Where's the outrage against Rush Limbaugh?

[Red Dawn]

I believe this socalled outrage is disengenious, in fact I believe those on the Left were delighted to hear Fat Lump make such a stupid comment. Unfortunately for them the gaseous blowhard Limbuagh says shit like that all the time, in fact it's expected of him so it's really no big deal. I think he's like O'Rielly where he makes provacative statements just for the publicity and the Left bites every time!

 

[OutHouse]

Im not a Rush fan and hardly ever listen to him. what he said was totally taken out of context and spun out to Pluto. doesnt congress have more important matters to work on than attacking a private citizen?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: 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

And jack murtha right?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

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

Apparently he is quite popular with the lefties.

So it would seem.

 

[Corn]

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.

Touche!

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I freakin DENOUNCE Rush Limbaugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I propose the Senate spend the winter recess in session to denounce everything else that needs denouncing. This country would be a helluva lot better.

Thats right! Damn the First Amemndment!

 

[BigRig04]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

Lets do a little exercise.

Person 1: "There's some bad football players out there"

Person 2: "Horrible football players"

Person 1: "Exactly, horrible."

delay....lets say, two minutes

Person 2: "Speaking of horrible football players, how about the Dolphins?" (sorry dolphin's fans )

That's basically the conversation put into a different context. NOTHING in the delayed statement indicates that person 2 was not speaking about the dolphins in the first place. To assume that he isn't is wrong.

Yes, I speak english, it's my first and only language (for now) and someone saying "Speaking of such and such" DOES NOT mean they were not talking about "such and such" in the first place.

EDIT: to clear up a typo

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thats right. Because his ratings based on listeners are fabricated and not validated :roll:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

....as I said, staggering!

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: BigRig04

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

Lets do a little exercise.

Person 1: "There's some bad football players out there"

Person 2: "Horrible football players"

Person 1: "Exactly, horrible."

delay....lets say, two minutes

Person 2: "Speaking of horrible football players, how about the Dolphins?" (sorry dolphin's fans )

That's basically the conversation put into a different context. NOTHING in the delayed statement indicates that person 2 was not speaking about the dolphins in the first place. To assume that he isn't is wrong.

Yes, I speak english, it's my first and only language (for now) and someone saying "Speaking of such and such" DOES NOT mean they were not talking about "such and such" in the first place.

EDIT: to clear up a typo

Your entire exercise is beneficial only if the intended target has an ounce of intellectual curiosity. Ordinarily I would say you've wasted your time.......except this is amusing to us all.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: BigRig04

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

Lets do a little exercise.

Person 1: "There's some bad football players out there"

Person 2: "Horrible football players"

Person 1: "Exactly, horrible."

delay....lets say, two minutes

Person 2: "Speaking of horrible football players, how about the Dolphins?" (sorry dolphin's fans )

That's basically the conversation put into a different context. NOTHING in the delayed statement indicates that person 2 was not speaking about the dolphins in the first place. To assume that he isn't is wrong.

Yes, I speak english, it's my first and only language (for now) and someone saying "Speaking of such and such" DOES NOT mean they were not talking about "such and such" in the first place.

EDIT: to clear up a typo

He says he was speaking about Jesse Macbeth in the first place. Or that was one of his explanations. And your analogy is bad because your A group includes your B group instead of the A group and B group being mutually exclusive.

And you have yet to explain how jack murtha is a lousy football player

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: BigRig04

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

Lets do a little exercise.

Person 1: "There's some bad football players out there"

Person 2: "Horrible football players"

Person 1: "Exactly, horrible."

delay....lets say, two minutes

Person 2: "Speaking of horrible football players, how about the Dolphins?" (sorry dolphin's fans )

That's basically the conversation put into a different context. NOTHING in the delayed statement indicates that person 2 was not speaking about the dolphins in the first place. To assume that he isn't is wrong.

Yes, I speak english, it's my first and only language (for now) and someone saying "Speaking of such and such" DOES NOT mean they were not talking about "such and such" in the first place.

EDIT: to clear up a typo

I think it is absolutely hilarious that you even have to explain this. I think an even better way to clarify it would be to just state the conversation in context. It went essentially like this:

On Monday: Rush talks about fraudulent soldier Jesse McBeth on his show.

On Wednesday:
Army Guy caller: It's funny how the liberals never talk to real soldiers, most of whom think we need to stay in Iraq. They only talk to soldiers that say exactly what the liberals want to hear.

Rush: You mean the phony soldiers, like Jesse McBeth.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 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.

Thats right. Because his ratings based on listeners are fabricated and not validated :roll:

No, it's more likely that he needs that many pharmacists and drug pushers to keep him jacked.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: BigRig04

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Nice explanation except :

1) That conversation about macbeth occurred 2 minutes after his reference to phony soldiers

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

After all these illogical obfuscations by your kind, and you call me intellectually dishonest? Feel free to explain yourself.

Let's see ... he switches to Macbeth and says, "speaking of phony soldiers". Now, if English is your primary language, that phrase would indicate he was specifically NOT speaking about macbeth earlier.

What's staggering is how right wingers, who insist on English as sacrosanct, mangle the language consistently for their own partisan purposes.

"taken out of context" = "no habla ingles!" for right wingers.

Lets do a little exercise.

Person 1: "There's some bad football players out there"

Person 2: "Horrible football players"

Person 1: "Exactly, horrible."

delay....lets say, two minutes

Person 2: "Speaking of horrible football players, how about the Dolphins?" (sorry dolphin's fans )

That's basically the conversation put into a different context. NOTHING in the delayed statement indicates that person 2 was not speaking about the dolphins in the first place. To assume that he isn't is wrong.

Yes, I speak english, it's my first and only language (for now) and someone saying "Speaking of such and such" DOES NOT mean they were not talking about "such and such" in the first place.

EDIT: to clear up a typo

I think it is absolutely hilarious that you even have to explain this. I think an even better way to clarify it would be to just state the conversation in context. It went essentially like this:

On Monday: Rush talks about fraudulent soldier Jesse McBeth on his show.

On Wednesday:
Army Guy caller: It's funny how the liberals never talk to real soldiers, most of whom think we need to stay in Iraq. They only talk to soldiers that say exactly what the liberals want to hear.

Rush: You mean the phony soldiers, like Jesse McBeth.

This is an absolute lie. When did he ever say "you mean phony soldiers, like jesse macbeth"???? And if you are paraphrasing what you think he meant to say in his explanation, you're still lying.

 

[Stoneburner]

Let's see if the dittoheads here can keep up.

Rush limbaugh refers to "phony soldiers" PLURAL. Who was he talking about besides jesse macbath?

Rush limbaugh said, 2 minutes later, "speaking of phony soldiers" and then talks abou jesse macbeth. So how could he have been referring to macbeth in the first instance?

Rush limbugh referred to jack murtha as a phony soldier. THIS UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE EXPLANATION.

Rush LImbaugh edited his tape before the broadcast on the AFN. THIS UNDERMINES HIS CREDIBILITY.

 

[azazyel]

Pulled this from a Fark.com quote..
Zalan 2007-10-03 05:23:02 AM


LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you --

CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong.

LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have --

CALLER 1: Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know --

LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.

CALLER 1: No, I'm not.

LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.

[...]

CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: What is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
---------------------------------------

So he talks to a republican who is againt the war, claims to be a soldier who has been in the military, Rush says that he can't possibly be a republican because he doesn't carry water for the war. then on the very next call he starts spouting off about fake soldiers after being tossed a cookie by a caller.
---------------------------------------

Rush Limbaugh claimed that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh then purported to air the "entire" segment in question. In fact, the clip he aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth.

 

[Lemon law]

Just because Rush Limbaugh distorts something does not mean that other who oppose him do not use similar logically sleezy tactics. And if Rush Limbaugh uses phony logic and an opponent of Rush Limbaugh uses phony logic, it may be an instructive lesson on bad logic to listen to both, and thereafter take everything both say with a huge grain of salt.

The use of phony logic does not elevate the person criticized, it merely lowers the credibility of the critic. And given the Limbaugh track record, NOTHING IN THE WORLD CAN ELEVATE RUSH OUT OF THE SEWER HIS TRACK RECORD HAS PLACED HIM IN.

And of course its very possible to be a real soldier, pay your dues, and still be critical of the of the conduct of the war they served in. Limbaugh started this mess and now tries to crawfish out of it by pretending he was only critical of a very small set of actual phony soldiers when logic dictated that he had to qualify his remarks first to deserve that fall back position.

 

[Craig234]

It seems obvious that what Rush did was to try to smear all anti-war soldiers by lumping them with the one phony soldier - and then to deny he meant that when called on it.

As noted above, his plural use of 'phony soldiers' shows just that.

It's a little like the Bush administration constantly putting 9/11 in every sentence about Iraq, and then denying they ever said Iraq was involved in 9/11. Technically, pretty true, but disingenuous. Rush clear owed a clarification to deny his statement implying all war opponents are 'phony soldiers'.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It seems obvious that what Rush did was to try to smear all anti-war soldiers by lumping them with the one phony soldier - and then to deny he meant that when called on it.

As noted above, his plural use of 'phony soldiers' shows just that.

It's a little like the Bush administration constantly putting 9/11 in every sentence about Iraq, and then denying they ever said Iraq was involved in 9/11. Technically, pretty true, but disingenuous. Rush clear owed a clarification to deny his statement implying all war opponents are 'phone soldiers'.

Right. The same way the left smears the right in general because of one or two people.

Just so we're clear about both sides being non-partisan.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It seems obvious that what Rush did was to try to smear all anti-war soldiers by lumping them with the one phony soldier No it doesn't- and then to deny he meant that when called on it.

As noted above, his plural use of 'phony soldiers' shows just that. McBeth is not the only example either. McBeth isn't the only soldier to report false allgegations. I see to remember not too long ago we had a different guy talking about running over dogs and cutting them in half with Bradleys, soldiers wearing an Iraqi skll under their helmut and making fun of a disfigured Iraqi women, etc

It's a little like the Bush administration constantly putting 9/11 in every sentence about Iraq, and then denying they ever said Iraq was involved in 9/11. Technically, pretty true, but disingenuous. Rush clear owed a clarification to deny his statement implying all war opponents are 'phony soldiers'.

Well, here it's you guys trying to put stuff in every sentance to give the wrong impression. You've got the analogy backwards, Dude.

So, Rush has issued a clarification that isn't saying soldier against the *war* are "phony". When is Moveon.org gonna issue a statement saying Petraeus isn't betraying the country or lying in his report to Congres?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

First, my name's not 'dude'.

I don't know how much Rush pays you to act as his defender, Fern, but you don't get to improve his position by making things up that help him but he didn't say.

He made his 'clarification', and he did not mention the other stories you did. He tried a smear, the same sort he and similar constantly do of referring to 'that group' by the worst example, and he has had to back off of it. It's the same thing the right accuses some of doing of lumping all US troops in with the worst few who commit terrible crimes, which is also wrong.

The way Rush said it, had a clear and wrong implication, and he owed a clarification.

When should Moveon say something? When they do something wrong. I was not a fan of the play on his name to 'betray us', but the rest of the ad looked useful. His actions in the past have put politics ahead of right at times, it seems, so I'm not going to go after them much on the 'betray us' phrasing beyond saying I think it's excessive just to get the rhyme.

Now, let's hear from the dignified crowd dedicated to accuracy who wore bandaids to mock the war wounds of John Kerry.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

This whole thing is a hilarious example of just how the left becomes unhinged after getting smacked down after they do something stupid; the Patreausus ad. Hence they have to distort something to cause a distraction.

The gall to ask for CONGRESS to censure a private citizen. Bad enough its over a false accusation but the mere fact of asking CONGRESS and worse having members of CONGRESS attempt to interfere with a private citizen's freedom of speech. Talk about the Stalinist coming home to roost. In other words, CONGRESS must take action against the citizens of this country BECAUSE OF SPEECH; again distorted as the truth conflicts way too much with their needs.

Congress, like does the left not realize that Congress should be trying to govern the country, not enforce speech?

Face it you moonbats.

The accusation is false.
The Democrat Congress is a do nothing Congress
The Democrat Congress acclaims low polls in support of Iraq YET CONTINUES TO FUND IT!
The Democrat Congress has NOT PASSED any of its stated objects they claimed would pass during the first 100 hours or so.
The Democrat Congress is as CORRUPT and SHADY as the Republican controlled Congress before it.
The left got caught with their pants down and got creamed in arena of public opinion.


Its even more laughable the loons here who decry Bush's Administration over privacy and investigative practices yet screams for CONGRESS to interfere with freedom of speech, let alone freedom of thought. Its despicable that to have an issue they have to take it out of context and then parade a real anti-war vet out in an attempt to twist the issue even more.

No wonder the Left is unhinged, they aren't even part of reality anymore. Driven blind by hate they are.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, my name's not 'dude'.

Some people will complain about anything...... :roll: My "name" isn't Corn.....but feel free to address me as such, eh, 234?