.

3) I haven't heard much about the Jack Murtha reference, I'll look into it.

4) (I just listened to this conversation http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 ) No, he didn't call the caller a phony republican, he just said he's never heard a republican sound like this caller, this caller sounded just like a democrat.

5) He was having a conversation with the second caller...He could have just cut off the caller then jumped into his MacBeth info, but he didn't.

Why won't all of you defending Rush just admit that he is back peddling from his No Real Scotsman fallacious argument?

Face it, he got busted because he stepped over the boundaries on this one and touched one of the few groups he isn't socially allowed to try to adhere his usual brand of labeling to. Once you do, we will all be able to move on (pun intended).

No, he didn't. Again, you are starting with a false premise (that Rush called soldiers that were anti-war phony) and then basing the whole rest of your argument based on this. The entire "scandal" from the beginning is bogus, as Limbaugh never called soldiers that were anti-war phony. He criticized democrats for making certain anti-war soliders their political heros, even though they actually were frauds, because they couldn't find any non-fraud soldiers that were anti-war.

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Rush Limbaugh has called our military who criticize or oppose the war in Iraq "phony soldiers."

Your first phrase is in fact, truth and reality false. Therefore the rest of your comment is worthless.

I just can't get over how brainwashed liberals are that they just want to believe it so badly they ignore reality. This issue is not even debatable. It is a matter of record.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Wheezer
yes, yes, by all means, a private citizen should be scolded by our congress for utilizing his freedom of speech.

What a great way for our congress to flex it's mighty muscle and go after a talk show host simply because he may have said something "offensive".

They probably have nothing better to do.

I agree that it's stupid. Just like it was stupid for congress to flex its mighty muscle to go after a business that ran an advertisement.

they're both very, very stupid uses of our tax-payer's time and money.

/thread

Anybody who doesnt agree with the above statement is just a political troll. I'm so sick of the overly political atmosphere in this country. The shit needs to stop.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Can you guys continue your daisy chain in a thread that is actually dedicated to HRC claims? It would also be nice if any of you could provide a source for your claims that can be validated.

It is only fair to point out who is behind these orchestrated smear campaigns. Hillary is on tape taking credit for getting these organizations off the ground. I know you'd prefer the sheep to remain blind and oblivious to the truth, but I'll make sure it gets out.

And just for you, Here is the relevant dirt and a link to the actual audio clips of Hillary.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Isnt MM the same one who cut and slash Bill Oreillys show last week and tried to selectively quote him to make his conversation look completely different than it was?

No, I've heard his entire, unedited segment, and the only person who's now lying about what he said made him look like a dumbass was Bill O'Reilly.

What a credible bunch of losers they are.

You can hang any name you want on those who shine the light of truth on O'Reilly's lies and distortions, but thanks for acknowledging that they are highly credible. :thumbsup:

I'll leave it to others to figure out what it says about the credibility of those who don't know what the word means when they use it in a post. :laugh:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Can you guys continue your daisy chain in a thread that is actually dedicated to HRC claims? It would also be nice if any of you could provide a source for your claims that can be validated.

It is only fair to point out who is behind these orchestrated smear campaigns. Hillary is on tape taking credit for getting these organizations off the ground. I know you'd prefer the sheep to remain blind and oblivious to the truth, but I'll make sure it gets out.

And just for you, Here is the relevant dirt and a link to the actual audio clips of Hillary.

Thanks for the link. A nice counterweight to MM.

Also, I don't prefer anyone stay blind and oblivious (quite the contrary actually), but I don't want people to think that lies (whether outright, by omission or by misdirection) are the truth either. I think that you have been subject to that (as we all have) and I like to challenge you and others to back up your statements or at least state that they are just your opinions and not fact as I would expect you to do to me.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Also, I don't prefer anyone stay blind and oblivious (quite the contrary actually), but I don't want people to think that lies (whether outright, by omission or by misdirection) are the truth either. I think that you have been subject to that (as we all have) and I like to challenge you and others to back up your statements or at least state that they are just your opinions and not fact as I would expect you to do to me.

I always try to provide relevant links, as much as possible to actual news sources, to support any given position I'm commenting on. Newsbusters isn't exactly CNN but Hillary's own words on tape don't lie.

 

[palehorse]

Who the hell still listens to Rush Limbaugh!?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who the hell still listens to Rush Limbaugh!?

Apparently he is quite popular with the lefties.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I just can't get over how brainwashed liberals are that they just want to believe it so badly they ignore reality. This issue is not even debatable. It is a matter of record.

I agree. It is a shame liberals are stooping to the same tactics used by Republicans for the last 30 years.


---------------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who the hell still listens to Rush Limbaugh!?

Apparently he is quite popular with the lefties.

Just like the righties are obsessed with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who the hell still listens to Rush Limbaugh!?

True, he's one slice of roast beef from a coronary and one indecent exposure arrest from obscurity.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who the hell still listens to Rush Limbaugh!?

Rush Limbaugh, and... umm... umm... I guess that's it. :laugh:

Wait... We can't forget his pharmacists and his dealer on that street corner.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who the hell still listens to Rush Limbaugh!?

Apparently he is quite popular with the lefties.

Just like the righties are obsessed with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.

Yep, all the above mentioned are lightning rods for the parties to us to assail each other.

 

[jonks]

Well Congress has spoken on the issue. Let's make it a law: Limbaugh is God.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/...ingston-limbaugh-reid/

 

[Stoneburner]

You people don't know the history behind media matters. David Brock was a republican hack who did the kind of smearing limbaugh and oreilly constantly engage in. He then realized what the republican party was becoming and realized the errors of his ways during the clinton persecution and wrote some books on the matter which were apologies. Hillary's remarks about a "vast right wing conspiracy" were based directly on David Brock's information about richard mellon scaife and others.

As for limbaugh and his sycophantic supporters, their explanation just doesn't make sense here. How is murtha a phony soldier? Why edit tapes?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Wheezer
yes, yes, by all means, a private citizen should be scolded by our congress for utilizing his freedom of speech.

What a great way for our congress to flex it's mighty muscle and go after a talk show host simply because he may have said something "offensive".

They probably have nothing better to do.

I agree that it's stupid. Just like it was stupid for congress to flex its mighty muscle to go after a business that ran an advertisement.

they're both very, very stupid uses of our tax-payer's time and money.

Seems quite a bit different to me.

The "Betray us" ad was planned an executed by a political action group (a 527 I would guess) to gain maximum attention during the much hyped Petreaus testimony. It was all over the news, not just the talking heads like Rush or Hannity. But yes, Congress (at least IMO) eventually used it for political games.

[I think they wanted to put the Dem candidates against a *rock and a hard place* (vote against Moveon or be blasted later for not enouncing the ad). But almost everybody believes the ad was *over the top* and the language is blunt and straightforward. ]

I won't mention the O'Reilly stuff, not germain to politics/Iraq war.

The Rush stuff, unlike the Moveon ad, doesn't seem to be generating that much in the news, other than Reid et al trying to make a fuss about it. Rush's words have to be interpreted What does "phony soldiers" mean? It's not in any way clear and needs explanation. I thought he was talking about the McBeths and others we've heard of. Otherwise, I would think it a name the anti-war crowd calls those who are not fighting but are against immediate withdrawl (like keyboard commando etc we see often see here) But "Betrayus"? That doesn't need any explanation whatsoever.

The "phony soldiers" remark was (or certainly appears to be) an unplanned off-the-cuff remark made in response to callers remarks. If he could have planned it, he likely would have been more clear. Also, I doubt if he meant just *real* soldiers opposed to the *war* that he would back down, Right or wrong he doesn't sem to do that. Unlike Rush's remark, the Moveon "Betrayus" thingy was clearly planed in advanced.

All I see in a pretty lame attempt to manufacture some controversy to by the Dem polititions to counter the "Betrayus" thing. While it may resonate with the die hard Dems here, I really doubt the average person cares.

Attacking a 527 political action group (not even an individual) is one thing (Why the Dems are screaming about that beats me, they had or have no problem beating up on the Swift Boat PAC any chance they get). To see Congress beating up on an individual (who's not even a politition) is a different matter altogether, and CAD has a point.

Cliffs: Lame effort by Reid and other Dems to to retaliate for "Betrayus" that ain't gonna fly.

Fern

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Fern

The Rush stuff, unlike the Moveon ad, doesn't seem to be generating that much in the news, other than Reid et al trying to make a fuss about it. Rush's words have to be interpreted What does "phony soldiers" mean? It's not in any way clear and needs explanation. I thought he was talking about the McBeths and others we've heard of. Otherwise, I would think it a name the anti-war crowd calls those who are not fighting but are against immediate withdrawl (like keyboard commando etc we see often see here) But "Betrayus"? That doesn't need any explanation whatsoever.

The "phony soldiers" remark was (or certainly appears to be) an unplanned off-the-cuff remark made in response to callers remarks. If he could have planned it, he likely would have been more clear. Also, I doubt if he meant just *real* soldiers opposed to the *war* that he would back down, Right or wrong he doesn't sem to do that. Unlike Rush's remark, the Moveon "Betrayus" thingy was clearly planed in advanced.

All I see in a pretty lame attempt to manufacture some controversy to by the Dem polititions to counter the "Betrayus" thing. While it may resonate with the die hard Dems here, I really doubt the average person cares.

Attacking a 527 political action group (not even an individual) is one thing (Why the Dems are screaming about that beats me, they had or have no problem beating up on the Swift Boat PAC any chance they get). To see Congress beating up on an individual (who's not even a politition) is a different matter altogether, and CAD has a point.

Cliffs: Lame effort by Reid and other Dems to to retaliate for "Betrayus" that ain't gonna fly.

:beer:

So simple.