"Media Matters"; by Paul Waldman
Here at Media Matters, as in many other places, this was a week of Rush Limbaugh, not only because of what he said about American soldiers and veterans who oppose the Iraq war, but because of what he said about us. There has been some wild spinning coming from Limbaugh on this issue, so let's do a brief recap of what he has said and done since this whole to-do began:
Wednesday, September 26: On his radio show, Limbaugh gets into a discussion with a caller about people who oppose the Iraq war. "It's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people," he says. The caller replies, "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 then interjects, "The phony soldiers," to which the caller responds, "The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve." The two then go on to talk about how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. A full one minute and 50 seconds later -- after the caller went on to discuss the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and after Limbaugh thanked the caller for calling -- Limbaugh brings up Jesse MacBeth, who had claimed falsely to have served in Iraq and witnessed atrocities.
Friday, September 28: Responding to the controversy aroused by his "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh claims on his show that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." He then tells his listeners he will present to them the "entire" segment from the day before, so they can hear what he actually said. But the clip he airs actually cuts out a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth, making it appear as though he had segued directly from "phony soldiers" to MacBeth, when this was not in fact the case. Limbaugh also claims he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth," when in fact he said not "soldier" (singular) but "soldiers" (plural). Limbaugh also states during his program, "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one," adding to his list of "phony soldiers" Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel.
Tuesday, October 2: After the group VoteVets.org airs a television advertisement in which a wounded Iraq veteran, Brian McGough, criticizes Limbaugh for the "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh compares McGough to a suicide bomber. "He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there," Limbaugh says, "and he says to me in this ad, 'Until you have the guts to call me a "phony soldier" to my face, stop telling lies about my service.' You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."
Thursday, October 4: Displaying his ongoing commitment to reasoned discourse, Limbaugh puts up a picture on his website of Josef Stalin sporting Media Matters' logo on his chest. Because posting audio and transcripts of Rush Limbaugh so people can see what he says is pretty much like heading up one of history's most brutally repressive regimes and murdering 20 million or so people. Just about, anyway.
Now that we're all caught up, we can talk about what this means. In order to understand it, you have to realize that Limbaugh's attack on soldiers who disagree with Bush's policy on the war is in perfect keeping with statements he has made in the past. While most commentators will at least nod to the notion that those who disagree with them can still love their country, Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions his belief that people who oppose the war are unpatriotic. To take just one example, this past August, he said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
Once you've constructed and maintained this argument -- that only people who hate America could possibly disagree with George W. Bush on national security questions -- what do you do when you encounter veterans who do, in fact, disagree? People who have put their very lives at risk in order to serve their country? So much of the rhetoric coming from people like Limbaugh operates on the premise that people who hold different opinions aren't merely wrong or mistaken, they have bad motives.
Think about how much time and effort they expend on convincing Americans that progressives and Democrats are "anti-military," "hate the troops," and even "hate America." So any progressive veteran who criticizes Bush administration policies represents a profound threat to all the arguments they have made. It becomes particularly thorny when nearly the entire current leadership of the conservative movement -- not only media figures like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, but also political figures including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- were of draft age during the Vietnam war but managed to stay out of harm's way.
Let's be clear: I'm not arguing that any particular individual on that list didn't have legitimate reasons to avoid serving in Vietnam -- some may have. Nor am I arguing that the opinions of veterans on matters of national security are necessarily more valid simply because they are veterans. The point is that accusations of troop-hating and insufficient patriotism are difficult to wield at veterans, particularly when thrown by those who were subject to the draft but managed to avoid it.
Unless, that is, they can argue that the veteran in question isn't a real veteran, that his service wasn't real service, that his sacrifice wasn't real sacrifice, and that his patriotism isn't real patriotism. So that's exactly what they do.
If this were the first, or second, or even third time this had happened, one might be able to come up with another plausible explanation. But what we heard this week with Rush Limbaugh was a replay of a record we've heard many times before: a war critic with a military record emerges, and the right responds by attacking his patriotism, arguing that his service wasn't real, or both. Consider the following:
- John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and recipient of a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, saw a campaign of truly epic dishonesty waged during the 2004 presidential election to convince the American people that he didn't deserve his medals and that the injuries he sustained in combat were phony. Among the many ways conservatives got into the act: At the 2004 Republican convention, delegates wore Band-Aids with purple hearts on their cheeks to mock Kerry's medals. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings asked Newt Gingrich at the time whether the purple heart Band-Aids made him uncomfortable. "No," Gingrich replied, "I think it's funny." (The conservative Media Research Center cited this exchange as an example of liberal media bias because it was shocked that anyone would take offense at a gesture "meant to make light of John Kerry earning purple hearts in Vietnam for superficial wounds.")
- Max Cleland, who lost both legs and one arm in Vietnam, was the subject of an attack ad from challenger Saxby Chambliss (reason for avoiding Vietnam service: bum knee) featuring photos of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, claiming that Cleland was hindering efforts to fight terrorism. "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead," the announcer said, "But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."
- When Congressman John Murtha -- to repeat, a Vietnam combat veteran, recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel -- became critical of the Iraq war, he was attacked relentlessly by conservatives. Ann Coulter said that Murtha is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," slang for soldiers killing a member of their own unit. Coulter later said that if Murtha "did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."
- Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was called "Sen. Skeptic (R., France)" by the National Review when in 2002 he raised questions about the Bush administration's push for war -- in other words, Hagel didn't represent the United States but a foreign country. More recently, Rush Limbaugh has said: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
- When Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired rear admiral, walked in a Memorial Day parade wearing his uniform during the 2006 campaign (without doing any campaigning, as per military regulations), the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania sent out a press release titled "Sestak's Got No R-E-S-P-E-C-T For Uniform" according to an August 7, 2006, article in the Navy Times.
- In 2006, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick held a press conference in which he presented an Air Force major named Kevin Kelly who accused Fitzpatrick's challenger, Democrat Patrick Murphy, of claiming to be more of a combat veteran than he was. As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 11, 2006, "Kelly claimed that Murphy, who was in Baghdad during 2003 and 2004 as a captain and lawyer with the 82d Airborne, exaggerated his combat experience. But in response to a reporter's question, Kelly could not cite any place, incident or publication where he heard Murphy make such claims."
- Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, ran for Congress in a special election in Ohio in 2005. Rush Limbaugh said of Hackett, "it appears that, you know, he goes to Iraq to pad the résumé."
We could go on to list the many Democrats who have had their patriotism assaulted -- like Air Force veteran Tom Daschle, who was accused of treason by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) (Davis said that comments Daschle made in 2002 questioning the success of the war on terror had "the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies," language taken directly from the Constitution's definition of treason), and was the subject of a press release by since-disgraced Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) titled "Foley Questions Daschle's Patriotism." But that would take far more space than we have at hand. One thing that all these cases have in common is that no one in the media even considered referring to these conservative attacks as "anti-military," while media figures routinely characterize progressives as "anti-military" if they take issue with policies like the Iraq war, not to mention the converse, that Iraq war supporters are by definition "pro-military" folks who "support the troops" (see here, here, here, here, or here).
So let's consider Limbaugh's comment about Hackett. As far as Limbaugh is concerned, a progressive can't possibly join the military out of a commitment to national service or simple patriotism; if a progressive joined the military, his or her motives must have been dishonorable, in this case to "pad the résumé." By the same token, if a soldier opposes the war, he must not be a real soldier. After making the "phony soldiers" statement, Limbaugh and his caller went on to discuss how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. "They joined to be in Iraq!" said Rush.
Yet you would have had trouble finding too many Republicans in Washington willing to step forward and condemn Limbaugh, or do what Democrats are asked to do whenever a progressive anywhere says something controversial, and "distance themselves" from his remarks. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is one of the most important components of the conservative spin machine. After all, when Republicans scored their dramatic electoral victory in 1994, they named him an honorary member of the 104th Congress. He'll have to go a lot further than insulting soldiers to get them to turn on him.
At one level, one can have some sympathy for O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Every day, they spend a lot of time on the air -- three hours in Limbaugh's case, and three more for O'Reilly (one hour on television and two on radio), talking extemporaneously about the issues of the day. As seasoned performers, they both know that passion and anger, whether genuine or feigned, are necessary elements of their oeuvre. Given all that, it would hardly be remarkable if every now and again they said something they regretted.
But to hear them tell it, they never regret anything they say. No word that escapes their mouths is anything other than exactly what they meant. If people are offended, they just don't understand, or they've been manipulated by the enemies of the right.
When people do get offended, or fed up at the seemingly unending stream of falsehood and misrepresentation, the right-wing media do what they always do: attack the messenger. So lately, Media Matters has been the subject of some awfully nasty comments from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and their allies; a recent favorite is Bill O'Reilly calling Media Matters President David Brock "the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country" (eat your heart out, terrorists!). And don't even ask about the emails we get -- let's just say Rush and Bill's fans are extremely angry and prone to vulgarity, and need to work on their spelling.
This strategy isn't hard to interpret. If you can get people talking about a sinister left-wing conspiracy, then suddenly they aren't talking about you and your statements anymore. And for the likes of Limbaugh, it's always somebody else's fault.
Great summation of the events of the past week.
I had forgotten Limbaugh was named an honorary member of Congress after the 1994 elections. That puts to rest the spin I heard this week about Limbaugh being an "entertainer" not worth wasting time on.
I hope every centrist who was driven to this site by the outrageous claims of the far right this week reads this posting and dismisses Limbaugh and his ilk as the propaganda peddlers they are.
Every time Rush or Bill (FOX) mention MMFA on their shows they are only hurting themselves...... slowly
Yes, there are plenty that come in here and try to spew the right-wing garbage verbatim some of whom are probably paid to do it, or are so lost in their ideology that nothing can save them, also, they do need to work on their spelling.
But a few, here and there will come to see that MMFA isn't the anti-American site these blowhards claim it to be and that will only open up more eyes to the right-wing's hypocrisy and lies being spelled out for them to see, if they want?
this subject does seem to get old. but...it's important that guys like limbaugh be called out on the things that they say. this has become a huge story precisely because this is the kind of stuff that used to be said by limbaugh and it would just disappear from sight. another false assertion implanted in the minds of the dittoheads, with no effort to correct him. but now there is a way around the talk radio propaganda effort. if limbaugh starts to be doubted by some of his faithful, then this controversy has been a good thing. i never want to see one side or the other dominate radio, but limbaugh and his cohorts are as much about real conservatism as campbell's is about real soup. so maybe if limbaugh is discredited on something like this, the next time he starts lying about something hugely important like global warming, maybe his listeners will have the proper skepticism. limbaugh is nothing but a propaganda outlet for corporate america.
But they do dominate talk radio...
As of today, the Cons control 90% of talk radio. To me, that qualifies as one side controlling talk radio.
We've got a long way to go. But sometimes, the underdogs can have amazing victories.
i know they dominate talk radio. i said i don't want to see one side or the other dominate, because someone will come on here and accuse me of wanting to silence conservative opinion. i don't.
here's another example of limbaugh's falsehoods. based on a call from a "conservative letter carrier", he claimed that the national association of letter carriers only endorses democrats. the union president pointed out in this letter that republican presidential candidates did not respond to the union survey. rush's answer was to call him a "union thug".
http://www.nalc.org/news/precord/PresMesPDF/pres0907.pdf
How his dittoheads can come on here and defend him is beyond strange, when they listen to him saying things like this all the time.
Using the example of this past week--he accuses a Republican and a vet of not being either. Yet he still resonates with some people. Very sad.
and this is somewhat off topic but related to what i mentioned above about limbaugh and his lying about things like global warming. the "south florida sun sentinel" [ a tribune company paper] carried an opinion piece questioning global warming [in a state that will be severely affected] by tom harris of the "natural resources stewardship project". sounds like a real environmental group, huh?
as this link shows, they are composed of many of the same members who were a part of the "friends of science", a canadian group outed as receiving oil and gas money, by the paper "globe and mail" in august 2006. the nrsp was formed in october 2006 with many of the same members and message.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project
Actually, the percentage is closer to 96% of the talk radio time that conservatives dominate. However, even with all that time on the air, they can still only garner roughly 50% of the vote?? That really just shows how hard it is to sell a political platform that serves such a small percentage of our country.
Yet you would have had trouble finding too many Republicans in Washington willing to step forward and condemn Limbaugh, or do what Democrats are asked to do whenever a progressive anywhere says something controversial, and "distance themselves" from his remarks. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is one of the most important components of the conservative spin machine.
So true, why Rep. Eric Cantor wants you to "Stand with Rush" to show your support. http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/blog/
These people are un-freaking believable.
Pearlene,
I followed the thread you posted, watched that crummy video and then went ahead and followed the website shown at the end of it, they have a 4 minute clip of Limpballs at his slimy best as part of an appeal to get people to sign up and defend him.....
How funny, that with Limp having what..... 2 million or so listeners to his show, that there are only about 14,000 signers to the petition.
I also think I understand the right-wingers hate of the 'fairness doctrine'...... they claim it is to shut them off or silence them...... I think they are scared of it because it would force the stations they are on to run the likes of Randi Rhodes, Tom Hartman, or Ed Schultz as a counter balance.....
If there is one thing right-wingers can't stand, it's the truth with facts getting in the way and they are scared poop-less at the prospect of being easily exposed!
thread followed = link followed
my bad......
If there is one thing right-wingers can't stand, it's the truth with facts. Captfoster
So true. This week I have been left actually speechless when reading some of the posts.
Thanks to MMFA for suffering the slings and arrows from the ignorant and uninformed. The profuse number of threads about Limbaugh does get a little wearying, but we need to get our country back from these hacks and liars. And as usual, it is telling that those who criticise leftys for foul language seem to have no trouble using it profusely. Of course those who level this charge are always hypocites. They not only have foul minds and hearts, but foul words as well. They expose themselves often and we should listen to who they are telling us they really are. Good job, MMFA. You must be doing something right to garner such vehement hateful denials.
It's amusing how steeped these right-wingers are into the culture of victimhood, and how prone they are to such irrational Brock-hatred, and how much they whine about how unfair it all is.
Make a list of every complaint, real or imagined, you've ever heard about Democratic politicians, TV personalities, or radio hosts. The republicans exhibit every single one of those two-fold.
Excellent.
The last point, about this being a distraction to important issues and news is important. Its alieviation is the responsibilty of? All of us I guess.
MMFA! MMFA MMFA!
Time to renew my donation, I guess.
Cults are always hard on non-believers, but they save their most intense hate for former cult members who escape the cult and get on with their lives...
Sorry David
A TEN YEAR OLD CHILD CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH LIMBAUGH'S LIES, GOD DON'T LIKE UGLY, HE SHOULD KNOW THIS.
MMFA is doing a great job, the pressure is on the likes of Rush and Bill O and now they are feeling it which is in turn forcing them to go into attack mode. this is great becuase everyone will see these "phony" Rush and Bill O now become what they truly are , true blue Conservatives.
Yes I checked the ratings for "Billo" and "Limpbaugh" both had huge increases this last week in viewership. I think its great that the press and leading Democrats have chosen to run their campaigns against these 2 WHO ARE NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING! The rise in the ratings are just making these 2 ultra rich guys even richer and there huge audience even huger. Thanks all.
It is better to listen to rightie-radio than not to. We can stay informed about the level of discourse, and keep tabs on the sponsors (to either boycott, or support, as we think best). Also, folks who document the propaganda will be an important source of evidence for reinstating the fairness doctrine.
Gee, Paul Waldman sure looks like a sissy. How much you want to bet he never spent a day in uniform?
Whenever the MMFA sissies are ready, my fellow Marines and I would like to meet with them to discuss their lies about Rush Limbaugh.
why dont you meet up with the marines in votevets, i think that would be a more interesting debate.
Nice. Resort to thinly veiled threats of violence when faced with unpleasant facts. How utterly pathetic and typical of the authoritarian right.
Here's a clue: Violence is the opposite of power.
I think Kevin might have hit the wrong link on his "favorites". He seems to be setting up a gay group date.
Good catch. I totally misread his meaning.
Sissies, uniforms, arranged meetings. All he forgot to include was in which bath-house he prefers his encounters.
As I've mentioned before Kevin, you are in the midst of many leftys who have served their country. However they do not bring it up every other post. You seem to suffer from some inadequacy that requires you to call people sissies and act like a braggart. It is not only unseemly, but begs the question of why you feel the need to do it? Self reflection is a good thing. It's a requirement to reconcile yourself with God.
Kevin, you frikkin' panty-waist...
I know about six marines who post regularly on this website, and they would pound you and Rush's chicken-hawk butts back into whatever hole you crawled out of.
Wow you sound like a MORON. Oh its 007 kevin you ARE A MORON. You get stupider and more irrelevant with every post. Your closet is getting a bit cramped for you so you come here and parade your stupidity. If you had any capacity whatsoever for actual thought you would realize you are embarassing yourself.
Oooohh... That little trist you're planning sounds like a blast. Is Jeff Gannon gonna be there? Can we take a look at your marine friends at hotmilitarystuds.com? Is the meeting taking place at any public bathrooms nearby?
Kevin:
Are you one of those "phony soldiers"? Pretending to be a real marine when probably the only uniform you've ever worn is a French maid costume? I question whether you are really a member of the military. A U.S. Marine, with real values, would never take cheap shots at people or take sides with a drug-addicted purveyor of hate and lies such as Rush Limbaugh. Nah, you couldn't possibly be a real Marine, Kevin.
BTW, if you take exception to my post then please explain why Rush Limbaugh is given the exclusive pernission to determine whether someone is legitimately military.
On a positive note, Paul Waldman recently called Hillary a liar!
Gee Paul, now that you're calling HRC a liar, can you at least start telling the truth about Rush? Please, admit that you are only going after RL over the bogus "phony soldier" "controversy" because your paymaster Soros gave you the marching orders!
please show the evidence that george soros funds this site.
the same smears were used against spocko
the fact that a wealthy jewish buisinessman is the new boogyman of the right, shows the blatant anitsemitism that permeates throughout your party.
I'm a registered Democrat.
And I have to say that it is kind of trollish for you to interject Soros' religion into the discussion. I know that some antisemites try to be clever and introduce religious topics just to be provocative.
Personally, I find it very offensive.
Keep your manufactured offense to yourself. We're not interested. Prove that George Soros funds this site. Give us hard evidence.
Julia:
BillyBob is a teacher of logic. He don't need no stinkin' evidence.
Oh yes, and a registered Democrat too. ;-) I wonder how many times he'll feel the need to bring up these two bonmots.
Oops, he's giving even more of his "credentials" below. By the times he's done, I'm sure he'll be a rocket scientist or surely a PhD. One wonders why one is compelled to give such credentials in one's argument, if one can truly argue a point in a worthy manner. Must be he thinks we're admirers of all things titular.
There is another sophomoric tactic in debate called the "false argument." The false argument is a case in which a person poses a challenge and then doesn't care what the answer really is. It's common to use this tactic simply to waste the other sides time.
In this case you are asking me to prove that George Soros supports MMFA. Before I answer this question, I want to know if it really matters to you. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I provide proof of the Soros connection, you'll simply reply that it doesn't really matter because Soros is a great guy.
Therefore, let me just state that as soon as you say why it matters to you and what consequence it might have to the discussion, I will provide the evidence.
"There is another sophomoric tactic in debate called the "false argument." The false argument is a case in which a person poses a challenge and then doesn't care what the answer really is. It's common to use this tactic simply to waste the other sides time."
You were the one who made the assertion (that Soros is an MMFA paymaster) now cough up the evidence. But since you seem so sensitive to having your precious time wasted let me point out that the real reason you shouldn't try is because many others (far cleverer than you) have already tried and failed.
Does it matter to us whether or not Soros funds MMFA? No more, I suppose, than if Richard Mellon Scaife had Steve Kangas murdered. What does matter is that you made an assertion that you won't back up. That tells us all we really need to know about you.
....many others (far cleverer than you)
Ouch! That's a pretty clever rejoinder. However, I have looked at some of the archives and it does seem that lots of links have already been provided to link George Soros to MMFA and most of the other left/lib crop of anti-conservative sites.
One can adduce that if I do provide tons of support for the argument about Soros, the left/libs will simply counter with the old, "but those are not objective sites" (funny how that objective standard only applies to people OTHER than Keith O.!)
But since you and others don't care, I wont bother to bring it up again.
At least you're being honest!
However, I have looked at some of the archives and it does seem that lots of links have already been provided to link George Soros to MMFA and most of the other left/lib crop of anti-conservative sites.
Post one link.
If you are not using objective sites then YOU are not being honest. We dont really care what ranters on the Freerepublicansewer have to say. Either you can back up your assertion or you cant.
Does it matter to you if Soros funds MMFA? It would seem it does.
Personally, I don't care if he funds this site anymore than I care that R.M. Scaife funds Fox and Republican think tanks.
BillyBob claims to adduce
But so far has failed to produce
A sole, tiny shred
Not even a thread
Of anything except an excuse
Ode to Billybob (in honor of Julia our muse)
Trollboy Billybob, master debater,
Master of laws, and Hillary Hater.
Syllogisms are his weapon of choice.
Yet reason seems not to steady his voice.
DeMorgan, Peano, Frege, and Pierce
Just couldn't counter his arguments fierce.
"I've won!", said the voices inside his head,
Though from the debate he really had fled.
Back to his favorite right winger blogs,
Whose readers applauded--dumber than logs,
As he spun tales of lucious victory.
On Moore, and Zinn it was open season
Hunting them down with eloquent reason.
Next Chomsky, then Sheehan--Hillary too
Defeat them I did, as destined to do.
No argument made I could not meet
All of them simply went down to defeat.
"You've won!", said his voices--louder this time
Sweet victory over those left wing slime.
He opened his eyes--it was just a dream,
For things are not always quite what they seem.
Chlorpromazine treats more than bad hiccups.
NICE!!
Very nice epitaph, blueneck. Billybob was the last dittohead hanging in there, but he officially admitted defeat tonight (for the second time).
I think he might just be a teenage Rush fan, but he did stick it out longer than the rest of the Rushbots. He should call in to General Rush tomorrow and report the surrender, but that would be very out of character for a delusional dittohead.
Thanks Julia and HBL. Would that it actually be an epitaph. I think of the inscription on the tombtone of the famous Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdos:
Finally I am becoming stupider no more.
(Hungarian: "Végre nem butulok tovább").
Sadly, this kind of humility and humor is never seen among Rushbots. Instead the blend of idiocy and arrogance we witnessed on this thread has a way of multiplying and, well, resurrecting itself--even in a cesspool full of its own mycotoxic waste. Another handle, another day, I am sure there is more to come.
It only matters because you guys keep lying about it and you WONT post any evidence you will post the warmed over long debunked talking points the Limborg has been TOLD is evidence.
BillyBob...
Try to get the sawdust out of your brain. Try one of these new high-powered vacuums. Other conservatives have said they work great.
They DID post the truth about Rush just because he instructed YOU along with the rest of the Limborg to believe otherwise has no relation with reality whatsoever
Yes I checked the ratings for "Billo" and "Limpbaugh" both had huge increases this last week in viewership. I think its great that the press and leading Democrats have chosen to run their campaigns against these 2 WHO ARE NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING! The rise in the ratings are just making these 2 ultra rich guys even richer and there huge audience even huger.
a) "Yes" is an interjection; requires comma.
b) Comma, semicolon or period missing after "Limpaugh."
c) Limbaugh doesn't have a viewership.
d) "[I]ts" is a possessive pronoun, not a contraction of "it is."
e) Moveon.org isn't running for anything.
f) "[R]ise in the ratings" takes a singular verb.
g) "[T]here" is not a pronoun.
h) Link to "huge increase in ratings" missing.
This has been another futile public service endeavor of the Society for Educating Morons in America .
Sorry Kev and Billy this is as if your significant other, mother, or god is feeling some heat.
Kev you are projecting for all your worth.
Bit of a reach on Pauls statement, calling HRC a liar Billy. Didn't need the Phony Soldgers coment to make my opinion of Rush, or change it. You'd probably be doing your cause more good by signing the support our Rush champaign a 1000 times, than what your posting. Its linked above just in case you missed it.
Sorry Kev and Billy this is as if your significant other, mother, or god is feeling some heat.
Didn't you mean "God"?
Bit of a reach on Pauls statement, calling HRC a liar Billy.
Less of a reach than the false claim that Limbaugh called soldiers "phony" if they were anti-war... unless, of course, you have a direct quote of RL saying such a thing.
Didn't need the Phony Soldgers(sic) coment(sic) to make my opinion of Rush...
Actually, this is my point. Haters of RL will believe any negative smear against him. Your mind is already made up and no amount of evidence can correct your view. In a word, it's called being "prejudiced".
You'd probably be doing your cause more good by signing the support our Rush champaign a 1000 times, than what your posting. Its linked above just in case you missed it.
You're suggesting that I should support a bogus smear campaign to "help" RL?
In the words of HRC, "cackle cackle cackle"!
billiybobjones, I hate to have to keep pointing out the elephant in the room, but it must be difficult for you stepping over those dung-piles all week.
We're still waiting for evidence of those phony soldiers who were heroes to the media and "the left".You're suspiciously siilent as far as any facts on the subject, but ridiculously noisy in building your house of cards it,
Again , I've extended your earlier surrender until 12 midnight Sunday. You have two options;
1. Provide evidence of the phony soldiers who were all over the media and "lionized" by "The Left". Doing this will at least give you a skinny, diseased leg to stand on as you try to make excuses for your drug-addled, pedophile hero, Rush.
or
2. Surrender. The failure to provide the evidence in Option 1 will be accepted as your surrender to the reality-based universe, and the admission that Rush is a lying propagandist, and his minions are pathetic suckers.
Any future responses not falling clearly into the guidelines of options 1 or 2 will, by default, constitute selection of option 2, complete surrender.
You still have more than 24 hours to avoid complete failure. I would suggest you rally your smartest friends to help you.
BTW-How the heck did a Rush Limbaugh fan end up registering with the Democratic party? That's gotta be a story! ;0)
HuntingtonBeachLefty:
This is a good example of something in logic called "bifurcation" or the "false choice" argument. I remember the times I would try to cover this topic when teaching Intro to Logic for sophomores, but I'm not really interested in trying to educate people at MM.
I will suggest that there are many excellent community colleges in California who take students regardless of academic standing. And, in fact, you are in luck if you really live in Huntington Beach. There are several really good community colleges and adult education centers right near where you live.
I sincerely hope that this is helpful to you.
Anyway, when I suggest that there are many alternative choices, I hope you understand why I feel no need to answer your illogical question. I think you are a sincere and great person, but you honestly do not have the chops to spar with me.
I, for one, would be interested in someone supplying this evidence.
Right wingers have claimed incessantly that we democrats don't support the troops. When we press you folks to cite examples, you skedaddle away like ... like you just did!
Because we actually do support the troops, and your claims that we don't have no basis in reality.
Since you are obviously way smarter than everyone else here, maybe you can enlighten us about what righties hope to gain by the general smear ...
False choices are a mainstay with right wing authoritarian leaders and their followers (you). HBL was not offering you a choice, but a challenge. He has asked a pointed and valid question which should challenge you. But apparently you are not up to the challenge because then you would have to tell some truth. Of this, you are not capable. It's too bad that someone who teaches "logic" to others is not capable of discerning it for himself. Anyone capable of logical thought would not waste time listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man is a manipulator and liar and certainly nobody worth defending. The light is calling you, sir.
juliajayne
first, let me just state that I only taught courses in debate and logic for a few years before moving into consulting and teaching in the computer industry.
second, a person poses a challenge with only "two" alternatives: PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SURRENDER!
Oh, gee, which is the best alternative course for me? Well, I think I'll not get into wasting my time with this worthless challenge.
Now, isn't that a better THIRD choice?
(nice try, juliajayne!)
Yeah, we know you aren't up to HBL's challenge. Nice long posts though. Lots of amorphous bull poopy too.
I accept BillyBob's surrender.
Sunday, October 7, 2007, 9:59 PST.
BILL:
You say, "A person poses a challenge with only "two" alternatives: PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SURRENDER!
Oh, gee, which is the best alternative course for me? Well, I think I'll not get into wasting my time with this worthless challenge.
Now, isn't that a better THIRD choice?"
RESPONSE: It's a "better" third choice for you, if you do not mind losing the debate
In debate, both sides make assertions, and then back those assertions with the best evidence available. Each side strives to make that evidence unassailable, in order to show their ASSERTIONS to be valid.
If one side makes an assertion, but REFUSES to back that assertion with PROOF, that signals their LOSS of the debate.
It's OK, Billy, if you consider DEFEAT as a "better" third alternative for you. It just seems a little odd that you would participate in a "debate" at all if you intend to throw in the towel at the first opportunity. Certainly, we at MMFA have no problem with another ineffective rightwing poster.
Not really since option one offered by HBL was a chance to substantiate a CRUCIAL link in the defense of Limbaugh. A sine qua non OF that defense then your deflections is a clear choice for option two. Surrender. You CANT substantiate that crucial link. No support of Rushs defense is possible without it. No defense. QED.
BillyBob, give it up...
You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Just back off, re-group, and maybe come back another day witha coherent argument.
You've got some potential, and as soon as you go through Limboob rehab, you might make some sense.
Biioliybob, now it's pretty obvious you're just a kid doing shtick.
Aside from a very strange definition of "bifurcation", you're showing a very weak grasp of the idea of the "false dichotomy" (or whatever you named it).
What I'm asking you for is evidence supporting the "facts" that you're basing your position on. This should be the simplest thing in the world, if you've got anything.
The fact that you've wasted hundreds of words avoiding what would have taken only a sentence or two, with a link to a source, to prove, makes it pretty obvious that you've given up.
It will have to be left up to your superiors in the Dittobot army to keep the cause alive.
BTW, I only have a community college degree, never completed any higher degree. But don't feel bad, I used to skunk the professors in the college courses I took, too.
I'm still open to hearing any of those "alternative suggestions" to backing up your position or admitting you've got nothing. Unfortunately for you, that's an either/or situation, not really one that the "false argument" applies to.
Good luck.
You are not QUALIFIED to educate anyone here. Your little pea brain isnt up to the task. Now the bifurcation is also known as the FALSE dichotomy it is only a logical fallacy IF it is a FALSE dichotomy. Now since the very defense by Rush is that he was talking about the phony soldiers when he agreed that the press ONLY talks to phony soldiers, that real soldiers WANT to be in Iraq then the whole thing falls apart if there was no real presence IN the media OF those who were in fact phony soldiers therefore it is an essential part OF the defense so it is NOT a false dichotomy it is saying if you cannot substantiate THIS CRUCIAL LINK in your defense then you have no defense. HBL is correct. Try to know a little more what you are talking about before you bring out the logical fallacy card. Or else dont expect us to be dumb enough that you can run a silly bluff like this by us.
a real false dichotomy..
"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists"
Actually, I (a registered dem) listen to Rush a lot, and hate him on his own demerits.
The "phony soldier" comment he made perfectly illustrates his general approach to spinning the political discourse toward some self-serving end.
Another example of his right-angle spinning is his long-standing opposition to the concept of global warming: he denied for many years that it was occurring at all. Nowadays, probably after having been tutored by some trusted rightie, he finally defers to the science and scientific evidence while opposing the hypothesis that industrialization may contribute to global warming. In this, he and all the other rightie-radio hosts are in lock-step: their minds are closed.
Rush's stand on global warming is clearly founded on his politics: that is OK with me. He (and the other rightie-radio hosts) make fools of themselves everytime the subject comes up.
Don't think the entity cares much about capitals, or the lack thereof.
How've you managed to avoid the original quote and Rush's variations afterwards on this site, or this column itself, I can't think its for a lack of opportunity.
My opinion of Rush comes from long exposure. Yes I can think good thoughts about him. They're rare. Mostly I think of him not at all. He insists on his course. He will not say. " Oops, sorry my mouth ran away from me there." No it must be a foul liberal plot and I'll push this as hard as I'm able.
My opinion is that he feels anyone who disagrees with him should quickly face the fate of an ill treated slave any other abused painful life. If you can find an example of someone disagreeing with him and being treated as an equal with respect, I'd be pleased to see it.
The link is to a pro Rush site, that's why. I still think its your best bet.
eweston8542983
Thanks for a very civil response. I try to be nice at all times, but many of the people at this site are constantly looking for a fight.
In answer to your challenge, I will point out an area of agreement with you. Rush IS a partisan and does not give equal treatment to all his callers.
However, I think that whether it's Sean H. or Keith O., each side stacks the deck and gives the benefit of the doubt to it's own side and is constantly looking to find fault with the other side.
In this respect, I think that MMFA falls into the trap of believing it's own worst thoughts about conservatives and coming up with arguments that simply to not make sense.
Everyone who listens to Limbaugh knows that he will not be fair to libs. But they also know that RL deeply respects the men in uniform. And in all the years that I have listened to RL, I have NEVER heard him criticize ANY currently serving member of the armed forces for holding any particular position on the war.
This current "phony soldiers" campaign by MMFA is seen by all conservatives and most people who listen to RL as a contrived personal attack designed to bring Limbaugh down.
I do not believe that the accusations against RL are true.
This is my honest opinion.
And, when I went line by line through the transcript, I found that the arguments by MMFA simply did not make any sense.
LOL..and your fawning over Rush isn't wasting our time...give me a break. Rush is a straight up cultist and you sound like a believer too.
And, when I went line by line through the transcript, I found that the arguments by MMFA simply did not make any sense.
I am sorry to say that this is not logical. They provided a transcript of the conversation.
Did you read the article this thread is attached to? It provided plenty of examples of Rush and other righties trashing soldiers and vets.
In this respect, I think that MMFA falls into the trap of believing it's own worst thoughts about conservatives and coming up with arguments that simply to not make sense.
How could posting the transcript and audio of Limbaugh's words be MMFA believing it's own worst thoughts? Limbaugh agreed with and clarified an assertion a caller made about soldiers who want to withdraw from Iraq. The caller said they weren't real soldiers and Limbaugh interjected and clarified with "the phony soldiers".
No the DEFENSE of Limbaugh makes no sense. He agreed with the soldier who said the press ONLY talks to phony soldiers that REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq. NOW for that to even come CLOSE to making any sense whatsoever the claim Limbaugh made that they had been lionized by the left would have to be true they would have HAD to been given prominent press coverage if they HADNT, and I never heard of them, then it all falls apart. THEN Rush is just agreeing that the press only talks to phony soldiers those who DONT want to be in Iraq, those soldiers would NOT be the ones who turned out to be phony soldiers. The ONLY possibility left is when they said the press NEVER talks to real soldiers, those who WANT to be in Iraq they had to mean that phony soldiers are ANY soldiers that dont want to be in Iraq or are critical of the war. Its really that simple regardless what your Limborg assignement is
Not a bogus smear simple factual reality. It isnt our fault that you dont KNOW what you think until Rush tells you what it is.
Rush Limbaugh has more audience than ABC - CBS - NBC combined.
Watching The War - A Ken Burns Film - I was reminded of this guy who has also been mercilessly mocked as a godless liberal coward by the right wing radical yahoos like Limbaugh:
George McGovern (Democrat) - from Wikipedia:
...if Mr. Limbagh had just apologized at the start of all of this we could all have... moved on.
However...Petards being as they are...self-hoisting is irresistable
Mr. Waldman,
Since none of your Myrmidon followers can answer this question, I will direct it to you. Why did Media Matters omit the reference to Jesse Macbeth made by Limbaugh in the transcript when MM posted the original story on 9-27-07? This is the story that was picked up and reported on by the MSM outlets and commented on by Senators Reid and Harkin on the floor of the Senate.
getreal4once
You posted a really great question that, of course, cannot be answered honestly by anyone at MM. In my opinion, Waldman and the others who run this George Soros money laundering site never actually read the posts at this site. They just follow the Soros marching orders and laugh all the way to the bank.
So you are not only a moron but also a LIAR. Soros does NOT donate to this site. AND it HAS been answere several times it isnt our fault you arent bright enough to understand the written word.
Why did Limbaugh edit out nearly 2 minutes of the conversation that occured prior to any mention of MacBeth and then claim that it was the conversation exactly as it happened?
perhaps it was "omitted" because it was well after the original comment and did not relate to what the caller and limbaugh were talking about. mmfa could have posted his whole show that day and it would have made no difference in the context of what the caller and rush said. if you're trying to find some inconsistency by mmfa here, you haven't. as evidenced by the fact that they have been saying all along that those were separate conversations.
Get Real...
The reference to Jesse McBeth occurred a full 1 minute and 35 seconds after Limboob's "Phony Soldiers" comment.
The following day Limbatt called John Murtha a "Phony Soldier." This was actually an even worse comment.
Our nation would be much stronger if talk radio was 50-50, instead of 90-10. Then this type of Limbaugh filth could be dealt with.
It WAS answered, often. I answered it myself at least three times since none of you MORONIC Limborgian hiveminders can READ and only know what the Oxymoron TELLS you that you know you missed it. The answer is IT WAS IRRELEVANT. Unless Jesse is the ONLY soldier who the press talks to, which is ludicrous and unless we IGNORE the assertion agreed to by Rush that REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq, then Jesse has nothing to do with the conversation. I know this has been explained a few hundred times then again you guys ARE morons.
...if Mr. Limbagh had just apologized at the start of all of this we could all have... moved on.
I hate to burst the self-importance bubble of the left, but the fact is that everyone has already "moved on." This bogus "phony soldier" "controversy" just is not getting any notice beyond a few cable news programs and some internet sites. I keep going to google news and checking for mainstream coverage of the "controversy", and in all honesty, it's nowhere to be seen.
This is a far cry from the reaction to the disaster of MoveOn.org calling our top soldier in Iraq a traitor. In that case, the full United States Senate voted to denounce the advertisement. In this case, only some Dems signed a letter to the manager of Clear Channel. (And Clear Channel told them to stuff it!!!)
There will be no vote in Congress on Limbaugh. The "scandal" is basically finished, and Limbaugh is still on top in the talkradio market.
It looks like the only 'Petards" are the ones at MM who continue to push this non-story.
So my only question to my good, good friends on the left is this: Which was a bigger disappointment to you guys? A. The "Fitz-mas" fizzle during the Plame non-story, or B. The non-reaction in the media to the non-scandal over Limbaugh?
Please, I've just got to know!!!
Left/Right Gooses and Ganders For the record: I did not approve of the MoveOn ad. I do not approve of likening our troops to Nazis etc
However there is just no way that Mr. Limbaugh's style and content ...well let me just say, it is clear by __his own___ standards hmm, let me put it this way: Mr. Limbaugh's disdainful,disrespectful, inflamatory platform of commentary is of _his own making__. It is not, as contemporary myth would have, a response to others. His vindictive style of discourse is __his own__ regardless of what other cr*p is out there.
Limbaugh is a negative contribution to political discourse in this country.
JMH:
In some ways, I think that political discourse has been made worse by the highly partisan nature of attack and smear tactics - both on the right and the left.
But, in all honesty, MMFA has chosen to play the same game and is itself making things worse for people who want reasonable discussions.
for such an ineffectual site with no power, guys like limbaugh and o'reilly spend an inordinate amount of hours attacking it. maybe you need to tell them they're wasting their time, and a lot of it.
But, in all honesty, MMFA has chosen to play the same game
I disagree.
That's odd, because I just found the story headlined under US googlenews.
Are you sure you know how to use google?
You, a self-professed master debater, seriously wonder what we think about Rush's comment getting far less attention than MoveOn's? The answer is obvious: we don't like witnessing conservative bias and double standard in the media.
You, the master debater, wonder why MM didn't post the Jesse MacBeth section of Rush's show? The same reason they didn't post his entire third hour.
You, the master debater, equate a challenge for evidence of the left lionizing false soldiers to the "false choice" fallacy?
Your questions mostly contain their own responses. Go back to your conservative haunts and tell everyone how you won.
Oh Tay Billy.
Think everyone, but you and Rush are quite ready to move on.
You're really think we're expecting support from MSM. It was amazing their concentrating on the supposed insult. Some much so I don't think they covered its content. Or debated its content. Condemation came so easy and freely.
What part did Clear Channel have to do with the MoveOn ad. I missed that detail.
I'm in rare agreement with you on the uselessness of congress involving themselves like this, on either side. Though you seem to be in favor of their actions regarding MoveOn.Lot better things to be working on.
If Rush continues to carry on as if its all good then we'll see him again here. You can keep trying to intimidate and in as many words as you need, tell us to shut up. No sale.
Regarding Plume, your ok with outing a C.I.A. agent? I'm waiting for the Civil case to be settled, but probably will be emotionaly nominal regardless of the outcome.
If this weeks actions count as a nonreaction. I would hate to see your deffinition of a real reaction.
I hate to burst the bubble of someone as ignorant as YOU but your delusions do not define reality. Rush stepped in it. YOUR weak attempts at defending him have fallen far short.
i just listened to El Rushbo a few minutes ago and HE definitely has not moved on. He wants to spin this into some victim tale. I thought this all started as a comparison to how differently moveon was treated. Limbaugh was just admitting that MSM has not covered the story. Moveon was covered immediately. why the double standard?
Dear Mr. Waldman
I witnessed your appearance on Tucker on Wednesday night and must congratulate you on the way Media Matters have pretended it didn’t happen.
I was particularly intrigued by your unconvincing response to Carlson’s link to the origin of Media Matters via a speech given by Hillary Clinton at the YearlyKOS convention on August 4. In response to Mr. Carlson’s direct question to “Did she help start it” , in one of the most bumbling responses I have ever seen, your reply of “ah…um… no, I think that she, she’s” blah-blah-blah. Am I to assume you were obviously either clueless to what she was talking about or trying to deny a truth? The deer in the headlight look in your eyes and the Homer Simpson impression did not help your cause.
Your claim that Media Matters looks for “statements that people find problematic” has me wondering why there was no reporting of your appearance on the Media Matters web site. There is an obvious contradiction between Mrs. Clinton’s statement and yours which is indeed problematic. While there are many posters on the Media Matters web site who try to refute this connection your appearance on Carlson’s show has done little to support their cause.
Mr. Waldman – you don’t get to put meaning to other people’s words – either Hillary Clinton’s or Rush Limbaugh’s. Words have meaning that stand on their own. You don’t have the right to assume what Mrs. Clinton meant – it is not for you to think about it – if you are not sure – ask her. Once you say “I think” in regard to what someone said it becomes you opinion. Any good reporter checks their sources BEFORE reporting. Doing otherwise calls into credibility the reporter who was too lazy to do the legwork, not the target of the report.
While your reporting here of the Rush Limbaugh events over the past week is thorough in chronicling what happened, your attempt to pat yourselves on the back falls short in light of your own inability to bolster your sites credibility. I will admit I have enjoyed sharing views, opinions, and barbs with several posters on your website over the past week – it is fun to engage in political debate. However engaging in a smear campaign is nothing to be proud of.
Well said! According to MM's own statement they have got to go after... WALDMAN!
I'm not sure that they can fully understand the irony of the situation.
And you think that statement contains one whit of logic? Ha. Hillyhob, you need to do better. And quit boring us for gracious sakes.
"Words have meaning that stand on their own. "
Can we save that for the next time you trolls decide to open season on someone on the left based on what they say? How about now when you can't wait to call Obama a traitorous America hater because he won't wear a flag pin? Or is it ok to put special secret meanings in other people's words when the speaker isn't from the right wing?
Dear Mr. Waldman, I witnessed your appearance on Tucker on Wednesday night and must congratulate you on the way Media Matters have pretended it didn’t happen.
WC4ME,
I saw the Tucker-Waldman interview too. Enlightening to say the least. Tucker had Waldman stuttering. I kept waiting to see if MMFA would present a thread or even mention it, I had a feeling they'd try to pretend it didn't happen & hope none of us had seen it. Wish there was a video available but here's the transcript [Scroll about 1/4 of the ways down--it appears after Tucker & Gen. Clark] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21132630/
Here's an example of the interview from the transcript:
"CARLSON: But you told me—no, but you‘ve also—it says in your bio that you were a political hack, you worked on electoral campaigns and political consulting.
WALDMAN: I‘ve done a lot of things. But listen...
CARLSON: OK. So—but now you‘re posing as an expert on the media.
It‘s pretty—that‘s not truth in advertising. That‘s a lie. "
The inquisitor Carlson of course came to his great position purely on merit...cough, gag...
The questions were all along this vein. Then Tucker apologises that he has to cut him off, 'cause they're out of time. He kept accusing Media Matters of being a branch of the Democratic Party, while himself being a phony shill for all things rightwing.
I'm so glad that Media Matters posts right wing misinformation. It's getting under their skin. Keep up the good work.
I read the transcript and just came to the conclusion that Tucker had an agenda to attack Waldman and MMFA. He didn't sincerely want any information and interrupted a lot. Waldman should know this going in. But unfortunately, he probably doesn't have a lot of experience being on TV. It does no good to be on these shows unless you are as much of a bloviator as the guy coming at you. Unfortunately, truth does not always win out in these exchanges. Does Hillary have anything to do with this site other than like it/support it. I don't know. I will write to MMFA and ask them for that answer. If Tucker was a good interviewer and had sincere intentions, we may have had a good exchange, but that's not what these guys like Tucker are about. But he is a shill for the Cons, so that was just a baldfaced lie. I wish there were places to go on TV to get a good exchange, but the airwaves are polluted with an excess of right wing blowhards that advance corporate interests. They are not interested in ideas or the American people.
You're mistaken about Waldman JuliaJayne
He's been on dozens of television programs, and he's done an excellent job. He knows exactly what to expect from these dirtballs like Tucker.
I didn't read the transcript. He may have had an off night, who knows?
Overall, I think he's done a super job as one of Media Matters spokespeople. He's presented Media Matters' case convincingly--time after time.
Just check the press/bloggeres section here at Media Matters. He's constantly on TV or radio.
Thanks for setting me straight. I haven't seen but two places where he's (Waldman) been lately. Perhaps MMFA can update us when is to appear. I might watch.
Hello Mrs. Waldman - didn''t mean to be so hard on your son - but he needed a lesson in hypocriscy. He must have been sleeping when you taught him that one.
Mrs. Waldman isn't here. You keep dialing Lush Bimbo's number, and despite the static on the line, you claim he's got clarity.
I read the transcript and just came to the conclusion that Tucker had an agenda to attack Waldman and MMFA. He didn't sincerely want any information and interrupted a lot.
Unfortunately, truth does not always win out in these exchanges.
If Tucker was a good interviewer and had sincere intentions, we may have had a good exchange, but that's not what these guys like Tucker are about. But he is a shill for the Cons, so that was just a baldfaced lie
Then why my sweet Julia didn't MMFA have a thread here exposing Tucker Carlson's alleged misinformation & lies??
Not like them to pass up on something like that is it?
I'm afraid that no matter how you & Mary try to spin this, Tucker won this round fair & square.
The lack of a thread here concerning the Tucker-Waldman interview speaks volumes.
If MMFA thought for one minute that they could have nailed Tucker they would have.
They didn't.
Go back & read the transcript again. This time try taking off your partisan blinders.
Then why my sweet Julia didn't MMFA have a thread here exposing Tucker Carlson's alleged misinformation & lies??
What Julia said is (I'm paraphrasing here) that Tucker presented himself as someone interested in what Waldman had to say but the opposite was true (the boorish behavior and constant interruptions by Tucker). MMFA is not going to do a thread on something like this.
Furthermore, this whole "winning" motive is disturbing. There are many serious issues confronting our country and the world, and yet, we get Jeter acting like this is a friggin' gotcha contest.
Jeter, I agree with Mary on your definition of "winning". That was my point. Nobody won imo. The viewrs certainly didn't gain any info and Tucker looked like a petulent little blowhard from what I could discern from the transcript. And Mr. Waldman could not get any points made because of the boorishness of little Tuck. But if you want to say Tucky won something...
The heck with this stuff - my prediction of the Yankees in 4 was blown away last night.
If you want to address Mr. Waldman, you can write to him via MMFA. I don't know that he read these posts. Not that it was your intention to actually engage him. You might have to be respectful then.
That was for wkrpwhocares a while ago.
I have indeed sent it to the MMFA Offices - and Im confident they read this too.
I have no fear of that twerp - a glimmering example of why the national symbol for the Democratic party is a Jack-Ass
face it. your boy limbaugh took a hit because of this controversy. that's what you're all mad about.
You don’t have the right to assume what Mrs. Clinton meant – it is not for you to think about it – if you are not sure – ask her.
WC4ME / Saturday October 6, 2007 03:15:11 PM EST
This is my assumption (I could be wrong). Brock was hired by right-wing hacks hellbent on bringing down the Clinton administration. He wrote stories, wrote books, and made t.v. appearances alleging wrongdoing by the Clintons. He then writes a book about Hillary Clinton which contains nothing devastating and conservatives shun and turn against him. This was his turning point from conservative hit man to liberal. So you could say that that book about Hillary is what ultimately led to MMFA.
And why are they asking him what Clinton meant anyway? Why don't they ask her?And that Loonz - would have been the perfect response. Going back to my advice to Mr. Waldman - instead of tryint to assume what she said just tell him - "GO ASK HER".
WC4Me...
Who the hell cares if Hillary Clinton had something to do with the startup of Media Matters? Who the hell cares if George Soros did give some money to this website?--which he didn't.
Don't these conservatives know the billionaires who fund the right-wing infrastructure? My God! They can't be that stupid, can they? For God's sake, look in your own closet, you idiots.
CF, - my note to Mr Waldman was niether about Hilliary or Limbaugh - it was about credibility. In the face of the spotlight being turned on Media Matters Mr. Waldman had an opportunity to bolster its credibility. He failed miserably. I'm curious - how do you contributors feel about your hard earned donations being used to pay that guys salary??
From now on this place shall be known as Media Morons From America.
From now on this place shall be known as Media Morons From America. - WC4ME
I think that's unfair. There have been a lot of dittoheads this week, the site shouldn't be named for them.
WC4Me...
I gave Media Matters $50 last December. Due to the influx of brain-dead conservatives on this site--such as yourself--I think I'll give $200 this year.
Does Limbaugh, with his own radio show, his millions of dollars, and hordes of rich conservative friends in high places really need the help of a few MMFA trolls?
Why yes. Yes he does.
to paraphrase on an ancient figure of speech: One man's troll is another man's...troll.
however, it would be nice to think that even Limbaugh is redeemable, and will come to his senses, and find meaningful work.
A good job for Limbaugh might be...
scrubbing out the pans of outhouses
--with his tongue.
We'll it seems that Media Matters, (I heard Hillary) herself say that she started Media Matters, that is a fact than she cannot deny. This site's sole purpose is to take out those who do not agree with the liberal Democratic adgenda. A blind deaf and dumb person can see that. I bet hillary is just steamed that she opened her mouth when she herself said and I quote "I help start Media Matters". Well lets just see if my post gets through, or if freedom of speech means anything.
We are watching this site and will clarify any lie's or untruths.
I am a concerened American
Before we all get too sidetracked on irrelevant issues, lets address the most important issue on this thread -
Why did Paul Waldman go on the Tucker Carlson program and call Hillary Clinton a LIAR? Waldman represents MMFA.
How can anyone account for this act of betrayal?
Sidetracked?
This thread is about Rush Limbaugh's derrogation of dissenting soldiers and his slippery softshoe around his own words.
You're talking about Hillary, Soros, Waldman and your resume. Afraid to get sidetracked?
I don't think so.
But roundhouse:
Waldman is the guy who wrote this topic. Waldman represents MMFA.
Waldman called Hillary a liar.
Don't you feel a little betrayed by Waldman?
I don't care about Hillary Clinton.
You are being dishonest about Waldman.
I feel betrayed for thinking you wanted honest discourse.
BillyBob...
You're just embarrassing yourself now.
You still haven't even answered HuntingtonBeach's question. Why not? Oh, never mind.
The ironic thing about this is that the Libs have helped the Cons, Rush and Bill O, get more air time than they would have had with their normal allotted shows time slots. This MM controversy is better than Rosie getting fired from the View.
First, I provided the link (earlier) the the video where Paul Waldman went on the Tucker Carlson program and called Hillary a liar!
So I'm being honest.
What is becoming clear to me is that MMFA is not being entirely honest about their close relationship with the HRC campaign.
==============================FROM CONSERVATIVE BELLE BLOG SITE
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Media Matters - Coincidental Clinton Connections in Colorado?Media Matters for America has a sister chapter in Colorado. Because Media Matters for America (MMFA) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, they are required by certain state laws to register with the Secretary of State in order to solicit funds for their charitable organization, even if that organization is located in another state.I decided to investigate these filings with a few states and here are some things I found.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the Colorado Secretary of State's office:
I did a search of their database for Media Matters. Here is their filing. They list their NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) code as 'Civil Rights, Social Action & Advocacy'. When MMFA filed with the IRS they listed their NTEE code as A30—Media, Communications Organizations (per www.guidestar.org). This isn't really a big deal, it just highlights a minor discrepancy in their classification as an exempt organization. This filing also lists the names of states in which they have registered to solicit or where they have received exemption (more on that below).However, when I did a record search on Media Matters in the business center section of the Colorado SOS's site, I found something curious. They have registered under ID 20061240245 with a statement of foreign entity authority and according to the filing results, their 'registered agent' is listed as Ridder-Braden, Inc. in Denver, CO. Next, I looked up Ridder-Braden, Inc and found who they are (emphasis mine).------------ for the full details, go to the Conservative Bell blog site ----
This raises some important questions.1) Is Media Matters in violation of the law if it solicits and receives donations in the State of Maryland?2) Are Media Matters emails to citizens in Maryland that request donations considered a violation of the Maryland Solicitation Act? Media Matters sends weekly summary emails (I have seen a copy of such emails.) to those who register on their website. At the end of these emails (Note: The email address listed below is a substitute for a legitimate email address.), they include the following:
The "donate" link takes you directly to their website page where you can contribute. 3) If they are not in full compliance, is the SOS of Maryland obligated to investigate any possible violations?
=================================================
I just want my good, good friends on the left that the right is going to pay a lot more attention to the tactics and methods used by MMFA.
Believe me when I say that this is only the beginning.
Gawd, I don't have to read that do I? No, I choose not to waste my time. Good advice to people who don't like to waste time. Stop wasting others and your own time. Simple.
Julia, I'm happy to report that Paul Waldman didn't call Hillary a liar. (I read the transcript)
Billybobboy is being very dishonest here (surprise!) You were wise not to bother 'cause Tucker if a real *ucker, wish John Stewart would pay him another visit but Stewart probably doesn't want to waste any more time on him either.
Thanks, Mary. When I see a long winded post, I just scroll down to see if it's worth my time. Hillyhob isn't worth it. He hasn't proven himself to be a good debater or an honest poster. But he's good at patting his little self on the back. Ugh.
I'm actually starting to get a soft spot for BillyBob. He's sort of like that Chihuahua barking through the window at the Big Dogs. Either oblivious or courageous beyond his limits.
He might even be the late Max/Roger with his lack of substance and solid name, his unsolicited bragging(although he hasn't got into the swingin' social life stuff yet) ,and his long-winded posts explaining why he doesn't have the time to answer simple questions.
I hope his mom doesn't cut his online time too soon.He's sort of the last of the Moronhicans, all of his comrades from last week having crept away.I like the ones that don't realize, or can't admit, when they've had theri asses kicked.
Hey, HBL Billy Bob does sort of sound familiar. But the difference is (shhh), he's a Democrat. I don't think Roger/Max were Democrats. And he sure does have a heap o' credentials doesn't he? Man, I could be impressed with all those credentials if I prayed at the alter of Titular. Why he's a veritable man for all seasons, a bon vivant, a reinassance man, a man of logic and wisdom. He came on here to enlighten us about the great Limborg. We just don't comprehend the greatness of the round dude enough.
Hi JJ - I feel bad for picking on him so much, but this issue was a rare one where the Dittobots didn't BS enough wiggle room to backpedal.
Billybob might actually be a Democratic Operative trying to make Neocons look bad, but I was hoping that by forcing him to back up his stuff, some of the other Rush fans would come back to share the defeat.
Nothing. They all folded.
transcript:
CARLSON: But what does this mean? What does Hillary Clinton mean that she helped start Media Matters?
WALDMAN: Well, I think that she‘s supportive of what we do and a lot of people have encouraged us.
CARLSON: Did she help start it?
WALDMAN: No.
============================
Now, can someone please provide a transcript where Rush actually says that all soldiers who oppose the war are "phony"?
(hint: it doesn't exist!)
Thanks for posting this. It shows that Paul didn't call Hillary anything. Sorry that you can't get that, but there it is.
Now I "helped start" you on the path to redemption. Feels good, don't it?
Mary:
HRC claims she helped to start MMFA. Waldman says she didn't.
Clearly, one of them is lying.
Nope. She "helped to start it" could mean she gave some money, or encouraged David Brock, etc. If I'd donated money or support when it started, I would have "helped to start" it, too.
The implication that she is behind it's existence is a different thing, which Walden addressed simply. No she's not in charge of Media Matters.
Mary:
Seems you're willing to give HRC and Waldman every benefit of the doubt to deny that she lied.
Funny... I just haven't noticed that fairness when it came to Rush Limbaugh's comments.
(get my point?)
Well let's see...benefit of the doubt based on evidence. Media Matters has recently highlighted misinformation about Clinton, Obama, Edwards, the frontrunners targeted by the right. They spent a lot of time on the fake Edwards' haircut story.
I've spent a fair amount of time reading their articles since they started up. They have been following their mission statement.
On the other hand, Rush is constantly putting down and lying about people of any stature who disagree with him. Media Matters simply provides the transcript and audio of his remarks. And dittoheads say he's misquoted.
By the way, this thread is about Obama not wearing a flag pin.
oops. Sorry, haven't had any coffee yet. This thread IS about Rush and his offensive remarks.
This thread is NOT about Hillary TROLL. Rush agreed with the soldier who said REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq. He added that they enlist to GO to Iraq. There really isnt any other logicial conclusion. ONLY morons could think otherwise. Notice I DIDNT call you a moron. Or did I?
Oooh, very scary threat.
But if this is true and there is about to be a full frontal assault on media matters, I just can't wait to hear the rightwing visitors defend it as anything other than the bullsh()t thug tactic it is.
It's not a "thug" tactic to simply enforce the law. A tax exempt organization can continue to do whatever they want, but people who engage in partisan politics are NOT tax exempt.
By the way, this was the exact charge that was leveled at Newt Gingrich over his non-profit educational organization.
Eventually, the IRS ruled in Newt's favor. But I think that the partisanship of MMFA is much more egregious. (um... that means 'bad')
It's not a "thug" tactic to simply enforce the law. A tax exempt organization can continue to do whatever they want, but people who engage in partisan politics are NOT tax exempt.
You can engage in partisan politics (MMFA is partisan progressive). What you can't do is advocate for a particular party.
Gawd you're hilarious. But BillyBob if you think you have a case--go for it. My guess though is that you will have as much success as you have had making your other cases on this thread--none that is. Here is another guess--in another week (maybe less) you will go the way of all the other trolls who appear here now and then. You will be gone. Perhaps, having discredited yourself, you'll get another handle and post again under another name. You can change your name but that won't make the incoherence, baselessness and, dare I say it, lack of logic go away. By the way for someone who is so sensitive to having his or her time wasted you sure take liberties with ours. Please forgive me for being too harsh if you have simply neglected to take your medication today. If that is the case try to take better care of yourself.
The case is very simple - look at the "About Us" statement at MMFA:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
---------------
As a non-profit, tax deductible organization, MMFA is never supposed to engage in partisan politics. However, as soon as you begin to do a little research and see the coordinated campaigns that link HRC, Center for American Progress, MoveOn AND MMFA, it is clear that there is a violation of the tax exempt status of these organization. I have already written a letter of complaint to both the IRS, the FEC and the FCC to help launch the investigation.
By the way, a look at most of the people associated with MMFA on the Staff link shows the close association between MMFA and the Democrat Party - and HRC.
If MMFA wants to keep it's tax exempt status it better start obeying the law.
You will of course also be filing the same sorts of complaints against the Heritage Foundation I presume. I wouldn't want to think that your outrage is selective or anything.
Also complain about the Cato Institute and the Center for American Progress while you are ata it.
Will your imagainary typewriter be able to keep up with all that?
Just finished checking out the Heritage Foundation. I'm happy to report that they are in full compliance with the law and clean as a whistle!
Clean as the new fallen snow after the buffalo herd has run through it.
Billybob, why don't you go check out some of those tax-exempt mega=churches?
There is no such thing as the "democrat" party so you will just confuse everyone with your filing. Lots of luck, and get well soon.
However, as soon as you begin to do a little research and see the coordinated campaigns that link HRC, Center for American Progress, MoveOn AND MMFA
What are you doing here - some sort of Kevin Bacon thing to link all of these together?
"The case is very simple - look at the "About Us" statement at MMFA".
Yes and, as Goethe once observed, “The world is so full of simpletons and madmen, that one need not seek them in a madhouse”.
I ALMOST FORGOT TO THANK YOU FOR THE
QUOTE GEEK advertisement!
SEARCH: MADMEN
result:
Search for MADMEN Category matchesNo category matches.Theme matchesNo theme matches.Suggested themesNo theme matches.Quotation matchesThe world is so full of simpletons and madmen, that one need not seek them in a madhouse. Literature > Johann Wolfgang von GoetheMore on: InsanityAdded on 10.09.1999 | Rating: | rate | e-card | correction
Search again match all of the words match any of the words search for exact phrase===================================
Using these qwik 'n ez internet sites is a good way to look like ya gots lots and lots of book smarts!!!
Yes but actually reading books is another good way. By the way nice cut and paste from "Conservative Belle"--it gave us lots of laughs.
I guess posting long boring posts with lots of amorphous bull poopy is another sophmoric tactic to look like you have lots of info too, eh? Poor hillyhob.
There is NO Democrat Party. If you are so ignorant that you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the US why should we waste our time with your ignorance?
right, and bill and hillary clinton were going to be cooling their heels in jail, according to the right wing in 1992,93,94,95,96..... it was always something big coming up, can't say what it is, but you just wait....and wait...and wait. yawn.
This thread is NOT about Hillary TROLL.
MMFA to the rescue. Guess it has to be done, but it sure is a waste of hot air.
I was just looking at this pic on Rush's site. I don't see this one posted on any of your sites. It's Rush/my buddy, smoking a cigar beneith a sign reflecting the moto of the Democrat party as of late. Thing is, who's the V.P. gonna be? Rush is Almost conservative enough, but not quite. I say government BY The Bible and for the Bible! I like our world. I have Jesus as my savior and friend, a dad to correct me and Rush to make me laugh. Laughing is good for you. You lib babies aughta try it sometime. I like Edwards "feeling pretty" on Youtube and I like Hilary cartoon about testicle lock box, but conservatives by nature respect their opponents. Rush pokes fun, you know, but he respects Hilary. He respects Edwards. Look, he even shook hands with Fomer President Clinton. It's okay to have a little fun disagreeing and the only one's qualified to know if Rush overstepped it here is his own listeners and believe me, we call in plenty and let him have it if he oversteps it with conservatives. Relax, laugh and enjoy the Rush. You might even like Rush if you tune in a little and I hate to have to admit, I think Hilary has some wisdom when I hear her too. Sorry Hillary, I'm a Rush baby though and even though I like what you say about how it "takes a village" (to raise little one's), even Rush isn't conservative enough, just funny. Thanks for lettin' me chime in here. This is the best of free speech, just don't pick too much, you know, someone like me tunes into Randi now and then too, just for the opposit spin and you know it's where we get our most reliable news (in the slander mill). Good stuff. Later. Over. Dave
The rightwing has yet to apologize for starting an unnecessary war built on known lies, you think they give a damn about the troops or draftdodgers like Limbaugh (or Orelly, Bush, or Cheney) when they smear them relentlessly?
The question isn't "Did Limbaugh trash the troops". You'd have to be an absolute idiot (ie. a Bush supporter) not to recognize how vile the smears of Limbaugh and the rightwing have been against the troops the past 6 years. The "phony soldiers' crap. The "unearned medals" bullshtt. And these are statments made by Republican draftdodgers like Limbaugh, Cheney, and Bush!! They practically admit that the troops are their own personal stooges and props who should shut their mouths and do what the the corporate elite, the never-served Republicans, tell them!
The question is how can there be ANY support for the contemptible Republican Party after the damage they've done to the United States over the past 6 years? It isn't bad enough that Bush REFUSES to take Saudi terrorism seriously (even after Saudi terrorists attacked the US on 9/11), but to continue with a collosally moronic war that WEAKENS US security while depleting US forces (for a war fought at this point soley for the vanity of a draftdodger who refuses to give a godd@mn about the troops).
Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney and all the GOP chickenshtts on the right should be put before a firing squad and SHOT for the irreparable damage they've done to the United States! It wasn't an accident that the US became mired in a quagmire soley of the GOP's making! There should be NO MORE coddling of the rightwing! They should be viewed as what they are - the enemy of the United States!
What is Mr Rushies military background? What I love is someone that didn't serve telling us that we need to send our children into harms way. Mr Limbo , an entertainer to some, and a part of the Republican spin machine to others.
I'll settle for some impeachments, followed with appearences at the Hauge.Though danged if either would apply to Rush. Maybe changing his retirement to be equal to some, in the last few years who, found theirs equalling zero. Otherwise I'm with you.
"Did Limbaugh trash the troops"
This is the same guy who in his book "I Told You So" had the gall to claim there were more Native Americans alive and more trees in America then when Columbus first landed.
"Because posting audio and transcripts of Rush Limbaugh so people can see what he says is pretty much like heading up one of history's most brutally repressive regimes and murdering 20 million or so people. Just about, anyway"
Right. Like that's all that they're doing. They of course never engage in advocacy. What a complete joke!
http://mediamatters.org/action_center/limbaugh_stations/?f=h_top
And of course they never try to get people off the air with whom they disagree:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010
Any objective person can see that the thought police at Media Matters are doing there best to censor those with whom they disagree. Stalin would be proud. Media Matters should embrace the Stalin comparison like a badge of honor.
Rinohunter, I don't know what you thought you were exposing with your links.
The first was a request to contact stations who carry Rush and inform them of what he's broadcasting.
The second was a list of examples of his and others work.
Censorship and advocacy? Trying to take people off the air? Sounds like shining the light on them.Stalin would much more likely be in your camp, as has been pointed out here too many times for you not to realize it.
Still trying to sell the abject stupidity that holding someone accountable for what they say on OUR AIRWAVES is censorship? Its an outright LIE. If YOUR BOSS fires you for saying things that out you as a bigot or a moron and reflecting badly on his company that is NOT censorship. You will NOT be arrested. This is so simple. You keep saying this because as a loyal member of the Limborg hivemind it is your assignment but you need to give it up. Most of us here have a functioning cerebral cortex. We KNOW what WE believe WITHOUT the Oxymoron telling us what that is. You are wasting your time. Just because YOU have been brainwashed and assimilated doesnt mean you have ANY chance of doing the same to us. We will not become DUMB enough to take this abject stupidity seriously
Media Matters made a concerted effort to get Imus off the air and succeeded. Now they're trying to do the same to Limbaugh and O'Reilly. It's that simple. They highlight every little thing that they deem to be offensive like a third grade elementary school teacher. Brock and his pals support the Fairness Doctrine and the equal time doctrine and are actively seeking to silence Rush through this form of censorship. And yes, silencing political speech is an attack on the 1st Amendment and blatant censorship. I don't care how often you try to defend this form of government censorship; the fact remains that when the government censors political speech the 1st amendment is being infringed upon.
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. — U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
That was when the court was packed with liberals. The same Supreme Court also created a constitutional right to an abortion which never existed. Today's Supreme Court has 5 members who support free speech rights in Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy. They would no doubt strike down the doctrine if it ever gets re-implemented.
Not much of an argument you are putting up here. The justices involved were Warren, Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Marshall. This was a 7-0 decision and would be a momentous precedent to overturn. If you look closely at the justices involved you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any but a centrist turn to this court. You have no idea what the current court might do when presented with a case which involved this precedent so currently it stands.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice White argued that spectrum scarcity made it "idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish." The Court held that the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment. With respect to the regulation of personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates, the FCC's requirement that the subject of the attack be provided with a tape, transcript, or broadcast summary, as well as an opportunity to respond without having to prove an inability to pay for the "air-time," insured a balanced and open discussion of contested issues. The requirement that political editorializing be presented for and against both sides of the debated issues also contributed to the balanced discussion of public concerns.
I submit that not to do this constitutes a truer form of censorship than the one you are claiming.
A few points -
First, there have been a few developments in communication technology since 1969, right? I mean, with cable, satellite, internet, and every kind of digital technology there are a lot more choices than there was FORTY YEARS AGO.
Second, I think that everyone who loves freedom is worried that once GOVERNMENT gets into the job of regulating content of speech that we are just a few steps away from totalitarian-facist-communism!
Here is a good example:
( from The American Spectator magazine )
Washington Prowler Rush Week By The Prowler Published 10/8/2007 12:08:25 AMPATRIOTIC GOREThe Democrat Party senior leadership is feeling a Rush. Rush Limbaugh, that is. Late last week, DNC Chair Howard Dean, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, his deputy, Sen. Dick Durbin and Senatorial Committee chair, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi all signed off in some form or another direct mail fundraising plans that will feature Limbaugh for their national party. "'Don't let Limbaugh smear true patriotism,' that's the theme," says a DNC staffer. "We're not going to let Limbaugh determine what soldiers can talk and what soldiers can not."Bad grammar and ill-informed opinions aside, the DNC hopes to raise millions of dollars of Limbaugh. "If we can't silence him, we should at least make some money to make his life more miserable in a Democratic-controlled Washington in 2008," says a Senate Democrat leadership aide. Others on the Democrat side are pushing ahead with other plans. Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." "Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."
================================
If the Democrat party really wants to regulate freedom of speech then we are all in trouble!
"The MMFA Brownshirts"
When they came after Imus, I didn't complain because I was not an Imus fan.
Then they went after Mike Savage. But I was not a listener, and I didn't complain.
Then they went after Rush Limbaugh, and again I said nothing.
By the time they came after me there was not anyone left to defend freedom of speech.
Neither you nor RINO have a reputation for reasonable argumentation. But here is a challenge. Pretend you are on the Supreme Court and write a convincing dissenting opinion of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. Get RINO to help you if you need it. You will need a legal and constitutional basis to be convincing not rank speculation about what a Conservative court might do. Go ahead and argue, if you like, that changes in technology require a new interpretation of the Constitution and work that in. Then post it. We have a few lawyers here. Think of the praise that will be heaped on you for your iron-clad legal reasoning. I know you are hopping mad from the crushing defeat you took this weekend. HBL has already graciously accepted your surrender so why don't you cut your losses? Masochism? Perhaps this little project will help you focus a little. For a Master of Logic and Master of Laws it should be easy to ride with the big boys (and girls) on the Supreme Court. Yeah HillyBob: you know so much more, are so much smarter than the rest of us. Let me predict your response--I am just wasting your precious time. Let me give you a piece of advice--stop wasting ours.
Deliberate side track: we could all only wish to be live up to the integrity of these Rats (o.k, that's a bit hyperbolic, but not much... anyways): [link to www.pbs.org] [link to www.pbs.org] [link to www.apopo.org]
Nothing further, your honor...
I've never seen or heard such insanity. I'm not a hardline conservative. I enjoy listening to meaningful and thoughtful debate. Tone it down a bit or you will end up removing yourselves from any kind of influence and end up being the problem with this country - not the solution. Rush was wrong to remove part of the transcript but you guys are making way to much out of this. You took two words and completely came up with your own twisted conclusion. When Rush describes the kook fringe, I would include your group and VoteVet.org -- on this one issue. Freedom of speech is paramount in this country but you have abused this freedom
P.S. I will be making a copy of EVERY POST so don't even think of taking a few words or sentence and out of context.
Pretty interesting JMH. I can see me as a rat handler. A friend has worked for the U.N. clearing mines. He's still all of a piece. He'd look good leading a rat.
Holy Bleep Batman,
The Libs have gone way, way, way too far this time, and ANY American is going to see this as a HUGE invasion by our Goverment to squash Freedom of Speach. Herery Waxman is now sending his "goon hit squad" to investigate a PRIVATE US CITIZEN, actualy several of them. Rush, Sean, Mark and others are on the "hit" list of Waxman and his CONGRESSIONAL oversite commity, it says NOTHING about his PUBLIC oversite powers... In what will be seen by MANY who are NOT active in politics, on EITHER side, as a direct assult of our liberties. THANK YOU wacky Libs for pushing more and more that were on the fence to OUR side toward freedom and away from Gov involvment in the PRIVATE sector. A Congress with an 13% approval rating is now showing it's true colors and WILL cause a huge backlash against Dems. Again, I say Thank You Libs for helping us reclaim the House, Sen., and the WH in 2008 ! WTG and full speed ahead with your Commie silencing of the Media of any and all opposition when you can not compete in the open market. People WII and ARE seeing thru this farce. Republicans are about to strike back HARD. Watch the news later part of NEXT week as to our plan. We are about to blow the lid off this whole election cycle