Limbaugh falsely accused Media Matters of not providing context for his "Obama Osama" comment
On the April 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh asserted that Media Matters for America "takes everything that we say here out of context". The example Limbaugh provided was an incident on his July 11, 2005, broadcast in which he repeatedly referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as "Obama Osama" and "Osama Obama." Limbaugh argued that he was just engaging in a "parody because Senator [Edward] Kennedy [D-MA] at the National Press Club was asked about Obama and said, "Well, we need to ask Osama about that." In fact, as Media Matters documented at the time, while Limbaugh mentioned Kennedy's gaffe during the broadcast, he also repeatedly referred to Obama as "Osama Obama" or "Obama Osama" in criticizing Obama and Democrats in general.
Limbaugh's comments on the April 20 broadcast came while he was introducing an impersonation of Kennedy as he was taking requests to air parodies from his archive in exchange for donations to his Cure-A-Thon 2007, a drive to raise money for victims of blood cancer:
LIMBAUGH: All right. Now, the second one he requested is the Ted Kennedy-Obama name mess-up. I want to set this one up because after we played this, the drive-by media, going to Media Matters, whatever -- that website, the front organization for the Clinton campaign, bought and paid for by George Soros and the Clinton people. Media Matters for America, which takes everything that we say here out of context and puts it up there. They are the supply source for the drive-by media of what is said on this program and a number of others. The drive-bys don't actually listen to this program.
And so we played this business of Ted Kennedy, and afterwards, word spread like wildfire through the Democrat [sic] blogs that I was calling Obama Osama, Barack Osama. And it was never I who did it, it was Senator Kennedy. Now, that was a parody because Senator Kennedy at the National Press Club was asked about Obama and said, "Well, we need to ask Osama about that."
In fact, contrary to Limbaugh's assertion that Media Matters did not provide context for his "Obama Osama" comment, Media Matters noted:
In criticizing a July 10 speech by Obama in Eatonville, Florida, Limbaugh added "Osama" to the senator's name seven times. Limbaugh justified his use of the phrase by explaining that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) had once done so.
As Limbaugh acknowledged on his show, Kennedy did correct himself after mistakenly saying "Osama bin" instead of "Obama" at a January 12 press conference at the National Press Club. The Associated Press reported on January 12, "Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him 'Osama bin ... Osama ... Obama.' "
Limbaugh has referred to Obama as "Obama Osama" or "Osama Obama" several times since the January press conference, generally to mock Kennedy's misstatement. But on his July 11 show, Limbaugh also repeatedly used the phrase in criticizing Obama and Democrats in general.
In addition, Media Matters provided transcript and audio of Limbaugh's statements.
In his presentation of the parody on his April 20 broadcast, Limbaugh also repeated his false claim that Media Matters is a "front organization for the Clinton campaign, bought and paid for by George Soros and the Clinton people." In fact, Media Matters -- which is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign -- has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros.
Limbaugh lied, yet again.
And the right-wing is screaming their heads off about "Media Matters being funded by George Soros."
Now, they claim it's indirect funding, through front groups.
Of course, they never say a WORD about Richard Mellon Scaife and "Reverend" Moon, who fundy directly or indirectly scores of right-wing groups.
What I don't understand is why the trolls keep harping on this alleged funding by George Soros, but have yet to explain why that is such a bad thing.
Know your audience, trolls. We do not share your opinion that George Soros is Beelzebub incarnate. You're going to have to make some sort of argument and state your position. I would love to hear it.
PS: Debunked claims and talking points will be ignored. Thanks.
you really expect to hear a valid reason from the same team that loves Sung Myung Moon's foreign mafia tainted influence?
I think they are just mad that they found a rich liberal and can't figure out how to structure the tax code to take his money and give it back to the rich reich crowd without making it look too obvious.
Just saw on O'Reilly's show, repeating the "Soros evil, Soros gives money to liberal groups" mantra.
And when asked about conservatives who do likewise?
Not a WORD about Scaife and Moon. As always.
The right-wing talking point has been dredged out of the sewer, and thrown against the fan blowing to the right.
PS: Debunked claims and talking points will be ignored.
Hey, nuts, are you a troll also? Mmfa claims as FACT that they have not got money from Clinton or Clinton's people, or any political party/campaign or George Soros. Are they able to back that fact up with verifiable proof? Let's see their financial statement, or is this a debunked claim which you ignore?
Did the article say Limbow said it first?? Trying to figure out what he lied about... Don't really care who is funding who, it works both ways..
Limbaugh lie #1: Media Matters took his Osama Obama schtick out of context. Limbaugh lie #2: Media Matters is a front organization for the Clinton campaign. Limbaugh lie #3: Media Matters is funded by George Soros.
#2- who cares... #3- who cares.. #1 Rush was stirring the pot with a parody of something that was mis-spoken... So many hurt feelings, so little time..
A joke? Just like the Imus comment? It was a joke too? Was it a joke when Rush made fun of Michael J. Fox? Where is the line drawn? This is a common Rush tactic: He mocks someone, and then comes back and say it was a joke.<br> He's worse than Beck.
Rush criticizing someone for not providing context? Now that's funny. It's almost as funny as his making fun of Al Gore's weight.
I know, the irony drips off like great gobs of gravy...
limbaugh invite david brock onto ur show and let him explain it.
oh thats right u are scared they my show u to be the bigot u are.
also what do u conservatives think when limbaugh says that soros funds media matters and that is false. and he knows this. do u still belive in what he says.
when are u conservatives going to tell limbaugh to come from the mic and confront these people on mm.
he is a coward and a bigot are u ????????
Dear Rush,
Please come from behind the mic and confront these people at mm.
Thanks for listening, it was the "Are you a bigot" test, hope I passed.
Not only did you pass, but you got extra credit for interpretation. I sense there are other, more cryptic tests ahead...
Sorry, that was the "are u a bigot?????" test.
Agreed, and lots more money and names whose affect on our country has been huge, without all the fus and mus of putting it before the public.
Me: "I like people, but I sometimes want to nuke North Carolina."
A day later, the cops knock on my door and say: "We read on MM that you want to nuke North Carolina. You need to come in for psychological questioning."
Me: "You're taking me out of context! I wrote that I like people too!"
And here I was thinking that Saddam hid all of his nukes in Syria. Little did I know he hid them at Holly's.
tommy are u a bigot or abigot and a limbaugh cult memeber. has rush ever said anything u diagree with . be specifc
Tommy is not part of the Limborg. He may be stubborn but he has not been assimilated.
pleese, you tel me! yore enlitenmint is much moor iluminating.
I just hope this person is texting on a moving subway... :)
drsfinance20034900, I'm only saying this because I care: learn to spell and formulate a coherent sentence.
While I applaud your efforts to criticize Limbaugh for being a coward (which is absolutely correct), you're not winning any friends here with your comments.
I would very much like to hear what you have to say (seriously, I really would), but your posts, they hurt my thinking place.
Thanks.
Touche!
If I ever accuse you of not having a sense of humor, Tommy, remind me of that post--it's brilliant!
The "Talking Points Memo" for this week must have been brief, if RushLies is already reusing his Obama/Osama slur. Har to find anything to talk about, Rush? Try telling us the good things about Lurita Doan, or Monica Goodling, or Rep. Doolittle, or Rep. Renzi, or how righteous Gonzales is, or how the "Democrat Party" is conspiring with felons and dead people to perpetrate "voter fraud"; or, for a change of pace, how well things age going in Iraq, and we haven't even fully manned the "Surge"; nor the "Surge" of support manpower for the "Surge"; nor the "Surge" of additional combat troops beyond the numbers alloted for the "Surge" (but never actually explained) to support the "Surge".
Tell us how Bungle is being forced by those nasty Dems, to extend rotations, pull even more bystanders back from completed tours as "stop-loss", continue the lowering of recruitment standards to allow any recruiting to meet numerical objectives, forced to default through delay and withholding of funds, to deny to those who have completed service, the education benefits that drew many of them in, forced to veto the Emergency Funding Bill for his ugly little war, because even after the most obvious "pork" has been dropped, there is still more funding there for Veteran Health Care than Bungle had asked, or is willing to allow.
C'mon, Rush, time to lean on that talent "God" gave you, and invent some supplemental lies to accompany those that Rove supplies.
"In fact, Media Matters -- which is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign -- has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros."
Definition of hypocrisy. It's true that George Soros has never personally given money to David Brock or MMFA. It is also true, however, that George Soros has given money to groups, Democracy Alliance and Ford Foundation (I believe, or something similar to that), which have then given money to MMFA.
MMFA criticizes Tumulty for using "radical" (as an absolute) when she actually used "more radical" (as a relative term), yet they have no problem claiming they don't take George Soros money, when they clearly do (albeit funnelled through 3rd party groups).
Ah no they dont. This has already been gone over. If I give money to the DNC and THEY give money to Ford, that doesnt mean I gave money to Ford. If I give money to my church and THEY fund an anti abortion rally it doesnt mean I funded that rally. Ya got nothin which is why you just keep repeating this worthless attempt at a point. If Soros WANTED to give money to MMFA he would write them a check. Its not illegal. I wouldnt think any less of MMFA for taking it and it still wouldnt mean a thing. However he DIDNT write them a check so YOU HAVE NO POINT.
I agree. It's obvious that MMFA is here to 'combat conservative misinformation'... so, who gives crap if Soros did give MMFA some cash? What does this prove? That liberals support liberals?
OMG!
You mean...?
Liberals give money to liberal organizations?!?!
Oh noes! What is this world coming to?
My entire worldview has been shattered. I have no reason to go on.
The underlying slander they want to push is that a "foreigner with questionable" is financing the "liberal" agenda. I'll just keep bringing up the fact that Sun Myung Moon, a foreign korean, owner of the Washington Times (a conservative rag if there ever was one!) has some real shady mafia connections that don't seem to bother the reich at all. Why is the fact that he gives them money enough for them to look the other way at the criminal aspect?
The point is that MMFA is being totally misleading when they keep repeating the claim that they have no affiliation to George Soros. Look, you guys try to play this guilt by association card all the time (Hello, Fahrenheit 911---Bush-Bath-Bin Laden). But now consistently try to deny it.
Just another example of liberal hypocrisy..
GRHINO, when you say "guilt by association", what crime are you accusing MM of?
Of not being honest regarding their relationship to George Soros.
The wheels on the rhetoric bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the rhetoric bus go round and round, all day long. This little Soros section of the thread reminds me of those that still believe that Iraq had WMD's and then when presented with "No, Iraq didn't have WMD's" they respond in kind, "You can't prove that." Fun times
"The point is that MMFA is being totally misleading when they keep repeating the claim that they have no affiliation to George Soros.
-----
If that's your idea of a point, I must assume you don't own a functioning pencil.
You are being misleading when you keep repeating the same lie over and over again. It has been disproved amny, many times, yet you keep saying the same thing again and again.
Please learn to reason before you try posting again. You will save yourself a lot of embarrassment.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/23/video-oreilly-names-those-who-recycle-media-matters-garbage/mm.jpg
So simple even an "idiot liberal" could understand it....
You linked to O'falafel. He has no credibility even a moron like YOU ought to understand that.
and David ("admitted liar") Brock does have credibility????That's a good one...
He doesnt need credibility. Notice all the back up and facts this site provides. He isnt asking you to take his word for anything.
No the point is you are WRONG and have NOTHING. If you have a problem with the guilt by association thing, so do I. Here there is no association. If Soros wanted to give money to MMFA he would WRITE THEM A CHECK. He didnt YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Others have already made the point that you don't have one, so I won't bother repeating that.
What I want to know is, what is this really creepy obsession you and other wingers have with George Soros?
And I still wish MMFA would at some point say "We get no bucks from Soros. But BFD if we did."
Oh, a footnote re Tumulty: You mean being "more radical" does not involve being "radical?" So I could describe something as "more red" without meaning it's red or some argument as "more logical" without meaning it's logical?
Okay, then, well in that case, your argument is "more logical."
For example, "idiot liberals" like Solon and the Kossacks probably consider Joe Lieberman "more radical" than their personal beliefs. Yet is Joe Lieberman considered "radical"? No, of course not.
You have just made a logical fallacy called "assuming the result. Your premises are all false, so your conclusion has no relation to truth.
While complete morons like Grimo keep repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again in the VAIN hope that eventually it will BECOME a point. Proving only that they do NOT have a functioning cerbral cortex.
"After initially claiming on Dec. 1, 2004 that "neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated," the group is no longer disavowing any connection with groups "affiliated" with Soros. "
"Media Matters for America (MMA) spokeswoman Sally Aman responded to Cybercast News Service's questions with an e-mail. "In response to your query regarding donor funding Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros," Aman stated, no longer denying any relationship with organizations affiliated with Soros."
http://www.crosswalk.com/1316134/
Dude! Who cares? Does this prove anything?
OK... AND this proves what? Other than that you don't know the definition of hypocrisy or DIRECT. NEXT!!
"Crosswalk."
I right-wing Christian site, that uses proven liars David Horowitz and CNS"news" as "sources."
Of course, no direct funding of MM is alleged in the article, jsut second and third-hand funding.
And not a WORD yet, on Scaife or Moon funding right-wing groups and people like Bozell and Horowitz.
I have to say as well, who cares? Soros is the right's big boogeman so they love to trot his name out there like he is some nefarious criminal.....it's unfair. Who and where he contributes his money is his business.
Amen to that T-mac.
David "Horowitz said he is not surprised that Brock's group altered its statement after being questioned about donations. "[Brock is] a guy who turned on his friends. He was a sleazy gossip sort of writer when he was on the right, and he's a sleazy gossip writer on the left, and an unscrupulous one on both sides," Horowitz said."
This makes me puke. First of all, Horowitz is a creep, and secondly for him to grumble about Brock turning on his friends is hypocricy, to say the least. Was he not once, like Hitchens, left wing?
What a piece of crap he is.
Ah the simpleminded Manichean worldview. Loyalty is something you have or dont. Doesnt matter that you come to realize your friends are lying, distorting and have convinced you to trash your ethical journalistic values. You STILL should show them loyalty. In fact loyalty isnt something you have or dont, its a hierarchy. You hae the most loyalty to that which is right. Not to those who you hang out with. By the way Hitchens is STILL leftwing on most issues. He just loves this war. He would socialize the health care system in a heartbeat and go at the CIA with a meatcleaver if it were up to him. Not to mention sending Kissenger to the Hague. Dont kid yourself people arent just one thing. So much of the world is more complicated than that.
Sorry Bart I screwed that up. I started to join you in your complaint about Whorowitz and then somehow changed the tense to YOU. I didnt realize that until I reread it. I don't know how that happened but my appolgies. I of course completely agree with your assesment here.
I believe he is exhibiting extreme paranoia due to his hillbilly heroin withdrawals.
From http://www.soros.org/about
On a local level, OSI implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media.
(my emphasis) Some how or other Soros should be funding MMFA as they are helping to slow the tide of corporate control of all media, and keeping media independent. If you don't think democracy can survive without an independent media, I would suggest you need a few more semesters of world history.
GRHINO, I ask you this simple question. The Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Coulters' all claimed to have their OWN QUOTES taken out of context even though they are heard/written word for word. Apparently, you believe the Faux News crowd. But now, you hear from Crosswhatever(sic) and you believe them word for word. Ever think that they may have misquoted or taken things out of context? Or do only liberals do that?
Or have you not been permitted to think for yourself. Because if you do, you will understand the word NEVER....Try some free-thinking it is refreshing...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200503\SPE20050303a.html
CNS News is not a reliable source.
Can we get a list of "reliable" news sources.. I am feeling very misguided..
Exactly why not go the whole hog and link directly to the Limborg homepage.
A simple request, but why the spiteful response? I though for sure there would be a link to reputable news sources somewhere on this site. Inquiring minds want to know.
Perhaps you have missed the recent posts where Grino has been very rude to me. I give what I get. Thats what it is. I make no appolgies for that. If HE stops calling me names and insulting me I will be glad to do the same but I am not the type to take it and say please sir can I have another.
His name is Limbaugh for godsakes..what is it with you "idiot liberals" calling people by stupid nicknames??? I thought most people grew out of that in 5th grade.
TMFA huh? heh-heh. You get credit for effort. F+ for originality.
What is it with your moron conservatives you cant get a simple Star Trek next generation reference used as a metophor. What was I thinking? Recognizing a metaphor would require higher brain functions. You couldnt accomplish that feat in your wildest dreams. I suggest you hire a five year old to explain the posts to you.
That's utterly amazing, GRHINO. You rear up over some of us making fun of toads like Limbaugh by butchering his name or giving neo-Nazi right-wingers nicknames.
Dude! The guy has made multiple-millions butchering people's names on purpose!
And George Soros' money ending up contributing to any web site in any pathway pales in comparison to the bed-partnering the Bush White House engages in with Fox News, right-wing talkers and corporate America.
Republicans are cranky because they are people without a party. All dressed up and no party to go with!
sorry i will check my spelling in the future before i post
i am just so busy that most times i dont have time.
Hey, it's no big deal. Just wanted to make sure you got your point across in the future.
I would say the same for the conservo-trolls, but not only are most of them terrible spellers (and they aren't too clear on the "there/their/they're" distinction) but they have nothing remotely intelligent to say, IMO.
In other words, why bother spell-checking a posting devoid of meaning or intelligence?
wow, do you folks live in the same world as everyone else? In my little area of the world, such pompous attitudes definitely will get you somehere, but not such a desirable place as your cushy little computer world.. and you wonder why some folks just plain ignore the democratic mind-set,, 'cause you are always smarter, better-looking and gosh-darn it people just like you..
Case in point. See above.
Well most of the spell better than I do, or at least TYPE better than I do.
Check your sentence structure, too. Things make more sense when they're coherent.
I must have missed it in the posting rules where proper sentence structure is required. I agree bad spelling is kind of annoying.
Sadly, Limbaugh is afflicted with the conservatives' biggest disease--and it's epidemic:
He hasn't got the guts to take responsibility for his own words.
would that be the same guts it takes to admit you lied and that you lost an election... It's better to cry out loud that some injustice has been done.. squeaky wheel gets the grease.. Just wondering where the crying foul repubs were last election when they got tromped.. hmmm, don't recall any..
It's tough to cry when there's no evidence you got screwed. but when the final count in Florida revealed that Gore actually did win (and you know it, and it drives you crazy), you'll forgive some for not going quietly into the night.
I seem to recall about every democratic loss included some scandal.. No, Florida only made me learn that the world of excuses is never-ending and still quite inventive.. In the last election we had democrat house runner drag the final decision out for over 2 months beyond the polls.. Wonder where they got that idea from?? The point is the last race was fairly close in alot of arenas, but noone (at least I don't recall the outcrys like the one you mention) started whining..
Can you cite ONE example other than the supposed 2000 election. I'd really like to know. Oh wait no you can't. You get your memos from Fox Noise, when you want to make a point without any facts you say "Some people have said" or "There are those that have said" or your great line. Come, lets break it down.
"I seem to recall", okay right there the rest of your point is invalid. By saying I seem you are already letting the reader know that you have no facts to offer or back up your claim.
"about every" We will stop right there. As soon as you throw in every that is a HUGE red flag to the reader that you are making what you are about to say up just to make a point.
Oh jeez how could I leave this out. "I seem to recall". Are you about to tell a really bad joke or do you have the worst memory of all time?
I guess if I put my heart and soul into one candidates misfortunes in an election, my memory would be better... but, 7 years ago... yes my memory is a little bleak that far back.. Just found it ironic that the recent example I did cite (not specifically to avoid disclosure of where I am from) seemed like an awful close parallel to the outcries from 2000.. and 2004 for that matter..
Got any of those super memory booster pills handy??
Oh by the way, crescent, there HAS been a significant amount of republicans claiming VOTER FRAUD within the last 6 months. enough so, that that's what the current flap surrounding Gonzales is about. They say there was Democratic voter fraud, the U.S. attourneys were to investigate, a few, oh about 8 of them, weren't investigating. WHY? Because there wasn't enough evidence. So they got fired. Sounds like the Administration is doing some WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIING.
Either that, or they're hopelessly corrupt. My money's on the latter, and I'd rather be with the whiners than the criminals.
Wonder where they got the idea??
Maybe from they're ancestors who are still whining about the 1960 JFK/ Nixon Presidential election.
I gotta say that I love the argument style of the neo-conservatives over the past few year. You offer a blanket statement with no facts what-so-ever, and then when someone calls you on it, you huff and puff and moan and groan and then offer the exact same blanket statement again with no facts and tell us to look it up if we don't believe it. Then you precede to give us links to very unreliable "news" sites and expect us to believe every word like you do.
They sure are synchronized this week, aren't they?
Who on the right hasn't chimed in yet with "MMFA is taking me out of context!"
Maybe they are trying to create a new army of trolls to send our way. Ohhhh, the fun...
too bad one of the celebrity lefties was taken out of context bashing his daughter on a voicemail.. but that is different I know.. The media (left or roght or otherwise) only waits for someone to slip and say something stupid and slightly mis-informed and then you are what you eat... That will get us far into the future..
Please tell us what government job is held by Alec Baldwin.
just throwing out an example of "taken out of context"... easy man, we are all brethren... I think
Who said Alec was taken out of context? What liberal have you seen making ANY excuses for his churlish behavior? Exactly what does he have to do with liberals? I mean the BTK killer was a leader of his Church a and a registered Republican. Ted Bundy even campaigned for the Republican party. Have you heard any liberals say that says ANYTHING about conservatives or Republicans?
The only thing this means is that Conservatives dont have the exclusive franchise on jerks. Alec is a smart man, he also knows his politics and has a bad temper that makes him act like a jerk periodically. When are you guys going to get that people arent just one thing?
Alec did...
"In such public cases, your opponents attempt to take a picture of you on your worst day and insist that this is who you are as a person," Baldwin wrote.
Sound familiar?? Unfortunately it is the only dirt on the media that anyone dwells on, I guess.. Personally, I like the gardening spots on saturdays..
Liberals call Conservs name??? Pelosi bad-mouthing GW comes to mind.. I thought it was a little disrespectful, no matter what you're opinion of GW is... she was probably all high from the big victory though, so I won't label her as a name caller...
That really isnt relevant even IF it is a response to this incident. What is the context of that statement since it could easily be him explaining his ongoing, and in my opinion petty, feud with the paparazi. The question isnt how is Alec defending himself. I have already said I think the guy often acts like a jerk. I mean who among the LIBERALS is claiming he was taken out of context.
As for calling names, sure both sides do it but not at the same level. Tell me about the liberal who has said something like the way to talk to a conservative is after you beat them with a baseball bat or said that conservatives will turn out to be outright traitors unless we scare them like Coulter has. No, its not equvilent. The Rightwing clearly has the more vicious hatemongers and name callers.
Solon,
I am having a little fun here more than anything, but I do keep an open mind for issues that arise and yes some points here are thought provoking, no matter what I might type.... I guess I try to get myself informed as time allows.. Alec B. who cares, sorry I went there...
I can't help but feel the hate-mongering rhetoric is tied somewhat to the historical stereo-type of party personalities (i.e. liberals hippies getting beat up by the evil bible thumping moral conservatives... free thinkers living free and big business grabbing all the cash they can just stomping anyone in the way)...
I'm just tired of going in the same circle, when so many major issues are at hand.. There will always be folks making ridiculous statements and playing with the public's comprehension of the truth (again both partys) for their own agenda.. Nitpicking every little comment out of the media is hardly productive and this article about the Rush/Obama "name-calling" just struck me as really kind of juvenile..
Peace and love from an evil white collar hippie conservative..
You are free to think what you want. I think MMFA performs a public service. From a liberal blue-collar hippy.
I think I will just wait until I get the full story on Alec. Something I don't think reichpublicans are capable of doing... (O.J.!)
Again, just citing the example that everyone can be taken out of context.. These days is just a matter of if you get caught saying something questionable.. Thanks to MM, I don't have to listen to 10 radios and watch 8 tvs to be informed of who the real evil-doers are in the country..
Alec Baldwin wasn't taken out of context, no matter what his publicist says, and last I checked I didn't hear an entire news organization making excuses for him.
What's funny about the whole Soros thing is that Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, basically the right-wing counterpart to MMfA, is funded by conservative fatcats like Richard Scaife. Yes, the same Richard Scaife that tried to overthrow the Clinton presidency back in the 90s. Hmmm...couldn't that be considered treason?
I wrote a blog entry last week about this whole conservodork pile-on of MMfA, and even documented examples of nutty conservative billionaires like Scaife, Sun Myung Moon and others throwing obscene amounts of money at conservative propaganda:
http://ltradio.blogspot.com/2007/04/wingnut-media-meltdown.htmllying under oath as the pres used to be grounds for treason too, but I guess that was before we went to HIAHB and started just feeling good about ourselves no matter what spew was forthcoming... search for the one-sided dirt in either case and you will get what you want... carry on, it is entertaining..
Really? Did you pull that directly out of you ass or do you have any evidence this is true? See the crime of treason is actually defined IN the constitution it says giving aid and comfort to the enemy it talks about taking up arms against the United States but I dont remember the part about lying under oath being treason. I think you dont know what you are talking about.
Don't make me unroll my copy of the constitution... you got me there, my bad..
And I appolgize for the rude tone of the post. You dont deserve it. My response was out of line. I could have been more tactful in pointing out the mistake.
Limbaugh is lying about getting the Osama/Obama idea from Kennedy. I monitor Rash's show and Rash said Osama Obama many times before Ted Kennedy accidentally said it. I remember what a big deal Rash made when Kennedy made the gaffe, and am sure Rash said it first. When Rash started using the slur, he pretended it was a slip of the tongue and coughed to let his audience know it wasn't really a slip. (He made the mistake many times.) Rash thought he was funny when he slurred Obama this way. When Kennedy's gaffe came along, Rash made use of it.
Osama Obama is a horrible thing to say. The GOP is trying to create an association in the public mind between Obama and terrorism. Ted Kennedy doesn't have a thing to do with Rash repeating this slur.
Actually, Kennedy did in fact call Obama Osama by mistake. It was a short slip of the touch. He corrected himself afterwards.
Kennedy said it before Limbaugh. My favorite radio talk show host Howie Carr [Boston WRKO] was playing the clip long before Limbaugh mentioned it.
The clip is a friggin riot because Kennedy screws up not once, but twice trying to say Obama's name correctly.
Howie plays it every time he makes fun of Teddy...which is almost daily ;-)
On August 4, 2004, blog respondent Monica (#8) posts, "Or Limbaugh maliciously using Barack Osama instead of Obama."
http://www.pappergank.com/ms/?p=169
Senator Kennedy confused Osama/Obama while responding to a question at the National Press Club on 1/11/05.
I know what I heard Limbaugh say and when because I heard it. You cannot know what you did not hear, unless you listened to every last thing Limbaugh said in 2004. If you did that, you must be so under his influence that you live in a constant Limbaugh amnesia, since Limbaugh is almost always wrong and changes his lies from one day to the next.
Excellent catch, that one obviously didn't get a lot of press, because barack Obama wasn't BARACK OBAMA yet.
The entire context of Limbaugh's show is the conservative versus liberal dichotomy; conservatives/Republicans are good, liberals/Democrats are bad. How could anyone take any disparaging remark Limbaugh makes about any Democrat out of context. He created the context and reiterates it every single day.
But don't you think it's great that Limbaugh has become so preoccupied with MMFA? Keep talking, Rush, and drawing attention to a site that exposes remarks that only your faithful, brainless followers find acceptable.
You had it right in the first paragraph and then spoiled it by thinking anyone with a right mind (no pun intended) would side with the arrogant views of you all-knowing and higher thinking individuals.. The true despair over Rush, a talk-radio comedian and stirrer of the pot really baffles me..
"...you all-knowing and higher thinking individuals..."
Thank you... Compared to the average Limbaugh ditto-head I can see the obvious contrast. But in relation to the general population we are probably no smarter than any other educated, enlightened, progressive person. The less informed tend to confuse that with arrogance.
"we are probably no smarter than any other educated, enlightened, progressive person. The less informed tend to confuse that with arrogance."
well, once you convince yourself of that fact, pat yourself on the back for me with your other hand... Did you miss the Rush, talk-show comedian part?.. You are taking me out of context...
...... and the arrogant tend to confuse begin informed with reality.
As do the ignorant which you so aptly demostrate
I already heard about how much better you are than me.. I do try to refrain from direct name-calling though.. You were picked on alot in school, right?
Ha ha, not at all. I was the big star on the wrestling team. THIS time you did deserve it. If dont want us calling YOU names maybe you shouldnt call US arrogant. I am only saying.
It's kind of odd to chide people for name-calling when you do the exact same thing. But since I am an arrogant liberal to ignorant to get a joke from the only true patriot conservatives I'll just crawl back into my smug little hole and embrace the Constitution and just bide my time until the travesty you call the the Presidency of George W. Bush is over.
You and Solon are absolutely right.. I guess I thought my name-calling was more generalized and not as direct as Solon's first response.. He did apologize for that in another post response, so we are good there..
GW only gets 8, so you're wish is about to come true..
"You are taking me out of context..."
No, you are taking my humor out of context...
I say that an intended humorous comment be followed by a "hahaha" or something to alleviate this confusion.. Can we get that in the posting rules?..
Ohhhh, the talk show comedian part. I laugh at him every day.
Meet crescent of the Limborg, he has been assimilated.
Typical thought on here for someone with opposing views... nice original response.. I am still wondering why an overpaid talk radio host is so threatening to anyone.. Are you really that concerned he is hypnotizing the masses?
I couldnt care less about Limbaugh one way or another. I am glad MMFA calls him on his lies, distortions and outrageous comments. I do find the dittohead phenomena fascinating. I think people who would CALL themselved dittoheads are in fact making the borg analogy not only fitting but inevitable.
well, we agree on that... the Limbaugh following has me stumped as well, particularly those that would wear the t-shirts and slap bumper stickers on their cars.. In my opinion, he is one very lucky SOB to be in his position in talk-radio..
Wow! Media Matters must really be rubbing someone the wrong way or touching a nerve. Between smears from Limbaugh, Morgan, and others O'Reilly really went after you bigtime tonight. They had a nice big chart and saying how you have so much influence everyone takes their orders from you, and that John Edwards is taking marching orders from Soros, etc. etc. He said he will have more tomorrow tonight. My husband and I laugh at even the lies we Canadians can pick out. What a shame for some republicans that "foreigners" know more about their country than they do!
enjoy your health care system there my brother... is there a GST on doctors office fees as well.. You probably come across the border for real treatment... Well, I guess I would cross the border for real beer, so we are equal to that end..
"enjoy your health care system there my brother... is there a GST on doctors office fees as well.. You probably come across the border for real treatment... Well, I guess I would cross the border for real beer, so we are equal to that end.."
I do enjoy my health care system, thank you. I don't know if there is GST since we never receive a bill for a visit. I have never crossed the border for treatment nor will I. And as for beer, that is one thing I don't drink, and never have.
canadian1106, I'm an American and a writer and I just interviewed some American healthcare high mucky mucks.
Off the record, I asked, "So, longterm, how are things looking?"
"It's all going to collapse," they said.
"When?" I asked.
"7-8 years," they all answered.
"Why?" I asked.
"Rising costs can't be sustained by healthcare consumers," they all said.
So, Rino, you get to feel smug for 7-8 more years. I hope you exercise everyday, avoid meat, eat lots of fruit and veggies, etc., 'cause proactive healthcare might soon be your only healthcare, unless you're a multi-millionaire.
It is like you are wishing for that day... 7-8 years huh... Well good we'll get to blame that little episode on the Democratic president..
and it wasn't Rino.. but a semi-multi milliionaire..
A Tale of Two High Jumpers
Two high jumpers squared off. The liberal set his bar at 6'. The conservative was so certain he was better (and knew he had God on his side) that he set his bar at 8'. The liberal ran, jumped, but only got to about 5'9" and smashed into his bar. The conservative ran, jumped, and also got to about 5'9" and went completely under his.
Facing derision by the crowds, the conservative pointed at the liberal and said, "Hey, he missed it, too!"
This simple illustration shows why the "Clinton (Kennedy, Biden, Soros, etc.) did it, too" excuse simply doesn't wash, and it would really be refreshing if the conservatives on board here, in this thread and elsewhere, would stop using it. Conservatives claim to act in a morally superior manner--they're the ones that set the bar so high.
If a conservative who spouts "family values" is found to be cheating on his wife (say, Gingrich), that is worse than the same act done by someone who didn't make such a claim in the first place (say, Clinton). And it is definitely not hypocrisy to point it out.
Notice that I'm not saying that the liberal jumps higher (although I could make that argument if I wanted to). After all, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The point is that highlighting someone else's shortcomings is never a relevant defense of your own, or that of whoever you are attempting to defend on their behalf. This thread was about Limbaugh; anyone who brings up anyone else by way of comparison has immediately lost the argument.
Ever since Big Bad Bill put out his false claim about MM being sponsored by George Soros - a big so what? - and wrong, the Tories are all over this site with their claptrap. Cheif point at the bottom of their hearts is that, in essence, to be against Bush and his Bublef*ck presidency is to be anti-American and even treasonous.
Being FOR Bush is anti-American and treasonous.
"What I don't understand is why the trolls keep harping on this alleged funding by George Soros, but have yet to explain why that is such a bad thing"
My god, where do you want me to start? First, Soros is in favor of a world government. YIKES. Second, you have ONE MAN trying to influence the outcome of political elections with propoganda. DOUBLE YIKES. Third, he is using his media outlets to hold candidates hostage. If they don't toe the line then he ruins them. Ask Joe Lieberman. Can you say TRIPLE YIKES.
The rush deal was taken completely out of context. It was said and has been said to make fun of the Liberal Democrat Senator from Mass. And if you heard what Kennedy said it was first class butchering of Obama's name. Kennedy said "Osama Obama" verbatim. He said Obama Osama verbatim. If you listen to Rush's program the whole thing was making fun of Kennedy, NOT OBAMA. Is that how it was reported by MM? I don't think so. So in truth, it was absolutely taken out of context.
Now, I am sure I will get called many nasty names, but could just one person refute what I have said with verifyable facts.............
Pemberton can you prove anything you just lobbed at Soros? Any facts in there at all or are you just issuing another conservative blanket statement? Joe Liebermann lost the Democratic primary because of his undying support for a war that isn't even in our hands anymore. We are the middle of a Civil War , , , after all Bush ended the war in 2003.
"The entire context of Limbaugh's show is the conservative versus liberal dichotomy; conservatives/Republicans are good, liberals/Democrats are bad"
None of you get it do you? Rush deals in fact, truth and the obvious. Ok, lets do a little test here. We conservatives do believe that the MSM is very biased. Ask yourself this question. Have the MSM done negative peice on any democrat in the last ...god knows how long? In the same time how many conservatives have been blasted. When is the last time you heard a liberal called a liberal by the MSM? What about a conservative being called "right wing" or "ultra conservative"?
Rush beleives as I an many do that libs base very little of anything on fact. It's all emotion. It's easy to say well they are just liars and your just and idiot. How about something like he lied because of this, this , and that. My sources are here, here, and here? And how about saying something like, you know, you have your right to your own opinion but I disagree with you because of bla bla bla. And then god forbid listen to a counter argument. Kinda like this global warming thing. I don't think that there really is any doubt and most scientist belive that the earth is warming. But, as to the reasons why, now there is NO consensus. Do you ever hear Algore debating a disenter, no way no how won't ever happen. Libs do not want to ever hear the other side let alone consider that they might just be right. Guys, I know you hate the man, fine. But, at least listen to what he says by listening to him not some twenty second sound bite.
Wow, your post was impressive in the scope of your delusions. I will deal with only a few. Rushing-down-the-drug-addiction-mountain, mountain actually deals in lies, distortions and delusional fantasies. Like when he said that there was no such thing as an implied contract, or when he said there were more Native Americans today than when Columbus landed. All referenced in the book The way things ARENT, by Fairness and Accuracy in the media. Which they sent him and he never refuted a word of it. I am one of the least emotional people I know and a huge liberal. The propaganda parrot talking point that liberals deal in emotion and not fact is one of the most blatant projections ever fed to the brainwashed zombies that listen to blowhards like Rush. At this point I cannot go on, the stupid in your post hurts my head, in fact right now my braincells are begging for the sweet release of a coma. Try, a little at a time so you dont hurt yourself, THINKING for youself instead of repeating all these dumb talking points we have already heard a few dozen times.
See, here we go. You libs just cannot reply without calling someone names. What is it with you folks? You always use the exact same format to reply. First, never never never rufute what a posters says directly, like when I said the MSM is biased or that Soros is very dangerous. Just bring up something not at all related and call people names. It's amazing. What's funny is I know why you guys do it. You can't use facts because they rerely support your arguemnet and it just pisses you off. It must suck being wrong 99% of the tme. I understand, you just get frustrated that you cannot refute what most conservatives say as we tend to have the facts on our side.
I find it funny libs are supposed to be the "tolerant" ones, but yet we conservatives are all monkeys, brainwashed zombies, idiots, etc etc etc. Are we not allowed to have an opinion without being called names? That really doesn't sound like tollerence to me, but hey I'm a conservative, I can't have an opinion right?
"front organization for the Clinton campaign, bought and paid for by George Soros and the Clinton people." In fact, Media Matters -- which is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign -- has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros.
FACT?!? Prove it! Where's the link to your financial statements that prove you have no money coming in from ANY policitcal party or campaign or by ANY of Clinton's people or George Soros. Put your money where your mouth is and prove your claims. As all the good liberals do on this site when someone claims FACT, they ask for proof. Well, mmfa...where's your proof?
As expected. No responses when actually asked for proof. That seems to be a typical liberal tactic....claim truth but don't have to prove it.