Limbaugh said Virginia Tech shooter "had to be a liberal"
On the April 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh declared that the perpetrator of the April 16 Virginia Tech shootings "had to be a liberal," adding: "You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act." Limbaugh then complained, in a possible reference to Media Matters for America, that "Now the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation." Limbaugh regularly describes mainstream media sources as "the drive-by media."
From the April 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out. They try -- whenever -- I can tell you from the history of this program, starting way back in the early '90s, when there was any kind of an incident, crime or what-have-you that attracted national attention, in the early days of this program, the drive-by media went out and they tried to connect the perpetrator to this program. They did everything they could. In fact, it went so far as Bill Clinton blaming me for influencing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the bureau building [sic: Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City]. These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred. These are the people that invented this kind of tactic, if you will.
Five days after the Oklahoma City bombing, in an April 24, 1995, speech in Minneapolis, Clinton criticized "loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable." Clinton followed up on that comment the next day in a speech in Ames, Iowa, stating: "We must stand up and speak against reckless speech that can push fragile people over the edge beyond the bounds of civilized conduct and take this country into a dark place. I say that no matter where it comes from, people are encouraging violence and lawlessness and hatred. If people are encouraging conduct that will undermine the fabric of this country, it should be spoken against whether it comes from the left or the right, whether it comes on radio, television or in the movies, whether it comes in the schoolyard, or, yes, even on the college campus."
An April 26, 1995, Washington Post article reported that Clinton's comments in Iowa "were aimed at blunting criticism from Republicans and others that he had unfairly blamed conservative talk radio Monday when he denounced 'the loud and angry voices in America today' and lamented 'the things that are regularly said over the airwaves.' Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts interpreted those comments as aimed at them, although Clinton hadn't singled out individuals in his Minneapolis speech or even mentioned talk radio in his speech."
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
In case you haven't noticed, not every issue is one of Lib. vs. Con. This VT massacre was first and foremost about mental illness. Secondarily, it was about the availability of guns to the mentally ill.
You are absolutely correct. And, who was the judge that let him OUT of the loony bin and said he only needed observation, not incarceration? Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, checked a box that said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." Barnett did not check the box indicating a danger to others. Then told him to go out and play, and to behave himself. That judge had the choice of leaving him in the loony bin but chose to let him out. THAT made it possible for him to buy those guns. Because having a record of being in a loony bin would show up on a background check and would have prevented him from purchasing those guns legally.
I wasn't able to find out what political faction this judge followed, maybe one of mmfa's more studious posters has some free time to devote to finding out that info. I wonder if it will be posted if it turns out the judge is a liberal. Which would, in fact, provide back up evidence that liberalism was a major factor behind this violence.
That is quite a stretch, even for you an ostensibly presonal accountability conservative, to blame a liberal for the actions of a mentally unstable young man.
I placed no blame. I theorized that blame could be laid if certain facts are found to be true.
If you also assume that the ruling had anything to do with political leanings instead of the nature of the case. Or maybe conservative judges keep people locked up indefinitely even if it doesn't appear to be necessary "just in case"?
You're also making assumptions that one judge is the be all end all of the situation. Many factors enabled this kid.
But ultimately you have abandoned the bedrock conservative credo of person responsibility. If you really believed in the autonomy of the individual why try to shift the blame at all?
Auto,
How can this horrible act be reduced to the 'shooter must have been a liberal'?
Why does Rush even have to go there at all, or any one in here?
If Stephanie Miller or Sam Seder or any other known liberal had said exactly the same words as Rush did, only replace 'liberal' with 'conservative' and you know damn well that the right-wingers would be screaming to the top of their collective lungs about how liberals are reducing this terrible act into a political side show.
But since its right-wing ideology speaking it is somehow needed to be seen as ok that they are doing it.
And don't even get me started on how Boortz, Rush, and the other wacky righties are trying to blame the victims for their being killed,
Todays version of conservatives are a rather despicable bunch!
How can this horrible act be reduced to the 'shooter must have been a liberal'? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thats simple. For Autopsychotic as for Limbaugh if it is necessary for propaganda purposes it becomes true for that reason alone
Your facts are not exactly correct.
However, I'm not going to jump on you for that because the way many media presented what happened wasn't correct either. And I had to do a bit of digging and listening to press conferences (many of which TV media bailed out of at the point this mental illness point was being queried) as well as reading other reports to figure out exactly what happened.
VT's Cook Counseling Center indeed got a TDO (temporary detaining order) and got the court order by the judge. Now, keep in mind that counselors and the judge were adjudicating a claim by an acquaintance that Cho was "suicidal". Virginia's TDO (which is actually issued through the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services primarily to fund the person who is committed... voluntarily or involuntarily) has standard language that the person has been deemed as a danger to himself OR others.
The document was taken to Montgomery County magistrate Paul Barnett who checked the box that Cho was a danger to himself. He was asked to, and could only adjudicate, the claim that Cho was "a danger to himself". Other than the stalking complaints, which were not part of this particular inquiry, Cho was not found to be a danger to others.
Now, the part that was not clear... but is now is that Cho was indeed admitted and treated at Carilion St. Alban's near the VT campus. VT's mental health center director, Dr. Chris Flynn, said that while he has no access to the specific records of Cho (HIPAA), he knows of no mental health practitioner that would release someone into the community that is deemed a danger. Part of Virginia's lawful obligation as well is that no one can be released from a mental facility if staff does not clear him as a danger to self AND others.
Cho was released, and while there were claims that he was weird, quiet, in his own world, etc.... there were no further stalking incidents or any other complaints to police or to university mental health practitioners that he was dangerous.
Dr. Flynn points out that there are a number of students each year that are hospitalized with mental problems who learn how to overcome or adapt, and go on to graduate and do very well.
However, a university mental health facility is not part of a court ordered counseling entity and can only learn, because of HIPAA, what a client chooses to release. Dr. Flynn further states that because mental health funding has been severely cut over the past 25 years, follow-up care for mental patients beyond release is a major problem nationwide... and not just at universities.
So this is not a matter of a judge releasing a dangerous man into the community. It's a matter of treatment not working for a person not many people knew. It's amazing he was able to work months and weeks to prepare himself for this without anyone knowing.
For whatever reason, he fell through the cracks. But it's really hard to point the finger right now at "why" until Virginia's mental health process is examined.
Autopsychic- Are you on "label" autopilot. I never would have imagined that a extremely mentally ill young man who acted with evil and violence would be equated with liberalism.
Darkness and ignorance apparently knows no bounds.
There were obviously multiple factors that led to this mass murderer's final snap. But unless your physic ability allows you to diagnose his mental health, and unless your crystal ball allows you to go back in time and observe his formative years, and unless you have the ability to send out your flying monkeys to gather information from the many individuals who had some knowledge of this psychos aberrant behavior, I think I would advise taking leave of this site, and joining Limbaugh and company for a rip roaring time of rolling in ignorance.
What total crap.
"These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred. These are the people that invented this kind of tactic, if you will."
Out of the mouth of Limbaugh. Rich. Have a mirror handy? Or maybe you can't find your reflection in a mirror.
Great post! God bless America.
This was directed to Tex in another thread. Computer error.
A doctor??? That's a laugh! Anyway, Rush. Don't you know that liberals hate guns and want them banned? You know that. Geeze.
@@@VVROOOOM! Justt driving by and noticed Rush is using words again to complete his characiature as a complete and utter moron...
and because McNabb was black, he HAD to be given a free pass by the media because his stats OBVIOUSLY had to be altered to show he had 4 great years in a row....right, Weiner?
I get it from the other post...
Dr. Colonel, you are FUNNY. Really, your comedic ability surpasses that of Limbaugh. I am sure he was just joking...hell, the killer was probably just joking. Wait a minute, REAL people are DEAD and you comedians are making jokes...or are you? But you are not REAL, just funny.
Rush won Docktor? He sounds like his wank is pulling at least flank speed. You tell by the angle of his tail feathers.
Google "Dr. Hal Emmerich."
Limbaugh: "If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out."
Fact? No extrapolation? Hmmm. This is a stupid man. What's frightening is that millions of people listen to this stupid man.
And he's vile too, which has me wondering, if an elephant stepped on Limbaugh, would yellow goo or green goo flow from him?
I'm guessing smoke and ash would be all he has left on the inside. Oh, yeah and an inexhaustible reserve of hot air.
My God, you just figured out the cause of global warming. Conservative Radio!!!
Good grief Holly. I would have thought a brilliant writer like yourself would recognize sarcasm when you see it.
By the way, someone a few posts up used the term "numbnuts" so I apologize for saying your threads always end up with those terms when someone else started it this time.
Maybe it's sarcasm, but those kids are slowly rotting right now, despite the embalming fluid. And their friends and family are still weeping. There is a reason funeral homes don't hire comedians. It isn't the time. This is from a book you might have read:
" 1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance,...."
This is the time for healing, for mourning, for weeping.
I imagine inviting Rush to my Grandma's funeral and he joking in the back about liberals this and liberals that.
Damn you bible-quoting Godless libs!
You said, "Damn."
I'm tellin'.
It's amazing that a lot of our opponents missed that in "The Good Book". I don't here many quoting from Christ's "Sermon on The Mount" either.
It being one of two of the most concise, well written pieces in human history. The other being Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address".
Oh, yes, the "Gettysburg Address" rocks. Nothing crushes like conciseness and with those few words, Lincoln reframed the Republic.
I'm not much into the religion thing.
I thought it was a song from the Byrds called Turn, Turn, Turn.
The Byrds song was a cover version of the song written by Pete Seeger who lifted the words from the bible.
Interesting. Learn something on this board every day.
Wonder who you pay royalties to for that?
PurpleHelmet - If you've used the knowledge that you've gained here for personal gain, please send your royalty check to your local board of education, the ACLU, PBS, MMfA, the DNC, the NEA...
And thank you for supporting reality.
Mr. Helmet, you become funnier by the day. Soon, you'll have sufficient good humor to become one of us. And since you're citing the 60s, don't forget that girls say, "Yes," to boys who say, "No," to Rush.
Man, this "Handle w/authority" is getting funny... I need to start doing that. I could use my R/P submarine commander rank, or just make something up... Nobel "Piece" Prize Laureate, or sumptin' like that. Dr NoNo? General Grievous? I could pretend to be the spirit of JFK...
Coming soon from Rush Limbaugh:
LIBERALS KILLED THE JEWS IN THE HOLOCAUST!
LIBERALS KILLED THE DINOSAURS!
LIBERALS GAVE ADAM AND EVE THE APPLE!
It's always the liberals fault, ain't it Rush?
Jesus was a liberal. Love your neighbor as yourself... Turn the other cheek... "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth."
Jesus was a liberal? He thought that euthinasia and abortion were good acceptable practices to relieve mental anguish of family members? Hmmm, must be another Jesus.
Neither of those things were issues, of course. Jesus didn't have to be for euthenasia, you know, because he could heal people. Since he's not around anymore though, it's a bit of a different situation.
Jesus was a liberal according to Rushbo, or did you forget the whole camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle bit?
Every time you guys say Jesus is a liberal it really hacks the poster named atheist off.
I don't see why. No reason a fictitious character can't be liberal, so non-believers should be cool with that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Sermon on the Mount all about the benefits of a flat tax?
Oh that is priceless
Libs killed the dinosaurs? Damn. I have, by proxy, T-Rex blood on my hands.
Come on, dinosaurs are a hoax. Remember, the world is only 3,000 years old. Dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by liberals to undermine the authority of The Church. So were the Pyramids at Giza. I should teach at Liberty U!
Two related T-Rex things came up recently. Some soft tissue was found on a T-Rex fossile allowing a sudy of its DNA. Apparently they became chickens. So yah you've probably had their blood on your hands. On the Planet Procter web site an item about a holy cow in India that was found to be eating chickens. There's some twisted karma at the bottom of this I'm sure.
Clearly a liberal. The evidence is overwhelming. You know how much them libs love guns!
If case you all didn't notice, Rush was using satire here. In other words, he wasn't being serious. He was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. He was pointing out how ridiculous it was for Clinton to blame him for the Timothy McVeigh incident when Rush had nothing to do with it. He was illustrating the absurdity of that incident by being absurd himself. If you read the whole transcript you will see that.
Rush was illustrating his massive ego by thinking Clinton was talking about him in the first place.
Who was Clinton talking about then?
Ask Clinton.
I won't deny that part of Clinton's comments were directed at the then early stages of Right Wing hate radio, however at that time the seperatist militia movements were very strong in this country. Calling themselves "survivalists" many fanatic paramilitary groups were setting up camps in the western states and recruiting under banners of a twisted brand of Christianity, white supremacy and anti-government paranoia. McVeigh, as well as Koresh and Kaczynski had far more in common with these groups than any inspiration from the vitriol of talk radio.
But hey, if Rush really wants to consider himself part of that crowd, then all power to him.
Rush was the most popular radio host on the planet back then, of course Clinton was taking a shot at him.
Find the words "Rush Limbaugh" in that specific speech of Clinton.
He was talking about Rush in the same way he was talking about Oliver Stone. That is to say that it was only in the most general way.
LOL. Who do you think he was talking about? Dr. Ruth?
I thought you libs were "nuanced".
Clinton took a direct shot at Limbaugh, what other possible person "over the airwaves" could he be talking about? There was no O'Reilly or Hannity back then. I love how Media Matters claims "over the airwaves" doesn't necessarily mean radio -- what a crock.
Wow, he was the only person on the radio at the time? I learn something new on this board every day.
If Clinton was taking direct shots at individuals then who exactly was he talking about that was on tv, in movies, on schoolyards and college campuses? It should be easy to name them.
The truth is, nobody would have given the matter a second thought had rush not inserted himself into the mix.
Rino,
You've pointed out the obvious but don't expect anyone here to admit it.
Let's not all play stupid and pretend that when Clinton railed against the "loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other." that he wasn't including Conservative [Right-Wing if you prefer] talk radio. The King of that genre then, and now was/is Rush Limbaugh. Talk radio, and Limbaugh in particular were pounding relentlessly on Clinton.
That said, both Clinton & Limbaugh should be ashamed of themselves for using horrific tragedies as an excuse to attack their enemies.
A pox on both their houses.
Here's my classic conservative response: Did he specifically say he was talking about Limbaugh? No. He could have been talking about Newt Gingrich or any other extremist.
Well for starters, Clinton mentioned RADIO: "whether it comes on radio"
Did Newt have a radio program? Guess I missed it.
I'm sure Clinton could have been including Newt here too, but in a different category.
Hey like I wrote to Rino-- I never expected any Liberal here to admit the obvious.
I won't lose any sleep over it ;-)
Jeter,
I agree with you that Clinton was talking about Limbaugh at the time, but I have a different take on it. I believe Clinton was absolutely right to chastize Limbaugh and the others at the time. The tenor of their discourse at the time bordered on Revolution (with a capital "R"). The malitias were at their high-water mark largely due to the popularity of Limbaugh, IMO. Clinton successfully beat back the movement with his remarks and the way public opinion was turned off by the results of these malitias extremism.
Limbaugh's satire (and I do see it as satire) falls short in that he doesn't really have a very good analogy to work with. There is no one famous on the American left who is currently speaking against the supposed debauchery of the rich with the kind of hatred and vitriol that Rush spoke with in the 90's. Maybe you have someone in mind I am missing here.
I get what he is saying, it just isn't very well thought out or as apt as it appears he wishes.
Open Mind:
RIght offhand, I'd say a "Leftie" with the populist "rein in the wealthy" message might be Robert Reich. Problem is, Reich is friendly, well spoken, knowledgable, and reasonable. He backs up his theories and opinions with historical record and good common sense. He doesn't HATE anyone, he just knows that it is better not to have a class-driven society in which the wealthy have all the advantages. That formula has caused instability and unrest in every nation where it evolved, and he doesn't wish to see the USA suffer the same fate.
And that's the problem. The Rightwing features firebreathing ultra-partisans with divisive messages and hatred galore. The Left has no such animal, so to find an "analogy", it has to be MADE UP.
No problem, really, because that's what these rightwing propagandists do constantly, but the point is, there just ARE NOT any equivalent voices on the left to compare to the Savages and Coulters and Limbaughs on the right. Hate talk is almost exclusively a rightwing phenomena, and the more they try to pull the "everybody does it" excuse, the more obvious it is that if that were true, then they could find examples that everyone would agree is apt. They cannot. Because there is no equivalence at all.
Thank you open_mind for your thoughtful & reasonable post, I've come to expect nothing less from you :-)
I don't agree that Clinton was justified on taking on Conservative talk radio, which of course included the grand Pooh-Bah Limbaugh. While Limbaugh and others were pounding on Clinton & Liberals, I fail to see how Limbaugh's political lashings had anything to do with Timothy McVeigh's decision to blow up a Federal building. Certainly Limbaugh was not calling for this type of revolution. His diatribes were political in nature. They had to do with swaying the voters, not calling for anarchy.
I felt at the time, and still do, that Bill Clinton used this opportunity to lash out at his POLITICAL rivals. I felt it was inappropriate to do during this tragedy.
Just as I feel Limbaugh [who has probably just been waiting all these years for his shot back] shouldn't have delivered this sarcastic diatribe in response to another tragedy.
You mean like W bringing up the right to bear arms in his speech the afternoon of the VT shooting?
He could have been talking about ultra right Art Bell. He was busy whipping up the militia movement of the early 90's. Until the F.B.I. moved in and started asking questions. Then Art made the switch to U.F.O/Bigfoot aficions...
Jeter, I get your point, but local right wing talk radio was/is also very popular.
And all of those mentioned previously did have that survivalist anti-government mentality. You and I live on the East Coast, not in Idaho, and I'm willing to bet that there were survivalist compounds within driving distance of your house back then. I know that I ran into a few of them. I also know that there were some pretty scary talk on the local radio back then.
Clinton very well may have been referring to Limbaugh, but it was becoming a problem. The militia mentality of the eighties and nineties had no relationship to the militias of the late 18th Century. Most were based on hatred and driven by fear and populated by weak men who played at being tough.
There are no baser instincts than fear and hatred. Add weakness and you have nitroglycerine. All it takes to go off is a little shaking.
King,
I don't know that Limbaugh or mainstream Conservative radio should be held accountable for the actions of extremists. Or that they drove them to commit acts of violence. Is there any data out there that proves a direct correlation?
Back in the 90's I listened to Rush frequently, and to a local talk show manned by Howie Carr. I still listen to Howie most afternoons. The guy's a Conservative, but funny as hell. His favorite targets have always been our Senators Kennedy & Kerry. While he was never a fan of Clinton's, his comments were never hateful.
If there were extremist talk radio programs out there I never heard one. Or heard about them. Was Savage around then?
I believe Clinton's alluding to "radio" was directed towards Limbaugh and other Conservative talk radio, not obscure extremists radio programming.
He didn't say "mainstream". He said "local", I believe.
I'm not understanding the basis for this belief that Clinton was talking about Rush. Just because he was the most popular? That seems an odd assumption. If someone was talking about messages of lesbianism from television while "Ellen" was on the air, would someone assume that they must have meant "Seinfeld" because that was the most popular show? (I don't know what the most popular show was at the time, honestly).
Why would it have to be someone heard across the country? Isn't the obvious problem broadcasts to more rural, militia-minded regions? It only took two (or three, in my opinion) people to pull of the OKC bombing, and they could have come from anywhere. To argue that some extreme but obscure hatemonger on the radio couldn't possibly have an influence on a few people is beyond absurd.
Oh please brabantio get real.
If Clinton meant obscure local extremists talk radio programming then why not just come out and say as much.
No he said TV, Radio, & Movies.
Pretty broad-brush there....
Limbaugh was pounding Clinton. And you don't think Clinton's backhand swipe against RADIO included Limbaugh? Whatever.
I guess your favorite stories all begin the same way:
Once upon a time...
What a ridiculously infantile reaction on your part. Yes, he talked about radio, movies, television, etc., that's exactly what makes your assumption so bizarre. In all of what he's talking about, there are factors that influence people. Are we assuming that he was specifying all movies or all TV shows? No. But because he mentions radio (right and left) and he has a critic on the radio, he must be targeting Rush.
So, I wondered what the basis of that supposition was, and you answered it very well:"whatever". You believe it because you believe it, and that's all you need.
Maybe you should take some time off. You are becoming less reasonable by the day.
Maybe you should take some time off. You are becoming less reasonable by the day....by brabantio
Ah yes I'm so Reasonable when I agree with Liberals and just so darn Unreasonable when I dare express an opposing opinion that you deem as wrong, and therefore unreasonable because you don't agree with it. Again, whatever.
Heal thyself.
I'm just looking for some sort of reasonable basis for your assumption. As it appears, you're forwarding a false equivalence based on an inexplicable foundation, and I'm trying to establish that you're not doing that. If that translates as some sort of hypocrisy in your mind ("heal thyself"?), then you have officially lost it. I don't know what it was about the whole Imus deal that's making you snap, but again maybe you should take a little time and regroup your thoughts. You're better than this.
It's got nothing to do with you agreeing with liberals or disagreeing with conservatives. What makes one reasonable is having a foundation for your beliefs, some pattern or justifiable clue that points to your conclusion. If you can't explain that foundation or clue, in some legitimate way, then it's clearly a questionable assumption.
Is that hypocritical to say? Is that unfair, honestly?
Try again, Jeter. Clinton's reference to limbaugh in that speech was about as direct as the path of a bumblebee's flight. Take a look for yourself, you read the transcript of Clinton's speech, right? He mentions radio along with t.v., movies, schoolyards and college campuses.
Read it for yourself:"If people are encouraging conduct that will undermine the fabric of this country, it should be spoken against whether it comes from the left or the right, whether it comes on radio, television or in the movies, whether it comes in the schoolyard, or, yes, even on the college campus." -Bill Clinton
Rush was absolutely substituting his oversized ego for some other undersized part of his person and inserting it into Clinton's speech. Maybe I'm wrong, Rush could have been motivated by guilt instead of ego.
Anyway, what Clinton was saying was based on observable data of the effects of hate speech, he was being truthful. On what was Rush basing his opinion about that speech? That's right his own simpleton logic. Words mean something, Jeter. Where have you heard that before?
Roundhouse,
Clinton criticized/blamed a variety of people ...INCLUDING radio personalities.
If you wanna believe he didn't mean Rush just because he didn't mention him by name, that's your prerogative. I think you're wrong.
If Rush went on a spiel about race baiters, but didn't mention anyone by name are you seriously gonna tell me you wouldn't believe he was including Jackson & Sharpton?
And if you said as much to me, and my response was--but hey he never said their names--wouldn't you think me a tad disingenuous? Not saying that's what you're being here, but if you really believe Clinton wasn't including Limbaugh when he mentioned radio, then just whom do you think he was referring to??
"If Rush went on a spiel about race baiters, but didn't mention anyone by name are you seriously gonna tell me you wouldn't believe he was including Jackson & Sharpton?"-J2 That's because we all know Rush is a pig and his feelings about Sharpton and Jackson are well known.
Yes, my original quip about the classic conservative literalist response of did he say Limbaugh's name was 100% disengenuous. I wrote that because so often I receive similar inane responses from rino when I make logic inductions.
"but if you really believe Clinton wasn't including Limbaugh when he mentioned radio, then just whom do you think he was referring to??"-J2
Clinton was talking about purveyors of hate speech. Period. Why would Limbaugh assume he was the focus of those comments unless he felt, as a hate mongerer, he was culpable in the bombing? Or, maybe he simply wanted to inject himself into the comments either for ego or ratings. Either way Clinton was making a case that words can incite senseless violence as effectively as they incite noble acts:
"Words have consequences. To pretend that they do not is idle. Did Patrick Henry stand up and say, "Give me liberty or give me death," expecting it to fall on deaf ears and impact no one? Did Thomas Jefferson write, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," did he say that thinking the words would vanish in thin air and have no consequences? Of course not. Are you here in this great university because you think the words you stay up late at night reading, studying, have no consequence? Of course not.
We know that words have consequences. And so I say to you, even as we defend the right of people to speak freely and to say things with which we devoutly disagree, we must stand up and speak against reckless speech that can push fragile people over the edge, beyond the boundaries of civilized conduct, to take this country into a dark place."-Bill Clinton
Its not that clear. Weiner is far more insane than Limbaugh if not as popular. He could have been talking about Liddy who had recently told on the radio the proper way to kill a federal agent. Its obviously NOT that specific just because Limbaugh was the bid dog in the pool
The Cons need to get on the same page here
Isn't it odd how some of the conservatives here are saying Limbaugh got it exactly right, and yet others, realizing that Limbaugh's statements are the indefensible drivel of a despicable person, are saying it's only sarcasm (Leatherhelmet) or satire (Rino Hunter). Even the normally level-headed Jeter has been sucked into this fallacy.
Which one is it? Was he being serious or not? I've listened to the clip, and my impression is that he was both dead serious and dead wrong.
Frankly, it's getting very tiring getting Limbaugh's apologists waving the finger at us for either not having a sense of humor or not being bright enough to recognize it when Limbaugh (or Coulter, Savage, etc.) says something utterly beyond the pale. Is there literally anything that Limbaugh would say that wouldn't get some of you rushing to his defense?
The pox is not on both houses, Jeter. It's on Limbaugh and his sycophants.
Limbaugh ridicules liberal strawmen. That's the bit. He has parlayed it into being the #1 talk radio host for nearly 20 years. The fact that you all get so riled up about everything he says only proves that he is very effective at what he does. I can't say I've listened to him in the Bush years, but in the Clinton years the guy was pretty hilarious with his song parodies and Clinton impersonations. And doing "animal rights" updates with the theme song "Born Free" with guns going off in the backround, very very good. Condom updates with the theme "My beautiful balloon", again pretty good if you ask me. That is bound to irritate people which is exactly his intent, to irritate some and entertain others.
Take your "fat" shots, your "druggie" shots, your "divorce" shots, your hypocrisy shots. He'll still be there taking his shots as well.
Bruce, I usually respect your point of view but in this case, Limbaugh chose to irritate family members whose children were murdered. And anyone who finds "entertainment" in this, really should get some help.
Worrier, I agree with you that Rush may have irritated some victims family members with these comments. I don't believe the family members were the target of the comments but nevertheless it may have been an unintended consequence. I've never said Rush doesn't make mistakes, clearly he has gotten himself into trouble over the years with some of his comments and his hypocritical behavior.
Oh thank you rino dung for pointing out that rush is merely operating out of the theater of the absurd so as to highlight the absurdity of Clinton accusing him of something he never accused him of, which is absurd on its face, unless you live in dittoland and think it's just swell to use an unspeakable tragedy to make an absurd political point.
If I was a radio personality posing as an intelligent political commentatot and I needed someone who calls himself Rino Hunter on the internet to explain my "absurdities" I'd think it was time to retire from radio and get an honest, respectable job.
that is what just is so hilarious. Limbaugh does a whole sarcasm routine and the pigeons at Media Matters fall for it hook, line and sinker. It happens time and time and time again. I have never seen anyone so brilliantly hornswoggle Media Matters.
The last brilliant one was the Rex Grossman routine. And yet, here is Media Matters, actually printing that Limbaugh thinks the shooter is a liberal.
Judging from your posts, I take your estimation of "brilliance" to be a pretty <i>low</i> threshold.
Limbaugh thought, Michael J. Fox of faking his illness, and he actually thought that Fox never campagined for a Republican, and he thought that people of Parkinsons not taking their medication would make them more shaky (hence why he accused Fox of not taking his medication to "exagerrate" the effects of his disease). Limbaugh "thinks" very wrong things.
Oh yeah, and MMFA never said that Limbaugh "thinks" he's a liberal.
SUUURE. He tries the sarcasm routine about McNabb and it falls flat, he gets fired so naturally he tries the exact SAME joke again like every great comic does. The one being played for a fool of course is YOU. Rush plays people like you, not people like us.
Ever notice that when someone says something stupid and gets caught, they always claim it was sarcasm?
Rush's statements are in no way sarcastic and anyone who claimes them to be so, is living in a state of denial or is out of their mind.
Rush's words are intended to hurt and smear.
Next up people like Leatherhelmet will be telling us Goebbels was simply a early 1940's missunderstood commedian the liberals hated.
THE TANK:
Leatherhelmet and other Rush fans have a real dilemma on their hands.
This last election, Rush pushed relentlessly for the GOP, which means supporting the various candidates, and also bashing and smearing their opponents.
When the GOP lost BIGTIME in the election, Rush came on the radio and said that he'd been "carrying water" for candidates that "didn't deserve it." In other words, his support was insincere, contrived, and overrode Limbaugh's TRUE feelings about those candidates (they were unworthy of support). So, for an entire campaign election cycle, Rush was LYING CONSTANTLY to his listeners, hoping that his audience would be FOOLED.
Or, was Rush being "sarcastic" when pretending to support the GOP? Was he being facetious? Was his audience supposed to "get the joke" and realize that in reality, Rush disapproved of the GOP slate?
It gets really complicated, when a guy giving you his opinion MIGHT mean it, or might just mean the opposite. And because he is so good at being absurd, it cannot be distinguished from when he's being serious.
Such a dilemma for the dittoheads. They are being played, but they have no idea how thoroughly duped they have been until Rush tells them later. Or, in many cases, Rush may be duping them, and will NOT reveal his deceptions later ... he may just keep that to himself.
I cannot tell you how upset I am that these fine citizens who are Rush's fans don't know what the hell they believe in, and are being so publicly played for absolute idiots and fools. They seem to like it, though, so I guess it takes all kinds.
Rino ,I can see where your coming from but the problem is that that Limbaugh and his counterparts don't differentiate enough between when they are "joking" and when they are trying to make a legitimated argument. Since the difference isnt so easily seen, a lot of the more dimwitted( and I don't mean to be demeaning here) people wont see the difference. These are the people who will essentially follow what Limbuagh has to say because they have attached themselves to him. We all have to remember that humans are pack animals. Many of us can remove ourselves from this primitive train of thought, but there are still a lot of people who will find a "leader" to follow because they cant think for themselves. This happens to both sides, liberal and conservative. The way in which Limbaugh says this he seems to be serious. He may be joking, but he is so close to the serious/joking line that it is hard to tell. I wont say that he is doing it on purpose but one could take it that way.
Here's the difference, Rino. Cho was a paranoid mentally unstable religious nut with imaginary enemies, an obvious "gun rights with no background check" advocate, and a person who probably saw talking to other students or counselors as "weak" or "appeasing", much like diplomacy.
I'd imagine if he had been informed after the first phase of killings that he was completely wrong, he had been given bad intelligence, and that nobody was out to get him, he would not have "cut and run". Had all of the smartest students and faculty pointed out his errors, and tried desperately to talk him out of further destruction, I can't believe he would have accepted any option other than Victory.Cho seemed like a "stay the course' kind of guy.
Get it? Not only was he a conservative, he could have potentially been elected president if there were a few more Republicans around.
McVeigh was a conservative as well. That's why, if Rush was doing satire, he was doing it completely wrong.
I sure hope you were joking with all that, because that was the most ridiculous post I've ever read.
Of course I was joking. The difference between my "satire" and Rush's "satire" is that mine, while as exploitative and over-the-top as his, was much closer to reality than that of El Rushbo.
The other difference is that many of Rush's audience will take that literally, while I'd bet that nobody here takes mine seriously.
That was good HBL.
Isn't amusing to see the guy (rino) who calls us out as maundering, humorless lefties didn't recognize humor when it smacked him in his smug face?
Of course I was joking.
Wha??? I'm a little disillusioned, now. Please bear with me for a moment while I put down my bong and gather my thoughts, here...
(Was that too subtle? Ya think the righties might not get it?)
I'm perfectly straight, but I think I love you.
That was classic HBL, and I am not surprised Rino got her panties in a bunch of your very humorful, and very "accurate" satirical
I'm perfectly straight, but I think I love you.
That was classic HBL, and I am not surprised Rino got her panties in a bunch of your very humorful, and very "accurate" satirical
analogy.I'm perfectly straight, but I think I love you.
That was classic HBL, and I am not surprised Rino got her panties in a bunch of your very humorful, and very "accurate" satirical
analogy.Yeah somehow whenever a bloviating screechmonkey says something dumb and offensive its just a joke. He didnt really mean it.
Clinton was probably referencing G Gordon Liddy who advised listeners to shoot ATF agents in the head.
Satire? It sounded more like "LIBERALS ATE MY BABY! WAAAAAAAAAH!" to me.
The problem with saying, "Rush was using satire here" is that most of his listeners aren't intelligent enough to think it might have been satire. Just more fuel for the libs are evil argument. Since Rush's argument has no basis in fact, and isn't a news program, though is perceived as such by many listeners, he is just adding the misinformation. Which I feel compelled to point out, is the whole purpose of MMfA.
And if you read the rest of it, well maybe I missed it, but Clinton's coment contained no coment on rush that I saw. He did some back filing, someone mentioned rush would take it personally. He (rushiekins) seems to be determined to be insulted, and a victim. What do we do with victims Rush?
When I heard the killer had railed against the rich, it struck me that his rhetoric sounded very much like a liberal Democrat. Limbaugh was right on the money with this one.
Cho also compared himself to Jesus. What does that make him?
Really though, Rush is a such a sawed-off piece of drift wood. Just Tuesday he was talkin' about how everyone has to make things like these shootings into political issues; how everyone has to complicate these things by blaming something. He went on to say that there is no answer, that evil just happens.
Apparently, liberalism is the same as evil in his world.
Most posters here say Jesus was a liberal.
Most conservatives believe Jesus is their co-pilot.
The Bible says it too.
Jesus can't stand Rush Limbaugh. He let Rush get rich and famous and then started f*cking with him by giving him a narcotics addiction. Jesus is enjoying watching Rush's mental and emotional decline, which has gotten so bad that now Rush has even begun attacking a piddling internet website for repeating his absurdities. Rush will probably be arrested in the next few years as he struggles with his drug addiction. Poor guy... almost feel sorry for him. But, hey... Jesus is controlling Rush's destiny, so don't blame me for stating facts.
Bruce,
By the conservative measure of that day he was. His views were radically different from the status quo, they threatend it. He taught that God loved us all equally and that there was a moral responsibility and obligation to address the welfare of the weakest members of society, which included the poor, the sick , and the profoundly radical notion of providing for and visting prisoners. Prisoners were shunned from society even though many of the prisoners of that day were debtors and political prisoners who had pissed off the Roma Empire in some way. He lived a radically different lifestyle and preached a radically different social construct than the one that existed. His progressive views were eventually adopted and spread world wide. I'd say he was pretty progressive. Progressives such as Jesus are generally not valued during their lifetimes, they are called rhable rousers, loony, crazy, and sometimes evil but they leave a lasting legacy that is positive.
I agree with you. I just thought the guy I responded to was trying to claim that since this crazy killer had some Christ complex that it proved he wasn't a liberal or something. I'm just reacting to his argument. First and foremost, the guy was mentally gone, I don't care what he was politically, it's not relevent.
And I was being ridiculous because that Kevin poster guy was being ridiculous. C'mon Bruce, you're not dense.
Kevin claimed Rush was right on the money with his comments, that because Cho railed against privilege he WAS a lib. My comment was intended to be equally ridiculous as a way demonstrate how stupid such comments are on their face.
So, no. I wasn't comparing Cho to a conservative ideologist. Where's your sarcasmometer, Bruce? Maybe you left it on Boehlert's swift boat thread?
In that case, I stand corrected. I apologize for not getting your point. Well done!
Now that's good sarcasm. I think? I just don't know anymore.
Anyway, if you are serious, I can only say that no I didn't do a good job if it had to be explained. Maybe next time will be better.
I was being serious. I think we both need to do better, but hey it's Friday.
Thanks Bruce. You're a fair minded fellow.
Jesus was a liberal. Most people who compare themselves to him are conservative.Most people who act like him are liberal.
I must be sheltered a bit, but I've never heard a liberal come right out and say: "I hate rich people." I've heard some liberals and progressives say that the rich should carry their share of the tax burden and that corporations shouldn't get welfare from the government, but not "I hate rich people." I fail to see how the examples given can be misconstrued (unless they're a pinhead or some self-loathing individual) as hate. There are a lot of rich liberals, they're just more generous with their money that conservatives. Besides Soros is loaded (sorry, I know that he has nothing directly to do with MMFA, but the other side sincerely believe that.)
I would be interested in some verification that rich liberals are more generous than rich conservatives. I'm not necessarily disagreeing but my BS detector went off a little bit, just have to make sure it's still working properly. Thanks.
Well they seem to be more visible in their backing of philanthropic efforts. I'm just thinking about Buffet and the Gates. I'm sure that rich conservatives give money to charitable endeavors all the time, even if it’s just to get the tax write off (just kidding).
Yes, one might say that rich liberals want to be recognized for their generosity but rich conservatives are perfectly willing to remain anonymous in theirs.
Unless your BS detector of your was going off like an air-raid siren of steroids while you were typing this post, it isn't working.
One might say that if they werent thinking clearly but then it would probably occur to them that since by definition those who try to keep their contributions secret arent KNOWN, then you would have no way of knowing whether more of them are liberal of conservative.
Some research was done on this: http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Some excerpts:
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.
He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change.
"There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people," Mr. Brooks says. "The fact is, if it weren't for religious people in your community, the PTA would shut down."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW
More from ABC News: (I know, misinformer of the year, blah blah blah...)
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?
Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
It may BE a myth but that isnt anywhere NEAR evidence it is. What is left out is San Fransisco is a very gay and gay tolerant area and the Salvation Army has its problems in this area refusing to hire gays and demanding the RIGHT to public money while discriminating against them. How about we put up buckets for Planned Parenthood in the same two areas and seeing how the donations compared. It would be the same thing.
And since we all know there are no secular conservatives or religious liberals, this must be true...
Ok, that is fascinating now back to my POINT, if a the set of wealthy people AVOIDING letting people know they are giving are doing just that then by definition you are not going to be able to tell how much or how many of them are giving so it would be, putting it mildly, counterintuitive to make the statement you made thinking it was logical. Also since most of the liberals I know are also religious the fact more religious people GIVE more says nothing about liberals. I am not sure the statistic is comprehensive. During my last marriage and up until I got remarried I gave more money to people I saw or knew than organizations most years. My new wife has us giving more to organizations. ONLY taking into account what is given to organizations or asking how much people give, a question I for one would be uncomfortable asnwering is a methodology that MIGHT but might NOT be an accurate indication of the overall generousity of any specific group. Dont get me wrong, other than the first criticism I made this is decent evidence but I dont find it overwhelming due to my own personal experience.
You mean like Soros giving anonymously to Media Matters?
Leatherhelmet,
Beater of Dead Horses
monkeyboyiv, the "hate the rich" line is pretty important in Republican mythology.It goes hand-in-hand with the lazy free-loading liberal story.It works pretty well on a segment of the population, convincing them that anybody who notices that their boss is making more in a day than they do in a year is engaging in Class Warfare, and is just jealous that they're not as "successful".
All that's needed is the occasional rags to riches tale, and a nation that's bad enough at math that a good percentage of them think they'll end up in the top 1% of earners, threatened by the "Death Tax". whether by hard work or the Lotto.
I don't think any significant group of people hates the rich. I do think one of the things that this country was founded on, and that made it great, was a healthy, good natured antipathy towards the super rich.An attitude of "Good for you. But don't get too comfortable, we're keeping an eye on you !"
I think a lot of working Americans have lost this attitude, and they make good Republicans.Where there used to be a distrust of the very wealthy, there now seems to be a reverence for them, for no other reason than that they're rich.
That Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, George W.Bush and the late Anna Nicole Smith have large numbers of admirers, and not much evidence of ever doing very much, says something about the values of our country.
The radicals who sailed over here in wooden boats to get away from Monarchies tangled up with Churches, who were working in tandem to control most of the money, would be pretty disappointed in the way things have worked out.
If they could be here to see it, they might cry, but after the crying, the founding fathers would have to have a good laugh at the millions of working Americans who vote to have their money stolen by those with much more than they have.
"When I heard the killer had railed against the rich, it struck me that his rhetoric sounded very much like a liberal Democrat."
That's because you've been conditioned to think that way like Pavlov's dog. The first thoughts of most rational people would be 'the killer sounds deranged" not "he sounds like a liberal Democrat". Do you people just immediately and automatically define everyone by liberal or conservative? Sounds like the procedure worked on you. Arf,arf...
"When I heard the killer had railed against the rich, it struck me that his rhetoric sounded very much like a liberal Democrat. Limbaugh was right on the money with this one. - kevin1007 / Thursday April 19, 2007 09:02:49 PM EST"
Don't let Leatherhelmet hear you. He's explaining to us how Limbaugh didn't really mean it and it was all just sarcasm. Guess you got taken in on this one along with all us libs.
It sounded to me like he was very obsessed with material and status objects.Along with the Religious extremism, paranoia, moral values scolding- of -others -debauchery, guns as compensation for powerlessness and lack of personal accountability I've already mentioned, I.m seeing a solid Young Republican.
BTW, I don't think this school is filled with extremely wealthy kids, so he was not railing against "The Rich",but his own insecurities and those he perceived as not deserving what they had.Sort of like Welfare Queens with Cadillacs.Wow, this guy was GOP all the way.
HUNT:
While evaluating whether a person is leftwing or rightwing, it would do well to consider the right's attitude towards "problem solving".
Take Iraq as an example. We believe that sometime in the future, a nation MAY present a direct threat to ours, so we are justified invading that nation PREEMPTIVELY. An individual believing others might be "out to get him" might apply that same "strike first" attitude.
We've also learned from Bush and the NeoCons that it's a bad thing to try to communicate with one's perceived enemies. Open talks show weakness, compromise is appeasement, so the ONLY way to reconsile differences is through FORCE. An individual following this model would be quiet, would not seek to resolve differences peacefully, would not even consider talking out his fears and concerns. That would be weak, appeasement, "cutting and running" from any possible VICTORY. The only answer to coming out on top is to be quiet, STRIKE FIRST, and use as much deadly force as you can muster (Shock and Awe).
Oh, and it doesn't MATTER if it turns out the people you have decided to attack did not have any of the deadly force you believed them to have. If you BELIEVE they were out to get you, and BELIEVED that they had the wherewithall to carry out an attack on you, you are fully justified in taking them OUT first.
As our individual behavior is influenced by the "proper" road to conflict resolution as demonstrated by GW Bush and his NeoCons, we can look forward to no more "chit chat", lots more preemptive strikes with overwhelming deadly force, and no need for ACTUAL justification ... it's enough you BELIEVED there to be a threat.
And ofcourse, Tex, as true as all that is, I was not seriously trying to make this tragedy political, only pointing out the shamelessness of those who have done so. I have already had to explain to one poster that I was joking.
Re Young Republicans. This past weekend I visited the university that my son will be attending next fall as a freshman. At the activity and campus club fair, the young repubs had a nearly life size cardboard cut out of Mr. Bush. I was a little shocked that they would be so die hard repub that they would still be using the likeness of the worst, least popular president ever. (Well, nearly the least popular ever, maybe there is some other that was even worse, Nixon maybe) This is an engineering school, and I realize engineers are typically conservative, but you'd think they either would not use that likeness or try to get a McCain or Rudy cutout.
Really? Because when I heard a lunatic with a gun had shot up a university I naturally thought he must be a conservative. Rush, as usual was 180 degrees off
Hey Leatherhelmut, Rino, and Jeter
Aren't you going to correct Kevin on this one? He insists Limbaugh's being serious, and you insist he's being satirical. Aren't you going to get on his case for not understanding Limbaugh's amazing sense of humor?
Excuse me, but doesn't the right have this obsession with the gun culture? Limbaugh is off his nut, again. He makes these broad statements, that are usually off-base and wrong, and accuses others of taking them out of context or lying when what he says is plain for everyone to see and hear.
Classic, shameless Rush... in the wake of this disgusting tragedy... he uses it as a podium to blame it on liberals? What an a-hole.
If anything is to blame it is our lack of adequate mental health care in this country -- basically dismantled under Reagan. Had our system worked (under the perpetual cry for healthcare reform that is a mainstay of liberals, folks)... the number of warning signs shown by this guy over the years would've likely been acted upon and (possibly) the carnage may have been averted. I believe that.
Yet, Rush sits there ... with zero empathy/sympathy for anyone and says it's the liberals. Man.
Greek, you rail on Rush for blaming liberals and then turn around and blame Reagan, that's a good one.
My criticism has some basis in reality, I think.
Savage recommended bringing back the mental institutions on a large scale last night as well. The way he did though would more likely appeal to the so-called conservatives. He said it in an an angry vengeful sort of tone. Brilliant.
I don't think was necessarily my point. The use of the term 'mental institution' lacks a certain element of, shall we say, empathy. But, appropriate understanding, recognition and treatment of mental illness is certainly warranted and (apparently) necessary.
To deny this... is, well, denial.
Might not be a bad idea. At least Savage and most of his audience would then by under lock & key.
Brillianter!
Dr. Hal Emmerich Unmasked! He's no doctor he's a video game character. Sorry, but I can't anyone like that seriously.
Go play your game you knucklehead!
Dr. Hal Emmerich, nicknamed Otacon, appears in the Metal Gear Solid Series. A master engineer and the eccentric designer of Metal Gear REX, Otacon becomes a close ally of Solid Snake once he learns of REX's nuclear strike capabilities. After the events of Metal Gear Solid, he helps form the Philanthropy group with Solid Snake to stop the proliferation of Metal Gear-type weapons. A devoted fan of anime, Hal's chosen nickname is the short form of Otaku Convention, a reference to the real Otakon held in Baltimore each year. The name "Hal" is a direct reference to the computer HAL 9000 from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of several references to that film present in Metal Gear Solid. The surname "Emmerich" comes from Roland Emmerich, who is one of Hideo Kojima's favorite film directors.
Dignan, the "doc" unmasked himself. He's semi-literate.
I suspect he's a pimply 17-year old kid who dreams of winning the lottery as he dunks over Shaq and then lands in Angelina's lap, who will proceed to pop his pimples and coo, "Even your pimple puss if perfect!"
Peel away Rush's bombast and you'll find the same 17-year old kid.
Wasn't there another Metal Gear character posting on the boards?
They were all the same poster. He's been Col. Roy Campbell, LT JG Pliskin and now Dr. Hal Emmerich.
He changes his name but repeats the same macho bullsh_t. He usually gives himself away with his first post.
He comments that since he's a Colonel, he'd be glad to lead troops into Iran. Or since he's also a doctor, he agrees with Doctor Weiner. He leaves every thread dripping with his virtual testosterone.
Naw, his dream is to be snapped up by the Cato Institute and work his way up from a brown-noser to a yes-man in the Great Permanent Republican Majority.
And by his posts, I believe he is now Cato worthy. Just needs to work more on misrepresenting sources.
I think the cops could pick him up on your description, Holly.I picture some loud mouth=breathing and small animal violence as well.
dignan
Dr. Hal Emmerich is the latest in a series from our favorite right wing mouth piece who loves Metal Gear.
First there was Col. Roy
Than that one got banned
Than Lt. JG Pliskin appeared
I guess he got banned too, now we get the Dr.
Ask him about claiming to be an actual military officer as the Col. How about sending us all to the Brig?
Maybe MMFA should just ban all Metal Gear names and than at least this joke would have to think of an original name.
On topic though, Rush is a joke too. A liberal? Really as far as I know, most true liberals are not prone to violence. At least violence intended to kill people.
"Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them."
Uhh, Rush... then what's your point in saying Cho was a liberal? Of all of Cho's defining characteristics I would say PSYCHOSIS topped the list. Anyone who would slaughter 32 innocent people because he was jealous of the rich isn't a liberal... he's just crazy.
But, Rush, you just can't help yourself can you? Regardless the situation you have to interject politics, don't you? This tragic event isn't about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It's about 32 innocent people whose lives were prematurely snuffed out. Why not show a little decency and respect for the dead instead of turning everything into this liberal versus conservative equation.
Oh... I forgot, Rush, that's how you make your money.
What about someone who allows the willfull death of thousands upon thousands of innocent people as he calls for the occupation of a foreign country just to bleed it dry of its natural resources? That's right they're called a conservative.
Come up with unsubstantiated conclusions, and then declare them as facts. Hmmm where have I seen this behaviour before.
Let me try. Rush has no kids, which means he is impotent, another impotent conservative. Listen don't get mad at me, I'm just pointing out a fact.
Rush, the conservative Republican lap dog, has an addiction to a potent narcotic pain killer, Oxycontin. Just stating facts here, Rush.
why all this anger and hate just sit back smoke a little and the world will look better. Rush calls liberals angry hate filled people. From what I am reading here he is right.
Yea, right... That's like beating someone on the head with a ruler all day and then asking him "why are you so angry?"
I also hear conservatives are a bunch of brainwashed morons. By the look of your post maybe THAT is right too
What has Limbaugh ever gotten right the entire time he's been on the air? It wasn't to long ago that he demonstrated just how much of a racist and bigot he truly is. What is really amazing is that there are people who actually listen to him and buy into the crap he spews on his show.
And in the other direction, Limbaugh panders to the desires of his audience for rationalizations of their own preheld beliefs.
Were they rational and reasonable, actually insightful and TRUE reasons, that wouldnt be quite as bad. Actually you ought to KNOW why you believe what you belive but we will let that go. However if your preconcieved notions are that Chelsea was the White House dog. Or that the caller who disagreed with him ought to take the bone out of his nose. Or that mentally deranged people go on a killing spree because they are liberals, then maybe you would be better off re-examining those preconcieved notions.
It would seem to be a tremendous asset in the formulation of an opinion to know why one believes what one believes on a message board like this one. But I know I often don't know why I did something or said something. Then I think about it and figure out an explanation, and sometimes a rationalization.
I think to some extent that is human nature. Most of us would like to believe we intellectually figure someting out and believe THAT is why we feel a certain way. When I suspect it is more likely that we feel a certain way about something then come up with an intellectual rationalization. For this reason we must be careful to keep an open mind and accept what are clearly facts being willing to be flexible. We will have core values those shouldnt change and will differ from person to person. How reach those goals that is what policies we will support to attempt to further the goals of those core values ought to be subject to re-evaluation.
Uh, let me see if I got this right?In the world of Rush "Limpballs", get it, no children = "Limpballs"; liberals are responsible for all of the Mass murders that seem to be a cyclic occurrence here in the United States. Couldn't be that the people who do this are really, really sick and can't get the help they need because our broken health system can’t identify and help them. Rush you are pathetic.
I suspect "Limpballs" will receive another KO worst person in the world award.
Perhaps he will on Friday. Right now, John "Rambo" Derbyshire, Karl Rove and BillO are ahead of him.
Time for me to apply Limbaughian logic.
This guy bought and owned two handguns so he's an NRA lover and must be a conservative. He dressed like a Blackwater contract mercenary so he must be a conservative. He sent photos and videos to a news outlet to help ensure his nonsensical, delusional, manifesto gets airtime, so he must be a conservative.
I am just pointing out a fact, I make no extrapolation.
this is just ridiculous. there are discussions in trekkie and dungeons and dragons chatrooms that are more grounded in reality that this topic. that kid was a messed-up 23 year-old who probably couldn't have distinguished a democrat from a republican if his balls depended on it. it had nothing to do with politics, and any effort to generalize or extrapolate some twisted political meaning from his personality or his actions is beyond retarded. it never even occurred to me to attempt to label that kid politically, probably because i have at least a minimal amount of common sense. rush is a sick, opportunistic sack of crap, but the question that's being asked is too stupid for any answer, serious or otherwise.
Leather and rhino, you two crack me up. Everytime that bimbaugh gets caught with his foot, hell, his whole leg, in his mouth, both of you are right there, saying that it was just satire. What a joke. Even if it was just satire, 99.9 % of you dittoclones don't get it. Y'all take it seriously. Here's a clue, bimbaugh is serious, he's not joking. He's just using the 'it's a joke' claim to hide behind. And y'all fall for it, everytime. You dittoclones just keep getting stupider.
Media Matters Should have posted one of Limbaugh's quotes at the time, there's no question but that he was riding the wave of hysteria driving the militias.
From FAIR
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1316
At times, even Rush Limbaugh has flirted with such rhetoric: "The second violent American revolution is just about--I got my fingers about a quarter of an inch apart--is just about that far away," he was quoted in the Washington Post (4/25/95). "Because these people are sick and tired of a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington driving in to town and telling them what they can and can't do with their land."
Oops I just puked onto my shirt.
"We must stand up and speak against reckless speech that can push fragile people over the edge beyond the bounds of civilized conduct and take this country into a dark place. I say that no matter where it comes from, people are encouraging violence and lawlessness and hatred. If people are encouraging conduct that will undermine the fabric of this country, it should be spoken against whether it comes from the left or the right, whether it comes on radio, television or in the movies, whether it comes in the schoolyard, or, yes, even on the college campus."
President Clinton said that? Wow, I would never have imagined it. But, I totally agree! So, now why are we NOT hearing for the stoppage of rap music being played that glorifies use of hand guns on individuals (specifically the glok)?? We recently had a big discussion on whether Imus could make racial speach that he did, and now we have an individual who blows away a multitude of innocent lives as if mimicking the multitude of rap songs that promote that exact action.
Where is this discussion?? I guess this will tell how much the liberal really cares about freedom of speach!
If there's really a connection between rap music and the VT shootings, you should find this interesting;
http://media.www.thehilltoponline.com/media/storage/paper590/news/2005/03/28/Campus/Sharpton.Calls.For.Ban.On.Violent.Rap.Music-904105.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2005-03-25-sharpton-rap-music_x.htm
90 day ban on airplay for artists who are violent. Umm, doesn't seem too harsh of a punishment to me. Also, noticed that both links are 2 years old. What has he said lately? Since he was VERY vague in those two links as to what should actually be done.
Ah, the sound of the moving of goalposts. You asked where the discussion was. There it is. What's changed in the last couple of years that would make a difference here?
In fact, if you honestly think rap music is a factor in this shooting, then you should be applauding Sharpton for being so prescient. He saw the problem two years early, right?
Back in the days of the PMRC, when the Senate was investigating song lyrics and whether the messages in music were harming listeners, I remember hearing Frank Zappa say something about how if listeners were driven to violence by the music they listened to there would be a whole lot more love in the world, since the majority of songs played on the radio are love songs.
Actually the only thing it shows is how little you know what you are talking about AGAIN and how little you understand what freedom of expression IS, what a shock
Oh. I knew this was coming. As long as we are judging the politics of lunatics who was it again who rails against the latte sipping elitists?
Thanks for posting this news too regarding Limbaugh. I am glad he said that because it is just what I was thinking.
We need to make the main stream media more "Fair and Balanced"
But supposedly he was being sarcastic. You agree with the literal meaning of a statement that's not supposed to be taken that way?
Of course it was what you were thinking. Since you are an idiot and part of the dittohead Borg what else would you be thinking and I am of course using that term VERY generously.
Under who's watch did the medical confidentiality laws go into effect??? Lets see I bet Monica knows
Why not go into detail about how the HIPAA Privacy Rule was written so that mass murders could be on the loose?
Turn off the fu_king radio and try to understand something before commenting on it. At some point in your life privacy might be important to you or a family member.
The laws Limbaugh is relying on to save himself from the doctor shopping charge?
Amazing how Limbough, et al., will label as "fact" a product of their own conjecture, speculation, illogic and delusion. And get away with it without challenge! Limbough, produce the proof, so irrefutable it would convince us that it is a fact the killer was a liberal!
My opinion of Rash Windbag is as low as anyone's here. But I think he was being sarcastic. He even admits to trying to piss off the "drive by's". Years ago he similarly argued that JFK was a ditto-head.
As a non-drinker of the Limbaugh Kool-Aid--perhaps the only one so far to opine that this was sarcasm--let me try to explain what the Great One meant, with one lobe of his brain tied behind his back:
You see, there is this liberal straw man who says that conservatives are responsible for inspiring horrific events. As proof of the existence of this straw man, here is this quote--taken out of context, of course--from Bill Clinton, the head liberal (by virtue of his immoral dalliance with an intern). Well, I can do it too. How do you like that, straw man? How do you like that, drive-bys?
On a scale of taste this ranks somewhere below "nappy-headed hos". But, that's Rush.
Mental illness is one of the most mis-understood of all medical conditions. The stigma that surroundsit is huge and words like "looney bin" and "institution" don't help. As soon as this story broke, I knew that within days we would hear about the shooters mental health condition and that there had been steps taken to get him help. The availability of treatment and /or placement in a mental health faciltiy is stymied by inurance restrictions and fewer and fewer in patient hospitals. Here in NJ, with 8 million people, there are roughly 8,000 beds available in psychiatric hospitals. Insurance companies limit the number of sessions a patient can have with a therapist and determine how long someone should be hospitalized. There must be parity in insurance coverage and treatment for mental illness. This tragedy was preventable.
I know we are going to have some very positive things to say about Rush Limbaugh and his radio listeners this Friday, April 20, 2007. They have out done themselves in their giving to The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Rush himself donated $300,000.00 of his own money. The listeners have set a new record in their generosity.
Why do we not do the same??
Lets see. 20 MILLION listeners 300,000$ that works out to less than two cents per listener? Hey I got a nickle. Other than that I dont need personalities to make any decisions for me what charaties I give to.
That is far from the truth. The Shooter was from a very up-tight family, they went to church ALL the time. If anything one can draw the conclusion that being raised in a very conservative family can really mess you up. Not just this case, McVey, and so on... all very "conservative"
This little gem, apparently pulled from deep within his cavernous bowels, proves once again that drug abuse tends to destroy brain cells.
I'm sorry, but if you look at the instances of school shootings since Columbine, don't you see that the main commonality in these cases is that they are all "outcasts"? They have all been made fun of for being different or weird. Funny accents, funny clothes, being fat, ugly, playing RPGs, being smart or creative. The underlying problem is obviously mental illness, they took the teasing to a bad place. So really it comes down to cruelty of others pushing them over the edge of rationality. And that cruelty comes from fear. Not understanding people who are different from you and not wanting to. Wanting them to conform to your idea of "normal". Isn't it that fear and hatred that conservative talking heads like Coulter, Limbaugh and BillO preach on a daily basis? I live in the deep South and hear these fears repeated on a daily basis.
I always thought one of the greatest things about America was the "Melting Pot" idea. People came here from all over the world where they were persecuted, starved or generally crapped upon so they could live free. And now all we hear is different is bad, different is evil, different is the enemy.
A quick word on the gifting thing. The article posted points out that a large part of conservative gifting is to their church, which all pretentions of theirs aside can be equated to PURCHASING services, like membership in a health club, or country club.
Regarding organized charities, liberals generally tend to be more informed fact based realists, and as such tend to be awere of things like that many organized charities have administration and expense ratios that can approach 90% of revenues collected. In many cases, a telephone solicited gift results in a 50% payment to the individual telemarketer, with another 40% going to the comany he works for, and 10% to "good works".
And the Salvation Army....they, along with organizations like AA do self serving religious indoctrination along with their "good works". I'm not giving them money to help them indoctrinate the poor and downtrodden into their belief system
i feel Rush has many good points. i feel the liberals and democrats are always finding faults true or not with our country, president and way of life. I'm going to scatter a bit here but i think Sharpton and Jackson had no grounds to stand on with the Imus show they both have committed racial wrongs in my eyes and many others. as men of the church they seem to like throwing stones when they have sinned also. I'm not saying what Imus said was right it was wrong but i did not see either of them step down when they were wrong. now as far as the war goes i find it very hard to understand someone who tells you that they support you and when you need help and are not doing well they don't want to send any help to you. it would be as if i were in a fight and losing and you don't step in to help me you just stand there and say we're here for you and that's it. now i think i can go to global warming, i have seen no fact that there is global warming. and I'm sure whomever wants there side of the argument believed will pick the professional that will go that way. i do know we had a very cold winter and according to the press releases so has the north pole, Alaska and parts of the mid east U.S.. i do believe its a scam to have the democrats and liberals to make us believe we need them to save our planet and to convince us that they are so important. they do the same with race. they make us seem like certain races can't make it without their help and we know that is not true. many people from many races make it if they put forth a good effort. i think people need a more positive approach than one that says you need my help to make it. I'm not going to get into the convention of presidential nominees, i think the race cards are old, worn, tattered, and mark enough so that all can read them. its time for a new deck of cards. i like to thank you for your time if you have read this and i hope i kept to your rules, but it is my opinion. frank
Whether the man was a liberal, conservative, or anything else it doesn't matter. He should have been in a mental hospital strapped to a bed.