FACT CHECK: "Phony Soldiers" and Limbaugh's Revisionist History
Radio Talk-Show Host Falsely Claims Comments Taken Out of Context; Records Show Otherwise
Washington, DC - As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments continues to grow, Media Matters for America would like to highlight the falsehoods that Limbaugh, America's top conservative talk-radio host, has used to claim that he was taken out of context.
Limbaugh claims he referred only to Jesse MacBeth, but smeared other veterans
Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.
Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.
Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"
According to Murtha's biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.
Limbaugh claims he was only speaking about one soldier, but used the plural
Misinformation: Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, that he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth."
Fact: As the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to a caller's statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added].
Limbaugh claims to be a victim of "selective" editing, then aired edited clip and posted edited transcript
Misinformation: Limbaugh further asserted that "Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story."
Fact: In fact, the clip he aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010
Fact: The transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh's website, which Limbaugh described as being the "anatomy of a smear," is also edited and does not make clear how much time elapsed between Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark and his discussion of MacBeth -- or even that any time did elapse: Limbaugh's transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used.
More from Media Matters for America ...
Limbaugh falsely recasts "phony soldiers" smear
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010
Rush Limbaugh insisted that his September 26 remarks characterizing U.S. service members who support withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers" had been taken out of context and that he was referring specifically to "one genuine, convicted, lying, fake soldier," Jesse MacBeth. But Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute, 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment, and at no point on that show prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment did Limbaugh refer to any actual fake soldiers. Additionally, on September 28, Limbaugh misrepresented those comments.
Limbaugh expands group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Murtha
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280011
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh defended his statement characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers" and expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha.
Limbaugh selectively edited "phony soldiers" clip, claimed it was "the entire transcript"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009
In response to Media Matters' documentation of his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh claimed that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh then purported to air the "entire" segment in question. In fact, the clip he aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth.
Like radio show, transcript on RushLimbaugh.com
selectively edits his "phony soldiers" comments
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280013
Media Matters for America has previously noted how, during the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to Media Matters' documentation of his recent characterization of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh selectively edited an audio clip of the September 26 exchange while calling it "the entire transcript" of the segment. Excised from the clip, however, was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to "one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." The transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh's website does not make clear how much time elapsed between Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark and his discussion of MacBeth -- or even that any time did elapse: Limbaugh's transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used.
Members of Congress denounced Limbaugh's "phony
soldiers" smear
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280001
Summary: Sen. Jim Webb and Reps. Frank Pallone, Jan Schakowsky, Chris Van Hollen, and Patrick Murphy denounced Rush Limbaugh for calling service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers," which Media Matters for America documented.
Limbaugh previously called Vietnam
veteran Kerry "a fraud," "a total phony"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280002
Summary: Rush Limbaugh's characterization of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers" was not the first time that he has labeled a military service member a "phony." On his June 27 radio show, Limbaugh said of Sen. John Kerry, whose Vietnam record was the subject of a smear campaign by the discredited Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth: "The guy's a fraud! He's a total phony, and people were able to see it!"
Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S.
withdrawal are "phony soldiers"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "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 interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."
###
RSS Feeds
This may seem a bit dull and redundant... but even _if_ Limbaugh _was_ referring to Jesse MacBeth, the character of his remarks _still_ makes him look like the vindictive ideolog, and narrow minded voice of the Right that he aspires to be.
This has nothing to do with Limbaugh. It's all about General Betray Us, and Move-On's idiotic ad. The left wants to change the subject, desperately.
Give me a break! It's not about changing the subject, troll. I think we should continue to talk about how a sitting general choses to politicize the situation on the ground rather than do what is best for the military is a betrayal of his duty and oath to the constitution. Why don't you sycophants on the right get that? The military caries out policy that is made by civilians not the other way around. In any event, Rush (the draft dodging coward) got caught with his foot in his mouth and is trying to back-peddle like crazy. Wonder how he'll respond to that 'suicide bomber' soldier who called him out yet again on Olberman?!?!?!
Yes, I suppose it is. If the right-wing idiots had not dragged the Congress into wasting our valuable time condemning an organization's free speech, whether you agree with it or not, then likely this would be yet another MM daily recitation of right-wing idiocy, clucked over by the readers of this site and maybe tut-tutted over on a blog or two. But you jerks started this game, and for once, the "civility at all costs" Dems are getting down and dirty and playing it with you. I would prefer that Congress get back to the business of legislating and oversight and not being the thought police and the arbiters of good taste in advertising or radio announcing. But damn, if y'all have decided that's the game we're playing, don't be upset if more than one side plays. Tough s***.
As far as I am concerned the disparate treatment of moveon and Limbaugh is the issue. Or maybe the dishonesty of the right is the issue. You want one standard for prowar speech and another for antiwar speech.
yea , your right ....we should ban him from the airwaves...maybe passa bill that does that?
No it does not.
Limbaugh admits to edit of audio
Right. The defense here is a common tactic. It must be one or the other it can not be both. He either was talking about Macbeth or the soldiers against against the war. It seems to me he was trying to link them together as if macbeth was the example to define the class of people who say they are soldiers who are against the war. He was talking about both which is the nature of the smear.
After hearing all sides on this, the Media Matters view of things just doesn't hold up. This is so bogus... I can't believe that numerous elected officials have run with this in Washington. Either the truth doesn't matter, or they are dumb as a box of rocks. Misinformation? Oh, yeah. It's here.
Perhaps we should also listen to his other comments for a moment... "The democrat party has been trying to demoralize them" (referring to the troops) This absolute quote is in the _English_ language, there is __no__ room for misinterpretation and seems a pathological and bizarre indictment, if you ask me.
"The democrat party has been trying to lose the Iraq war, the war on terror" This is the rant of an ill person
"They own defeat they are vested in it"
So you are telling me that these actual quotes reflect an individual that is honest and has integrity?
I will give you that , yes, elected officials have more important things to do. But your claim of "bogus-ness" tells me you have not listened to Rush Limbaugh
You have pretty much nailed it.
I noticed this tidbit in the spin-er, article above.
**Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.**
If that is true, how could he have been making the comment about soldiers who are for immediate pullout from Iraq, or even those who 'dissent' about the war? Oh, that's right. He didn't mention them, either.
Of course anybody with an operating brain cell could just read the transcript or listen to it and hear the example of 'fake soldiers' he gave IMMEDIATELY after ending the call with the second Mike. The example was Jesse Macbeth.
It's hard to read this site, it's spinning so fast. They present words that destroy their own position, then tell us that they prove they're right.
Look at the flow in that segment....
Certainly Limbaugh is talking about soldiers serving in Iraq, as he is RESPONDING to a comment made by the caller. A comment referring to "soldiers", soldiers talking to the media in Iraq. Limbaugh is stating that a soldier serving in Iraq that does not support the mission is a phony ( interesting what is important to Limbaugh..and it anit fighting you enemy as all of the soldiers in Iraq are doing that) soldier.
My guess is lights went off in that studio the second he made that remark. I am sure a teleprompter or an ear phone went nuts and urged him to get the word out on MacBeth as soon as possible. Note the sence of urgency he implies in his exit from that callers participation and what a non sequiter MacBeth really is. MacBeth was not interviewed by the media, he wrote on a blog. MacBeth was proven a fool and punished for it. He got away with nothing but most important: MacBeth did not use an Anti-War angle. He promoted himself as a war participant when he was not.
Rush Limbaugh referred to soldiers serving in Iraq as phony...because they DO NOT THINK LIKE HIM. This is what that damn war is all about. Its not about America where people are free to think as they like. Its about GOP power...where they are not.
Nice use of the "whatever' dismissal..in reference to keeping the troops safe from harms way.
<quote>My guess is lights went off in that studio the second he made that remark. I am sure a teleprompter or an ear phone went nuts and urged him to get the word out on MacBeth as soon as possible. Note the sence of urgency he implies in his exit from that callers participation and what a non sequiter MacBeth really is. </quote>
The part about MacBeth was a reiteration of the 9/24/07 Morning Update, so Rush had already spoken to the issue of MacBeth. He simply had not mentioned it until that moment on the broadcast on which the "phoney soldiers" comment took place 9/26/07.
MM has posted the link to that story on this page http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top so we know it exists. Unfortunately, you have to be a member of Rush's 24/7 to view it but even MM admits it is there. They have not posted anything to the contrary about its existence nor the date of its original airing.
You guys are too funny! Even in your original article you admit that he had mentioned Jesse MacBeth BEFORE his phony soldiers comment. He mentioned it in the morning update that morning. ABC had a story on "phony soldiers" TWO DAYS before Rush's show. The preceding comment by the caller even said "THEY NEVER TALK TO REAL SOLDIERS". You guys really have to stretch to say he wasn't continuing that thought, but instead he interrupted the caller to say two words that were completely off of the current topic? You try to make it sound he's backpeddling by the ridiculous assertion that he says he was talking about "one soldier" but ...OMG!!!! He used a PLURAL!!!!!!! It is no different than referring to Rush Limbaugh as "Conservative talk radio" in the general sense. Maybe he learned it from Hillary, and her "we are the president" type of vernacular. And, it seems obvious by anyone with a brain that he used the "phony soldiers" to segue into the Jesse MacBeth story, which was coming up next in the program! I don't see how ANYBODY can claim that wasn't what he was talking about!
In Limbaugh's later statements he again says the MacBeth news story was in the Morning Update the day before the caller called.
The fact that the news story was the day before, and WAS NOT brought up prior to the callers, shows NO LINK to his "Phony soldiers" comment made to the caller.
They were talking about soldiers in Iraq who are interviewed by the media, and who they say they are for withdrawing.
That discussion has NO connection to a news story the day before of a MacBeth, a "fake" soldier who pretended to be a soldier to collect bennefits.
Chris, You are right on the money. I would like to add that I believe the only reason Rush was targeted to this degree was because the left has been losing some much credibility in the past year and are desperately trying to bring people down to their level. Good post Chris!
Thank Chris for admitting that Rush was defaming th soldiers.
So, what is MM trying to say here? After DAYS of pushing this story, what is the point? Are they saying that Limbaugh -really- believes that every soldier that is opposed to the war is a phony soldier? If he believes that why doesn't he say so? He insulted Murtha by name, why spare the soldiers? Does MM think he is hiding his true feelings and this slip of the tongue has now shown his true beliefs?
Rush referred to the caller's statement about the soldiers who talked to Democrats ... who are forbidden by the code to publicly air their complaints (unless they're attacking a Democratic President ... then they are paraded around and honored in the Congressional Record).
He called all soldiers who speak to Democrats about concerns about Bush's foreign policy phony ... soldiers in uniform (non-Blackwater, that is) IN IRAQ ...
I don't think that MM really believes this story at all. I mean, even in their own explanation at the top of this particular topic, their own "argument" is really weak!
quote:
Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.
end quote
1 minute and 50 seconds? In the real world, that is a pretty quick time for an explanation about the legitimate use of the term "phony soldiers"...unless, of course, the real point of MM is not to point out the truth but to simply engage in the "politics of personal destruction"
I think they are trying to void the rest of the transcript because it clearly defines what Limbaugh meant in regards to "phony soldiers." Even if it had been 10 minutes later, the fact that the Jesse Macbeth segment occurred immediately after the phone conversation ended makes it contextually significant to the phony soldiers statement.
mutidisdain Yes the rest of the transcript shows just how seriously he was defaming the soldiers who oppose the war as being just like the convicted macbeth. Glad you admitted it.
Rush Limbaugh is a joke of a man. When he had the chance to serve in our last 'war for democracy' he ran like a little girl in the opposite direction! Well, as fast as an overweight person with a cyst on his butt could run, anyway! He only supports the troops so far as it is politically expedient. When anyone who disagrees with him and also wears/wore a military uniform speaks out, he has nothing but contempt for them. (See Murtha, Kerry, General Clark, etc.)
Well done, having all the facts on one convenient page.
Media Matters (very little) has gotten its knickers all twisted! My oh my, how the lefties scream for the troops they so love.
Problem is MM(vl), the military knows who respects them and who doesn't. They know that it is liberals like Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, et al., who would like the dear Murtha, 'Hadifasize' them at the drop of the hat. Given an opening, they have jumped to accuse our troops of war crimes, Gestapo tactics and like Senator Kerry himself who says that the soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi women and children and reminds us of his 'respect filled' comments about fellow Vietnam era soldiers who "razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
American soldiers know who's patriotism is phony and who's is not.
MM(vl)-Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much!
ProudOneI think you and I can agree that Murtha Should not had prejudged those Marines in the Haditha matter. Kerry didn’t accuse the troops of war crimes he said that Iraqis need to be managing the security of the civilian population because they hate us and fear us more than they do their own. Read the full discussion. As for Vietnam, 9000 pages of declassified documentation confirmed that massacres torturing and POW abuse occurred. Some of the offenders were punished while others were not. And though this was the largest collection of documented atrocities of that war, the untold numbers are likely substantially higher. What Kerry did was the definition of patriotism. Love for ones country requires a willingness to criticize those who violate it’s creeds It is one of the highest expressions of patriotism, because it usually causes hurt and pain to ones self. John Kerry is a true patriot, and his testimony is evidence of the extent of his patriotism.
--Thank you to W.O.O., W.O.O. II, and T.L.G. I’d salute you guys but I don’t think I am worthy. Will any vet(s) reading this *salute* these men and thier amazing wives for me. Thanks.
Its amazing the way Conservatives have completely erased things like My Lai from history.
You mean conservatives re-wrote the history of the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT'S folly?!?
<> So, they either did so out of respect for the soldiers...or they did so to protect a Democrat President.
<>There is a third option, of course...that you're simply an idiot who likes to run his mouth before doing the slightest reflection of history and fact. <>Concrete Soul,
I did read your link to the LA time article. No doubt about it, war is hell and the suffering in Vietnam was awful.
But, I remember that Kerry testified about all that he had supposedly witnessed while serving there, but never did anything to stop it when he saw it. And the other 'eyewitnesses' he gathered in the Winter Soldier Investigation ultimately were proven to be frauds or refused to cooperate with investigators. In the book, Conversations With Americans by Michael Lane claimed to have uncovered unspeakable atrosities committed by soldiers in South Vietnam. However, a NYT reporter, Neil Sheehan investigated and found:
"that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.
Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans."
A patriot would have not used these suppossed personal experiences for a personal springboard into a political career.
I must confess that if Kerry knowingly did that then he is wrong. If he did not know then he is meerly human, which is forgivable.
Also I will do my best never to manipulate your or anyone else's name. Such needless taunts can undermine a disscussion<--that spelled right?
Conscious Soul,
I will gladly refrain from altering your name in any future postings. I promise you, my intent was not to harm, just add a bit of levity that usually only humors me. If fact my wife often tells me that, 'it is not your mission in life to make others enjoy your sense of humor.' So to both you and her, my apologies.
And remember, concrete does infer a sense of solid consistency, so to posess a firm conscious is a good thing, no? Sorry, my spouse is right, I am just a bad man.
Senator Durbin is well respected by the Guardsmen I know and work with in Illinois. Durbin was the first one to get a bill going for body army and more protection for the troops. The republicans were against these measures as too costly. We get some angry letters to the editors over the handling of this war in the local paper. They are critical of the chicken hawks that sent them over there. Also, the reason John Murtha had to go to Iraq in the first place was due to Rumsfeld refusal to hand over the NIE reports to congress. (See articles by Seymour Hersh or his book Chain of Command.)
NiceTryFastEddie,
Is this the Dick Durbin that called them Nazis, using Gestapo tactics or running gulags? Or is this the Dick Durbin that came back from Iraq this summer to declare the surge was working right before he switched back to say it wasn't?
>>Problem is MM(vl), the military knows who respects them and who doesn't.
I see... you know exactly how "the troops" think. What hiubris... claiming YOUR ideology is "respected" and ours isn't.
BTW... 100% of the troops I know in Iraq are liberals. Unlike you, I don't claim to know what people I've never met think.
Ken SeaShell,
I'm glad that you feel that you know 100% of the liberals who serve in Iraq. Is it possible that I know people who have served and are serving now? Is it possible that they reflect a far different political view? So, I will give you 100% of the one that thinks liberals love, adore and otherwise worship the very ground that the warrior class of citizens walks on. It should have been so simple for me to see, millions upon millions know it to be true...the left LOVES warriors!
Here's some recent history of how the left loved the military so much, they fought to stop the counting of votes by soldiers overseas.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/20/military.ballots/
Gee, why would the democrat party not want the military vote counted if they loved the warriors and the warriors loved them? Hmmm...
You keep all 100% of the one, I'll keep 100% of the rest.
PROUDCONSERVATIVE:
Interesting last paragraph in this story that has Gore's man Butterworth calling for all military votes TO BE COUNTED:
"Ironically, it may have been the Republican secretary of state, Katherine Harris, the co-chairwoman of Bush's Florida campaign, who advised county election boards that state law requires the overseas ballots to have a postmark."
Hmmm. Gore's man calling for the votes to be counted, Bush's gal Katherine Harris calling for the LAW to be followed as to postmark date.
WHO is it you were trying to smear, here?
BUSTED.
T-Rex,
You caught me. I had googled something like 'democrat party loves the military' (You can only imagine the MILLIONS of hits that would come up on that search!) and ended up pasting one of the articles I viewed. It was not however, the one I had intended. Sorry about the mixup and now delayed slam..... Here it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4787-2001Jan30¬Found=true
Thank you for your patience and kindness!
X's & O's right back at ya!
PROUD:
Too late! Paste is out of the tube. I'm afraid you remain busted. Best of luck in the future!
Then I guess what MM(vl) does really shows that media doesn't matter.
The second article explained how the democrat party conspired to suppress the military vote by giving those counting votes ideas to throw them out.
The first article showed that the Florida state attorney general (a democrat) vainly tried to show impartiality when caught.
They knew then what we all know now, the military would vote against the democrat party. They know who supports and who would throw out their votes or throw them under the bus when given the opportunity.
MediaMatters offers no audio clips of this and makes it difficult to cross-examine. Indeed they don't reference when, in the broadcast of the 28th, it was present. The people here are so embattled that I they present their view in an overpowering way. Rush gives you links to most all he comments on and also his words are posted each day. In addition, over 20 million is his audience and I'm sure someone out there has a recording...just Google it.
Rush is not hiding or deceiving. You do need to listen to him rather than those who paraphrase him to understand.
There is no "revisionist history" on Rush that can be documented. Indeed, this website can't document the present and doesn't. Where is the audio of the missing minute or so from Rush?
You don't count re-editing the broadcast for the armed services as "revisionist"? I find this contention absurd!
My how MM is really taking this way overboard. Limbaugh referenced Jesse Macbeth earlier that morning on his broadcast "Morning Updates", which I am sure MM also monitors. Why not let your readers know all the facts? I listened to Rush's show that day, read and listened to all the transcripts on MM, saw Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olberman and Dan Abrams discuss it on the air. To date, none has broadcast the entire conversation where Rush stated the term. It was in a discussion with a serving military caller who was talking about soldiers that the media holds up as against the war, like Jesse Macbeth, that turn out to be phonies. Similar to the vets during Vietnam who never served. And why not call Murtha a phony for calling the troops he supports cold blooded murderers? Why not call Kerry a phony for the way it was seared in his memory that President Nixon sent hm to Cambodia in December, 1968 (a full month before he took office). How about Tom Harkin first stating he flew combat missions over Vietnam, then updating it to flying "repaired aircraft test flights" over friendly territory? Seems to me they are all phony in one way or another.
Limbaugh is *not* coated with teflon.
Someday something's going to stick. Drugs, failed marriages, dubious heterosexuality, racism, pilonidal cysts, "the White House dog," borrowed Viagra, whatever... He has a very hard fall coming.
From "Shrimpate:"
And remember, too, that Rush's draft classification was 1Y (eligible for military service only in a state of war or national emergency), and tried to make it 4F (unfit for military service) with that "anal cyst" patsy.
As for that "very hard fall coming," is there a pun intended?
It appears we are losing our republic. This case of political theatre has been played out throughout history by fascists of ever evil degree. The new democrat is the old Marxist and they are playing out of the same manifesto. Rule number one, never debate truth when you can destroy your opposition with lies and media propaganda. Rule nuber two, make the lie a big and obvious lie and make certain to present the lie in a grand and theatrical way. What is at stake here is the power of the individual. (For the slows among us, (most of Media Matters) the individual is you and me. The new McCarthyism is at play and this time it is conservative voices that are being silenced. The tryanny of the minority is at full play and as deadly and dangerous as ever. Both Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh are being tested and the democrats are using the full force of their political office and power of government to attempt to chill the speech of two independent voices of dissent. What ever happened to the First Amendment? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If they succeed in silencing the press, they will surely silence you and me. Beware the government/media complex. I don't blame the neo-fascist democrats, I blame the idle masses doing nothing and being so ignorant of history that we surely will have to repeat it. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Hving given that speech I would assume that you are livid that congress chilled the free speech of moveon. Please comment.
I also find your use of the word dissent when applied to those who support the current administration eccentric. I always thought dissent was what the opposition party did. What other word in your speech mean the opposite of what they usually mean?
If conservative voices are being silenced why when I turn on the radio all I hear are conservative rants? Why do the pundits on TV seem to mostly say conservative things? Why do I see Ann Coulters face everywhere. Why do I have so much difficulty finding any liberal talk on the radio. Why does my liberal newspaper have 50% conservative columns? Your name implies something about communism. I have not heard anyone on the major media advocate communism in decades and even socialism is rarer than three headed baby. Yet the opposite , laissez faire economic policies is touted weekly. Some silence. What pray tell is the conservative viewpoint that you never hear?
what will it take to get Rush off the air?
We need 200 callers to jam his lines.
Won't do any good. He'll keep the ball rolling on his show even without callers getting through.
Well you can start wiht the 10 people who regularly post here under 5 different names.
So, you're suggesting mob force to curtain free speech? How enlightened of you.
Not only are you a fascist at heart, but you're not very bright. 200 callers? You mean a 1% increase (rounding up) in call volume is going to "jam his phone lines"?
Go ahead, get 200 of your friends (I'll even loan you 198 of mine to help meet your quota) and do your worst.
That's illegal.
And typical
I AM CONFUSED
Why take him off the air? Seems like you are all set with safeguards in place to call out the misinformation.ie this site
If you think that the American people side with you ,why not let the information fly from all outlets and catch it,report and let the people decide
Have you guys reviewed the misinformation out of Hollywood?
Principles mean little to those on the political right. Much of the conservative leadership -- both in and outside of Washington -- has been tainted by scandals involving corruption, sex, or drugs and many forms of dishonesty.
And this is unique to the Republicans?!?
<>corruption: Barbara Boxer, Harry Ried, Hillary Clinton, and your beloved Barack Obama
sex: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Gerry Studds
drugs: Patrick Kennedy, Marion Barry
<> This is just off the top of my head. Don't quit your day job, because you're a washout as a political analyst.I think it should be noted for honesty's sake that Media Matters was disingenuous in its first account of Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments:
Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"You'll note that the transcript on this page ends halfway through the telephone conversation with the caller. Roughly two minutes later when the call ends, Limbaugh continues to speak about "phony soldiers" by discussing Jesse Macbeth.
Media Matters is making an empty statement when it claims that Limbaugh's Macbeth comments were not contextually significant due to being one minute and fifty seconds later than his first "phony soldiers" comment. A logical dissection of the transcript show a natural progression that any conversation might take:
It is disingenuous of MM to claim that the rest of the transcript should be voided simply because the conversation becomes a tangent for a couple of minutes. It is also disingenuous to claim that because the discussion of Jesse Macbeth occurred after the use of the "phony soldiers" term, that phony soldiers did not refer to Macbeth.
Limbaugh often uses topics started by callers as an opportunity to read a related news story. In this case the story was Jesse Macbeth.
The use of the plural form of "phony soldiers" is a moot point, whether Limbaugh was referring just to Jesse Macbeth or to any number of soldiers guilty of making false claims. Often times a person will use the plural form of word incorrectly, or as a means to categorize a certain behavior embodied by one person. It is in fact insignificant to the argument and I am surprised that MM continues to pretend that it has any relevance.
Also, the fact that 1 minute and 50 seconds of irrelevant discussion on WMDs was removed from the clips and transcripts of the show is moot. The missing sections had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and were about WMDs. In broadcast radio, time is money, and it is understandable why those parts of the transcript were redacted.
Even with the missing one minute and 50 seconds included, the Jesse Macbeth section is contextually relevant to the previous "phony soldiers" comment. The logical flow and structure of the conversation as laid out in the transcripts clearly shows this.
I think this is not going to bode well with MM or the senators who choose to take their accusations as a factual portrayal of Limbaugh's intention. Clearly MM is making a subjective inference of the conversation that common sense does not support. If this were a cut and dry case in which Limbaugh emphatically called dissenting soldiers phony, then there would be no argument.
Instead, MM has chosen to stake its reputation on a semantical argument that can never be one. It is completely plausible and most likely that Mr. Limbaugh's comments were in regards to "fake soldiers" like Jesse Macbeth.
It really is sad that when MM lays out all of its facts, that they really aren't facts at all but subjective interpretations of conversation and semantics.
Mutual, while I appreciate the sheer effort it is taking you guys to keep trying to explain this and maintain what must be very comfy cognitive dissonance, you are simply, blatantly wrong here. After having referred to soldiers who speak out against the policy of this war as "phony soldierS" Rush went on to use this liar to bolster his case. It doesn't excuse him. He didn't replace these genuine soldiers in his argument with this guy. He used this guy to smear them. It's the same way he would use some drugged out nut who happened to say something 'liberal' to try to smear all liberals as being drugged out. This is his M.O. after all. It's really, no kidding, terribly sad to see people obviously capeable of thinking to be wasting their brains listening to and trying to defend such a plainly vile individual.
It is painfully obvious that no one that vists this web site has ever listened to Rush's show. If you did you would know that he loves and adores the military and they love him. Rush even loves liberals and tells them so when he calls their show.
Here are some facts that Media Matters for Liberals failed to mention.
The reason Rush is on Armed Forces Network (AFN) in the first place is becuse he won a vote that he was not even a choice on. AFN asked the military audience what they wanted on the radio and since Rush was not on the ballot we wrote in his name and he won. Now we get to listen to him. I am a 12 year Navy vet and now I work for the Dept. of the Navy overseas in Okinawa, Japan. There are many service members, Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy that have been to and are currently serving in Iraq and Afganistan that I personally know. They think people like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, and Murtha are the real problem in this country. They all understand what Rush was saying and they believe him.
Two days prior to Rush's program ABC ran a story about "fake soldiers" that included the soldier Rush was talking about. No mention here.
Rush talked about the "phony soldier" prior to the show that started the controversy but no mention of that here.
I really wish some of you lemmings would take a moment to listen to his show and get to know the man. Stop walking in lock step with Media Matters and get your own brain.
Gimme a break, I've been subjected to Rush's garbage for decades now. And I've also seen how his listeners are some of the most misinformed, confused yet sure of themselves people on the planet. And yes, he loves the soldiers. As long as they share his politics. Otherwise they are simply Phony Soldiers.
And you guys calling anyone lemmings is beyond ridiculous. I've lived in a conservative state surrounded by conservatives and fully right wing neighbors. Had almost nothing to listen to but right wing media. And I developed my own opinions anyway. Rush and all these jokers have been wrong about everything for years. Doesn't anything ever get through? A dittohead calling a liberal thinker a lemming. You guys are so embarrasing.
Don't you know how to change the channel or turn off your radio???? Maybe then you wouldn't be subject to Rush's show. Fools can only be foolish for so long.
By the very fact that this subject is being "debated" confims that what Rush said is subjective interpretation. Everyone is not going to agree with what was said or what he meant. It appears that the left will try and use anything (no matter how insignificant) to discredit someone.
That was one of the most illogical posts I've ever seen. All these Rush guys showing up and making illogical arguments proves that there is an argument to be made which proves that Rush is right which proves the left is just trying to discredit him unjustly? Huh? I swear, Rush makes people dumb. Or dumb people like Rush? It's the new chicken or the egg.
Hey fool, did you and your left wing communist buddies come out and try to take down Murtha when he said our soldiers were murderers in Haditha. Hmmm. Hmmm Just wondering, thought so, no answer from a communist.
It wasn't a matter of Limbaugh replacing one group of soldiers with another, rather, it's obvious that Limbaugh was describing someone who fit the term he had used earlier.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but you haven't made it.
He made it you just refuse to understand it because then you might have to actually address it.
Spoken like someone who read Media Matters talking points and not the actual exchange...
<>I listened to the entire broadcast that day. Did you? Of course not...otherwise you'd have your "facts" a little more accurate than the mess of lies you're peddling now...>>It is disingenuous of MM to claim that the rest of the transcript should be voided simply because the conversation becomes a tangent for a couple of minutes.
It is disingenuous of you to claim that phony soldiers comment wasn't made in the context of discussing the soldiers are presented in the media. Or is the excuse du jour that the media only ever talked to one soldier named MacBeth?
Rush's comment had EVERYTHING to do with caller 1 and the 7 soldiers who wrote against the war in the NY Times, and NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Macbeth.
If Limbaugh's comments were about the soldiers who wrote in the NYT, or any other dissenting soldiers then why did he not emphatically state that they were. (On the day the comments were made, and in subsequent statements)
If Limbaugh's comments referred to dissenting soldiers, then why did his example showcase a truly fake soldier and not one who was dissenting?
Do you understand how you are failing to make your argument?
MUTUAL:
First, ANY discussion of Limbaugh will be "semantical", because that is his medium. He has used WORDS for twenty years to promote his ideology, and to demonize all others who disagree with his point of view.
Second, this is indeed a "definitional" argument, and it involves whether Limbaugh (and his caller) were including soldiers who have actually served (or currently serve) in Iraq, and who have then expressed the opinion that America should pull its soldiers OUT of Iraq, or if Limbaugh was only targeting a "single soldier".
The evidence which takes all doubt from this "definitional" discussion comes from how they agreed to define "REAL" soldiers. There are "REAL" soldiers, and there are "PHONY" soldiers, and you know the phony because they do not behave as the REAL soldiers behave, and this is a bright line of difference as Limbaugh and his caller agree.
CALLER: “And what's really funny is they (the media) never talk to real soldiers.
REAL SOLDIERS: NEVER talked to by the media, never quoted IN the media.
PHONY SOLDIERS: The ONLY soldiers talked to by the media, quoted by the media.
CALLER: “They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.”
REAL SOLDIERS: Available for interview, willing to present their REAL views, but ignored by the media.
PHONY SOLDIERS: Come up “out of the blue,” are non-representative of “REAL” soldiers, in that they “spout to the media.”
RUSH: “The phony soldiers.”
(I.E, by this agreed-to definition, ALL soldiers who are quoted in the media, as opposed to REAL soldiers who are NEVER quoted in the media.)
CALLER: “The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
REAL SOLDIERS: WANTS TO BE OVER IN IRAQ (applies to ANY “REAL” soldier)
PHONY SOLDIERS: Any soldiers who DO NOT want to continue to be over in Iraq, who express an opinion that America should WITHDRAW from Iraq.
RUSH: "They joined to be in Iraq."
REAL SOLDIERS: Joined to BE in Iraq.
PHONY SOLDIERS: Did NOT join to be in Iraq.
This definitional argument could not be more clear, as to who is being talked about, and what constitutes a “REAL” soldier as opposed to a “PHONY” one.
By clear definitional guidelines, OUR ENTIRE MILITARY is divided into two categories, “REAL” and “PHONY” soldierS (plural), and each individual soldier can easily be placed in one category or the other … with no ambiguity, confusion, or doubt.
Quoted IN THE MEDIA as FAVORING WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ? That is a PHONY soldier, by definition. ALL who fit this definiton are PHONY SOLDIERS. Period.
No other discussion is necessary.
Your logic is laughable...
By using your own logic, you can define the "phony soldiers" that Rush and the caller agreed to thusly:
CALLER: “They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.”
RUSH: “The phony soldiers.”
It is agreed that Rush is talking about the soldiers that "come up out of the blue and spout to the media" as "phony soldiers"
Now, who are these that come up out of the blue?
I can use your logic and say:
REAL SOLDIERS: Don't come out of the blue, therefore have a traceable history and and established record as being a soldier
PHONY SOLDIERS: Come up “out of the blue,” appear out of "nowhere", not from any place you would expect a "real" soldier to come from like Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere the military is actively serving or training. By definition, "out of the blue" refers to something that has no credible or traceable history of origin.
Taking all that into account, and the alternate view possible using your own logic, it is therefore impossible to conclude that "no further discussion is necessary".
Let's go one step further in destroying your logic... You use the absolute literal translation of the word "never" to base your definition of "phony" and "real" soldiers. Why do you choose to use that word instead of the words themselves? I.E., a "phony" soldier is one who doesn't exist, and a real one does. The reason you don't is because you are trying to define the context of how it was used. But then you take the other words out of context to define them. Are you saying that you have never (and I do mean that literally) used the word "never" to emphasize a point?
While we're discussing semantics, it would also have to be true that Rush never (and again, I use that word literally) characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers". He clearly agreed that the ones the "media pull up out of the blue and spout to the media" were "phony soldiers". Everything else is conjecture and requires twisted logic, and assumptions.
CHRIS:
To attempt to rebut "MY LOGIC", you set about suggesting that Limbaugh might not have meant "literally" what he said, and what he agreed to.
By THAT kind of "logic", you could suggest that Limbaugh was instead talking about butterflies or sauerkraut.
The criteria for a "PHONY SOLDIER" was made clear by Limbaugh and his caller, and your only response is to say he was unclear, in your reading. He agreed to the absolutes, and offered his own sweeping generalities to encompass all fitting the stated criteria. Your response? He didn't MEAN it. And you use the word "LAUGHABLE" ... such irony.
I will admit up front, I never expect LOGIC to penetrate the reading and listening comprehension of a Limbaugh fan, so thanks for adding your two cents.
(P.S. NEVER NEVER attempt this sort of argument in formal debate ... you'll get creamed and embarrassed!)
Well, today Media Matters is arguing syntax and singular vs plural. Tomorrow will likely be the definition of "is". But the thing I would like to ask...Jesse Macbeth is the "phoney soldier" Rush was referring to, yet for all of his fame, I can't find a single mention of this class act on your website prior to last week! Media Matters would certainly not let slip an opportunity to scream to the rafters the story of a U.S. soldier accusing the U.S. military of rape, murder, torture, the desecration of the dead etc. But either you never heard of the guy prior to seven days ago (nonsense) or you waited for the facts to be known prior to publishing his charges (yeah, right) or you deleted all mention of this modern day Alvin York from your site. Now if you deleted all mention, it would seem that you agree with Rush about his status as a "phoney soldier" and refuse to honor him with a mention. Then again, you might be refusing to publish obvious lies and misrepresentations. (Heh heh) In which case, you once again agree with Rush. Or is it possible that the hero worship you lavished upon him earlier would be just a little tough to explain right about now? I'm just curious!
Owebetty if MM has not posted macbeth before how could it be true that he was the poster boy of the left as Rushbo the voice of god said? So you admit he lied.
Tex, this argument would not be subjective if Limbaugh had emphatically stated that dissenting troops were phony soldiers. He never made any such statement which is why you have to make complicated subjective inferences based on inaccurate assumptions.
In fact, you are basing your entire disjointed argument on statements made by the caller and not Limbaugh. You are making the base assumption that Limbaugh agreed with everything the caller said, and interpreted the caller's words just as you have subjectively interpreted them.
A very literal reading of the transcript, as you are attempting to make, simply doesn't make any sense. If any soldier who talks to the media is phony, then the caller would also by definition be phony as he is a soldier talking to the media.(Mr. Limbaugh)
Limbaugh clearly defines phony soldiers as fake soldiers when he examples the term with the Jesse Macbeth story. It really is that simple to read the transcript and make the logical inference that phony soldiers are indeed fake soldiers. Based on Limbaugh's history of supporting the troops, ABC's previous use of the term phony soldiers, and his previous mentioning of Jesse Macbeth; it really is the most likely inference to make.
MUTUALDISDAIN responses, Part I:
MUTUAL: You say, “Tex, this argument would not be subjective if Limbaugh had emphatically stated that dissenting troops were phony soldiers.”
RESPONSE: Limbaugh WAS emphatic in defining “phony soldiers”. His caller set the criteria, first by identifying “REAL” soldiers as those whom the media “never talks to.” Those who are NOT “REAL” soldiers are the ones who “spout to the media.” Rush identified those soldiers who DO talk to the media as “phony soldiers,” based on his caller’s criteria. Thus, if a soldier is reported as talking in or to the media, he is a “phony soldier”, because REAL soldiers NEVER talk to the media. That’s emphatic by any measure.
Mutual: “He never made any such statement which is why you have to make complicated subjective inferences based on inaccurate assumptions.”
RESPONSE: If someone said “Mutual is an idiot”, and I said “I agree,”… by your “logic” I will not have called you an idiot. I hope you are having luck in rightwing circles with this type of argument, because in this site, it is laughably ridiculous.
Mutual: “In fact, you are basing your entire disjointed argument on statements made by the caller and not Limbaugh.”
RESPONSE: I am basing my rational argument on the words actually spoken. That may be what has you so upset.
Mutual: “You are making the base assumption that Limbaugh agreed with everything the caller said, and interpreted the caller's words just as you have subjectively interpreted them.”
RESPONSE: I base what the caller said on what he said, and I base Limbaugh’s agreement on the fact that Limbaugh supplied the label “phony soldiers” based on the criteria supplied BY that caller.
Mutual: “A very literal reading of the transcript, as you are attempting to make, simply doesn't make any sense.”
RESPONSE: It makes perfect sense, and that’s the problem you are having. You must introduce confusion, distraction, and ambiguity where there is NONE, because the clear language reveals a political/social position that Limbaugh does not wish to take responsibility for.
MUTUAL DISDAIN responses, Part II:
Mutual: “If any soldier who talks to the media is phony, then the caller would also by definition be phony as he is a soldier talking to the media.(Mr. Limbaugh)”
RESPONSE: True. What’s your point?
Mutual: “Limbaugh clearly defines phony soldiers as fake soldiers when he examples the term with the Jesse Macbeth story.”
RESPONSE: I agree that Limbaugh later was able to provide a specific example of a “phony soldier.” In fact, he provided several including Murtha, which emphasized the criteria that it is not honorable service that determines “phonyness”, but instead ideological opposition to the war in Iraq. This underscores, rather than disputes, that Limbaugh intends for “phony soldiers” to be those who speak to the media who oppose the war.
Mutual: “It really is that simple to read the transcript and make the logical inference that phony soldiers are indeed fake soldiers.”
RESPONSE: If you say this is true for you, then we make our conclusions about your reading/listening comprehension based on conclusions you have drawn from known facts.
Mutual: “Based on Limbaugh's history of supporting the troops …”
RESPONSE: Limbaugh’s history is of smearing decorated combat vets, supporting Republican policy which has placed soldiers in harm’s way based on lies, and supporting the Administration’s dealings with the troops, such as blaming the lowest level troops for misdeeds in treatment of prisoners. Limbaugh’s history is supporting an Administration which allowed our troops to go into battle without the equipment they needed and without sufficient numbers. There are a thousand examples of policies involving the troops Quite frankly, the current most heated debate is ABOUT who is really supporting the troops, and it hinges on whether being used as tools for NeoCon ambitions is supportive or destructive to the troops. Rightwingers need to understand they are LOSING this argument.
Mutual: “…(Limbaugh’s history) is of , ABC's previous use of the term phony soldiers, and his previous mentioning of Jesse Macbeth; it really is the most likely inference to make.”
RESPONSE: We don’t need inferences, when we have Limbaugh’s actual words. If a prevaricator is casting around for excuses about what he “MEANT” to say, there is no limit to the distractions and examples upon which he might cling in order to confuse the issue.
The one overriding excuse you MIGHT have used, that would be difficult to refute, would be to claim that Limbaugh didn’t mean or believe what he said, but that he was instead just “carrying water” for Republicans who didn’t deserve it. Of THIS deceptive behavior (which destroys ALL Limbaugh’s credibility at ALL times), Limbaugh has admitted directly.
Tex,
If the caller was truly making a statement that condemned all soldiers who talk to the media as "phony" then he would also be implicating himself with that argument.
Instead, it is clear that he was asserting a disdain for fake soldiers who have come forward with false allegations. This is clear because Limbaugh himself responds with the statement, "the phony soldiers" which he later fleshes out with the Jess Macbeth example. This means that Limbaugh agrees with me, and believes at the caller was referring to fake soldiers like Jess Macbeth.
Murtha was not being lambasted for his oposition to the war, rather he was being grilled for his past Haditha comments in which he impugned the honor of soldiers who were and still are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Despite there being no charges filed against any of the men in the case at the time, Murtha stated that they were guilty and that there was a cover-up underway.
Your assumption that Murtha was called a phony soldier because of his stance on the war is false, and shows how far you are grasping for anything to support your failed argument.
You further slide down the slippery slope of an untenable position when you state that Limbaugh smears combat vets simply because they are combat vets. As exampled above, Murtha has been rightfully disrespected for statements he has made and not for his service.
If it is indeed a cardinal sin to disagree with a combat veteran, then somewhere Moveon.org's soul is slowly roasting in hell. Personally, I think it is perfectly ok to disagree with someone and not accept their arguments just because of who they are.
Who really is trying to tell the world what Limbaugh really meant? Limbaugh certainly is, and I believe he probably knows more about that than anyone else who is interpreting for him.
You are making just as many subjective statements as I am, based on the facts at hand. (the transcript.) Which means... MM's overall argument is indeed a subjective argument based on semantics.
Limbaugh certainly should know better than anyone else what he meant. However, he also has a greater interest in hiding his meaning now than anyone else if he meant what he seemed to say. You have to admit you can say the same thing about anyone's statements and therefore I take it you will never question any later clarifications.
You seem to disagree with me on the assumption that Media Matters is making a subjective argument. If this argument is not subjective then how are millions of listeners, readers, and soldiers consuming the evidence and coming to a much different conclusion than yourself? Are your ears and cognitive ability the authoritative scale by which all English is parsed, or are you simply stating your opinion on this subjective issue?
Indeed, you are continuing to subjectively interpret the conversation between the caller and Mr. Limbaugh. You claim that your understanding of the events is the only de facto interpretation. That might be the position of an elitist, but certainly does not magically change the nature of the argument.
For instance, you interpret any phrase Limbaugh says in response to the caller as an affirmation of the caller's opinion. Many other intelligent people interpret the "phony soldiers" response as a means to example soldiers who appear out of the blue and give false statements.
You stated: If someone said “Mutual is an idiot”, and I said “I agree,”… by your “logic” I will not have called you an idiot. I hope you are having luck in rightwing circles with this type of argument, because in this site, it is laughably ridiculous.
Not only is this example a poor attempt at an baseless insult, but it is in no way a metaphor for this argument. Limbaugh at no time said, "I agree," or gave any indication of affirmation to the caller's comments.
Instead, you are subjectively interpreting his responses as agreement in order to buttress your disjointed argument. The fact that Limbaugh uses Macbeth as an example of a phony soldier supports this notion
Here is a much more accurate example for you:
Person A: Those damn conservatives are doing nothing about global warming. It has been way too hot for this time of year.
Person B: It sure has been hot lately.
Now, you could interpret Person B's lack of response to the statement on conservatives as affirmation, but there's a good chance you would be wrong. Person B could have failed to address the issue to avoid confrontation, to affirm what Person A believed, or just simply have ignored for a myriad of other reasons..
When Limbaugh responds with "phony soldiers" he is responding to the second sentence in the caller's diatribe and not the first. He is defining phony soldiers as those who appear out of the blue and give false statements of war atrocities. This is supported by the Jesse Macbeth segment.
You have failed to support your argument, because your evidence is just as subjective as the accusations made by MM.
MUTUAL:
So many words, so much tap-dancing, and yet the RECORD stands for all to see ... and so very many more are seeing and evaluating those words than if MMFA did not call it to attention.
I'm sure you hope that you are persuasive here in denying that anything spoken had any particular meaning, but really, that's just GREAT.
Because, you see, by defending Limbaugh's words by stating there are "duelling subjectives", you are saying that nothing Limbaugh ever says can be taken literally ... or even subjectively, because each person's subjective judgment is likely to be both WRONG and not what Rush "intended" to say.
The bottom line to your defense is, a person can LISTEN to Limbaugh, but a person cannot make any valid conclusions about what Limbaugh means, because it is all so unknowable. Frankly, that's a perfectly satisfactory outcome to this episode, as far as I'm concerned.
The image you paint of Limbaugh's listeners ever mired in confusion, uncertainty, and utter skepticism of every phrase he utters ... it's, like, a dream come true to have you confirm it. Thanks!
Because, you see, by defending Limbaugh's words by stating there are "duelling subjectives", you are saying that nothing Limbaugh ever says can be taken literally ... or even subjectively, because each person's subjective judgment is likely to be both WRONG and not what Rush "intended" to say.
I'm not arguing what Mr. Limbaugh intended to say. I am stating my opinion of what he said, just as you have stated yours.
Not all speech is this subjective. If I make the statement, "the sky is plaid colored," then I am making an emphatic statement. It would be the same as if Limbaugh had emphatically stated, "Dissenting troops are phony soldiers." If he had made such a statement this would not be a such a subjective argument.
Limbaugh's statements fit this model instead:
Me: Blue is my favorite color. The sky is such a beautiful color of blue today.
Tex: The sky sure is beautiful.
MM: Tex's favorite color is blue.
Media Matter's argument is not based on fact, but rather conjecture, which is why they will ultimately be harmed by pursuing this argument so virulently.
The bottom line to your defense is, a person can LISTEN to Limbaugh, but a person cannot make any valid conclusions about what Limbaugh means, because it is all so unknowable. Frankly, that's a perfectly satisfactory outcome to this episode, as far as I'm concerned.
You certainly are straw manning my position. I have never stated that all of Limbaugh's speech is intangible or unknowable. Rather, I am arguing that MM's interpretation of these particular Limbaugh statements is subjective, and not the de facto accounting of what was said.
Limbaugh never stated what MM's is suggesting, which is what makes MM"s argument subjective.
The image you paint of Limbaugh's listeners ever mired in confusion, uncertainty, and utter skepticism of every phrase he utters ... it's, like, a dream come true to have you confirm it. Thanks!
I am not a Limbaugh fan and think the radio world will be better off when he finally retires, but I do not support smear campaigns based on conjecture.
Personally, I think he is just a blatant propandist that many people believe is genuine for various reasons. Imagine my surprise to actually agree with him on this issue.
If MM can falsify claims against Limbaugh to stifle his free speech then they can do it to anyone. That is why I am here defending the man and his statements.
MUTUAL:
Just to hopefully help you with your "LOGIC" training, I'll correct your very sad attempt at creating an "equivalent" conversation about blue skies.
Here's a RELEVANT exchange, with implications and statements EQUAL to that Limbaugh and his caller had:
You: They never talk to REAL Methodists. They get Methodists out of the blue to write the church newsletter, which opposes the Choir doing modern music.
Me: The Phony Methodists.
You: The Phony Methodists. If you talk to a REAL Methodist, they agree with me that modern music SHOULD be done by the Choir.
Me: Yes, the REAL Methodists joined to have the choir do modern music. The Phony Methodists oppose modern music, and they write the newsletter.
MMFA: Tex refers to Methodists who do not agree with him that the choir should perform modern music as “Phony Methodists.”
AND GUESS WHAT? They’d be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in making that statement. Accurate, precise, and taking NO “subjective” view. It’s clear from the context.
Hope this helps you in the future, when you are perhaps defending somebody that you actually LIKE, and it matters.
For myself, I'm liking the way Limbaugh has become a pretzel personally, while his defenders are jettisoning all pretense at sanity trying to deny the obvious.
Tex,
How often do you listen to Rush? I am sure, not on a daily basis because if you did you would understand that Rush doesn't spout hatred, or smearing remarks about those that disagree with him. Rush has one goal in mind, and that is to insure consistency. The one thing I can say from listening to him off and on for the last 20 years is that Rush's theme hasn't changed. He holds people accountable for their remarks and will not hesitate to point out hypocrisy. The one message that Rush has delivered over the years that he continues to deliver is that the Democratic party is vested in defeatism, government dependency, and doom and gloom. Rush has always stood behind the idea that you can be anything you want in America if you don't let others convince you otherwise. I personally see examples of this everyday. Blacks, whites, hispanic, and asian. Examples that completely refute the claims of the democratic party. Global Warming is a prime example of where the media continues to report that there is a consensus on the causes of global warming while there are dozens of examples of climate experts that completely disagree with the so called experts on this topic. Not that either side is right or wrong but that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. The media is there to present both sides of the story and let the individual decide which side they believe but today the media only reports the side that is politically correct. As for hypocrisy, Harry Reid is a great example of where Rush points out hypocrisy. If there is a single person who has no right to talk about a person's patriotism it is Harry Reid. He would love nothing more for America to tuck their tail between their legs, lower their heads in shame, and completely pull out of Iraq while leaving the country to the insurgents to govern.
You are absolutely right, JO. The leftists want to spout their beliefs all day long without any rebuttals.
Maximus
JO:
I, too, have listened closely to Limbaugh over the years, and have read his books.
The overriding message he has is that of the Rightwinger as VICTIM in America. He tells his audience that THEY are the ones who make America great, that THEY are the "true" Americans, and that all their problems are not of their own making. They are VICTIMS, unfairly treated and kept down by a myriad of villains who impose their will.
A favorite phrase? "PUNISHING ACHEIVEMENT". The victim's wail.
The SHORT list of those who VICTIMIZE rightwingers, unfairly and with rightwingers unable to properly fight back or defend themselves:
Environmentalists, colleges, feminists (femiNAZIS), "uppity" blacks, trial lawyers, socialists, unions, gays, minorities, university professors, the MEDIA, OSHA, "egg-head elitists," the IRS, the ACLU, activist judges, scientists, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, people of color, the Poor, the EPA, Al Gore ... the list is very long indeed.
In each case, the Rightwinger in the audience is the VICTIM of actions taken by these people and organizations. Rightwingers are picked on and singled out, and it's JUST NOT FAIR!
In twenty years of listening, THIS is Limbaugh's major message. It is a message of suspicion, of resentment, of hatred of those forces that would KEEP HIS AUDIENCE DOWN. It is a message of VICTIMHOOD, of the rightwing suffering at the hands of malicious "others", whom Limbaugh daily identifies.
Nothing is your fault, as a Limbaugh listener. You are absolved of all blame. You cannot have a racist or bigoted thought, because Limbaugh says you cannot be such things. Your deepest feelings are JUSTIFIED, because you are the VICTIMS in America.
If you are a failure, if you are full of resentment, if you are seething with feelings of inadequacy and paranoia, Limbaugh gives you just what you need: Absolution, and a host of people to BLAME.
And, apparently, there are about 20 million listeners who need a daily dose of this kind of "hate therapy". And Rush himself jumps regularly aboard the "VICTIM EXPRESS" ... now it's MMFA which is unfairly picking on him. Poor Rush. Poor You. Damn those Liberals!
((because if you did you would understand that Rush doesn't spout hatred, or smearing remarks about those that disagree with him. ))
That is the most asinine thing I've ever seen written about Rush. He insults millions of women (and demeans the victims of the Holocaust) every day when he calls people "feminazis." And you don't even have to be a politician (and, therefore, kind of fair game) to get insulted by Rush. This is the guy, after all, who called a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog" and who made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's. This is a despicable individual you're defending. You can say he's right on politics or like his personality or whatever, you're entitled to your political opinion, as he is, but don't tell me he doesn't insult and misrepresent what people say who don't agree with him. That's simply not true.
I have listened often to El Rushbo for significant periods and I must admit I seem to have been listening to a different Limbaugh than you have. My singular impressionof him is that he insists on inconsistent standards for the left and right.
Sorry Tex - but after reviewing both debates you are 0-2. Niether the caller or Limbaugh give definitions of real or phony. Had the caller said "A real soldier is...." then a definition would have been established. However the absence of the word "is" leaves open to interpretation whether the statement that followed the word real was the callers definition, or an attribute based on the dictionary definition of the word real - which is "factual, actual, truthful, and not imaginary. Hence if your assumed definition of "real" is wrong, your definition of the opposite of real will be wrong too. (Limbaugh clearly gives a definition of a phony soldier from a previous days broadcast - but in keeping with MMFA's script on this we will ignore that and pretend that never occured.)
In order to make your point you must rely on assumption, supposition and conjecture. In doing so you are hearing wht you want to hear - not listening to what was said. That argument would never fly in a formal debate.
If you really want to clarify what was said just call Rush and ask him. Then we can sit back and listen to him rip you a new one in front of millions across the world.
WC:
Don't be sorry. It's always good to get examples of how the rightwing mind "works".
Your convoluted tortured version of how nothing ever means anything is among the best I've ever seen. You are to be congratulated (but you might send your pal Rush a note urging him to drop one of his favorite phrases, "WORDS MEAN THINGS".)
LOL
What is the meaning of "is"
Har Har HAr....
Tex - we definately agree on one thing - words have meaning. I'm curious then why you have used about a thousand of your own trying to redefine two of somebody elses.
Thats the funny thing about liberals - when words that are used don't fit with your ideas you find a way to change their meaning (Hello 1984). You see in words things that arent there (4th ammendment) and overlook the ones that are (2nd ammendment) just to suit your agenda.
Words indeed have meaning Tex - when they come from someone else learn to accept them for what the speaker said - not for what you want to hear.
WC:
Good advice. When do you suppose the Rightwing will adopt it, and quit with the agonizing and convoluted rationalizations and spinning?
Holy cow, it's like arguing with bricks when the dittoheads show up. When the Turd finally turns off the microphone we're going to need a charity drive to get counselling for all these people. Years of being wrong but sure of themselves has led to well, being wrong but sure of themselves. Really disturbing crowd.
Well the Move One General Petraeus Ad had a question mark at the end of "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" So I guess they really didn't make a definitive statement about him being a real betrayer. They were just asking the question, right? Anyway, isn't that a trick that Fox News does all the time? (i.e. "Are Democrats helping the enemy?")
Dear Sir/Madam:
While you have spun an artful rebuttal to Rush Limbaugh's denial that his phony soldiers remark was a general attack on antiwar soldiers, your rebuttal ultimately is shown to be more art than reality because you completely overlooked the fact that on September 25th, one day BEFORE Rush Limbaugh made the 'phony soldiers' comment, Rush Limbaugh specifically highlighted Jesse Macbeth's fraudulent military service for ridicule and scorn on his Morning Updates segment. As you are probably aware, since you style yourself a close listener of Rush Limbaugh's program, Rush's morning updates typically include those news items he deems particularly noteworthy and deserving of attention. If you take this suspiciously convenient omission into account, then it's completely irrelevant whether 1 minute and 50 seconds or 1 hour and 50 minutes elapsed between Rush Limbaugh's first utterance of the 'phony soldiers' remark and his first utterance of Jesse Macbeth's name since Rush could assume that most of his audience would interpret any reference he made to 'phony soldiers' in light of the previous day's Morning Update in which he showed Jesse Macbeth to have been a bona fide phony soldier. Therefore, nice try, but the next time you string together cherry picked facts to make your case, do the Clinton's proud and make sure to also hide those facts that demonstrably undermine your case.
Sincerely,
John Yoo
im sorry, but dittoheads can come to this site and scream till the cows come home.
one basic fact remains.
jeff christie has made a habit of smearing vets and active soldiers he disagrees with politically, including max cleland who gave 3 limbs in the service of his country.
jeff christie uses words to earn a living, so his protestations that his words are taken out of context is totally absurd....he knows exactly what he is saying and who he is playing to.
not once during the original broadcast did he inform his audience that he was not speaking about actual veterans who are involved in the antiwar campaign.
never once has he told his audience that they should respect and honor every vet and soldier inspite of their views. for to jeff, soldiers are as much a prop as our current prez uses them.
it is time for comedian jeff christie to be seen for what he truly is. a coward, who talks tough, as long as he is able to hide behind his instudio mic.
"not once during the original broadcast did he inform his audience that he was not speaking about actual veterans who are involved in the antiwar campaign."
He didn't have to. It was (and still is) painfully obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to phony soldiers (those who lied about their service) in the mold of Jesse MacBeth (the example he used to demonstrate who a phony soldier is).
As stated above by MM it was the caller who used "soldiers" in the plural before Rush did.. Certainly that had an impact on Rush's choice between soldier and soldiers.
In the week prior to the comment, "Phony Soldiers" was a buzz term in the press.
ABC News did a segment on Phony Vets, and the USDOJ issued a press release on their crackdown on Fake Veterans. Easily confirmed online, but apparently not relevant to MM.
And even though Rush had discussed this topic before, he somehow anticipated the firestorm and quickly rushed to clarify his comment within 2 minutes by coming up with the Jesse Macbeth cover story. For someone whose supposedly so dumb.. this was a pretty impressive maneuver to cover himself.
Poor poor Rush. He was taken out of context by the media, how dredful! Well at least Rush and his side never do that (AL GORE SAID HE INVENTED THE INTERNET). He is an honost broadcaster who tells the truth and never takes things out of context (KERRY SAYS ONLY DUMB PEOPLE END UP AS SOLDIERS IN IRAQ). He would never really make false claims about vets of this war (PAUL HACKETT WAS PADDING HIS RESUME) or of past wars (MURTHA ALSO A PHONEY SOLDIER). You go Rush. I am sure no one can find any proof as to why some would think you were attacking honorable soldiers just becuase of their political beliefs.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
I agree that in many ways Rush should not be that upset since he takes people out of context all the time. It is a taste of his own medicine I suppose.
MEDIA MATTERS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A FRONT FOR MOVE ON.ORG HIDING UNDER HILLARY CLINTONS SKIRT. WHAT AN AWFUL THOUGHT. SPEWING VENON LIKE A SPITTING COBRA MAKE ME SICK. HOPE MORE AMERICANS CAN SEE THROUGH THIS BS.
Clear Channel CEO, Mark P. Mays, received dingy Harry's letter and promptly bitch-slapped that miserable bum.
BOOYAH!
The fact is, he said phony soldierS--plural. Jesse MacBeth and WHO ELSE?
Thanks for staying on this story!
Yesterday Sen. John Warner, R-VA, said Rush was a patriot. Today he was treated for an irregular heartbeat. That's you lefties' cue to call him gay and declare your hopes that he dies a painful death.
As a minister, social worker, and especially, as a Disabled American Veteran I believe Rush Limbaugh, and those supporting his attempt at "white-washing" his statements, has gone way to far this time. I call upon the Disabled American Veterans to help support the filing of a class action lawsuit against Rush for his apparent degrading and slanderous statements about American Veterans who oppose the war in Iraq, as I do.
Rev. William Davis, LMSW
Disabled American Veteran
LOL! Good luck with that.
I would like to challenge these people to not be so negative and condescending in there entries. It causes hatred and malice toward your brothers and sisters of this country. If you think that ones remarks are not correct, do not criticize them for their entry, respect them as a human being and commend them for having enough patriotism for standing up for their beliefs. A lot of these entries that I have read are degrading and mean toward others. Lets try not to where our emotions so high on our sleeves, we still have to interact together.
This is a time where we need to stand united, and this website and these entries are trying to divide us for the real player’s political agendas. This reminds me of a religious argument. You go back and forth and never get anywhere. Some of you are right and some of you are wrong, the only way that we will find out who is if we live out our lives and learn from the mistakes. Think about it, twenty years from now we will have a completely different government, and new things to talk about. Doesn’t it seem like a waste of time and energy to always be complaining? Take a minute to let this process. Really think long and hard about what I have said. Now, go back and have respect for our fellow countrymen, our political leaders, and our commander in chief.
You people have really gone off the deep end. I've listened to the re-broadcast and read the transcript several times, and it seems unbelievable that anyone could think Limbaugh meant anything OTHER THAN soldiers like Jesse MacBeth.
We need to be careful with this. All we need is for the neo-cons in congress to add Murtha, Reid and Durbin to the list of those being unpatriotic like Limbauagh. This could backfire.
In case none of you had the full unedited audio clip, the 1 minute and 35 seconds that was ommitted is adio of the caller diverting into WMSD discussions. Then, the call ends and Rush then goes on to elaborate on the phony soldier issue. To be fair, I think the caller was been referring to the several soldier who disagrees publicly with the Iraq war and seeks liberal left media to air their views. The mainstream media, who are also strongly opposed to the President's position and actions on the Iraq war are only too happy to promote the soldiers who question the President's policies. Rush, on the other hand was referring to Jesse MacBeth and others like him who have made false accusations and fabricated stories of abuses regarding the actions of military soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. He was also referring to the ABC news story about the several cases of individuals who attempted to fraudelate documents to swindle money from the US Government.
And conflating them with the soldiers who oppose the war. If you cant get the linkage he was leading you to then it is because you know now that it must not be true even if it was. Ditto heads are so far gone that they are incapable of admitting the clear meaning. If he wasnt suggesting that macbeth was the exemplary of soldiers who oppose the war, then you should reconsider your understanding of everything he ever said. HE WAS PRESENTING MACBETH AS HIS POSTER BOY FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE SOLDIERS BUT OPPOSE THE WAR. I think I correctly got the idea he wanted us to get. Now that you realize it was oops republican politically incorrect you want to erase it.
I believe this shows that Limbaugh does call out soldiers by name when he says they are phony. I wish we could just move on. We all have free speech.
Here's something you've missed in this case which can reverse the advantage he is gaining in the media against you and your position and Congress by the way he is construing the "two words by a private citizen" being attacked in Congress and a group he asserts "Hillary Clinton admits to founding" (he misrepresented her words, to what extend was she involved?). He's a public figure broadcasting on the publicly owned airwaves to alleged millions. That's got to be accountable.
You've missed this:
1) Limbaugh claimed in a headline on his site Monday "This Proves Media Matters Wrong." and represented as such in his program Monday regarding the actual phony soldiers named by U.S. attorney for the Western District as being the "others" he was referring to. (You also have missed that he said there are others to a "liberal" who challenged him last week. He cut that caller off when he didn't agree with Limbaugh and wanted to go on to talk about global warming. You need to access that segment.)
None of the others named by the U.S. Attorney said anything (as far a I've heard and you need to fact check that) about the Iraq War. So how could Limbaugh have been referring to them as his other phony soldiers focused on by the anti war movement?
2) Furthermore you've missed that Limbaugh yesterday bragged about the fact he has never referred to the soldiers who wrote the NYT op ed piece. That rdoesn't help his case as he infers. Those are the soldiers the movement points to. Limbaugh ignores them. Two of them have subsequently been killed in Iraq, tragically proving how NOT phony the critics among soldiers are.
lightman
Wow. And Media Matters is the voice of Hilary? (she started this organization, right?)
Wow. Sounds more the the voice of Hilarity to me. You people at MM are a disgrace to my country. Pull your head out of your butt.
I think you should listen to Rush's show to hear his side of the story.
I have, but I prefer to hear the full unedited version of his comments. He claims to love all the troops, but that did not stop him from attacking Paul Hackett. It did not stop him from taking Kerry's comments out fo context (as he now claims was done to him) about orur troops in Iraqn, not once but several times. I listen to him far more often than I should and every time I do he is telling his audience that democrats want us to lose the war. Hey guess what?? There are democrats fighting in the war! He has been claiming these people don;t even exist fot years now and when it is clear they do exist, he calls them phoney, or says they went over there for other reasons, like to pad thier resume.
If you like him, fine, but don't pretend he has not been doing and saying these things for a long time now. This is just the last straw for many (I hope). Again look back at comments about people like Hackett, Murtha, Kerry, Gen Clark, and tell me again he respects all US military regardless of political beliefs. You can't.
Easy. They're all policitians and the comments they make are fair game. Obviously too simple for you to figure out.
But he does not attack them on politics, he attacks their service. Either you respect our troops or you do not. He claims to respect all service but he attacks THE SERVICE of those I pointed out, not just thier politics. Or are you too simple to see the difference?
LOIS ADVISES: "I think you should listen to Rush's show to hear his side of the story."
OK.
On November 7, 2006, The Democratic Party regained majority control of both houses of Congress. On November 8, Rush offered, as you suggest Lois, HIS side of the story:
Rush Limbaugh; "The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."
So, Lois, it seems Limbaugh's "side" is to lie and deceive, support and back, cheerlead and WATER-CARRY for Republicans who "don't deserve" it. His support of ANYTHING is not his sincere and principled viewpoint, but instead a phony chore calculated to gin up support for things Limbaugh HIMSELF does not support.
In short, if you listen to Limbaugh, chances are good that he's trying to FOOL you, he's not being honest or speaking the truth, and he's just "carrying water" in an attempt to bolster unworthy people and positions.
Seeing as how that's "Limbaugh's SIDE" of a story, please explain to us why he should be granted ANY consideration?
I'd love to hear how you explain this away, or alternatively explain why you would agree to be a dupe to an admitted unprincipled propagandist. Do you really have no pride at all? No gumption? Are you just a friggin' mental doormat for this lying sleaze?
C'mon you guys...this story has run it's course because it was not accurate to begin with. Move on to something else before you look REALLY ridiculous.
Another backfire for the liberal left. Given all the details, noone honestly believe the smear. Not even all the Dem Senators bought into the smear. Only 41 sign onto a ridiculus letter against a private citizen and completely embarrass themselves.
Here's the final straw breaking the sickofant smear. “OPERATION STOLEN VALOR”. Do you think it's possible Rush was referring to actual "Phoney Soldiers"? Sorry Media Matters but "Phoney SoldierS" plural do exist. Better luck on your next smear.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html
maybe... just maybe.. MM is a "phoney liberal organization"... I mean, it's really a conservative-led group, posing as liberals... just to make liberals look like complete fools?
Nawww...... they are not phoney liberals. They're the real deal.
my apologies on my previous post: I see I spelled "phony" incorrectly. My bad... that word was not part of my daily vocabulary until this morning. Pheace.
Folks, what we are getting a glimpse of here is what it would be like under Hitlery if the evil pig gets elected to the presidency.
She admitted to creating MM to use as her goon squad.
She will appoint her lap dogs from here and other places to positions of power. Truth will not matter. freedom will go out the window. Ii will be a Stalinist state. They will destroy anyone who stands up to them.
She will make Chavez and Ahmadinejad look like conservatives.
This is not hyperbole folks. They are evil on Earth.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S MANIFESTO1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by lack of Federal funding.2. You have to believe that the school system that can't teach a fourth grader how to read is some how the best qualified to teach those same children all about sex.3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.4. You have to believe there was no art before Federal funding.5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs.6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.8. You have to believe that business creates oppression and governments create prosperity.9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.11. You have to believe that the U.S. Military, not evil and tyrannical regimes, start wars.12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is all about "progress" and not power. She just wants to help us out of the archaic system of governing that we have been subjected to since our founding.17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. (I've got news for you. It has never worked because the RIGHT people have been in charge.)
TRUTHMATTERS:
Wow, did you write that clever set of lies yourself, or did you "cut and paste" from some other source?
The reason I ask is that truth matters, and plagiarism is intellectually dishonest, unethical, and grounds for dismissal if you're in any position of responsibility. Basically, it's theft.
You give no sourcing, so you're taking credit for the cleverness yourself. Gee, please don't tell us you're a lying rightwing plagiarist?
Again to you recent posters, explain away all of the other times Rush has attacked people who served in the military based soley on the political leanings. Explain away the comments directed at Paul Hackett when he chose to run for office as a (GASP!) Democrat. Explain away the lies he helped spread about Kerry sayin only dumb people end up in Iraq when it was clear from context (Now rush supporters favorite word) that he was talking about Bush. Explain away the "phony soldier" comment directed at Mutha. Good Luck
In this issue of the "phony soldiers", Media Matters has revealed its true nature -- a smear machine, using innuendo, insinuation, whisper propaganda and outright lies and distortions in an attempt to destroy its perceived enemy, in the mold of the Frankfurt School. It's disgusting. It's Stalinist. Piss on Media Matters.
GUMSHOE:
That wetness you feel is you pissing on yourself.
Your colorful description of "attack politics" applies to every rightwing talk radio show on the air. Now MMFA is around to CALL them on their hateful behavior, and you become a bawling baby, upset that the "free ride" the Unified Rightwing Smear Machine enjoyed for years has come to an end. Well, boo hoo, little baby. Get someone to change your Pampers.
I have to say, after 25+ years of Republican garbage getting a free pass from the MSM - from the Reagan era on - it's certainly refreshing that there's finally a site that exposes the Republican slime machine for what it is! Throughout the 1990's, and up until VERY recently, Rush Limbaugh could make up any nonsensical partisan lie, and the GOP could say any kind of perverted filth, and there was no one in the media to call them on it! Even today, the only news anchor on ANY of the 24 news stations that calls the sewer-dwelling rightwing vermin on their lies is Keith Olbermann. The fact that MSNBC actually had a segment on their news coverage the other day about Limbaugh, and questioning how a guy who avoided service (draftdoging), can smear those who served, shows we've come along way since the "You're either with the GOP or you're with the Terrorists" insanity that was so in vogue from 2001-2005. It seems that after Katrina, and the mass-murder of US soldiers for lies cooked up by the draftdodging elite (Bush, Cheney, and the Republic Party), that FINALLY, when the Rightwing Rim Factory reaches down for sh+t to throw at the American people, it's flying back and sticking to them! It's too bad so many people had to die because of rightwing corruption before it finally imploded. Thanks to Media Matters, Jon Stewart, and Olbermann, the rightwing's anti-American crusade is finally receiving it's just dessert! Now, if we could just get a president who doesn't have a hands-off policy on Bin Laden, maybe we can BEGIN to do something about the people who attacked us on 9/11 - something Bush has proudly boasted he "doesn't think about".
"...Now, if we could just get a president who doesn't have a hands-off policy on Bin Laden..."
lol. That is funny! Maybe we get someone like Clinton! Yeah, he was pretty "hands on" with Bin Laden and such. [NOTE SARCASM]. Yeah, we need a Clinton in the Whitehouse. lol.
Are we living on the same planet?!?!?!!?!?!? OMG.
you mean the PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" on August 6, 2001...Oh wait, that wasn't during the Clinton administration. But I guess we will blame Clinton anyway. Right? Just remember, the largest terrorist attack in our nation's history happened on Bush's watch. When did "personal responsibility" get purged from conservative values?
Can I still blame Bush if we are attacked again eight months into the next president's term (democrat or republican?). Just wondering.
LOIS:
No, we are NOT living on the same planet. It's good that you recognize the disconnect from reality that's taking place in your perceptions.
That's the first step.
The second is to admit you have a problem, and are powerless to overcome it without help.
I wish you the very best of luck in your journey back to reality. It will be hard, but well worth it. Courage.
Can you give us an example of one of those lies during the 1990s? Please, you must be able to come up with one.
Dude, are you really asking that?? He STILL talks about how Hillary had Vince Foster murdered. Some on the right STILL say that Clinton is a serial rapist. People STILL believe Gore said he invented the internet. Hillary's "lesbian" stuff is still talked about. The lies are constant and have been for years with Rush and his talk show brethren.
My God, i listened to that program and you guys are taking his statements way out of context. You are supposedly a MEDIA WATCHDOG group, what a laugh. Who in the hell is watching you while you spread disinformation and lies? Where is your integrity?
WE are watching them NOW. They will regret the day they put out these lies about one of the greatest supporters of our troops. If you believe MM cares one bit about our troops, you must be on something.
Who the heck made MMFA a watchdog group ? Who elected them, who appointed them ? Who funds them ? Before letting a group like MMFA plant seeds in your precious mind it is best to know exactly who they are and what exactly are they really up to.
who elected Rushbo who appointed him who really funds him? Who gives him 15 hours every week to argue and insinuate?
Its all falling apart for this hillary/soros funded website. You stalinists have awakened the sleeping giant. We used to let you spew your lies; because to us, you are simply entertainment for us Americans.
Please take your stalinist tactics back where you came from. The USSR.
Has MM published its list of donors yet? What do they have to hide?
I wonder whom the majority of troops would say gives them the most support -- Jack Murtha who accused Marines in battle of murder without any evidence, John Kerry who wrote his own phony purple heart awards, the weasel Harry Reid, or Rush Limbaugh.
The answer, of course, is Rush.
Maximus
After having read all these editorials, Westmoreland, etc. on Limbaugh, I had to go visit Limbaugh's site. I must say that all the MM coverage and interpretation of what RL said, is a real stretch now that I have read both sides. Especially not credible are the considerable quotes from folks who have a vested interest in discrediting RL and who do not cite facts - just emotion - i.e. John Kerry. Besides, what's the point compared to the use of "phony soldiers" as a tactic? Purposefully using false testimony as the "phony soldiers" was used is despicable. MM is making the Government Elected who are attacking RL look like the cartoon of the deer with the bulls eye on his chest pointing at another deer in front of an aiming hunter. Your investigation should be focused on who vetted the phony soldier before he could tell a phony story! BTW - thanks for introducing me to RL!
More and more central commentators, after looking at ALL the transcripts, ( Not just the cherry picked ones of MMFA ), are coming to the same conclusion. Michael Smerconish this morning on the big talker 1210 in philadelphia, who is a pretty straight shooter ( just ask arlen spector ), listened to all the transcripts and has come up with the conclusion that MMFA stretching it. MMFA _could_ be a good service but if they don't own up to their mistakes they are just hurting themselves in the long run.
Bottom line is we should be discussion issues of the war on not all this other nonsense.
The term "phony soldiers" is a known term, one used to describe frauds. That is the way Limbaugh intended to use it. Even ABC used it earlier. Stop parsing a few quotes to change its meaning.
Fact: Jesse MacBeth was talked about the day before on morning update. It was on Rush 's mind. But MMFA never let a little thing like facts stand in the way of their hatred.
Yes, thank goodness (I know liberals do not believe in god) that MM finally exists to trash conservatives, because we know ABC, NBC, CBS (Walter Cronkiet has admitted to being a liberal), and the NY Times gave them a pass for so long. I laugh.
Wow, MM keeps getting ripped apart over their lies on this issue you'd think it would be time to change the subject!
You admit that you lied about what Rush said, you admit that what Rush "edited" had nothing to do with the phony soldiers remark, you admit that ABC news had the story and used the term days before and you admit that Rush talked about it on his morning update prior to the call.
Yet you still insist on playing word games and silly things like presenting your false summation of an event and then a "fact" that allegedly debunks someone else.
How stupid do you think we are?
Define irony: A bunch of liberal activists launch a deceptive personal attack made possible by removing context and meaning...then turn around and criticize their victim for leaving out irrelevant text.
Something about a sty and speck in one's eye should go here...
Is it just me, or does it seem completely shallow and foolish for this to be front page news? I respect Mr Limbaugh tremendously. He has a 20 year record of supporting the troops (of which I am one) Can anyone that writes for this gossip site say claim that they have a 20 year track record of supporting the troops? I have read the transcript and all your columns on the transcript. you took three words and turned them into a slanderous hate column, not only that, but you applaud the fact that private citizens are being demeaned on the senate floor! this has gotten out of hand and even more then that, is based of a biased opinion of Mr Limbaugh that slants your views and writing in any manner which projects him in a negative light. I suggest holding off on the slander until you have at least half the credibility of those you slander
I congratulate MM for sticking with this story.The radical Limbaugh and his endless imitators serve one purpose:to vilify and smear.There is no one,not Gingrich,Rove,ANYONE who has come CLOSE to the pernicious harm this "man" (I use the term very loosely)has done to the national debate.He has never once been forced to apologize for his lies,nor has he ever exhibited the necessary character required to do so voluntarily.This is no accident of course.These radicals see apologizing as a sign of weakness,which tells us more than we want to know about what makes them tick,unfortunately.That said,his devoted followers should also be compelled to finally witness an apology from him,and come to realize that he is NOT infallible and that he says things that he must be made accountable for.Be a man Rush.A real man.
Apologize! How about Dick Durbin apologize for calling our troops Nazis. How about John Kerry apologze for calling our troops storm troopers. How about John Kerry, again, apologize for his blatant lies during his 'Winter Soldier' testimony. How about John Murtha apologize for calling the Haditha Marines cold blooded murders. Exactly. They won't and neither will you. If you live in a glass house don't throw stones, Lois.
Hmmm...I see whats left of The grand Old Party decided to show up to spew a little invective,and I have to say your commentary is as humorous as it is patently ridiculous.I especially like the comment from the gentlemen who would prefer being led into battle by Rush Limbaugh*snicker*rather than Murtha or Kerry who incidentally,were both lucky enough NOT to be kept out of battle owing to the tragedy of anal cysts.Oh mercy!!
This idea that Rush is being taken out of context bears some analysis.
How much "context" is required to properly understand the gist of any particular remark one might make? Some commenters here seem to think that we need to assimilate large tracts of Rush's output in order to grasp the intent of this two word long amplification of his caller's statement. I submit that any such interjection MUST be taken to refer to the very sentence it is being inserted into! Any other view suffers from the problem of infinite regress, and requires that we become burdened with reviewing and parsing the entirety of Rush's output! (A task we would be unable to perform, even if we were disposed to it.)
Also, what about the remarks he will make tomorrow? Wouldn't we need to factor them in, as well? If this seems absurd to you, then I have to ask: Isn't Rush contending that his "phony soldiers" remark required the "context" of subsequent parts of the broadcast in question--references to text that came minutes after the fact? Where is the cutoff?
In other words, he is asking us to wait until the end of his broadcast (perhaps ALL of them) before we, as listeners, should begin the painful task of parsing his sentences. Only then will we be able to ascribe "meaning" to his statements, apparently.
I would re-apply Rush's quote, 're-contexting' it, I guess: "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people."
Rory, I'm not quite following you.
what are u saying Rory? I'm not intellectually followin you.
Come on people,Rush is one of THE BIGGEST troop supporter out there,quit taking things out of context,you guys did it on purpose too distract from your political falures since last Novembers elections!
Does anyone who listens to RL regularly know what he actually think of soldiers who disagree with the government policies in Iraq or the war in Iraq in general?
Sorry Media Matters:
The facts and the time line you are trying to sell, don't add up. ABC News did a feature on "Phony Soldiers" three days earlier and Rush did his morning bit about "Phony soldiers" i.e. McBeth two days earlier.
I think you're losing this one media matters...but keep trying. There are alot of gullible people out there that really hate Rush and will believe what you are trying to sell.
Wow! You guys are really reaching. Media Matters has made Hary Reid and the other Dems look like idiots. Way to go!
Liposuctioned Limbaugh, the Lying King, strikes again! How does this drug-laden font of flatulence look at himself in the mirror to shave? Oh, maybe he has his Latino servants do it for him.
This self-righteous coward who hadn't the guts to serve in Vietnam (like someone with the initials GWB), who hides behind his radio microphone, has the nerve to call John Kerry, a certified American hero, "a fraud" and "a phony". General Wesley Clark is right to call for Limbaugh's ouster from Armed Forces Radio. Let's remind him, and all the losers who worship him, that the Democratic Party has more heroes than the Grand Old Perverts -- Democrats such as George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Tom Daschle, and Jim Webb; not to mention the ones no longer with us, such as John Kennedy and Lloyd Bentsen.
Limbaugh's gas appeals more to the actual "phony soldiers" -- the weekend warriors, militias, and gun nuts who live their pathetic fantasies of defending their country and Constitution. Sickening!
"Limbaugh claims to be a victim of "selective" editing, then aired edited clip and posted edited transcript..."
Everyone here should ask themselves a question that's just begging to be asked: Why hasn't Media Matters posted the entire transcript?
I'll answer...because when you present the facts in their entirety, Media Matters campaign against Rush would collapse.
So I'll get the ball rolling. C'mon, Media Matters...post the entire transcript, including the minute-fifty you complain about. Give us the ENTIRE PICTURE, if you have the truth on your side.
(MM's failure to do so will tell you all you need to know about this phony controversy)
Why was the immediately preceding sentence in Kerry's joke about about Bush(not the troops) left out by every right wing commentator who wanted to make political use of it?
I listened to the entire Limbaugh show the day the "phony soilder's" comment was made. The fact is, anyone who disagrees with what he said did not listen to the show. Limbaugh is a strong supporter of our military and was correct in his description of Jesse Macbeths' resume. Media Matters uses corrupt funding to fuel its attack on the right and further a phony Senators hopes of running this country. Shame on you. Republicans are on the right for a reason, they are always right. Long live Rush!
Hi. I'd like to comment on the MMFA points above:
Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.- He made reference to it in the Morning Update the day before. The transcript should really read "The phony soldiers-" because he cut the mic to print the MacBeth story. This is visible in the webcam video. The call reminded him of the MacBeth story which is why he talked about it immediately after the call. Additionally, the caller and Limbaugh go on to discuss how real soldiers are the ones that joined to be in Iraq. This would includes any soldier, regardless of what they think of the war.
"Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq.
- Here Limbaugh is referring to phony as lies. He's talking about soldiers who lied. No where in the transcript does he indicate that Murtha's service was invalid or phony because of his political ideology. He's calling Murtha's assertion that Marines engaged in murder at Haditha phony.
Limbaugh claims he was only speaking about one soldier, but used the plural
- Limbaugh is responding to the soliders that "come out of the blue and talk to the media". These are "the phony soldiers". They're phony by the fact that they are lying about their service and telling the media about it.
Fact: In fact, the clip he aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here:http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010
- This is true. The 3 minute audio was edited. However, MMFA fails to point out how anything that was edited out is relevant.
Limbaugh's transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used.
- This is also probably true. Again however, MMFA fails to point out how this is relevant.
It's easy to send an email protesting Rush's BS, so come on guys. Media Matters provides the email address of the local radio station that carries this show. For example, I simply said in my email that I support our troops, but Rush Limbaugh clearly does not, and while everyone has a right to free speech, no one has a right to spew hateful lies over the radio waves. So write your local station manager today- it's fun!
Unbelievable denial!
The political left in this country have no backbone. Had they any guts they would all stand proudly and shout to the world what it is they really want------a socialist state. At least rush has always said what he truly beleives and not just said whatever to please whoever. Reid, Murtha, kerry, etc....these "patriots" can refer to our troops as cold blooded murderers, terrorrists in the night, peasants in a doomed mission which we cant win cause we already lost etc..... these kind can say all these and more----Bush=hitler etc.. Now they have the nerve to act like they care at all about anyone in uniform when most of us know the truth, they only care about power and how to get more. How else to define them promising to get us out of iraq if they could only get control of the senate while they all know damn well we will not leave iraq till the jobs done? They have lied to their own supporters and i think it is hilarious. Media matters and groups like it are nothing more than puppets on the clinton/sorous(sorryasscommie) stage. RUSH IS RIGHT, IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE!!! FACT---IF YOU AGREE WITH LIBERALS OR ARE ONE YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, IF YOU DONT---WHATEVER YOU SAY WILL BE TWISTED AND YOU WILL BE LIED ABOUT!
MMFA states that "[i]ndeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his 'phony soldiers' comment." Actually, if you take a look again at the exchange between Limbaugh and "Mike in Chicago" (Caller 1) immediately prior to the "phony soldier" call from "Mike in Olympia" (Caller 2) , Limbaugh pretty much did call Chicago Mike a phony soldier. Caller 1 stated his belief that we should pull out of Iraq and tells Rush that "I've (sic) used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican." Rush responds: "Yeah. Yeah.…Right. Right. Right, I know.…And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!…[and] You can't possibly be a Republican.…" (Underline added.) It’s during Caller 2's retort to Caller 1 that Rush makes the "phony soldier" comment – what I read as a clear reference to back to Mike in Chicago and any other soldier who disagrees with Rush.
I agree with all that MediaMatters has presented here... except for one point (or you could say one word)Twice on this page you have said that this sentence (below) is a sentence from the original transcript:'They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.'I believe the word 'talk' in that sentence should be 'spout'.What leads me to believe that, is from reading the actual transcript of the show ... and then listening (several times) to Russ' edited audio version which you provided. Since this is a FACT CHECK issue, I hope someone at MediaMatters will correct this wording.
Service member wannabes who lied about their service and fed lies to the media as well as this clinton backed organization are phony soldiers and traitors. My boy was over there and had to work hard to proove the lies were false from these phony soldiers. If you spread lies about military operations and you were not in the military but you say you were there does not that make you a phony soldier. You bunch of communists need to get your facts straight before spouting off and sounding like a bunch of idiots who only hear what you want.
Boy, did the Limbaugh fembots come out in force to defend their master.
Ok then he said what he said and I think he has proven his innocence to the point of overkill. Listen I'm no expert however even if he was refering to soldiers opposed to the war (which I dont believe he was) why then would he be backtracking on what he believes anyway? Rush is pretty consitant in standing by whatever he says with no apologies regardless of what the left thinks and I dont think he really cares all the sudden what some politician thinks about his opionions. But, when you falsely accuse someone then all bets are off. So get the story straight alright! If you were a regular listener you would have known immediatly what he was refering to but you cant pratically come into the middle of a 'Movie' and figure out everything thats going on acurately.
Ok then he said what he said and I think he has proven his innocence to the point of overkill. Listen I'm no expert however even if he was refering to soldiers opposed to the war (which I dont believe he was) why then would he be backtracking on what he believes anyway? Rush is pretty consistant in standing by whatever he says with no apologies regardless of what the left thinks and I dont think he really cares all the sudden what some politician thinks about his opionions. But, when you falsely accuse someone then all bets are off. So get the story straight alright! If you were a regular listener you would have known immediatly what he was refering to but you cant pratically come into the middle of a 'Movie' and figure out everything thats going on acurately.
Never stops the right. always willing to ignore context if it aids an attack.
Thanks MMFA for Clinton Inc for providing all the e-mails adresses (even the station janitor) of the radio stations in TX. I took a break from my hard work and family duties and got involved in your petition to silence conservative radio. And I sent them the following;
Thank you for broadcasting Rush Limbaugh I am in total support of "EL RUSHBO" do not let this Stalinist of Media Matters for Clinton Inc. Intimidate you. This is a clear attempt of this Stalinist Hunta to silence Rush, Hannity and all conservative hosts. I have heard left wing radio and they are by far the worst of all. Once again we consumers are 100% behind your stations and support you in this all out war against conservative talk-radio. Feel free to pass it around Once again a hard working, military supporting, fiscal conservative, pro-life, and to make your hatred more acute AMERICA LOVING and to make your head explode with vitriol and visceral rage Hispanic Conservative.This site is pitiful. You can lead a liberal to the facts but you can't make them think. I heard Rush's show from beginning to end. I hear most of his shows. It is not like there is some secret broadcast. There was absolutely no doubt what he was talking about from the get go, All I could do was laugh when a few days later I hear about the "scandal." There is absolutely no reason for Rush to apologize, none what so ever. It is sites like this, the "representatives" that got up on the floor of the Congress to spread this lie about a man. And they expect us to refer to them as the Honorable this and that? It will be a cold day in hell before I will.
I am thrilled to see so many of the recent postings on this site, be from those who understand how very little media matters actually matters!
The left's weak attempt to 'stand up for the troops' rings as hollow a moonbat's head. Not only are the lefties loosing the argument in the real world, they are now also getting creamed on their own turf. And the more they show themselves, they reveal the lunacy of the left and what today's democrat party actually stands for. Keep up the great work Bowelmovement.org and Media Matters(vl) !!!
PROUDCONSERVATIVE:
Wow, you sound like a guy whose team just won the superbowl! I admire your ability to simultaneously high-five your rightwing brethern while declaring the demise of Liberalism and the Left.
Help us understand your celebration, because looking at REALITY, we're seeing a GOP Congress whose incompetence lost the majority in both houses last year, polls that indicate they will lose many more seats next year, a Republican President that has the worst approval ratings of any President in America's history, an Administration that is abandoning ship like so many rats, and a Rightwing Media that is under fire for really the first time since they bought out the radio stations. Oh yeah, and all those sex and corruption scandals.
So, you must be seeing something the rest of us cannot. Help us out. Point us to this GOOD NEWS for the rightwing that has you so giddy and optimistic. It must be good stuff, because it's affecting you like a strong hallucinogenic drug.
Wow! The Rushbots are absolutely batshit crazy! I've never laughed so hard at reading some of the right wing invective. I was trying to read it aloud to my girlfriend but she couldn't understand me because I was laughing.
Rush calls dissenting soldiers pony, denies he did so, edits his transcript, edits his radio show at the same time denying he does so, calls lumps Murth a phony soldier, compares a soldier injured in Iraq to a suicide bomber, and yet the Rush apologists stilll can't see Rush did anyting wrong.
Paul Waldman of MMFA said it right the other day. If Rush got caught on video robbing a bank, he would say his actions were taken out of context. And the same thing applies to the Rush dittoheads. Apparently there are two different languages for dittoheads, the language that everyone uses everyday, and the special language for Rush, which has some super special rules that not even the linguists can figure out, but which basically translates to Rush can say the most idiotic things and his followers won't notice.
italics
off
Everyone is really reaching to make their point. One expects the left to hear what they want as well as the right to hear what they want. To bad very few people listen with both ears. Both the right and left disgust me. The right take the elitist position and the left believe they are right and everyone that disagrees is wrong that only they see the light.
MediaMatters neglects to mention that the one minute and 50 seconds of dialogue separating the "phoney soldiers" comment and the Jesse MacBeth commentary was on IEDs and WMDs neither of which were relevant to the "phoney soldiers" comment.
Also, the caller was the one who took the discussion to IEDs and WMDs, not Limbaugh.
As for prior mention of MacBeth, the commentary was the Rush Limbaugh Morning Update segment from the prior day, Sept. 25.
Why is MediaMatters so anxious to point out non-relevant dialogue as being edited? The dialogue in question was not germaine to the discussion and only would have detracted from the subject matter.
What do IEDs and WMDs have to do with the "phoney soldiers" comment and why is MM so anxious to have that irrelevant dialogue included? It was correct to edit out that dialogue. It added nothing to the discussion whatsoever.
What I find so disturbing is the number of Americans who support the censure and censoring of an American citizen by his government who is merely expressing his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. This, of and by itself, should be ringing alarm bells like Quasimodo in the bell tower.
How can Americans -- AMERICANS -- hold this type of activity, by those who hold the highest offices in the land, to be anything other than just plain wrong?
I don't care who the person is or what their politics are. What we should all be sharing is that the government has no business censuring or censoring ANY American of ANY stripe.
If we allow this type of activity to continue, it will eventually come to all of us one by one, group by group. It is this type of activity that should strike fear into every free man in this country because, left to continue, it will grow in direct proportion to those who alllow it to exist.
Do I like Limbaugh and listen to his commentary? Yes. But that has nothing to do with allowing my government to run roughshod over him or any other free American.
Remember this. If this outrage stands, it will come for all of us just as surely as every other outrage of government foreign and domestic. When it does, those cheering the abrogation of the rights of those whom they do not approve will have assured the destruction of their own rights by that approval.
... therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. -- John Donne For whom the Bell Tolls
Wow, MMFA has hit a big nerve with Rush and his fans. They are out in full force pretending that Rush does not have a pattern of attacking vets when the disagree with his political views. John Kerry attacked as havig faked his injuries and having made up his service, Murtha reffered to as a phoney soldier, Pual Hackett was just padding his resume in Iraq, etc. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time he either attacks someone's service record or belittles someones service becuase of their politics. Funny how all I ever hear from the left about McCain is how brave he was for serving, but during his last run for president is was the right who questioned his stability becuase he was a POW. Some of us know who really supports us (the military and their families) and it is not Rush.
How do you explanin that Rush is the MOST requested by American Servicepersons ?
They know what you refuse to admit, he is a patriot and trying hard to prevent the new Commie party from taking over America.
It's such a LIE, Media Matters is a Hillary Clinton smear machine, how do we know this for a fact ? Hilary in her OWN WORDS said that she helped FOUND and SUPPORT Media Matters, but yet this group LIES to everyone pretending to find the "truth". The entire Limbaugh issue is a joke, a total fabrication. To sit here and deny that MM (Media Matters) is anything but a front group for the "NEW COMMUNIST" party in America, formerly know as the Democratic party.
You folks are fortunate that so many Americans are too ignorant to check facts, they simple eat up the lies if it fits there own miserable lives.
It's a sad day in this once great nation when LIES, become "truths".
Shame on the media in general for NOT ONE TIME calling Rush to get comments or his side.
But it's typical. Lies followed by piss poor jounalist followed by fools.
Rush Linbough is nothing but a propergander machine for the Bush administration and Scarbrough is an enabler of Rush. There is not an objective bone in either ones body. I do not watch either one. If I want to see and hear fiction I watch a movie.
Media Matters? only when the media is filtered through your (Soros/Clinton) funnel, does it matter. liars always lose. the truth will set you free. What Rush said was a 100% true and Media Matters knows it. Media Matters- you failed, yet again. What ya cooking up next? "the earth is really flat" says Media Matters
I have found a spot where Liberals coveen, may I please ask a few questions and we'll ALL see if any brave Lib will really answer or will they try to change the subject ?
(1) Why is it that the Sates that have the HIGHEST taxes and are in Democrat control ARE IN DEBT ? While Republican run States have the LOWEST unemplyment, lower taxes, lees hand outs AND BUDGET SURPLUSES... interesting.
Michagan anyone ? New Jersey anyone ? Look at the numbers...
(2) Why are more and more Americans MOVING to Republican held States ? Lower taxes, tougher on Illegals ?
(3) Since when did the Constitiution include "Cradle to Grave" Gov hand-ots ? Are Libs just plain lazy, no longer willing to work for what they get ?
(4) Why are the States run by Liberal the ones that GIVE THE LEAST TO CHARITY ? Humm...
I doubt this will get past the censors here on this Commie web site, and even if I get lucky, not one Lib will answer with ANY facts, they will just flame me and say I am a rasist, hater... but will never address the FACTS that States that have MAJORITY Republicans have FAR better tax sistuations, far fewer un-employeed and budget surpluses...
Facts are Facts...
Newcomer MGARNETT has some questions:
“I have found a spot where Liberals coveen (sic. Convene, come together?), may I please ask a few questions and we'll ALL see if any brave Lib will really answer or will they try to change the subject?”
RESPONSE: Sure. I'm a Liberal. What’s on your mind?
MG: "(1) Why is it that the Sates (sic) that have the HIGHEST taxes and are in Democrat control ARE IN DEBT ?"
RESPONSE: Offhand, I’d say it is because “Liberal” states are the MOST AFFLUENT. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, are economic powerhouses, with greater populations, higher incomes, higher quality of life, and economic activity than most “conservative” states. The following site might help you with your education:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/rrr22.pdf
Higher taxes? To be expected with greater affluence. Debt? A reality of doing business, a “problem” nationally as well, and to discover if it’s a particular PROBLEM for our wealthiest states, you’d have to specify some criteria by which to judge. Does New York’s debt make it a worse place to do business than Louisiana? What’s your specific point?
MG: “While Republican run States have the LOWEST unemployment, lower taxes, lees (sic) hand outs AND BUDGET SURPLUSES... interesting.”
RESPONSE: So, your premise is that New York should be more like Mississippi? Or California should strive to emulate Alabama? Interesting theory… you’d have to tell us WHY this would be something anybody would want to do.
MG: “Michagan (sic) anyone ? New Jersey anyone ? Look at the numbers...”
RESPONSE: Arkansas, anyone? Kentucky, anyone? The numbers are clear: You are saying the most affluent states have higher costs. Are you really agonizing over this no-brainer?
MG: “(2) Why are more and more Americans MOVING to Republican held States ? Lower taxes, tougher on Illegals ?”
RESPONSE: Different job opportunities, fleeing “big city” life, better climate. Lots of reasons, and it may even lead eventually to Mississippi being as affluent as Connecticut (a long, long way to go). So what?
MG: “(3) Since when did the Constitiution (sic) include "Cradle to Grave" Gov hand-ots (sic) ?
RESPONSE: Setting aside your “loaded” terms, the Constitution has “allowed” social (liberal) programs since they were voted into existence by Congress, implemented, challenged, and ruled to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
MG: “Are Libs just plain lazy, no longer willing to work for what they get ?”
RESPONSE: No. Not at all. Need I remind you, Bill Gates is not a conservative? Need other examples of highly successful, hardworking Libs? Or do you just get off spouting false partisan stereotypes and talking points? Does tarring and smearing have to be part of your "ask a few questions" routine?
MG: “(4) Why are the States run by Liberal (sic) the ones that GIVE THE LEAST TO CHARITY ? Humm...”
RESPONSE: You’ve actually answered your own question earlier. There are different ways to deal with the needs of a community. One way is total charitable giving, with no government programs to help those in need.
America HAD this very system up until the Great Depression indicated that charities alone could not handle the problem. Since that time, the states in differing proportions have government programs to address those problems, along with charitable organizations in tandem.
In simple economics, the amount of charitable giving reflects the NEED, and the NEED is greater in states that, run by Conservatives, are hostile to addressing social problems with government programs. Conversely, in states that understand social responsibility, and have tax-funded programs to address these social problems, there is much less NEED for that charitable giving.
You’ve really tied together your complaints here: The more “liberal” states TAX more, and provide more services, while the more “conservative” states tax less, and end up having to spend much more on charity.
Hope this answers your “Hummmm” bug.
MILITARY HUSBAND:
WHO SUPPORTS THE TROOPS? Part I:
What does it really MEAN when a Republican tells you he "supports the troops"? There are mountains of evidence to answer this question, in the actions of Republicans over decades. What do these ACTIONS tell us about HOW Republicans translate this "support" into actual BEHAVIOR?
1. Actual combat service in uniform by a Republican is extremely rare. "SUPPORT" for the military does not translate to actually SERVICE by the Republicans themselves. When it comes to the Military, Republicans simply CANNOT "lead by example." The vast majority of elected Republicans, when it comes to WAR ... were NO-SHOWS. This goes for politicians like Bush and Cheney and also Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity. "Do as I SAY, NOT as I do," is the hallmark of their "leadership".
2. Military service by an opponent, a Democratic candidate, is a big problem for Republicans, because of their own lack of service record. Therefore, the very military service, patriotism, and courage of decorated war veterans who dare to run against Republicans must be questioned, smeared, and dishonored. Every aspect of an opponent's service record is questioned, from the validity of medals, to raising doubts about how injuries were incurred, belittling the time actually spent in war zones, cynically speculating about the motivation to enlist and serve, etc. The Military Service of Democratic opponents is "fair game", as the Swift Boat Vets proved. Nothing is sacred, there is no honor, the only objective is to destroy the reputation of these decorated combat veterans, and SOIL as much as possible any image they might have as "HEROES". John Kerry, Max Clelland, Paul Hackett, Al Gore, even John McCain (to name a few) were subjected to the vicious smears of the rightwing, in order to nullify the honor of their service.
3. The military is useful as a "friendly" backdrop for speeches. The American People themselves can be unpredictable, and so must be avoided. Military "audiences" are under orders and under threat of LAW to do as told (applaud, stand up, cheer) and to NOT take personal initiative (criticism, skepticism). A military member who does not demonstrate public support for Bush, the Commander in Chief, could well end up in the brig. The use of such "captive audiences" is very useful to a president who FEARS the People. Plus, the President can then point to the "miraculous NEAR UNANIMOUS ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT" the president enjoys from the Military. Because a violation of the UCMJ can lead to arrest, and if arrest is resisted the use of force and firearms, Soldiers MUST seem to approve Bush because they literally have a gun to their heads.
4. "SUPPORT FOR THE TROOPS" must surely include this lone superpower doing everything possible to give our soldiers everything they need to get the job done, with the utmost protections possible to defend their lives in combat zones. Republican President GW Bush took sole responsibility for sending our troops into harm's way in Iraq, and his "leadership" determined whether the troops would be properly supplied, or whether their lives would be at much greater risk due to being improperly equipped. As the Iraq war progressed, it became crystal clear that personal body armor, armored vehicles, and other equipment was NOT SUPPLIED initially, or even in a timely manner. Untold casualties and injuries resulted in Iraq due to this failure of leadership to properly equip our troops on the ground. This was unquestionably a FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP, and a failure to support the troops.
5. The GOP consistently underfunds and basically ignores VA benefits, hospitals, and concerns of combat veterans. Republicans usually characterize this neglect as their being "fiscally responsible," an insult and betrayal of trust to those veterans who put everything on the line for their country.
WHO SUPPORTS THE TROOPS? Part II:
6. Certain "troops" are especially useful, because of their integrity, a commodity that has great uses in an Administration bereft of military experience. Colin Powell put his honor and integrity on the line for the Bush Administration, which needed the rationale for WAR with Iraq presented to the UN with credibility and gravitas. Powell did the Administration's bidding, overruling his own misgivings, and this helped enable the Iraq War. Of course, it also destroyed the reputation of an honorable soldier, who was used and discarded by an Administration that values getting its way, and DOES NOT value honor.
7. Here's what Rush Limbaugh had to say about "supporting the troops" in his book, "See, I told you so", pp 256-7:
"Let's refresh our memories about how George H.W. Bush conducted himself in preparation for the war in the Persian Gulf. He identified the problem. He identified the solution. And he deliberately and coolly proceeded to implement his plan. Military commanders presented to the president a strategy that could be analyzed and successfully implemented, which permitted victory to be clearly defined, and thus a definite conclusion to the mission could be achieved..."
So far, so good. What of future wars? Like, for example IRAQ II?
"...nothing but a dead end. No objective, other than to make supporters feel good for having 'done something'. No strategy. No clearly defined victory. No culmination. No indication of when troops might leave. In other words, DEFEAT. ... The point is that if you make the awesome decision to commit our troops, nothing short of total victory should be considered acceptable. And if you don't know how to define total victory, you have no business getting young Americans killed. ... You can't just send troops willy-nilly across the world without a clear end in sight, and right now REAL LEADERSHIP is not being demonstrated."
Limbaugh lays out the imperatives and "rules of war", and applied to Iraq, they depict GW Bush as having embraced DEFEAT with bad leadership. There is NO "support the troops" in bad leadership, bad (or no) planning, and no rational way to define victory. This, according to Limbaugh.
8. A hundred "small" policies affect the troops, and reflect either "SUPPORT" for the troops, or disdain and neglect. Re-upping tours of duty back-to-back is horrible for troop morale, and even destroys the families at home. Petty docking of wages for housing, charging for certain equipment, and allowing family debt to pile up all are destructive to the soldier as a citizen and an individual. All have been done under the Bush Administration. Criminal neglect of VA facilities is another slap to the face of injured, returning soldiers.
9. Bush has not attended a single funeral for an soldier, a fatality of the Iraq war.
There is, of course, much more to look to in the question of WHO SUPPORTS THE TROOPS. But this short list brings more than reasonable doubt to the Republicans' claims of troop support. From neglect to the blatant "USING" of the military for political posturing to a total lack of leadership to an actual seething disdain for actual combat veterans ... the GOP's record of "supporting the troops" is dismal, disgusting, and even outrageous.
Yet, the Republicans CLAIM to "support the troops", so that must be TRUE, right? Despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, they SAY it, and so that's good enough. Right? WRONG!
You liberals are so funny, you hate republicans so much that you will compltely change what rush said just to be able to hurt his ratings. All you have done is increased them and made a fool ff yourselves. Maybe if you had a god in your beliefs you would help your fellow man instead of trying to destroy proplewith lies. God bless you and god Bless President George W. Bush.
Limbaugh has a history of slandering troops. He said that US troops are safer in Iraq than they would be if they were home in America. What an outrageous lie! Just to make a pro-war statement, Limbaugh lied about the dangers our heroic troops face.
It is common to use the plural when you are referring to a class. The discussion previous to the call during which Rush said, "Phony solders" was from another "Mike" who claimed to be a Republican and then regurgitated the Democrat talking points list.
Rush Limbaugh has been a consistent supporter of our military for the 19 years he has been on national radio. There is no doubt about that. He has 20 million avid listeners every day. Democrats have about the same number of hard-left voters, but 78% to 88%, depending on the poll, are very unhappy with what they are doing in Congress. If any fraction of this number stays home in disgust the Democrats will lose the White House, the House and the Senate on November 4, 2008.
Adrian Vance
Dear Tex,
Your answers are inaccurate. First, The HIGHEST unemplyment is in States under Lib controls that over tax small investors, small companies, ect. People are fleeing to States where 1/3 of the money that THEY, not the State, but THEY earn. I do not want you or your type to reach into my pocket to PAY for what you call social programs, let's call them what they are, WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION. Take my hard earned money and give it to a welfare person that has no incentive to earn or work or even try.
You mention quality of life, well I gues if your idea of quality is having the State or Federal Gov tell you where you can work, if you can smoke, what you can eat, ect. is quality then, OK. I do not want ANY Gov involved in my life, how to raise my childern, what I eat, ect. I want FREEDOM from Gov., you, by your own staments WANT the GOV to tell you how your money must be spent, how YOUR children are taught and take at gunpoint your money to give it to others.
A woman having 4 childeren just so she can get more of MY money is wrong, period.
A union worker asking for $40.00 an hour to screw the same 15 bolts on a car while a non-union car co. man make $25.00 an hour and has job security. I'll choose the later.
My quality of life is EXCELLENT and as long as I control, not you or your Lib friends, but as long as I control my life my QUALITY will ALWAYS beet yours.
GARNETT, Part I:
MGARNETT responds: “Your answers are inaccurate.”
RESPONSE: We’ll tally up all the “inaccuracies” you rack up, and report at the end. Fire when ready.
MG: “First, The HIGHEST unemployment (sic) is in States under Lib controls that over tax small investors, small companies, ect.”
RESPONSE: I will not deny that tax rates ARE a FACTOR in SOME decisions involving employment. As with all economic factors, tax rates have desirable and undesirable consequences, which are constantly undergoing cost/benefit analysis, and adjusted, to achieve a BALANCE which represents the most optimum outcome. You want to focus on Unemployment, and that’s fine, but there is also EMPLOYMENT to consider … these stats cannot be looked at in a vacuum. Let’s look at two states, Liberal New Jersey, and Conservative Mississippi, and see what their employment stats tell us.
As of August, 2007, New Jersey’s civilian employment was 4.5 million workers, while Mississippi employed 1.3 million. Unemployed in those states was 193,100 in New Jersey(4.3% of the workforce), 77,400 in Mississippi ( 5.9 % of the workforce).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t03.htm
Couple of points here: Liberal New Jersey provides FOUR TIMES the jobs Conservative Mississippi does (adding to our economy). Mississippi has a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their available workforce unemployed. These figures directly contradict your point, at least with these two random states, so at the very least, your blanket assertions are simply untrue.
MG: “People are fleeing to States where 1/3 of the money that THEY, not the State, but THEY earn. I do not want you or your type to reach into my pocket to PAY for what you call social programs, let's call them what they are, WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION.”
RESPONSE: Fair enough. We can agree to end Wealth Re-distribution.
“And an analysis of income-tax data by Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of households own nearly twice as much of the nations corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. In 38 states where the incomes of the bottom fifth of families grew more slowly than those at the top, incomes at the top rose by an average of $45,800 (62%), while the incomes of the poorest grew by $3,000 (21%). The richest 1% of households -- those with incomes above $237,000 for 2003, the latest year analyzed -- owned 57.5% of all income from capital gains, dividends, interest and rents in 2003, the CBO analysis found. That was up from 53.4% the year before and 38.7% in 1991.” More and more of American capital held in fewer and fewer hands, as a TREND of “Wealth RE-Distribution.”
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P143548.asp
As these figures show, there is an astronomical Redistribution of Wealth taking place in America, and it is FROM the working middle class, UP TO the investing wealthy class. With the rules, taxes, and economic guidelines AS THEY ARE, we are being Balkanized into a society of haves and have-nots. By all means, let’s reverse this trend.
GARNETT, Part II
MG: “Take my hard earned money and give it to a welfare person that has no incentive to earn or work or even try.”
RESPONSE: I take it you are unlikely to be one of those giving to a Charity, since those in need would be the same sort of person, and helping them would destroy their incentive, in your mind?
It’s OK to think that way, so what you can do is relocate to where people in need receive as near NOTHING in help as you can find. This will incentivize the poor to just LEAVE, and relocate in a state that has programs of help. That way, your state can eliminate the problems of homelessness and the poor and people who are sick and people in need, by simply unloading them on states that have a social conscience (this is called the “race to the bottom”). Anyway, the only TRUE welfare program left is AFDC, which focuses on children … but I guess you want four-year-olds to earn and work, eh? And leave your “hard-earned” wages alone, free from any taxation. Got it. And good luck.
MG: “You mention quality of life, well I gues (sic) if your idea of quality is having the State or Federal Gov tell you where you can work, if you can smoke, what you can eat, ect. (sic) is quality then, OK. I do not want ANY Gov involved in my life, how to raise my children (sic), what I eat, ect. (sic) I want FREEDOM from Gov., you, by your own staments (sic) WANT the GOV to tell you how your money must be spent, how YOUR children are taught and take at gunpoint your money to give it to others.”
RESPONSE: I understand your argument, and you are right. I view the government as the SERVANT of the People, to do the chores that people individually are ill-equipped to perform.
You, on the other hand, want “FREEDOM” from all government. That’s a very Libertarian view, and I’ve met very few Libertarians who are purists who want all drugs legalized, who want all roads privatized, who don’t want such things as public education, meat inspection, libraries, parks or NASA, who want zoning laws abolished. Libertarians who would instruct our Emergency Rooms to simply turn away those who can’t pay. It’s a radical view, and in a democracy, you have so far been outvoted. Society runs generally as the majority dictates. And the majority LIKES government playing a role in making this a better nation. Sorry. (And yes, I want our majority-approved LAWS enforced at gunpoint, if necessary, and this includes tax laws. And no, I don’t believe any moral person would care to live in the nation you would create, a nation without compassion, without community, entirely based on Law of the Jungle.)
MG: “A woman having 4 childeren (sic) just so she can get more of MY money is wrong, period. A union worker asking for $40.00 an hour to screw the same 15 bolts on a car while a non-union car co. man make $25.00 an hour and has job security. I'll choose the later (sic). My quality of life is EXCELLENT and as long as I control, not you or your Lib friends, but as long as I control my life my QUALITY will ALWAYS beet (sic) yours.”
RESPONSE: If your quality of life is excellent, I’m very glad. However, by your comments here, you cannot be living in the United States. Because in the USA, there are federal taxes, public schools, welfare programs, zoning laws, and all those things you claim to HATE about LIBERAL programs. How could your life be excellent, if you’re saddled with today’s current laws? I’ll guess and say you think your quality of life in America is IN SPITE of government actions, while I would contend that Americans’ quality of life is BECAUSE of the many things Government does. My proof? The laws you hate are in place, yet your life is EXCELLENT.
(P.S.: Your “inaccuracy” score? ZERO. You have OPINIONS that differ from mine, but you showed no proof that your assertions were correct while mine were wrong. Sorry.)
Tex,
I thought of one more thing after I read your responce again. If you want your Taxes given away to the "less" able, then you give YOURS to them and stay OUT of my pocket.
I make $170,000.00 a year, I'm one of the folks that your kind talk about as "The Rich", and your kind want to TAX me more and more.
Just one last question Tex, what do you think YOUR life would be like in a Communist country where everything is taken from you and you are supplies with just enough to survive, they tell you were you can work, what you can eat, what your children can do & eat (sounds like you & Clinton), if ANYONE wants that kind of "quality" then vote Democrate...
I want my FREEDON from the Gov., you sell your very soul to big Gov.
Tex wrote:
In simple economics, the amount of charitable giving reflects the NEED, and the NEED is greater in states that, run by Conservatives, are hostile to addressing social problems with government programs. Conversely, in states that understand social responsibility, and have tax-funded programs to address these social problems, there is much less NEED for that charitable giving.
My question : Do you honestly believe that the TAX burden in the NE, NY, NJ, ect. is good for America ? Many, many folks on BOTH sides of the fence believe that our Taxes are way too high. New Jersey has 1000's fleeing the huge tax burdens to States where taxes are much lower. You say it's for the weather, ect. but you refuse to admit that taxes are too high for Libs AND Conservatives. Even my Lib friends complain that they are literaly being taxed out of the State. I pay $15,432.00 yearly in Property Taxes, not counting the NJ State Tax, the Fed Tax... I can't do it much longer... My exact same size home in Texas would be $2,600.00 a year in Property Tax, NO State Tax, and a Budget Surplus. NJ, NY has a HUGE budget SHORTAGE while taxes go up & up, but yet you have NO answer other then to TAX folks like me more.
Commie is the right word for you.
I can't AFFORD your "social programs" anymore.
MGARNETT, one more time, PART I:
GARNETT has more comments:
MG: “If you want your Taxes given away to the "less" able, then you give YOURS to them and stay OUT of my pocket.”
RESPONSE: Here’s what we’ll do. We’ll vote for representatives, THEY will set policy and pass laws, and then we’ll FOLLOW the law, because we are all Americans. If you don’t LIKE the laws, try to convince enough like-thinking voters to put YOUR guys in office, and then they will reflect YOUR views. It’s a sloppy system, lots of problems, but it’s the best devised in history to enable “self-rule” by a free people, government by a Constitution. Or, you can go live in another state (or nation) you like better, your free choice.
MG: “I make $170,000.00 a year, I'm one of the folks that your kind talk about as "The Rich", and your kind want to TAX me more and more.”
RESPONSE: “My kind” are Americans. Proud citizens with a vote and an opinion and a conscience and a desire to live in the best nation ever in history (which the USA is, despite the disasterous Bush Administration). “My kind” has families and uses roads and parks and public schools, and goes to church, plays sports, has barbecues, and has good neighbors. “My kind” works hard and pays bills and invests in the future, serves in the military and volunteers at the Chamber of Commerce. I’m really big on “my kind”.
MG: “What do you think YOUR life would be like in a Communist country where everything is taken from you and you are supplies (sic) with just enough to survive, they tell you were you can work, what you can eat, what your children can do & eat … “
RESPONSE: I’d hate it. Communism goes against Human Nature, and will never work, no matter how many times it may be tried. Humans are driven to compete, to be rewarded proportionally for their labors, and to acquire “things” as a monument to their efforts. Humans are ALSO generally moral and compassionate, and wish (if for self interest alone) to live in communities free from violence, strife, disease, or other suffering.
MG: “(sounds like you & Clinton)”
RESPONSE: Are you being a drama queen? Clinton told you where to work? Clinton told you what you can eat? Are you paranoid, delusional, or a paranoid delusional?
MG: “If ANYONE wants that kind of "quality" then vote Democrate (sic)...”
RESPONSE: You will see how many prefer Clinton over Bush in about a year. Patience.
MGARNETT, one more time, PART II:
MG: “I want my FREEDON from the Gov., you sell your very soul to big Gov.”
RESPONSE: What you have is greed and selfishness, no social conscience, a mean spirit, resentments galore, paranoia, and strict self-interest in place of ENLIGHTENED self-interest, which would inform you that it does no good to have all the gold in a community that is mired in disease, suffering, and strife. You will never be FREE, because you are a slave to the dollar and to a FEAR that somebody somewhere might get something they didn’t “EARN”. And, horrors, a hungry kid somewhere might be fed by a dollar that used to be YOURS. Parish the thought!
MG: “Do you honestly believe that the TAX burden in the NE, NY, NJ, ect. is good for America ?”
RESPONSE: What I believe is that people and communities are self interested, and will make decisions to maximize success and quality of life. I believe that economic factors that CAN be adjusted WILL be adjusted, and changed to reflect changing realities. I ALSO believe that if New Jersey’s taxes are driving business away, THAT IS JUST FINE!. People will go where the decisions being made suit them better, and at that point New Jersey will POSSIBLY adjust their rates to retain business. Or not. It really doesn’t matter, commerce will go on.
MG: “Many, many folks on BOTH sides of the fence believe that our Taxes are way too high. New Jersey has 1000's fleeing the huge tax burdens to States where taxes are much lower. You say it's for the weather, ect. but you refuse to admit that taxes are too high for Libs AND Conservatives.”
RESPONSE: WRONG. I contend that “too high” and “too low” are value judgments subject to change without notice. I only pointed out that, for all the carping and bitching you do about New Jersey, it employs 4.5 million people and is among the most affluent states in the union. They’re, so far, doing MANY THINGS right. Mississippi would DIE for the key to New Jersey’s treasury.
MG: “Even my Lib friends complain that they are literally being taxed out of the State. I pay $15,432.00 yearly in Property Taxes, not counting the NJ State Tax, the Fed Tax... I can't do it much longer... My exact same size home in Texas would be $2,600.00 a year in Property Tax, NO State Tax, and a Budget Surplus. NJ, NY has a HUGE budget SHORTAGE while taxes go up & up, but yet you have NO answer other then to TAX folks like me more.”
RESPONSE: WRONG AGAIN. My advice to you is multiple choice: (A) Move to Texas (they’ll be happy to have you). (B) Get enough like-thinking people to VOTE, and elect representatives who will run things the way YOU want them run, or (C) shut the hell up and enjoy your “excellent” life. It’s up to YOU.
MG: “Commie is the right word for you.”
RESPONSE: I explained how I judge communism earlier. You’re just namecalling now.
MG: “I can't AFFORD your "social programs" anymore.”
RESPONSE: Cool. I’ve given you your valid alternatives. Good luck!
Here is the quote from your site that you use to lie about what Rush said:
"Mike" from Olympia replied, "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 interjected, "The phony soldiers."
You cannot prove from this quote that Rush's "phony soldiers" refers to soldiers who oppose the war. It just isn't there in a literal reading of the text. You must INTERPRET this quote to get the meaning out of it that you have. Shameful.
This whole Rush controvery is part of a plan to control free speech. Feds in Wash. state are investigating 7 PHONY SOLDIERS . Read the Marine Corps blog about more phonies, including a chaplin. Jesse MacBeth lied- saying he witnessed American troops hanging men women and children inside a mosque, this was translated into Arabic and played throught the middle east. Are the peace groups that so readily embraced MacBeth going to step up with the TRUTH now? Did Hillary Clinton start Media Matters as she claimed ???
Oh & BTW TEx, NJ & NY State have the highest corruption & fraud rates on "social" programs in the States.
Interesting, no comments...
Facts beat Lib "social" do-gooders, the reason we give more in the South, "red" States is we believe in each other helping our fellow man, NOT the Gov that spends way too much on one failed program after another... NOT ONE SINGLE SOCIAL PROGRAM WORKS AS INTENDED, not one...
In an attempt to welcome newcomer MBARNETT to this site, we’ve gone off-topic to discuss taxes and social programs. To be friendly, I will continue to address BARNETT’s concerns, until he runs out.
MB: “Oh & BTW TEx, NJ & NY State have the highest corruption & fraud rates on "social" programs in the States.”
RESPONSE: Also, the biggest. Bigger programs have bigger problems, and more opportunities for corruption, no question. However, the military has lots of instances of corruption, as well. $800 hammers and $1200 toilet seats. What’s to be done? Better oversight, law enforcement techniques, punish the offenders. It makes no more sense to end a social program because of some abuses than it makes sense to abolish the military for the same reason.
MG: “Interesting, no comments...”
RESPONSE: On what?
MG: “Facts beat Lib "social" do-gooders,”
RESPONSE: Non-sequitur. By my count, we “lib do-gooders” started with rural electrification, the CCC, the WPA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, guaranteed college loans, FHA, OSHA, FDA, and all the alphabet soup agencies, (not to mention the hugely successful Affirmative Action program, that opened the door to scores of minorities to productive lives) and they are ALL STILL IN EFFECT, and doing great good for our nation. Other programs you would consider “LIBERAL” are making our lives better every day, like simple meat inspections. Do they have problems? Absolutely, and they are addressed regularly.
What I’ll never understand is that Rightwingers cite problems with programs as if the GOVERNMENT should be able to “solve” a problem, once and for all, and without any difficulties. Yet, nobody in their right mind would expect their PLUMBER to do the same, to fix all plumbing for all time. Jeez. Governing is a job like any other, that has to be worked daily, adjusted, overseen, changed, and there will always be more work tomorrow. Just like a plumber.
(P.S. Jesus said, “The poor will always be with us.” … that was 2000 YEARS ago.)
MG: “the reason we give more in the South, "red" States is we believe in each other helping our fellow man,”
RESPONSE: What’s this “WE” stuff? I thought you lived in New Jersey, paying New Jersey taxes?!?. Now you’re a son of the South, chipping in the charity bowl? It doesn’t matter, just goes to your overall credibility.
MG: “… NOT the Gov that spends way too much on one failed program after another... NOT ONE SINGLE SOCIAL PROGRAM WORKS AS INTENDED, not one...”
RESPONSE: Social Security works as intended, Rural Electrification (a huge government program) worked marvelously, NASA has been a huge success, the GI Bill led to a boom in American inventiveness and productivity, school loan guarantees are enabling the next generation of high-tech workers, AFDC is feeding young families all across the land, helping assure the next generation becomes good citizens, WIC helps with feeding EVEN THE FAMILIES OF YOUNG MILITARY recruits, with young children and not very big paychecks.
Obviously, MG, your idea of failure and America’s idea of failure are quite different. You would simply eliminate Social Security payouts, and tell those old folks to just fend for themselves. To you, that would spell a national success, I suppose, but America disagrees with your harsh (and provably untrue) assessments. You do win the “curmudgeon of the day” award!
The chickens have come home to roost. Now it turns out that Media Myrmidons for America is actually Hillary's Media Myrmidons for America, which erases the little credibility that this website had. All of the accusations by the Myrmidons that Rush, Hannity, etc. are bought and paid for by Republicans is, in fact, true about MMFA and Hillary Clinton, according to Hillary herself. This all came out in the aftermath of the dishonest report by HMMFA to discredit Rush Limbaugh. HMMFA, you have officially shot yourself in the foot.
Found this great comment at http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/04/phony-soldier-phony-scandal-phony-politicians/
“They’re worrying about what a talk show host says,’’ Huckabee said. “I can’t think of anything that is a greater waste of their time, and my money as a taxpayer, and frankly Rush Limbaugh has the right to say anything he wants to. Last time I checked, the First Amendment has not been repealed. And while individual citizens can say anything they want about Rush Limbaugh, it is not the job of government to infringe upon the free speech of anybody including a talk show host.”
JJ - Vancouver, WA
Why isn't there any outcry over these remarks by Democrats against our soldiers? JJ - Vancouver, WA
Harry Reid: “Now, I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense — and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”
John Kerry: “If you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
John Murtha: “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
Dick Durbin: “If I read this to you and didn't tell you it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings.”
Seems to me that if you are concerned about comments that attack our troups, these comments would of great concern to you too.
Ask yourself a simple question. If you are a soldier fighting in Iraq and you need a bit of a morale boost, who would you choose to listen to? Would it be conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who daily and untiringly talks up your mission, its inherent nobility and the need for it to be seen through to successful completion, or . . . would it be the rogues’ gallery of Democratic politicians who on a regular basis say things like Harry Reid: “ — that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” I think the soldiers would prefer something more positive.
JJ - Vancouver, WA
JJ:
You bring up a good point.
What kind of TEACHER would you like? One that praises everything you do, demands nothing from you in the way of production or thought, and pats your head while smiling?
OR, would you prefer a TEACHER who challenges you, is critical but fair in assessing your abilities and condition, pushes you to think independently, working to improve your mind and expand your horizons?
Sadly, most kids would like the FORMER, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice. The latter teacher would be much better for your character, your development, and your future. Harder, yes, and more challenging. But better.
It's the same for guys and gals. A guy might find a gal that smiles and flatters and gives him whatever he wants ... but is that a good choice for MARRIAGE? For marriage, one looks for more serious qualities, more lasting characteristics, and hell, someone with more pride in themselves than to go gushing in a shallow manner. Someone who makes serious evaluations and will tell you "NO" if that's her best judgment.
Yes indeed, Limbaugh gushes and flatters, telling the military to just go over that next hill, we're all gung-ho for their mission. But is that the best thing for them? Nope. Sadly, not at all.
Are any of you Libs willing to state that you are in favor of Tax-Payer Funded Senators taking the time to write up the condemnation letter about Rush? And that that was an entirely honorable and productive thing for them to do?
And.... while your undergoing my interrogation... what percentage of the entire population do you think agree with you? (oh, gosh... don't bring up any polls...)
Thank you for your time and have a nice day.
-LOIS THE GREAT AMERICAN HERO AND LIMBAUGH WORSHIPPER
Here's a form letter being sent around to congress. It's lauhable.
Dear Representative XXXXX:As your constituent, I'm writing to ask you to please support broadcaster Rush Limbaugh against the fabricated attacks coming from extreme liberal organizations and their allies in Congress.Instead of trying to trump up false charges in the 'court of public opinion,' Congress should instead focus on HONORING all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and COMMENDING Rush Limbaugh for his relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.The need to show support for American troops serving and fighting both here and abroad during a time of global conflict has never been greater, with the need to communicate an uplifting message of encouragement to American soldiers eternally important, in addition to the morale-boosting value of personal visits to combat region by highly-regarded individuals.Every American -- including service men and women AND broadcasters -- is entitled to free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Daily radio broadcasts reaching tens of millions of civilians and soldiers both in America and abroad by way of the Armed Forces Radio Network are conducted five days a week by Rush Limbaugh, and Mr. Limbaugh has consistently used his broadcast time to praise American troops and support them during their ongoing efforts to secure peace in a troubled world.Mr. Limbaugh has met with troops in Afghanistan; raised and donated millions of dollars to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides college scholarships to the children of Marines and veterans of other branches killed in action; features an 'Adopt a Soldier' program which provides them with free subscription access to his online program features; and his commitment to American troops serving both here and abroad remains as strong as ever.Instead of trying to play up fabricated charges against Rush Limbaugh, Congress needs to COMMEND Mr. Limbaugh's desire to see American troops achieve a successful outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever soldiers are stationed, as well as his tireless public support for American troops and their families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support.Please, do the RIGHT thing, and SUPPORT broadcaster Rush Limbaugh against the fabricated attacks coming from extreme liberal organizations and their allies in Congress. I will be watching your stand on this issue very closely. Thank you.Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
" Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. "
So what? You "facts" prove nothing.
Fact: MacBeth had been in the news long before rush's show aired.
Fact: MacBeth's despicable behavior was indeed that of a "phony soldier"
Why would Rush NOT be talking about MacBeth?
Your conclusions on what Rush meant are a total non sequitur.
Your "facts" prove nothing, and aren't even compelling considering Rush's long standing support for the military.
Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
[copy of my letter to MSNBC] Your Keith Olbermann spews the fake story about fake soldiers--as if MSNBC really needs help losing credibility--long after the nation knew MediaMatters' novelists had cooked up the story about talk show host Rush Limbaugh to turn attention from left wing "betray-us" ad embarassment. This is just getting too funny for words; MSNBC looks like it wants to become the Midnight Star of tabloid TV. What's next; Ann Coulter has gay affair with Hilary? Elvis sighted giving Iraq strategy to Bush? Sean Hannity forced altarboys to worship Oliver North? Well, look on the bright side; when MSNBC ratings finish tanking and you're off the air, you can always sell splashly-sleeved $3.99 DVD's at Wal Mart checkout lines. HT Schmerdtz
You liberals are pathetic. Anyone that was listening to the show knows that within minutes of mentioning the term phony soldier he further clarified his remarks to single out Jesse MacBeth. It is also common knowledge that liberal publications, like the New Republic, use fake stories to smear our soldiers, so when Rush used the term phony soldiers he was referring to that cadre of dispicable liberals that falsify their millitary service in order discredit our millitary.
You are losing this propaganda war and you deserve to because you are lying.
This is typical clinton style politics. Tell a lie, believe the lie, and repeat it ad nauseum until the lie becomes reality.
Why not consider the simple fact that if you have to lie so much that maybe you don't deserve to win. Hmm? Simple little concept. Doubt you can grasp it but give it a go. Miracles do happen.
Rush mentioned Macbeth the day before. He has explained this, and I heard it. I heard the phony soldiers comment and knew exactly what he was talking about.
God Bless Rush........he is a breath of fresh air in the middle of all this Liberal BS
Why is American so much in Love with Hate & Lies ? Please let this country and it's people get back at truth and love, doing that CAN produce a miracle.
Man this is like the Night of the Dittoheads. Zombies on the loose. Lets hear from a left wing talk show host Gush Blimpbaugh: Generals in the armed services need to suck up to the president to get promoted. Sometimes they are willing to tell falsehoods to get promoted. Caller from Washington: Hi Gush this David Petraeus on the phone and I think the surge is working... Gush : Yeah Yeah and I walk on Pluto everynight . Gen: I am an expert Gush Yeah Yeah a phony expert Commmercial break. {Discussion of weapons in wwII.} Caller 2: You know Gush Benedict Arnold was a traitor who told us he was on our side but lied. He helped the British because they were going to give him a higher position than Washington would. Gush: Yeah a general who sold us out for his own career advancement. Gush was later accused of calling Patreaus a Benedict Arnold. Did he?
Noting that the “origin” of the smear was Media Matters, Limbaugh on his show and website Tuesday played a sound bite from a speech given by Hillary Clinton this past August. Hillary said:
“We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere, and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.”
Rush told his listeners: “There you have it – Media Matters for America has now been officially claimed as a Hillary Clinton startup . . . So, to that extent, anybody in media, on any side of the aisle, ought to now understand that anything coming out of Media Matters for America is designed to take issue, destroy, harm, whatever, anyone who gets in Mrs. Clinton’s way in her quest for the White House . . .
“The bottom line is, it’s Mrs. Clinton’s organization . . . Hence this smear of me.”
HahaHa....I HEARD the show! And the show before it, and before that! You are such a ridiculous and phony group - threatened by the truthil Noone has a stronger supporter than what the military has in Rush Limbaugh. You liberals ae so ridiculous, and so full of fear! The truth hurts, doesn't it?
You are all a bunch of angry idiots. Rush is and has been one of the strongest supporters of the troops and we troops know it. I don't even know where to begin with the lies I see regarding the "phony soldier" comments. We smart Vets know the distinction between Media Matters and true, factual reporting. Your bias is overwhelming.
Get over it.
Charlene Herrin, US Army, Retired.
There are plenty of documented cases of "phony soldiers" and I am not talking about those real soldiers who may disagree with the War in Iraq.
Rush was right to bring attention to it.