Limbaugh claimed Media Matters "fell for" his "liberal" gunman "joke" "hook, line, and sinker"
On the April 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh claimed "I was making a joke" when he said on his April 19 broadcast that Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui "had to be a liberal, " and "it's a liberal that committed this act" before adding on April 23, "I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing." Limbaugh also lashed out at Media Matters for America, claiming that he had made the comments about Cho "as a means of illustrating on this show how the words of conservative talk show hosts are twisted and taken out of context," before adding, "And sure enough, Media Matters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They had it up all over the place."
In an April 19 item, Media Matters noted both Limbaugh's statement that Cho "had to be a liberal" and his subsequent comment that "the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them." In addition, Media Matters provided transcript and audio of Limbaugh's statements. Limbaugh regularly describes mainstream media sources as "the drive-by media."
From the April 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Last week, as a means of illustrating on this show how the words of conservative talk show hosts are twisted and taken out of context, I blamed the liberals for the Virginia Tech shooting. I said the guy had to be a liberal. And I went through and I said, "You watch, there's going to be a website that picks this up, and a bunch of people are going to read it, and they're going to be outraged that I would possibly say this." And I said, "Yeah, you got a guy that hates the rich, you got a guy that thinks that American culture's debauched. Who is it telling us all this, and who is it that's doing all this? It's the liberals." And sure enough, Media Matters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They had it up all over the place. But yet, Friday at the National Action Network conference, Senator Joe Biden, Democratic Party presidential candidate, blamed Republicans for the V-Tech shootings and a string of events that have made news in the past few years. Biden said Bush, Gingrich and Karl Rove are responsible for what he called the politics of polarization. I would argue, said Biden, since '94 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela -- Venez -- Katrina? --what's gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn't happen accidentally, all these things are the fault of Bush, Gingrich, and Karl Rove. I'm -- was depressed when I read this. He left my name out of it. Usually I get blamed for this stuff. But nobody said a word, there's no website out there chronicling Biden, blaming -- he was serious. He was serious. I was making a joke about the -- I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing. But hell's bells, have you heard anybody complaining about Biden blaming Repub -- for Katrina?
He's soooo funny that way. He still believes it is true, but it was a joke. Yeah. Whatever. Then throw in that qualifier about a liberal saying something similar about a republican and no outcry from liberals. He's so smart to switch from comedy to serious and back again, guess reichy's are soo smart to pick up on that subtleness so quick!
It was a TRICK, see?
He wanted to prove that there are "these sites" out there which will MAKE UP things about him, and which will claim he has said outrageous things. So he SET UP Media Matters ... BY SAYING SOMETHING OUTRAGEOUS!!! Hahahaha! This is brilliant.
And it's a JOKE. Well, he really MEANS it, because he REALLY wishes to blame Liberals for this insane gunman, but when he SAID that, he was "joking". Because he wanted to see if it would be picked up as SERIOUS. And it WAS. Get it? He proved his point!
It's hard to say whether Limbaugh or O'Reilly has become more deranged by the attention MMFA is paying to them. Both cannot figure out whether to poop or go blind, so Limbaugh went deaf and O'Reilly developed a falafel obscession. And it's MMFA's fault.
Oh, yeah. IMUS tried that "I was joking" thing, too. How'd THAT work out for him? LOL
Another one of the many, many instances in which MMFA has taken words out of context and twisted them to brainwash its followers. I like how MMFA did not even quote the original statement he made. He was quoting part of the message of the MURDERER. The MURDERER's message expressed a hatred for rich people. Rush made the comment in passing that Cho must be liberal since he hates the rich. Isn't it the liberal bunch who are always harping about the rich and how they should pay more tax? Stop and think though, how many poor Dems do you know? Do you not find it odd that they would speak out so strongly against a class that they are all a part of? ODD! If you ever listened to Rush you would know where he was going with it. Since you choose to be lazy and let MMFA make all assumptions for you, then once more your credibility is lost.
DOUGHPRO:
If you would only LISTEN to yourself, and THINK, you might become a useful member of the human race.
You say, "Do you not find it odd that (liberals) would speak out so strongly against a class that they are all a part of? ODD!"
RESPONSE: YES, it WOULD be odd, if that was truly what was happening. But it is only in RIGHTWING FALSE TALKING POINTS that "liberals HATE the rich." Liberals DO NOT hate the rich ... that is a flat-out lie, and propaganda to which you have fallen prey.
You cite as the single piece of evidence that liberals HATE the wealthy, that "they" (the liberals) have said that the rich should pay more taxes. This does not reflect HATRED, it reflects instead a desire for this nation to be the best it can be, and also FAIRNESS.
Let me explain. Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world, perhaps, and the rightwing do not like his politics. Why? Gates not only is enormously charitable, but he is politically ACTIVE. He sent his FATHER to Congress to plead with them NOT to cut the taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy are doing FINE, Mr. Gates said, and SHOULD shoulder more of the burden of financing the running of this nation. While Republicans wish to IRRESPONSIBLY rig all the rules to FAVOR the wealthy, Mr. Gates took the reasonable stance that those who make the most in this nation OWE the most, and should gladly pay. After all, he said, even after paying taxes, America's wealthy would STILL have much more wealth to control, to make their lives better, and to help others if that was their desire.
Furthermore, Mr. Gates has the macro view of America that each of us does better in life if WE ALL do better. It gains you nothing to produce the best product in the world if none of the population can AFFORD it. Henry Ford pioneered this idea, when he lamented that paying the "going" wage to his brand new automobile production line was not enough money for his workers to be able to afford his cars. A product without consumers will FAIL. So it is in the SELFISH INTEREST of the wealthy to make sure the population does not fall into poverty as a result of GOVERNMENTAL POLICY.
Does Bill Gates HATE HIMSELF? No, and your point is, THAT WOULD BE ODD ... if true. It's only "true" in Rightwing Class Warfare Rhetoric. In FACT, it is perfectly reasonable for wealthy folk to love their country, to wish for FAIR laws dealing with wealth which do not always favor the already wealthy, and for rich folk to have a morality that does not equate TAXATION with HATRED. That is an emotional connection made by the greedy and immoral.
Doughpro, you have inadvertantly stumbled on a TRUTH. What you find ODD, what you cannot reasonably explain in your mind, is ODD because it is NOT TRUE. It is propaganda. It is a VICTIM WHINE put forth by the greedy and immoral in the rightwing to try to justify their greed and immorality. If you wish them to pay a fair share of taxes, you must HATE them. It defies logic, eh? It's ODD? It's just NOT TRUE.
Very nice, Tex. If even 5-10% of it got through doughpro's clouded mind, you may have helped.
Tex,
You seem to use this arbitrary "fair share" term, as do many liberals. Can you please be more specific as to what that exactly means? How much, exactly, should the WEALTHY pay as their "fair share" in taxes?
Can you please be more specific as to what that exactly means?
It's a social construct, not a physical constant. Troll.
There is nothing more illogical than liberal doublespeak. Good answer.
No kidding! Try to throw a simple explanation and cast some light on what seems to be a silly misunderstanding and I get struck by a George Soros viper! Wow!
TOMMY:
Happy to help you out.
First, a simple analogy: Say you and I invested in a piece of property for future sale, me at 10% the cost, and you at 90%. When SOLD, the money would be divided according to that ownership share. In the meantime, we expect the property to gain in value. But property taxes come due yearly. Would it be "FAIR" to expect us to pay EQUAL 50/50 on the taxes incurred? Certainly not. If $1000 was the tax bill, we would pay according to the amount we OWNED; I would pay $100, while you paid the remaining $900. That's simple business fairness, easy to understand.
Now, as to general taxes: Go to quintiles ... the government tracks all trends and statistics about American income and assets that way, so it's easy to figure. The bottom quintile is our poorest people. Calculate how much of America's capital assets they OWN, and do the same for each quintile. That becomes a solid PERCENTAGE of ownership for each quintile.
NEXT, figure how much it actually costs to run this nation, including paying off debt and NOT including gathering MORE debt. That will be a solid single figure (in the billions).
Finally, tax each quintile according to the percentage of OWNERSHIP of America they have. If the top quintile OWNS 70% of America's assets and capital holdings, they will collectively pay 70% of the total operating budget figured by our representatives to run the country.
If the total yearly bill is to be $100 billion, the top quintile would then collectively pay 70% of that tab. It's only fair, just like the property ownership deal above.
If you OBJECT to this formulation, please give specifics as to why it is "unfair". Our progressive tax system USED to approximate this formula, before the GOP started writing the rules to allow the wealthy to KEEP more and more of their money, while amassing the shortfalls into DEBT, which is both unfair and TERRIBLE for America.
Thanks for the question.
So, if the top quintile "owns 70%" America they should pay for America? Does any of that money come out of the paycheck that the guy pays you? I guess if that guy "owns" the company YOU work for, then he does not need to pay you, he'll just pay the government and they will send you a check? Or, is he supposed to pay you AND the government? Tex, I really think you don't know what you're talking about. How is this guy who "owns 70%" of America supposed to buy the land, build the shop, hire(and pay)the employees, buy the base product, buy machinery to change the base product to user product, pay for shipment AND pay for 70% of the American budget?
How about if he just pays a straight flat tax on his income, like everyone else should? Seems a little more simple than your fantasy economics.
AUTOPSYCHIC:
EVERYONE in America has bills, has to buy groceries, make mortgage payments, etc. Why is this more of a burden to someone whose capital holdings places him among America's top earners?
See, if you're going to generate a VICTIM'S WHINE for somebody, it's necessary for them to be a VICTIM. Citing the things a wealthy person has to PAY for in order to be a top earner doesn't pass the laugh test. Sorry. Maybe you could try again?
Auto assumes that the wealthiest among us were not enabled to prosper by this country's infrastructure, an infrastructure that protects and facilitates propserity and one in which we ALL comprise and invest. Wealthy folks benefit the most from a secure, healthy, educated society. So as in any contract the wealthy, as am I, are entitled to uphold their end of the bargain. They benefit the most, they are obligated to pitch in a greater share.
Auto is doing what so many market fundamentalist conservatives do, that is to conflate the very manageable financial problems of the extremely rich with the very serious financial burdens of working Americans. It's a low down dirty shame so many people have come to believe that their money problems are the same as Bill Gates' money problems.
And what's wrong with the 'flat tax' idea I mentioned? Or, did you just skip over that part of it? You're saying that if the rich guy pulls in so much money he doesn't pay taxes on it? I think, and many will agree, that everyone has the opportunity to use 'tax deductions'. You know what they are, right? Maybe you even use them. Tex asked for another idea if someone disagreed with his. I did, but neither of you felt compelled to address that. Why?
I have NO problem with taxing EVERYONE on the income they make that isn't used toward any other viable reason. He did not mention that in his financial diatribe. Why is that so hard to understand? What did you find wrong with the flat tax idea?
First, I want to thank you for responding in such a gentlemanly fashion. You seem to get wound-up tight over many of the discussions on these threads and I'm guessing it's because you care a great deal. So thanks for dispensing with the petty insults.
I object to a flat tax because 15% of 25,000 is a proportionally deeper dig than 15% of 250,000. If you're talking about an across the board flat tax rate on consumer goods, I think that the analogy still fits. It hurts the lower income folks while it doesn't make a difference to higher income folks.
What's that passage in the Bible about poor people who give a little to the church means more, because it's a greater sacrifice, than the wealthy who give large sums? I think that logic can be applied to a flat tax.
Just my two cents.
How is this guy who "owns 70%" of America supposed to buy the land, build the shop, hire(and pay)the employees, buy the base product, buy machinery to change the base product to user product, pay for shipment AND pay for 70% of the American budget?
If there was a "guy" who owned 70% of America, he'd be a trillionaire, and could afford it.
Not to mention since he got to be there, he probably has a business acumen that created an incredible product that no American can live without and has to replace every two months. Therefore he makes more of those, and sells them at a reasonable cost, which is how he can afford everything you listed.
Do you think before you post?
Excuse me, but their is no fairness in a capitalist economy. Of course Gates wants people to be able to afford his product. But you do not create a market for your product, you create a product for the market. If people can't afford it, modify it so they can, but you don't just give it away to them and you shouldn't be taxed so much that it is impossible to produce an affordable product. That just might drive you to produce in another country.
My opnion is not Rightwing thinking, it comes from simple economics. Also, it is the left who mostly talks about taxing the rich because they know it is an emotional issue with the have-nots, and they use it to their advantage. The libs have created a following of people who believe that they are entitled to a share of the wealth of someone who worked for what he created. BS. Don't be fooled by Gates, he has his reasons for doing things. I personally do not like the fact that he was rubbing elbows with the Mexican president and telling the Mexican population that the US needs more immigrants, and encouraging them to migrate over the border. What do you think that was all about?
BTW, did you know that 85% of taxes are paid by those making over 200,000 a year? I would say that was a FAIR share, wouldn't you?
NO! Gates has the right idea. The rich make extreme profits and don't serve out country in wars so yes they should be happy to pay more taxes. The wealthy make 95% of the money so it follows that they should pay 95% of the Taxes. Not the huge tax breaks they were given by George Bush and his rubber stamp congress.
If they don't want to do this for our country then they should be made to serve in the Iraq War like poor and middle class citizens of our country. There are many super rich people who do give back and support many good causes.
DOUGHPRO (DP) sez: "Excuse me, but their is no fairness in a capitalist economy."RESPONSE: True. Any "fairness" in a society is imposed by by a self-governed people on themselves, in order to have a FAIR society (which can have a capitalist economy).DP: "Of course Gates wants people to be able to afford his product. But you do not create a market for your product, you create a product for the market."RESPONSE: You ignore that governments are largely responsible for markets, by printing the money and regulating the banks and educating the workforce and building the roads and infrastructure, etc.The idea is to have a thriving market of productive consumers, and this indeed affects any and all who wish to access that market by selling it products.DP: "If people can't afford it, modify it so they can, but you don't just give it away to them ..."RESPONSE: Straw Man Alert. Who said anyone should "give it away"? Nobody.DP: "... and you shouldn't be taxed so much that it is impossible to produce an affordable product."RESPONSE: A very convoluted statement. Suffice to say that ONLY PROFIT is taxed. Thus, a tax cannot make it "impossible to make an affordable product." The relationship doesn't exist.DP: "That just might drive you to produce in another country."RESPONSE: Uh, YEAH. That's what America is facing NOW. Developing countries often have hugely exploitive labor markets ... slave labor, child labor, no concerns for things like workplace safety ... and our governement is currently letting those markets be in DIRECT COMPETITION with American workers. Is the answer for America to return to slave labor and unsafe workplaces, or is the answer to incentivize other nations to raise the standards of worker treatment?Our government can go either way.DP: "My opnion is not Rightwing thinking, it comes from simple economics."RESPONSE: Simple economics dictates that if one cannot afford a product, one does without. In America, however, we decided that Health Care would be denied to NO PERSON in need. Without arguing the merits of this decision, it shows that a SOCIETY does not operate by "simple economics" alone. People have SOULS. Economics has none.DP: "Also, it is the left who mostly talks about taxing the rich ..."RESPONSE: True, because the right mostly talks about LOWERING the taxes of the rich, and then RAISING America's debt.DP: "... because they know it is an emotional issue with the have-nots, and they use it to their advantage."RESPONSE: Hmmm. In a democracy, political candidates appeal to constituents. If their plans have enough constituent support,they get to hold elective office and write the laws. That said, in the past decade, the rightwing has exploited MANY purely emotional issues in order to try to WIN office and write the laws. What is the economic impact of opposition to gay marriage, or opposition to abortion? What is your point here?DP: "The libs have created a following of people who believe that they are entitled to a share of the wealth of someone who worked for what he created. BS."RESPONSE: I agree. It's BS to think that appealing to welfare recipients as a BLOC of voters would generate enough votes to WIN.Welfare per se has been eliminated in America. Who ARE those who "believe they are entitled" to someone else's wealth? Women in the WIC program? They mostly don't vote. Who else? Your claim is without substance (purely emotional).DP: "did you know that 85% of taxes are paid by those making over 200,000 a year? I would say that was a FAIR share, wouldn't you?"RESPONSE: Sounds about right. I published MY formula for calculating "fair share" elsewhere on this thread.
Sorry. My RESPONSE was a cut-n-paste from notebook. Didn't get the paragraph signals. Nasty looking.
Maybe but it was a cogent well thought out response. I am applauding
doughpro,
So liberals' desire to see subsidized corporations and the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share is equivilent to a deranged gunman's misguided vendetta against "rich kids?"
If you're going to use loose associations to support Limbaugh, you may as well be fair. What about the gunman's Christian zealotry? Not exactly a core liberal value, is it? You may want to heed all the evidence before making a point, especially if that point is in defense of Rush Limbaugh.
"Isn't it the liberal bunch who are always harping about the rich and how they should pay more tax?" - Pillsbury Doughboy
Where is Tommy Boy with his complaints of broad brush strokes against liberals?
"I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things,..."
I actually heard this clever approach by Der Rushbo. The "just joking" disclaimer, and in the same sentence "but I really believe it." Boy, all those people who believe that he actually says the stoopid stuff he says- what a bunch of chumps!
That's the first thing I picked up on when I read through this. What a slime ball this man is. He's joking while he he's not joking? He didn't mean it but he believes it? WTH?
As I've mentioned before- this proves that drug abuse does indeed destroy brain cells. On the other hand el-rush-bo has become funnier, so there is that trade-off.
thats the new thing with limbaugh. if he gets caught its a joke or taken out of context .now hannity/oreilly /couter and the rest of the looney right will use this now.
if they go on a program and say its a joke make them take the joke back.
So now he's doing his show just for the benefit of MMfA?
Gee, a better radio personality would actually, oh I don't know, CATER TO THE AUDIENCE?
Viagara and hillbilly heroin have rotted what's left of this sad chump's mind.
If you think using hyperbole to insult and irritate liberals isn't catering to the audience, then you don't understand the audience. I don't think Rush needs a lecture on how to build an audience from you.
Keep that advice in mind the next time you feel the need to lecture libs on how to win elections.
Just kidding.
Not really.
Oh, c'mon. It's just a joke.
But you mean it, but its a joke, and they fell for it.
Have I ever done that? (probably). OK, well it looks like you won't be needing any advice on that front for the near future anyways. Carry on.
Uh oh. Somebody's got a bad case of the Mondays.
Sorry if my prior post seemed harsh. I've already done some serious moonwalking on this thread, I guess I will quit while I'm behind.
the question here would be, what about this would qualify as a joke? [other than his whole program of course]. this sounds exactly like the kind of thing he says seriously every day of the week. i do see a financial opportunity here. his poor dittoheads are going to be so confused on what's real and what's a joke, they'll be swallowing aspirin by the handful.
Bruce, that's like the first insightful thing I've ever seen you post on here. His audience gets no greater joy out of life than imagining some liberal listening in and getting all pissed off.
That's the whole idea of his joke, I think. It's not whether it was true or not, but he said it to piss off liberals, and he imagines that the MMFA post means that he succeeded.
I could never find the thread now, but you did agree with me once about two years ago. :-)
Yeah, I have agreed with you too, lets not make it a habit.
So now he's doing his show just for the benefit of MMfA?
Well no not exactly, but I can see where he might be pulling their chain now & then.
In this instance I think he's probably just trying to cover his butt.
But the silver lining in all this is that every time Limbaugh, Boortz, Savage etc mention MMFA...it's free publicity for the site. And is probably bringing new people over to at least check it out.
Last week my wife's very hard line Republican/Conservative Aunt & Uncle were in the area visiting relatives. We had dinner with them at my in-laws home. The conversation eventually turned to politics. They are rabid Rush fans. I happen to ask if they'd ever heard of MMFA...and they both had. Didn't have anything positive to say about it...but the point is they are aware of it's existence.
did that hurt?
Jeter, really just in jest. My momma is a midwestern gal, I grew up thinking we had a choice. She hates limbaugh now, came to that decision on her own.
Always loved listening to Paul Harvey. He sounded so - fair. The only talk radio I ever thought was worth listening to.
no doubt he was attempting to cover his butt. but he was being dishonest as usual. first he says it was a joke, but as several people on here have already noted, he says he does believe "liberalism got a hold of this guy". sort of a "i didn't say what i said" situation on rush's part.
Wow. What a new and clever tactic. He's brilliant! So, I guess it will be okay for all of us to use this ploy whenever we're so dumb to be backed into a corner. Better yet, we can say any outragious thing we want, then take it back with a simple "Just Joking!"
I wish all these right wing nut cases would pile onto a bus and run over a 1200 feet high cliff. Just joking. I wish the cliff were 3500 feet high. Just joking. But not really. Just joking!
And using a shooting tragedy where 33 are dead. Hilarious! Forget Seinfeld getting the Comedian Award, carve Rush on there for life.
it has worked for the democrats for years... not a new tactic..
Oh really? Please give me an example or two.
It's been almost 29 hours. Methinks an example is not forthcoming...
Uhhh...Columbine, Waco, Ruby Ridge...what shooting doesn't occur that pundits from both side come out of their holes to try and figure out what's wrong with america. Each side promptly blames the other side's "agenda."
Columbine was the biggest though. I still remember Billy on the news with his serious look on. I could always tell Billy was trying to be presidential when had that look on. Then, of course, one of the grand daddy's old fishin stories type propaganda movies came out dedicated to it...that's the fat bearded man's "bowling for columbine." That dogone tragedy has been used more times to further people's agenda there's some loose women jealous.
Who the hell can actually listen to this *man* and NOT come to the conclusion he is sooooo out in his own little world....? Seriously, he blames the shooting on liberalism, says people will pick up on the FACT he said it, then later claim he's just showing his audience that people DO ACTUALLY print what he says, then says he was joking, then STILL BLAMES liberalism.... WOW!!
Some would call it comedic genius. :-)
Just an additional comment, I do have serious resevations about Rush joking about this incident at all, I can understand how that would be offensive to many people. Anyway, I regret my prior post as it was insensitive and I apologize for it.
This is an example of why I like that you post here, Bruce.
ROUNDHOUSE:
He GOT you, Bruce did. You FELL FOR his "false apology", and he was JOKING. What a rube you are. You must be one of those idiot Liberals.
That's MR. Idiot (Hook Line and Sinker) Liberal to you, buddy.
Those people don't understand the concepts of comedy or genius.
Hell, they're probably lucky if they understand the concept of shoes.
"Ya mean if I put these things over the things at the end of my legs, they wont hurt when I walk on sharp stuff? I'm not sure I understand..."
This mmfa, rush conversation, is very strange. Intriging,labyrinthic.
"For GODS Sake!" Someone shouted from the driveway. "Throw in the kitchen sink!"
for christs sake , can,t these bozos ever realize you cannot account for everything. its their anal retntiveness to know all. yet they do not seek to be educated and then comment on things they know nothing about. i went to school for 12 years to determine that cho was a schizoid narcissist and yet how he became that way is the ultimate mystery. he could have committed suicide, raped someone , set a fire, he had absolutely no ego boundaries and this is how he acted out. try just once to read a good refderence source. like the shrub, lasy lazy,lazy, .
MORE MMFA Ratings, any publicity is GOOD publicity!!
To make any "jokes", particularly on a radio show that reaches millions of people, concerning the bloody slaughter of 32 innocent college students and faculty is reprehensible. To gain cheap political points at the expense of a national tragedy is even more reprehensible. Maybe it's hard to believe Limbaugh was "joking" because the alleged remark sounds strikingly similar to the typical "liberals are bad" comments that Limbaugh makes or suggests on a daily basis.
"To gain cheap political points at the expense of a national tragedy is even more reprehensible"
So would you say the same about Joe Biden when he blamed the Republicans for Katrina, Imus, Virgina Tech and all the other bad things that have happened?
or Clinton blaming Rush for the deaths in Oklahoma City?
Actually, Rush could be legitimately blamed for violence committed by the right wingnuts, since he so frequently incites his audience.
No, I wouldn't say the same, because one's hypocrisy (Ha ha, only serious!) and the other is misdirected blame (at best. Heckuva job, Brownie!)
I would strongly agree that, as Biden said, since 1994 the "politics of polarization" popularized by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and the Republican Party have been the cause of many bad things in America. I would disagree with Biden's example of Virginia Tech, without knowing more about exactly what connection he attempts to make. The Vitginia Tech massacre shows what a mentally unstable person is capable of doing, but I fail to see the politically ideological motivation in the killer's homicidal and suicidal acts that Limbaugh suggests.
When did Biden blame republicans for Imus and VT?
The questions should not be when he did it, but in which universe he did it, because it wasn't this one.
Or how about this one, Rush (with apologies to Tony Snow):
"Tony Snow's cancer returned after he went to work as Bush's Press Secretary. Just an occupational hazard... He probably didn't know that all that smoke Bush and Rove blow up his behind is carcinogenic.."
Funny, huh? Tell that joke to millions of people (particularly if Tony Snow dies) and see how many find it funny.
Rush Limbaugh...He has all the soul and wit of an equivalent sized sculpture fashioned from used cat litter.
If his alleged talent really is on loan from God, then i'm that much more tempted to become an atheist
You got us, Rush! Har-dee-har, what a card! In Heaven, they'll seat you beside Richard Pryor, Groucho Marx, and Lenny Bruce for you matchless wit. You joked about the dead kids. Oh, that's too good. Once again, your appeal to the values voters is obvious, for we all value laughing at the expense of the murdered.
Call me old-fashioned, but I thought jokes were supposed to be funny. Where's the humor in saying that a deranged mass murderer was a liberal? Is there humor in yanking the collective chain of liberals and the media and then watching their predictable reaction? I believe the latter was Limbaugh's intended "humor". It's only funny if you're a sick, twisted Republican, with a penchant for sophomoric pranks, who is willing to make light of a national tragedy only days after 32 innocent people, mostly young, are slaughtered. Not a big fan of decency, are you, Rush?
Do you get the feeling Rush burned ants with a magnifying glass - not just as a kid, but well into his adult life?
I guess Clinton was joking about Rush killing all the kids in Oklahoma City. Ha. Ha. Ha. That was a funny one Williiam Jefferson.
Nope... I don't think Bill was joking by suggesting that right wing hate-mongers encourage the violence prone elements of the far right wing political lunatic fringe.
So it's all right to blame Rush for the bombings in Oklahoma City but not all right for Rush to blame liberalism for the massacre at Virginia Tech? You say Rush encouraged Timothy McVeigh, but yet liberals didn't encourage the Virginia Tech Tech killer through their endless class warfare propaganda. How can you be so hypocritical?
"You say Rush encouraged Timothy McVeigh, but yet liberals didn't encourage the Virginia Tech Tech killer through their endless class warfare propaganda."
Whoaa, pardner... I never said Rush Limbaugh encouraged Timothy McVeigh. I said Bill Clinton wasn't joking when he suggested that the hate mongering from right wing broadcasters gives encouragement to violence-prone persons on the far right wing lunatic fringe.
What Timothy McVeigh did was a politically motivated, far right wing statement. He and his cohort(s) planned it and they attempted to avoid detection and arrest. What Cho did at Virginia Tech was the act of a suicidal madman with personal pathological problems.I fail to see the "endless (liberal) class warfare propaganda" of which you speak... but I have heard Rush Limbaugh rant about it, which tells me all I need to know about its non-existence.
"I fail to see the "endless (liberal) class warfare propaganda" of which you speak"
It basically amounts to the liberal Democrats encouraging the poor to be envious of those that are rich. They make promises to them to punish the rich for making so much money, and then redistribute that income to them in the form of benefits. The Dems encourage the poor to despise the rich and rely on the Dems to punish the rich and establish "social justice." I won't go so far as to say that the Dems advocate violence, because I don't know of any such examples. But they do advocate class envy and class warfare.
Leather, you sound like a Rush Limbaugh clone...
Open your eyes and you will see abject poverty in a very rich country in which about 2% of the population control more wealth than about 90% of the rest of the population combined. You are naive if you think that political power does not contribute to the accumulation of massive wealth. When some (politically-connected) people have more money they could spend in twelve lifetimes and some people have nothing there is something wrong in the equation. When Dick Cheney can parlay a lifetime of "public service" into personal wealth of approximately $100,000,000 there is something wrong. When poor people cannot even get a decent minimum wage, there is something wrong. It's not about class warfare; it's about fairness and the misuse of political connections to attain and maintain wealth. It's about helping the poor. If you and Rush want to foment divisiveness by calling it "class warfare" then go ahead... it's so typical.
What is truly ironic, though, is when middle class people buy into that bogus "class warfare" crap, because the middle class is thrown just bones in comparison to the breaks that the ultra-wealthy obtain from the Republicans.
Leather, I know our politics differ, but I never thought you were that naive.
Sorry, Leather. I meant to say "Rino"...
All this time I thought following Jesus' teachings was a rule to get to the promised land. Silly me, turns out it was more of a guide, really...
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "politically connected people." You gave the example of Dick Cheney, but the vast majority of those who are rich aren't engaged in politics. They've earned their money through hard work and dedication. They don't deserve to have their money taken away by those that are envious of them. The key to success in life is to work hard and be motivated, not to be envious of others and rely on the government for your well being. Also, the only way to "narrow the gap between the rich and the poor" would be to go to a completely different type of economic system. We would have to get rid of our capitalistic system and replace it with a socialistic system. If we did that, we would be taking away what has made America the greatest country in the world: Freedom and opportunity.
Thats the ONLY key to a successful life? Even if you accept the limited vision of success being having a lot of money? Yes I see it now. Thats how George the dimmer did it isnt it? He worked hard, got good grades in school. Worked hard at busniess and made those businesses succeed and had his sucesses aknowledged. WAIT, thats not how he did it. He skated through school as an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy, doing so poorly the U of Tex wouldnt even accept him. Got in Yale with a legacy, bankrupted every business he ever ran having them bailed out over and over from politically connected people trying to buy political access. When Soros bought Spectrum he was asked why he brought it into Harken. He said I was buying political influence George isnt much of a businessman. Got into a pro baseball team after buying two percent then had the team GIVE him ten more percent when he used his name and political influence to bring about a tax increase on the people of Arlington Texas to build a stadium that radically increased the value of the team. I guess George did the hard work of being born into a politically powerful family. If he hadnt been with his skillset and work ethic he would be lucky to be the night janitor at a local jr high.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "politically connected people." You gave the example of Dick Cheney, but the vast majority of those who are rich aren't engaged in politics. They've earned their money through hard work and dedication.
Actually, the "vast majority" had rich parents.
shut up, rino. you sound an imbecile talking about "class warfare," the most pathetic, dated cliche imaginable. you really think cho could have cared less about class or politics? he was as incapable of intelligent, informed political discussion as you apparently are.
Yeah, those poor people felt just peachy being unable to afford healthcare until those darn Democrats came along and told them to be envious of the people who can buy their own cable news networks, then everything went to heck in a handbasket.
I mean, it's hard being rich! After taxes, how's a hardworking CEO going to afford a yacht? No wonder he laid off all those American workers and gave their jobs to illegal immigrants (except for the jobs he shipped overseas).
Thank Jesus we have real, true compassionate conservatives like Dubya to give them a nice tax break. What a saint.
"I mean, it's hard being rich! After taxes, how's a hardworking CEO going to afford a yacht"
Thanks for proving my point.
Okay then, if you don't buy into this "class warfare" stuff, why don't you give me all your money? I can be twice as rich (not that you'd care), and you could set an example to all the poor people.
I have to tell you RINO, sometimes you make a lot of sense.
This is NOT one of those times.
RINO HUNTER:
Explain to the class what all those LOBBIESTS on K Street are all about?
I say they are Class Warriors, and their JOB is to use any means necessary to secure benefits for their wealthy clients. In any dispute, between management and labor, between corporations and environmentalists, between businesses and consumers, these guys are paid huge amounts of money, and GIVEN even larger amounts of money to use as bribes and/or "campaign contributions" in order to get all laws, regulations, and tax policies written to benefit their clients, and the BILL is passed on to the rest of America in terms of lost jobs, lost benefits, degrading environment, and HUGE NATIONAL DEBT that must be paid off eventually by our children.
THAT IS CLASS WARFARE. It is happening, and the way to judge its succeess is to track the gap between the rich and poor ... it is expanding exponentially. ALL the rules are now in favor of the very wealthiest amassing even MORE wealth, while the rest of us see our quality of life go downhill (less "disposable income", because wages are stagnant while gasoline, health care, heating oil, local taxes, and insurance costs climb higher).
For a rightwinger to accuse "the LEFT" of engaging in "Class Warfare" is a sick joke. The wealthy have their ARMY of lobbiests standing, well funded and single minded, and for the past couple of decades they have been wildly successful. The WAR is being fought in earnest, and being WON, and the American People are the losers.
These are FACTS. Now, to blame this situation as the "CAUSE" of this insane shooter is as logical as IMUS blaming "rappers" for saying what he said.
Nobody's buying this "class warfare" claptrap as a GOP talking point any more, RINO. Time to find a new VICTIM whine.
"I say they are Class Warriors, and their JOB is to use any means necessary to secure benefits for their wealthy clients"
How would you suggest that we fix this? Go to publicly financed elections? I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend my tax dollars on elections. I don't want my tax dollars going to politicians that I don't support. So I'm interested in what you would do to fix the lobbyist situation. I don't like it that lobbyists have so much influence on capital hill, but it seems that the only alternative would be to go to publicly financed elections, and I believe that that would be much worse than the system we have in place today.
"How would you suggest that we fix this? Go to publicly financed elections?"
It's a good start, actually. France has a very egalitarian approach to their national elections that puts our two-party system to shame. It allows fringe groups equal access to the public, no matter how wonderful or idiotic their campaign is.
We have become numbed nationally by the stupidity of the two-party corporately-sponsored political system, and sole public funding and regulation of national elections would be a big step in improving that, and opening up the playing ground to Americans who are wholly qualified for the position, but would not have the opportunity to run in the way our current system is set up.
RINO:
I would forbid INCUMBENTS from raising campaign cash. When the time came for them to run for reelection, I would give them matching funds with their biggest rival. If the Dem contender has spent $100,000 in his challenge, the GOP incumbent receives $100,000 from the treasury.
If a GREEN comes along and spends $2 million to try to take the seat away from the GOP incumbent, then the treasury would supply that incumbent with $2 million to answer the challenge.
This, obviously, would NOT be an entirely taxpayer-funded system. Challengers would set the level of spending, and the incumbent would have matching funds IN ADDITION to the advantage of incumbency. In return, we insist our representatives to spend NO time gathering money, NO time making promises to lobbiests, and spend ALL their time doing their JOBS.
I believe that would be an EXCELLENT way of spending taxpayer dollars.
I'd say that's a pretty good idea, Tex. Thank you for sharing.
The WAR is being fought in earnest, and being WON, and the American People are the losers. Tex
Not all the American people are losers. I believe the wealthy who support those lobbyists are Americans also. Love the rant, though.
Yes but we all have the right to buy our own Senators its just hard to understand why hardworking middleclass Americans choose not to.
SOLON:
Middle classers don't buy Senators for two reasons.
1. We're sending our kids to college, and that taps every asset.
2. We don't get NO-BID contracts from the GOP Administration.
Dude, the right are the kings of class warfare. Rush for example distorts the tax rates paid by the rich without citing their share of the income. The right pits "just plain folks" against "limosine liberals" and "wealth creators" against "lazy welfare bums".
Again missing a basic point. Its the buttkissers who show their envy. In high school our Quarterback was a jerk, arrogant and rude to pretty much everybody. I had two friends. One always made excuses for him. His friends make him act that way, he is under so much pressure. Even when HE was the butt of the guys churlish behavior. Another of my friends would call him on acting like a jerk. Its clear which of these guys was jealous of him. In typical rightwing behavior, rino projects his own faults on liberals.
In high school our Quarterback was a jerk, arrogant and rude to pretty much everybody.
I think I know him....he mows my lawn.
Considering how he fared after High School he MIGHT be mowing your lawn.
Clinton never blamed Rush, never mentioned Limbaugh's name in connection to OK city.
He was talking about purveyors of hate speech. Period.
Once again Rino whiffs at a point. To him comitting to policies that aid the rich and hurt the middle class and poor are not class warfare, pointing OUT that is what is happening is class warfare. Multiple tax cuts aimed to benifit the wealthy mostly like dividend and capital gains, or exclusively like the estate tax, to be paid for by sacrificing the social programs that benifit mostly the middle and lower class isnt class warfare, pointing out that is happening is class warfare. Policies that widen the income gap, not class warfare, pointing OUT the gap is widening class warfare. The wealth envy of the rinos of the world is sad to see. Pressing their face to the glass of a posh restaurant just sure if they kiss enough rich butt they can get some of the crumbs off his table.
"To him comitting to policies that aid the rich and hurt the middle class and poor are not class warfare, pointing OUT that is what is happening is class warfare."
I support policies that help everybody. I simply want to cut taxes for everybody and give people as much individual freedom as possible. I want the government to stay out of our lives and simply let us live our own lives. Tax cuts for dividends and capital gains helps the majority of the American people, because about 70% of the American people invest in the stock market. It's not just the "super rich" as you suggest. Cutting taxes for dividends and capital gains also helps to boost the economy and bring in more revenue to the government. When you cut taxes on capital gains, people will end up investing more money in the stock market, and they will end up making more money and thus paying more in taxes. The government will end up with more money due to more people investing more money in the stock market and making more money and paying a larger amount in taxes.
Cutting taxes for dividends and capital gains also helps to boost the economy and bring in more revenue to the government.
Ah, I was feeling pretty nostalgic for the 80's. Voodoo economics and Rubik's cubes for everyone!
You only get that figure with IRAs. And it helps the rich overwhelmingly,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0107-04.htm
The wealthiest stratum of Americans - an estimated 200,000 people earning more than $1m a year - accounts for barely 1% of US taxpayers, according to figures from the internal revenue service.
However, together they earned about $25.4bn in dividends last year, or about a quarter of the overall total of dividends for US taxpayers. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So that is a quarter of the benifits for one percent of the people
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html?ei=5088&en=2f0a40120544a89c&ex=1301889600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
¶Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003.
While it is technically correct that it gives some tax cut to 70% of Americans that is about like taking a pie giving half to one guy, one quarter to another. Sharing the other quarter among eight people and claiming the pie was shared.
SOLON:
To get to that "70% invested in the stock market", the rightwing include not only IRA's, but Mutual Funds, and funds invested by pension fund operators.
Several problems with citing that this is a wide distribution of "benefits". Another poster gave the stats on how capital gains and dividends overwhelmingly benefit only a select few, some 1% of the population. Mutual Funds are not a steady source of income ... the "holders" cannot direct how they play in the stock market, and cannot withdraw funds without "substantial penalty". This is money for OTHER people to play with. Finally, we have seen a rash of pension fund mismanagement which shows the people using other people's retirement money and LOSING IT ALL. You work 30 years for a company, and on retirement, they say, "SORRY, Your pension money is gone ... the fund has disappeared."
So, naturally the rightwing love to quote the PERCENTAGE of people who, one way or another, might own a couple of shares in the stock market. But to say it is a BOON to cut the taxes on capital gains and dividend income for that 70% is a TOTAL LIE. In truth, only a very small percentage will actually cash in on those low capital gains rates, and only a smaller percentage actually see regular dividend checks. It is a BOON only for America's wealthiest.
We are not fooled by their self-serving "statistics" that don't show at all what they CLAIM they show.
Well, in one case, a single person was blamed (supposedly) for a tragedy, while a whole ideology is being blamed for another. Forget hypocracy - how can you be so idiotic?
You know what's funny Leather? You already made that joke and seeing that no one even commented on it you made it again. Way to stick to your guns. But, then again, anything to once again (and again and again and again and again . . . if I could figure out how to make the infinity sign it would have been there)
Clinton wasn't joking, nor was he talling about Limbaugh.
And Rush could tell Groucho the one that goes, "Last night I shot a poor person in my pajamas..., if fact my pajamas are so big there were several of them in there."
Rush: "I was making a joke about the -- I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing."
So, it was a joke that wasn't a joke? He was kidding, but seriously, he was serious. So, he's kidding about kidding. Lying about lying.
Let's see...Cho was on a rampage against 'rich' kids...hummm..If the schizophrenic fits, Limbaugh's on to something here! Liberals, in general abhor the wealthy.
The above is also a joke....You see, this is what happens to a segment of the population like yourselves, that think: you are smarter than everybody else, more open minded than everybody else, more caring than anybody else, understand the environment better than everybody else...You just can't WIN elections thats all...I see I get MediaMatters and Moveon.org and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton now. I see where youre coming from...Party on dudes!
Let's see...Cho was on a rampage against 'rich' kids...hummm..If the schizophrenic fits, Limbaugh's on to something here! Liberals, in general abhor the wealthy. - And cons, in general, resort to vague stereotypes instead of actual arguments.
The above is also a joke.... - Really? I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.
You see, this is what happens to a segment of the population like yourselves, that think: you are smarter than everybody else, more open minded than everybody else, more caring than anybody else, understand the environment better than everybody else...- Considering that I don't reject evolution, haven't blamed 9/11 on gays, and think that finding better energy sources instead of supporting the bloodshed in Oil Land (i.e. the Middle East), I'd say I'm at least better at those named traits than some people. You certainly seem to think you're smarter than everyone else here.
You just can't WIN elections thats all... - You've forgotten November 2006 already?
I see I get MediaMatters and Moveon.org and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton now. I see where youre coming from...Party on dudes! - Yeah, we're all one big entity. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Jacob: "Liberals, in general (sic) abhor the wealthy."
Okey-doke. You didn't just swallow the Kool-Aid. You're the dancing Kool-Aid Man. And here's your pic:
http://www.kraftfoods.com/koolaid/
I doubt that Jacob will be assimilated. He's part of that die-hard intelligent 29% who still think that there's WMD in Iraq, the war was a good idea (it's just that the media isn't reporting any of the good things), and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney will be cannonized for all of their wonderful earthly deeds.
Jacobs on a different level than the rest of us. A hot, fire and brimstone kind of level.
Oops, I forgot. JUST JOKING ! ! !
"...a segment of the population like yourselves, that think: you are smarter than everybody else, more open minded than everybody else, more caring than anybody else, understand the environment better than everybody else..."
Well... at least in comparison to the average Limbaugh-listening ditto-head, those things are admittedly true, although that's not much to brag about.
As for winning elections, we won Congress in 2006; we've won three of the last four Presidential elections, although the Supreme Court took back the one in 2000. And if things don't change dramatically, we're going to hand you your arse in 2008. You can thank George W. Bush for that last one...
There will be nothing left to hand back in 2008, if things keep going the way they have lately. They had full power for 6 years, predictably abused it, then the people got to look straight into the demon's eyes. Now, it is OVER!
...don't forget to thank the Republican Congress too...spend like drunken sailors much? Increase the size and influence of the Imperial Federal Government beyond all belief much?
I wonder if there are any "Conservatives" left or is this what conservativism has become?
Republicans (voters - not the politicians themselves) shouldn't be attacking Democrats they should be demanding their party back. The Democratic party has stayed true to what they believe in (IMHO) while the Republican party has...well, I honestly don't know what the hell they are doing (and neither do they).
I am, personally, neither a Dem or a Rep but the power shift has been interesting to watch.
HAW!!HAW!!!HAW!! Rush, that was a knee slapper!!! Hey Rush, how about the one about the conservative blonde commentator getting chased into the wrong polling place by some faggots!!! AW, stop it Rush, yer killin' me. Say, did you hear the one about the conservative commentator who used to cop a feel on his housekeeper to make sure she wasn't wearing a wire...OH,RUSH, you gotta do five nights next week in the Poconos. OK, Rush, two members of the Religious right walk into a gay bar with some crystal meth...STOP,RUSH,STOP I'm gonna have a stroke....
Now THAT'S comedy!
I swear, that's some of the most dumbassed rhetorical masturbation I've ever heard.
I don't think that Rush understands the concept of video. He doesn't seem to realize that in year 2007, we can actually go back and listen to hear if what he said sounded like a joke.
If you just have to have political enemies, aren't you glad they're people like Jacob?
Not really, because people like Jacob allow us to develop mental atrophy.
If it were not so tragic, I would be laughing so hard I would be splitting my sides. I love how Limbaugh makes excuses for all his hateful and illegal acts. You know, 1 Viagra in the name of someone else, 2. He planned his statement just to get a response from Media Matters (still he never admitted that even that was so disgusting, 3. Attempting to belittle even for that purpose, 4. He could tell the guy was a liberal, 5. The last election of so many Democrats means nothing, 6. The Democrats will fall back into the minority the next election, 7. Bush is great, 8. Only Republicans know what they are doing, 9. Yada yada yada about the mainstream media 10.And of late, spewing hate about the progressive blogging world. So, if this site is getting under the Limbaugh skin, I say "sick em" since the guy has had free reign for years. No one has had the guts to confront his hyperbole nor his outright lies. He makes a horrible blunder like his name-calling of Obama and then purports that his disgusting statement was a set up. See, as I say, the guy just lies!!!!!!
What an idiot.
"I was making a joke about the -- I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing."
That REALLY says it all. What a douchebag!
</i><i>-close tag-</i>
Rush - to Judgement - Limbaugh,
You can run with the people of money and power, Rush. History is rife with "Court Jesters" of your ilk. Nervous little pill popping suckups.
Your days of "Infotainment" are numbered, the public is catching on to the atonal inbreeding of you "whatever makes a buck" talking heads. So quick, have massive (pun intended) plastic surgery, change clown suits and jump in on the next wave of neo con "con men". Think France next time - better fit for you.
Here come the Bushies, last One to bed throw out the Family
Limbaugh just isn't that slick. Lets face it, he parrots whatever the Bush administration wants him to say. Most of the time.
Basically, Rush says "I was joking, but really- liberalism really did make him do it!!!" What a sandy little butthole he is.
But why is he so pink? I wish I could say that it's because he's embarrassed, but, <sigh>, he has no shame.
<i></i></i>To see if that will turn off the italics.
But to the point: Someday, if and when Rush and the Dittoheads mature enough to be considered emotional adults, they will realize that "It was only a joke!" is not a verbal "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
Russ Limbaughis a bunch of Bull sh_t. I wish that that was true. He is one of the most dangerous men in America. When ever he gets cornered like the Rat heis he claims he is only an entertainer. The truth is he is the "The Dr Joseph Geobels" of the Republican Party. The line he spreads on any given day comes directly from the Republican National Commitee and Carl Rove. The only ones that don't understand are the Rushheads who can't think for themselves
If Rush and O'Reilly have decided attacking MMFA is their top priority, I'd say that's a positive. Holding these guys accountable for their misinformation should keep them too busy to attack Democrats.
</i><i>-close tag-</i>
Jester extraordinaire Limbaugh suckers in the liberal loons again! or so he imagines.
What a cut up, or perhaps I should say what an unbalanced and sad little man.
Please be sure to keep all the sharp thingies away from Rushie boy.
I'm afraid the years of Republican water carrying have finally buckled his brain.
Just like that--snap!
Rush kills 32 liberals and blames liberalism.
The real question is: would they take his show away?
Randy
I was making a joke about the -- I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing.
So Rush said something and MMFA reported it? Wow, you folks at MMFA really have egg on your face. You must feel like real rubes.
Rush is absolutely right about this. After all, everything he says is a joke.
A guy walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn't that Bush and Cheney sitting over there?" The bartender says, "Yep, that's them." So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?"Bush says, "We're planning WWIII. And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis this time and one bicycle repairman."The guy exclaimed, "A bicycle repairman!!! Why kill a bicycle repairman?"Bush turns to Cheney, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, dummy! I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!"
Now that's a joke Rush.
Oh yeah! that had me rolling on the floor laughing. Ha HA!
>>although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing.
Yup, liberals kept publishing books all about how professors are elitists who hate America...
I think Limbaugh is absolutely correct. There is no moral foundation in the Left and anything goes. As far as getting hooked; look at the time and effort spent to state the obvious!
This coming from a guy who diddles his elementary teacher.
I take exception to your first statement. Saying you THINK, is assuming facts not in evidence. I say the evidence points to you not having the requisite equipment to perform the act. You are a moron who wouldnt know a moral foundation from an ice cream sundae
You spend time and energy posting obviously incorrect rants, why not point out the obviously wrong?
The two MMFA items on Limbaugh for April 23 pretty much sum up his knee jerk reactions when he gets called out for his loose cannon commentary. It's either "I was taken out of context" or "It was a joke."
Either way, he's only fooling himself and dittoheads.
Isn't this juvenile by Rush? I seem to remember this type of stuff going on in middle school. I.e., doing or saying something stupid, then predicting someone else's (easily predictable) reaction to try to make them seem to be the stupid one.
I also recall that most people outgrew this behavior by high school. I guess Rush was one of the exceptions.
I am sure someone has pointed this out by now: this is a frequent tactic by people of Limbaugh's ilk. Once they get confronted by a particularly stupid comment, of which Limbaugh has made plenty, they claim they were only joking.
The rhetorical move of "I'm only kidding, no I'm not really kidding, oh wait, yeah I was just kidding....but not really" is just another form of cowardice. At least Boortz and Savage are unapologetic idiots.
At this point though, I'm glad that Limbaugh exists. He says what most Neo-Cons (as opposed to true Conservatives) are thinking but are too cravenly pusillanimous to admit. Thus, the rest of the thinking world can judge them for what they really are.
One thing that seems to get lost in all this furor over Rush claiming a joke where no joke exists is his alternate favorite dodge, the "out of context" claim.
I don't think Rush knows what "out of context" means. A right-wing friend of mine has stated flat-out that one must listen to the whole three-hour program of Rush ion order to "get the proper context". Apparently, the whole show is one elaborate parody, and to take anything Rush says seriously is a grave mistake. It seems his whole show is comedy. Kind of like Borat for neocons, I guess.
But Media Matters is fairly scrupulous in providing context: extended transcripts and where available, video and audio recordings. What does "context" mean to Rush?
The thing I really don't get is, why is it comedy to say liberalism made Cho murder 32 people? Where is the clever surprise, the overturning of expectations that typically results in laughter when a joke is told? Jokes, like all stories, have structure. A joke without a punchline, or without a set-up, is not a joke.
Can someone help me out on this?
sure, anything that demonizes a liberal, a democrat, a black, a jew, a homosexual, in short anyone other than someone like Limbaugh; it's a joke silly. In the far right world view, all the "others" are around just to pick lettuce, drive trucks, invent Viagra and other essential services for the wealthy. They call it trickle down economics. All the ills of the world can be attributed to liberals etc. but we need them around to roll cigars, but we can make fun of them at least.
I am not the best poster here (by far) but I hope this helps you out a little. maybe Rusty Shackleford will be back some day and can expand on this for you. Where is Dale G. these days?
I'm sorry. You lost me after say "right wing friend of mine."
Judge for yourself whether Mr. Limbaugh was joking:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704190008
I didn't hear any kind of sarcasm in his voice. His tone of voice was very serious and angry, not like he was joking. He did not say "this is just a joke" at the time he made his comments about the Virginia Tech killer being a liberal. Nothing I heard from Rush indicated this was a joke at the time he said it. So maybe he rewrites the history of his own actions like many on the right do for this whole country.
Furthermore, in his explanation that he was just joking, Mr. Limbaugh says, "...although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing." So even when he says he was just joking about the killer being a liberal, Mr. Limbaugh acknowledges that he really does believe his "joke".
Can't Rush Limbaugh at least try to be consistent and not speak out of both sides of his mouth?
I don't get it. Aren't liberals supposed to LIKE professors, because they are biased towards liberalism? If anything, he should have gone off that campus (probably just a bunch of liberals there anyway), and gone over to some private corporation to kill CEOs...
Rush is a disgrace to America.
No, MMFA is a disgrace for endorsing tactics similar to those in the McCarthy era. Trying to discredit people's opinions. Fact is, you cannot discredit an opinion, so you can choose to either listen to it or ignore it. If boobs like Keith Olbermann can express their treasonous-like attitudes and opinions on national television, how can you honestly deny Rush the same opportunity?
It was sarcasm, and the MMFA knows it, they just need to spin it to get those of you who are too lazy to judge for yourself or too filled with hate to be open-minded all worked up.
Oh, this is almost too easy.
No, MMFA is a disgrace for endorsing tactics similar to those in the McCarthy era. Trying to discredit people's opinions. Fact is, you cannot discredit an opinion, so you can choose to either listen to it or ignore it. - Again, someone who thinks reproducing someone else's words in a critical light is wrong. Nobody is trying to discredit someone's opinion. But if your opinion is completely unfounded, or it's spun, or presented in a one-sided environment, then you deserved to get called on it.
If boobs like Keith Olbermann can express their treasonous-like attitudes and opinions on national television, how can you honestly deny Rush the same opportunity? - First of all, Rush can't get on TV unless he's a guest on Faux News. Secondly, since when has Olbermann said anything this offensive?
It was sarcasm, and the MMFA knows it, they just need to spin it to get those of you who are too lazy to judge for yourself or too filled with hate to be open-minded all worked up. - Let's hear what Rush has to say, in his own words.
I was making a joke about the -- I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing.
News flash: it's not sarcasm IF YOU REALLY MEAN IT.
Sorry dude, but no sale. You indicated that you cannot discredit his opinion. But later in that same post you said it was sarcasm. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Sarcasm: a form of low grade humor carries with it the implication that Limbaugh himself believes the underlying statement is ridiculous and laughable, that's where the humor comes in. An opinion on the other hand is a deeply held belief or judgement. Since most people are not in the habit of being sarcastic about their own deeply held views I can only conclude that you are a bigger mass of contradictions than he is.
In my best Butthead chuckle - you said "boobs!"
Hey Rush, you load, your dittoheads sure wouldn't think you were kidding.
Or, are you always just kidding...and with zero humor.
You are as Keith says, a comedian. But you make Rich Little seem like Dave Chappel.
And I love how Big Bad Bill has highlighted MM so that the trolls are spending hours a day on this site.
Don't you guys no Hannity is gonna be on in a few minutes.
Blaming Republicans for Katrina, who else would you blame? Limbaugh does realize that we blame the Bush Administration for disenfranchising the poor, for failing to adequately fund and maintain the levees, for using the National Guard in Iraq leaving Louisiana short on manpower and equipment, and for failing to respond to the situation in a timely fashion nor with sufficient Federal assistance, not for the storm itself? Then again with the Administration's failure to combat climatic change, it should be held accountable for the inevitable class 4 hurricanes that will head our way in the future.
Charles San Francisco, CA
QUOTE:
Blaming Republicans for Katrina, who else would you blame? Limbaugh does realize that we blame the Bush Administration for disenfranchising the poor, for failing to adequately fund and maintain the levees, for using the National Guard in Iraq leaving Louisiana short on manpower and equipment, and for failing to respond to the situation in a timely fashion nor with sufficient Federal assistance, not for the storm itself? Then again with the Administration's failure to combat climatic change, it should be held accountable for the inevitable class 4 hurricanes that will head our way in the future.
Charles San Francisco, CA
How Does the Kool-Aid Taste Charles?
As a resident of New Orleans... Keep your blame on Mayor Nagin & Gov. Blanco... Period... It was There job... not the Feds. Both Dems if I recall. By the way, Hurricane season the year after in 2006 was a big dud, where were you guys then? Everything major in weather is Global warming with you guys.
Global warming causes harsh weather conditions such as the record-breaking Katrina.
What is frightening is the number of people apparently dumb enough to read this site and believe the slant and spin. I do enjoy the rambling attempts of some, but most are just elitist or vapid. Honestly, dropping by this site for even a quick look-see makes me feel like I need a shower. As for the shills that supposedly started this site...this must be where 'journalists' go when their lack of talent is discovered
I agree. Just remember, its all entertainment.
The purpose of the news these days, unfortunately, is to sell stuff.
TEX,
Fairness, my friends can only be created one way... That is down... Period...
Bring down the rich to the level of the poor... well, so everyone is unhappy...
True fairness comes from opportunity, not government involvement. Not 70% redistrobution... If capitolism gives us winners & losers... all other forms or Government give us all losers (A Liberal Dream it seems...)
-----------------------------------------------------
Oh and by the way... Limbaugh's point was that he said it expecting MMFA to post this quote like a bunch of panting dogs and they did...
Like Limbaugh or not... He has a right to be where he is and that is what truly kills you guys. Because he is effective. So what do you do... monitor his show and try to paint him as evil as possible in the hope of discrediting him with his listeners... Instead of actual fair debate and exchange of ideas... You guys use Political Correctness as a muzzle. Free speech? Not if you are Conservative.
And much of what MMFA puts here is simply statements that are mostly upsetting to THEM.. not most Americans.
How is this ORG a Non-Profit anyway? It is so clearly political it isn't even funny.
Cheers From Colorado
Oh and by the way... Limbaugh's point was that he said it expecting MMFA to post this quote like a bunch of panting dogs and they did... - Just like trolls expect to get banned from the websites they pollute.
Like Limbaugh or not... He has a right to be where he is and that is what truly kills you guys. Because he is effective. - Nobody said he didn't have a right. His conservative misinformation is just unfairly promoted by corporate sponsors.
So what do you do... monitor his show and try to paint him as evil as possible in the hope of discrediting him with his listeners... - How, exactly, is quoting him, in context and verbatim, "paint[ing] him as evil as possible"?
Instead of actual fair debate and exchange of ideas... You guys use Political Correctness as a muzzle. Free speech? Not if you are Conservative. - Since when is smearing us "fair debate and exchange of ideas"? Rush's smears are not "ideas". There's no political correctness issue in regards to lies and distortions.
Forgot to mention...
And much of what MMFA puts here is simply statements that are mostly upsetting to THEM.. not most Americans. - If that's true, then most Americans are a pretty sorry lot. It's an uphill battle, and we're fighting it.
How is this ORG a Non-Profit anyway? It is so clearly political it isn't even funny. So political automatically means it's for-profit?
Cheers From Colorado - Didn't you say a few posts previous that you were from New Orleans?