Limbaugh "Liberals lie ... By definition, liberalism has to obscure what it really believes"; Obama, Clinton make lying "look easy," but Pelosi doesn't have their "talent"
May 14, 2009 2:10 pm ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
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
Talk about projecting.
In any canse, what does any of this stuff about Pelosi have to do with what Rush said, or what I said that matter? Is it THAT tough to stay on topic?
Aside from that, he's just noise pollution.
Cuz the top shows in this country are right wing talkers.
And I don't consider it a complete popularity contest. I think ratings are a measure of a segment of the populace. Not everyone listens to the radio. In fact I'd venture to guess a lot of the left just collect out of context summaries so they can let someone else filter it while they do other things. This may be good or bad for conservatism. If radio is still relevant, then it is to their advantage. They have a powerful hold on the medium. If radio is less relevant, then the internet summaries place them in a different context and conservative are allowing their message to be edited and repackaged for them. Not so good...
And... sometimes I take great pleasure in hearing stupid people prove themselves to be stupid.
You did notice the spectacular vaccuum and associated thunderclap of collapse when Air America vanished, right?
Or did you not do that research for yourself in the absence of publicity in the mainstream media?
The Speaker of the House was caught dead to rights. Do you believe she didn't know about water boarding months ago when she responded to the question?
Uh... yeah, that's right. Listen to Rush for a few hours and you'll get a few hours worth of examples.
The Speaker of the House was caught dead to rights.
Nonsense. Proove it. The truth will come out, and she may yet be guilty, but noting has yet been determined. Your lot is just letting your hatred for all things liberal jump the gun on this one. (And just about everythign else.)
Context doesn't help him. And yes, I have listened to whole shows... many shows, in fact. The man is a propagandist, not an analyst. At least be honest about that.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
It's almost entirely differences of opinion, rather than domonstrably innacurate assertions or misleading claims. While I'd be glad to engage in stuff that is concrete, I don't have a great deal of interest in parsing opinion. If that is representative of the material available I think there must be more pertinent stuff to talk about.
I don't want to talk about opinion in 1994 when 2009 is looking like a year that will be an amazing turning point in history. If you would take a moment I'd like you to select a single issue you think represents an intentional misrepresentation... Thanks
I have. And I used to believe this... unitl I realized just how many DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOODS he uses to support his "analyis." ANYONE can SOUND like a good analyst if they just make $#!t up as they go along, knowing that theier audience will never call them on it, or even look into verifying it.
So no, he is NOT a 'good analyst.' He is a lying, pompous, arrogant, mean-spritied, cowardly, intellectually dishonest blowhard. And I reached that conclusion after YEARS of listening to that jerk.
And let's not forget that without government spending, and strong incomes being EARNED by the REST of the country, no one's salary would have been as high as it was in the first place. (Becuase everyone else would be less able to buy their goods and servcies in the first place.) So the amount of money you "earn" is greatly dependant on the very economic policies you decry, you just don't want to admit it. What's more, these high salaries, at the expense of everyone else's, are unsustainable. And we're beginning to see that in the mess we're in now.
Finally, to answer your question, there are several good ways to shift wealth upwards. 1) Crush unions. 2) Fight minimum wage increases. 3) Shoft the tax burden onto the middle class. Check. Check. Check.
In this way, a wealthy person making 4000 times the poverty level doubles his income while a poor person stays in the same place.
*poof* - - - The rich guy is making another multiple of the poor guy. No redistribution necessary because the pie grew. The rich guy has an even larger segment of the larger pie without ever touching the poor guy's share.
It's a new kind of math. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Do you always use such hyper parabolic distortions of other people's positions as a starting point for your bombastic ranting, or is this unusual? I'm new here, so I just want to get the lay of the land.
That being said, my MBA has taught me how little conservatives really understand economics (both micro and macro) and the Bush foreign policy (Iraq) never made any sense to me anyway. (Still doesn't.) Add to that that I'm a hard-core SOCIAL liberal and there's just not that much that I can agree with the Rigth on these days.
So I DO believe what I type (and usually try to indicate when I'm being sarcastic) but my (admitted) going overboard in this case WAS intentional, and I'm aware that I'm exagerating. It's really very little more than a colorful overstatement of the truth, however: The 'Pubs fight unions, the minimum wage, workers rights, and ANYTHING that's helops the poor. So they're record on "A days pay for a day's work" is far from sterling.
I love mindless little threadwasters. We now know everything you will ever say, because you will simply bash anyone conservative and consider it un-necessary to actually support your position or dispute and facts in theirs. Nice job!
You will make certain I understand which one I am pretty quick won't you?
You took 60 words to mock 4 word post, and then used 94 words to answer my 8 word post. So, assuming that the first post WAS actually meaningless... WHO'S really 'wasting bandwith' here? ;)
Since I'm both anyway, it's better if I provide some context so that people can fire back at me for my actual shortcomings as opposed to my perceived ones. 8-)
I am strongly nationalist and quite proud of the unique structure of America's design. And I like to think of myself as a natural citizen whose "gifts" are the result of outside influence rather than an innate difference from those around me.
I like your reference to anthropology. I sometimes feel like I am studying the bones of past civilizations as I explore this "new liberalism". My exposure to liberalism is from my family and I repect the practitioners. Yet it is sometimes hard to equate them with the whiney skreeching liberals I encounter on the web.
I believe that politicians lie. Just ask me! =0
Oxycontin?