Limbaugh on Media Matters: "[Y]ou're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you"
On the April 25 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh again claimed that the "Media Matters people fell for it, and the drive-by media fell for it, and this is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about on that day," referring to his recent statement that Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman, "had to be a liberal." Media Matters documented both Limbaugh's April 19 statement that Cho "had to be a liberal" and his subsequent observation that "[n]ow the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them" (Limbaugh regularly refers to mainstream media outlets as "the drive-by media"). On April 23, Limbaugh similarly claimed that "Media Matters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They had it up all over the place," adding: "I was making a joke. ... 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."
During the April 25 broadcast, Limbaugh directly addressed "you people at Media Matters," and advised: "[Y]ou're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you, because you end up illustrating and proving exactly what I'm saying." Limbaugh later made reference to "these little nerdlings out there that are monitoring their radios in the post-Imus era. And they're looking for any -- any shred of evidence that could make me the next to get his butt kicked off of major American airwaves." Referring to his April 16 comments, Limbaugh declared "the people that are raising all this hell don't listen. They get it second- and third-hand, out of context, and they're out there as an army trying to create this stink," before adding, "It's just funny to chronicle it all. Particularly the supposed controversy over my calling the guy at Virginia Tech a liberal. What controversy? Everybody that listens to this show agrees with me, so how can you possibly have controversy there?" Limbaugh has repeatedly accused Media Matters of taking him out of context. In fact, when highlighting Limbaugh's on-air statements, Media Matters provides transcript and audio of his statements.
Further, in reaction to news that ABC's The View co-host Rosie O'Donnell was leaving the show after contract disagreements with the network, Limbaugh stated: "I'm telling you, the deal was about the dog biscuits that they gave her on the floor in the dressing room were just the wrong flavor. They couldn't come to an agreement on the flavor of the Ken-L Ration that she eats," before presumably attempting to predict the content of a Media Matters post on the subject: "Rush Limbaugh today inspired controversy by referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a woman who eats dog food. Why would that be?"
In addition, Limbaugh repeated false claims about Media Matters, stating "these watchdog websites that are bought and paid for by the Democrat [sic] Party and the Clinton machine, in the case of Media Matters." Media Matters is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign.
From the April 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: They did not get to the actual demonstration that was foisted upon me unwittingly. Now, do you remember back Thursday, April the 19th? We're talking about the massacre at Virginia Tech. And -- well, here's what I said. We'll go back to the audio sound bites. We'll just play this, because I want to tell you, it worked. The Media Matters people fell for it, and the drive-by media fell for it, and this is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about on that day. And what this illustration was about -- the critics of this program do not listen to it. They go to these watchdog websites that are bought and paid for by the Democrat [sic] Party and the Clinton machine, in the case of Media Matters. And that's where they get what I said. And then they take it and they run with it as though some giant controversy has arisen when there is no controversy. There was no controversy when I said what I said. Here is the first part of this illustration.
[begin audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act.
Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation. I'm just pointing it out. They try to -- whenever -- I can tell you from the history of this program starting way back in the early '90s, when there was any kind of an incident -- crime or what-have-you -- that attracted national attention, in the early days of this program, the drive-by media went out and they tried to connect the perpetrator to this program. They did everything they could -- in fact, it went so far as Bill Clinton blaming me for influencing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Bureau Building [sic: Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City]. These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred.
There's just double standards all over the place, folks. I'm telling you, I'm fed up with listening to who it is that's supposedly coarsening the culture when I watch it on television every day, and I read it on obscure websites every day. These are the people that write books about how to assassinate George W. Bush.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Sure enough! Sure enough, folks, the drive-by media -- national and local -- across the fruited plain, running with the story "Limbaugh calls Cho a liberal."
[begin audio clip]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Political pundit Rush Limbaugh's under fire for this remark, claiming Cho's envy of wealthy students means he was a liberal.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rush Limbaugh stirring up controversy about the Virginia Tech massacre. Limbaugh said it had to be a liberal who committed such an act.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rush Limbaugh appeared to blame liberals for the shooting, claiming that the assailant just must have been one.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is controversy this morning over comments talk show host Rush Limbaugh made about the Virginia Tech shootings.
LIMBAUGH: [interjecting] No, there wasn't!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Limbaugh was pondering what the shooter's ideology must have been and said that he, quote, "had to be a liberal."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After Don Imus, I think -- what radio commentator should want to do that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not this one.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rush Limbaugh now created a lot of controversy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rush Limbaugh just said that this guy who killed all those kids at Virginia Tech was a liberal!
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Is this not the greatest thing?! They fell for it, hook, line and sinker! This illustrates exactly what I was talking about last Thursday about the way all this stuff happens. The point is, there was no controversy. There was no controversy on this program. There was no eruption on this program Thursday or Friday -- not until yesterday when the drive-bys heard about it, three or four days after the fact, and then they dreamed -- the only controversy is with them, because they think I called them out. I mean -- you people at Media Matters, you're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you, because you end up illustrating and proving exactly what I'm saying.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: But what it all means, folks, is that there are these little nerdlings out there that are monitoring their radios in the post-Imus era. And they're looking for any -- any shred of evidence that could make me the next to get his butt kicked off of major American airwaves. But it isn't going to happen, because everything here has a political point. It bounces off something -- somebody else, especially our parodies and so forth. But it's -- it's illustrative of what I mentioned to you when we first started talking about this. And that is that the people that are raising all this hell don't listen. They get it second- and third-hand, out of context, and they're out there as an army trying to create this stink. But it won't work. It's just funny to chronicle it all, particularly the supposed controversy over my calling the guy at Virginia Tech a liberal. What controversy? Everybody that listens to this show agrees with me, so how can you possibly have controversy there?
[...]
LIMBAUGH: You know, the problem for ABC was that the ratings on that program had improved, and so that became the question. That became their dilemma. But no, this -- the contract issue is -- and you'll be hearing that. That Rosie -- we couldn't come to a deal. I'm telling you, the deal was about the dog biscuits that they gave her on the floor in the dressing room were just the wrong flavor. They couldn't come to an agreement on the flavor of the Ken-L Ration that she eats. So -- Rush, you're just tempting them, aren't you? You're just -- "Rush Limbaugh today inspired controversy by referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a woman who eats dog food. Why would that be?"
Whether or not these idiots want their comments posted on MMFA, we should do it anyway. Besides, as Olbermann says, Rush Limbaugh is a comedian. Give us something to laugh at.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Is that what he is going to say when he has a brain fart on air, and offends with a racial slur or the like?? He's a comedian? Is that what you have to be to have the audience of the President & Vice President at your beck and call???
I now understand the past 6 years of Republican Madness, or better known as Republican Leadership, it was all a Comedy?? Ha, Ha, Ha..
So, what is the punchline in Iraq?? I don't see anything comedic about the carnage we have stirred up, the taxpayers dollars spent, the military we have stretch to the brink of breaking!
If he is a Comedian, I am truly concerned with what Republicans pass as humor!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Dan I'm not sure what you're getting at here with regards to my comments. I'm saying that Limbaugh is stupid thinking that he got MMFA. I was pre-empting comments that would say, "MMFA is giving Limaugh more publicity by posting his comments."
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!!
Great Minds think alike, it was just a post, I didn't read your post yet!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
the first time he declared it to be a joke, he followed that with: "although i do believe it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy". so which is it? the "joke" he first declared it, or what he "believes"? how anyone believes this double talking gas bag is beyond me.
rush: "everybody that listens to this show agrees with me." to that, i can only say "ditto".
Considering their proclivity to find humor in straaaange places, I would speculate, from intense study of a statistical analysis, that what Republicans pass as humor, most of us call "flatulence"? Just another noxious emission from their nether regions?
What Rush doesn't realize is that MMFA knew all along that Rush was baiting MMFA. The complaint piece MMFA wrote is just a joke too and Rush fell for it. HA! HA! Fooled you Rush!!.
You see. Now we are all free to rationalize away any comment that we have ever made in the past just by saying we were joking.
Yes, he certainly is a master baiter.
Don't know if anyone else appreciated your "master baiter" double entendre; but I know your just "joking". ;.) !
Ah, the old "I was only joking" defense. Didn't work in 3rd grade. Doesn't work now.
Especially if, in the next breath, you crow that your whole audence agreed with your wacko assertion anyways.
Billo, Rushbo,WeinerSavage: Methinks they all protest too much. MMFA is kicking their pudgy butts.
I'm always amazed at the subjects that these "entertainers" can mine for laughs.
I'm glad that someone can wring a joke or two out of the murder of thirty or so students and teachers.
Hey, Rush, you pig...I listen to your show...and I know what your game is. Too bad your audience is too stupid to know that you're "only kidding". They think you're their savior...they think you're one of them...they think you're a selfish, reactionary bigot, just like them. Too bad they don't know that you're playing them for suckers. Too bad.
What I suspect, rather, is that it's a bit of a clever game where Rush sort of pretends to be kidding and the audience pretends its a joke. A lot of humour - not just right-wing talk - is that way, and it's often a dance to stop it short of just outright hate speech with punch lines.
I don't think there's much to be gained by assuming his audience is stupid... however, this "humour," such as it is, could certainly be used as justification for someone to feel that their hateful views are OK and even acceptable in society. This is the line Rush is flirting with, and I think it's salutary for him to know that MMfA is watching, humourless as they may seem.
Okay, point taken. It is unfair to characterize his whole audience as "stupid". However, many of them are stupid, and all of them who believe his crap are, shall we say, gullible.
nerzog, there's no such word as gullible.
Nerzog,
Your generalizations regarding Rush's audience and their common bigotry, is not only wildly presumptious, but unfair. Those that I know who listen to him do so because they agree with his politics, find his skewing liberals entertaining, get offended sometimes, but also know that most of what he does is for his own ego gratification and self promotion, through schtick.
They listen to him because they want their opinions reinforced with like minded individuals, and they like to see the other side taken to task........which is the exact reason why many liberals come here.
You have a point. However, I fear that the sentiments expressed by Rush appeal to the lowest common denominators of his audience.
Comedians, as favorite son Olbermann correctly characterizes Rush, often take normal everyday "stuff" and extrapolate it out to some wild scenario to make a comedic point and satirize it for entertainment.
That's what Rush does with liberals.......obviously he isn't fair, and twists and bends his targets to fit into whatever point he is trying to make. I don't find him particularly funny because it's always the same thing with him, and grows old on me real fast. Anyone that tunes into him to get a real world look at politics to make informed choices or sort out issues to make sensible determinations, are fooling themselves; and only want to hear, what they want to hear.
I certainly agree, and as I noted in my comment above, it's difficult if not impossible to sound like anything other than a humourless prig by criticising Rush's over-the-top comments.
However, I think the opposite approach, ignoring him - which is often your counsel, Tommy - has been tried, and I think failed miserably. Part of the response, I think, can be putting his words on display as text, where it's much harder to see them as funny. Part of the response can be people like Olbermann kind of fighting fire with fire.
In any regard, I don't see unilateral disarmament as much of a response. The man has had, and continues to have to some degree, a large impact on the national discourse.
Val,
My point is that many here argue that highlighting Rush's every utterances only expose people more to his brand of "hatred" and "calling him on it" is a good thing........but they fail to even entertain the thought that the publicity given him feeds into him as well. It is a double edged sword, with unintended consequences. That is all I am saying.
Ignore or highlight, both have their up and down sides, perhaps. It is just my personal opinion that these screechers thrive and flourish through publicity, which leads to listeners, even if for curiousity's sake, leading to ratings, and increased revenues and fatter contracts, etc. Highlighting their words does not come without a price. Their biggest fear is irrelevancy and the "meh" factor.
Many disagree and that is fine, it is only the way I see it.
Tommy, I'm aware that you disagree. That's why I'm engaging you on the subject. I have no vested interest in getting you to change your point of view, but the whole reason I come here is to debate, and maybe get my mind changed or maybe sharpen my positions.
My position is Limbaugh is already a famous figure, and that there's little downside risk in countering him. The risk in just playing "above the fray," as I feel mainstream Democrats have done for pretty much the last three decades, is that you let these voices control the discourse.
This propensity for Rush, O'Reilly and the like to thrive on either good or bad attention is what is generally referred to as narcissism. And not just general narcissism, but disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder and others. It's just too common these days and is exhibited profanely in the daily discourse of "successful" personalities on radio and TV.
Of course most of these windbags do not have satisfactory personal lives. Not too much to wonder about there.
tommy says, like the limbaugh show, "liberals come here" to have "their opinions reenforced". except in tommy's usual myopic way, he does not point out that conservatives have free access to this site, unlike limbaugh's show.
tommy also claims that giving him publicity makes people more likely to listen to limbaugh. i guess the large audience that limbaugh had for many years before this site even came into existence was anticipating that "publicity"? more pablum from the master of pablum, tommy.
Tommy, what you refer to as Olbermann's characterization of Rush as a comedian is not a "characterization" at all but tongue-in-cheek, satirical and derisory jab at Limbaugh's fall back and lame "I was just joking" excuse.
if they agree with Flush then they are agreeing with lies, and racism (remember Flush on ESPN?) and they are stupid. No other way around it.
they want their opinions reinforced with like minded individuals, and they like to see the other side taken to task........which is the exact reason why many liberals come here.
Some, maybe. Many? That's also a hasty generalization.
I stand by "many". Or maybe you can show me the droves of liberals that come here and take each other on and challenge one another to back up what they say. The fact is, it happens with far fewer than "many".
That's implies a lack of response equates to agreement. That's a dubious assumption.
If you make a unsubstatiated assertion, why should it be incumbent upon me to disprove it?
Showing that many liberals don't come here for the reasons you say would not necessarily disprove that many come here for the reason you say. You could have many of each, just not most of both.
...which makes me realize I should have asked how you defined "many." My earlier post was premature...and my original point is probably moot.
or maybe you could show us examples of you asking leatherhelmet to back up his silly statements? Or maybe savagerocks? or nay of the other cons who post here?
*crickets*
well, then again maybe you can't...
I don't think he was being unfair. He did reduce the arguement to Rush's low level, but Rush makes all kinds of assumptions about the left, liberals and Democrats that are often left unchecked. Tom, I've never seen you say that Rush was unfair with his broad-base assumptions.
Read again, I just did.
Eh... One, Tommy. I'll give you this one. We'll see what happens from here on out.
If nothing else: I stand corrected.
I agree with you on Rush, Tommy, but there is a portion of his audience that reveres him for being "America's Anchorman" as I have seen him call himself. Someone I am very close to who is a college grad thinks of him as one of the few honest ones out there because of how he bills himself and how little she wants to investigate what he claims. When he says he is going to "bait" this site, or anyone for that matter, it gives him an easy out when he is caught in a lie or with information that does not add up.
My guess is that when some of his rants that are serious become controversial, they will become "jokes."
The sad thing is that his audience will give him a free pass if he keeps saying "I'm only joking!". And they lap up his blatant racism cloaked as comedy - "Barack the Magic Negro", Al Sharpton impressions, etc.
We really haven't come very far in this country, have we?
You do know the L.A. Times did the Obama Magic Negro story first?
Actually, the LA Times didn't write it. It was a guest op/ed that ran on their opinion page. Why? I don't really know. The author, David Ehrenstein, seems to specialize in the history of gay Hollywood. Please notice that most of his reference points in the column are Hollywood stars of the past.
Rush is clearly running with it so that he can remind his knuckle-dragging audience that Barack is, gasp, a NEGRO.
Limbaugh defended his "Barak the Magic Negro" song parody from the charge of it being a poor impression of Sharpton's voice.
"It's a GREAT imitation of Sharpton!" Rush asserted ... despite the fact that Rush has many times described what he HEARS since he went deaf and now receives electronic signals as "sound". He can't hear music any more, he say, and voices are reduced to monotones. He can understand the words if there is no background noise, but the timbre and quality of the voice is just not there.
Which begs the question, how does a DEAF man go about rating how good a voice "imitation" is? He couldn't possibly know.
"I mean -- you people at Media Matters, you're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you"
-----
That Rush, he's a master baiter, for sure...
These guys are having a lot of trouble with someone reading their words back at them. Limbaugh's quote about Rosie doesn't sound any more outlandish then anything else he says. But it now appears he will be weighing his comments knowing they will be thrown back at him and his foolishness evident for all to see.
I guess as far as Rosie goes, he doesn't want facts to get in the way. She signed a one year contract which is over in June. They wanted her to sign a contract for 3 years and she didn't want to commit for that long. End of story. She's said a number of times that she has more money than she knows what to do with, and family time is more important to her. I guess Rush is just jealous because Rosie HAS a personal life and can keep committed relationships and knows that money is not the end all be all.
Years ago, I think it was during the Clinton/Dole race, PigBoy played an April fool's joke on his listeners. He said that he had looked at everything and had decided to vote for Clinton. He was bombarded with calls...his loyal sychophants were horrified. He finally had to admit the joke to keep them from leaping out of tall buildings.
Now, that's funny.
This goes back to intent. If Rush was the only puppet that said the VT shooter was a liberal, then I could see how it could have been poor joke. However, Rush wasn't the only one to suggest that. No one else had said that they were joking. So, why is Rush the only one? He's dragging this out. This keeps him from discussing any real issue (not like he would anyway). I still can't shake the image of Rush mocking Michael J. Fox whenever I discuss him.
The tactic at hand is to smear the messenger. It's better to smear or diminish MMFA than to actually engage in a constructive dialog. It's a common bullying tactic as well.
Did you mean "sycophants" or "psychophants"?
For Rush's audience, I suspect the latter, but either would be correct
You guys are gonna love this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KUE65Lea6kQ
Absolutely fascinating. A few things struck me there - the vast majority were white, all but one were male, and I am absolutely SHOCKED that there are some of those within the past decade that I didn't ever hear about. Very odd.
Regardless, the vid is appropriate in response to Rush's rant, but it does also strike me as propaganda, as if the information is incomplete.
You think it's odd there are some mass murderers you have never heard of? Yesterday there was a bomb planted at an abortion clinic (a real bomb). Did you hear about it?
Did the MSM cover that bomb as an act of terrorism? If it had been a government building or a mall and a muslim had planted it you wouldn't hear the end of it. The MSM covers up and glosses over the Christian terrorists.
You think Rush will ever even acknowledge these terrorists?
Your link:
Terrorism is as terrorism does.
Another link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18343166/
I am very torn on the abortion issue, but this is just as bad as the terrorist in the middle east.
As the saying goes: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. By the very definition, the US founding fathers could have been labled terrorists by the British, and they wouldn't have been wrong.
Define terrorism. Then define freedom fighers. Please.
Terrorism:
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Freedom fighter:
a fighter for freedom, esp. a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.
I don't see where the first excludes the second or vice versa. In fact, I seem to recall a few scuffles where the second employed the first.
Thank you. If you can't see the distinct differences between the two, there is nothing more to say.
That there's a difference doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. "Hunter" and "gun owner" have different definitions, but a person can also be both.
Big difference. Neither hunters or gun owners are inherently wrong. Would you say that neither terrorist nor freedom fighter are wrong?
Trick question.
Terrorist, by contemporary American standards, is a priori wrong. Calling someone a "terrorist" is the same as calling someone an "evildoer."
If this country was invaded by a vastly stronger power, I guarantee you that many of our fellow citizens would be engaged in the exact same activities the Iraqi insurgents are engaged in. If we could, I am sure many of us would volunteer to fly a jet into one of the largest buildings in the enemy's home country.
My question: would these people be freedom fighters, terrorists, or both?
Val,
I am through discussing this topic, I have done it plenty here and I am tired of the excuses and reasons for terrorism offered by some.
There is no point, we respectfully disagree.........and it is off topic.
It's an interesting debate about the nature of evil and how it is presented in society, and not every debate has as its goal one party changing the other's mind. I'm sorry that you're walking away from it, and sorrier still that to see you adhering to the "excusing terrorism" frame used by some of the most vulgar, divisive elements in our society.
What's the matter? You can't be consistent with your arguements? You can't accept that there is more to it than just a black-and-white issue? I can see why you wouldn't want to answer the question. I respect that.
And you wonder why I won't discuss it? What is the point? We go around and around and it's pointless. I do see terrorism as a black and white issue, good vs. evil. Many of you do not, that is your viewpoint - and if we can't even agree on that, then there is no point in dicsussing this topic.
You won't change my mind, I won't change yours. I respect your opinions, even though you don't feel the same way about mine....it's all good. Hitting our heads against the wall when there are such findamental differences on this subject is foolish, on both our parts. So you can categorize my unwillingness to continue down this path any way you'd like.........if you feel like you've won, that's fine.
We disagree on this topic.
if we can't even agree on that, then there is no point in dicsussing this topic
This is a position I have seen you express a lot of times in debate, and I can't say I understand it. What is debate but a discussion between people who disagree?
Why are you even here as a self-described contrarian if you believe that?
No need for him to debate, his work is done. He successfully steerd the topic away from the Limbaugh related vid at youtube which featured mass murdering ditto head types: white, male, racist, ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christians.
Bravo Tommy!
To be clear, I wouldn't volunteer to fly an airplane into a building.
I thought a "terrorist" by definition targeted civilians. Freedom fighters would be a civilian force against an oppressive government, would it not?
Bruce, Thank you for your intelligent post......it is futile, for me anyways, to argue this topic with some here anymore - I have done it plenty. If you can make headway, or at least get them to see your viewpoint, you are far better than I am.
Good luck!
Tomy - I highly doubt I have convinced anyone of anything in over two years. But, so what!!!
To be clear, nor would I... but I would almost certainly not be a "freedom fighter" by anyone's definition either. I'm a big wuss.
The whole question of targeting civilians is, in my mind, the great bugaboo of the "terrorist/freedom fighter" argument. I assert without fear of contradiction that governments target civilians all the time as part of war strategy... you would have to do a lot of work to convince me that the populations of the cities of Dresden and Nagasaki were just collateral damage.
I thought a "terrorist" by definition targeted civilians. Freedom fighters would be a civilian force against an oppressive government, would it not?
No, by definition it does not target civilians. But to further MY point, let's assume it does. Freedom fighters aren't necessarily civilians, either, but to further MY point, let's assume they are.
In this hypothetical, I'll even help it hit closer to home for you: the oppression is coming from the liberals, who control the senate, congress, administration, courts, and military. Of course, to get into this situation, about half the country would have to support the liberals controlling the government - that is, half of your fellow citizens. Should you decide to rebel, would it be sufficient to only attack those employed by the government and military? Or do you think you'd also have to attack part of the civilian population in order to realize your goal of changing society and government? Now, define yourself: freedom fighter or terrorist?
Sorry I was away from the computer for awhile. I can't really answer the question because in a democracy we promote change through debate and the ballot box. That's why the system works best, people have a voice. Anyone who attacks the government I would describe as the enemy, not terrorist or freedom fighter. Attacking the government isn't a rational option.
Anti-government, pro-privatization conservatives have been attacking the American government for decades. Are they not enemies by your definition?
I guess I would need examples but if they are physically attacking, then I think yes they are the enemy.
Physically attacking? That hasn't happened since Tim McVeigh.
The attack comes in the form of the dismantling of government oversight of industry, deregulation. The tearing down of OSHA, FEMA and the EPA, each institution an advocate for public safety and health. The results of which have been food poisonings (spinach ecoli), poisoned pet food, mining deaths (absence of meaningful penalties for numerous safety violations), predatory lending to sub prime borrowers, Katrina, Enron etc.
Anti-government conservatives then try to convince us that the market, which serves only its own self interests, not the public's, is superior to democratic government. Give away social security, medicaid/medicare to a market that values profit over people and is in no way accountable to the people! That'll help.
Privatization is exclusive and is strictly pay to play. Democracy is all inclusive and the only price tag is citizenship.
Yep, our public institutions are under attack by anti-government conservatives but since they aren't tossing hand grenades, I guess they aren't really an enemy in strict terms.
I thought a "terrorist" by definition targeted civilians.
That's a common assumption, but I don't see that in the definition...not Webster anyway. Civilians may or may not be a target.
Freedom fighters would be a civilian force against an oppressive government, would it not?
Hmm...a possibility, but not specified in the definition. A possibly confusing example would be the Continental Army? Were they freedom fighters? If so, were they simply civilians?
In any event, your own two definitions are not mutually exclusive.
Was the bombing of the Cole in 2000 a terrorist attack? No civilians there, only military personnel.
See, again, not black and white.
If this country was invaded by a vastly stronger power, I guarantee you that many of our fellow citizens would be engaged in the exact same activities the Iraqi insurgents are engaged in. If we could, I am sure many of us would volunteer to fly a jet into one of the largest buildings in the enemy's home country.
Aw come on Val...you guarantee? Got something to back that opinion up with?
Somehow I would find it hard to imagine that US citizens would strap bombs on and turn into suicide bombers or hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
True we'd take up arms, but what you're suggesting sounds a tad far-fetched. I doubt we'd have people signing up to be kamikaze pilots either...
But hey if you can guarantee...
God sometimes I think this place is turning into a cyber insane asylum.
Oh wait...you're just kidding...you're pulling my leg like Rush does to Liberals.
Good one Val. Whew glad I got the joke... that makes me feel better ;-)
For "guarantee," please read "I strongly believe." We're both guessing, since this nation has never been in a situation even remotely analogous, but I do believe there would be at least some people motivated to sacrifice their lives to strike a blow against the enemy.
If you can't see that, well, we have nothing to talk about. ;-)
...but I do believe there would be at least some people motivated to sacrifice their lives to strike a blow against the enemy. If you can't see that, well, we have nothing to talk about. ;-)
Ah so that's how it is. If I don't see it your way there's nothing to talk about.
I'll have to remember that line next time some Liberal argues with me.
For "guarantee," please read "I strongly believe."
Um, Val they don't mean the same thing. Maybe you should have written "I strongly believe" to begin with?
Can you imagine if I or Tommy, or Bruce etc try to get away with writing "please read" and then attempted to claim "guarantee" and I "strongly believe" to mean the same thing....we'd be laughed off this site.
Jeter, you did see the winky-smiley you copy-pasted, didn't you? I put it there specifically because it's one of your leitmotifs for sarcasm. I was breaking Tommy's balls over his use of that phrase up-thread, but I guess you didn't catch the reference.
My second post was meant to be a clarification of the first. In informal speech I use "I guarantee you..." as an exaggerated way of saying "I really, really believe what I am about to say is right," but I agree that it doesn't scan as text. Of course, neither I nor anyone else can give a guarantee, express or implied, about something that hasn't happened yet.
Sorry Val, guess I read the exchange between you & Tommy so long ago I'd forgotten how it went. But I, of all people should be able to decipher the ole ;-) as sarcasm.
While I agree that no one can guarantee future behavior, I still am rather doubtful that US citizens, even under attack, would resort to suicide bombing or flying planes into buildings. I think it's a cultural thing more than anything else. Just like we didn't emulate the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WWII. It's just not our thing.
Let's hope we never have to find out otherwise.
Jeter, maybe we can get some of the illegal aliens living here to do it (Fly planes into buildings I mean).
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
*sarcasm, *joke* *joke* *not being serious*
*** Warning, the previous statement was said as a complete and total illustration of an absurd scenario. I do not wish any legal or illegal alien ( excuse me, undocumented worker, sorry) any harm whatsoever. I hope they all live long and prosper in the open arms of the United States of America.
That's an irrelevant distinction with regard to my point. "Alive" and "dead" are different and mutually exclusive (unless you're Schrodinger's cat). Hunter and gun-owner are different, but not mutually exclusive. Terrorist and freedom fighter are also different, but not mutually exclusive. The analogy is apt in that context.
I thought it was a good anology. My wife's brother in-law is a hunter, but he only hunts with bows. He owns guns and only uses his shotguns for skeet shooting and his pistols for target practice. Explain that one.
Yep...the Venn diagram applicable to this discussion are two intersecting circles, neither of which is wholly contained in the other. Tommy sees it as two non-intersecting circles, but that view simply isn't supported by the definitions. I.e., Tommy sees "terrorism" as evil but "freedom fighting" as good. I agree with him on the former (at least I can't think of any contrary examples), but see the latter as dependent on the end and the means.
I agree, there is nothing left to say. If you don't already have a preconception that freedom fighters cannot use terrorism to further their cause, then there is no evidence to convince you.
I could definitely be a terrorist. If confronted with superior force by an antagonist, it's likely that I would resort to IED's, random shootings, and any other technique to instill an aura of fear into my enemy. And it beats the hell out of getting blown away by a tank on the first day of the battle...
Then you and I don't agree on the term "terror". Or "freedom fighters, apparently. Even though it was your own definition I agreed with. Please show me where the term terror entered into the freedom fighter's definition? It did not.
Neither was it a term explicity excluded by the definition of freedom fighter.
Terror is a tactic, nothing more, engaged in by armies and insurgents from time immemorial.
We may as well engage in a War on Camouflage...
which is why debate with tommy is useless, he always gets into a snit and throws a tantrum that other people 'just don't get it'. I have seen this in thread after thread he infests.
I guess I can't understand intentionally coming onto a discussion board with a contrarian point of view, then storming away in a huff having provoked a strong debate.
But whatever lights your lamp, I guess...
Oh Val, get over it. How ridiculous. Yes, I am always starting a debate and then running away from it. You know that is absurd. I am just not foolish enough to debate this topic with people who hunt for excuses to rationalize evil acts. My bad.
Oh Val, get over it. How ridiculous. Yes, I am always starting a debate and then running away from it. You know that is absurd.
Val didn't say always.
Well, let's just say - how many times have I been accused of derailing a thread and provoking an argument?.........now when someone else derails this topic from Rush to terrorism, and I bow out - then, I am accused of running away from a debate.
It's all very interesting.
I found the off-topic discussion far more interesting than Rush fracking Limbaugh, but I'm sorry if it upset you.
accused of derailing a thread
I didn't see that Val accused you of that either in this topic.
and provoking an argument?
That's accurate, but alone not a criticism of you. Honest debate can be a good thing. However, provoking a debate, but "walking off" can be annoying and intensify division.
Terrorism — the act of terrorizing; the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, especially such use as a political weapon or policy. (Webster's)
Freedom Fighter — a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
Now... the difference lies on which side of the fence you're going to sit on. I may view Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization, but to some in Afghanistan may see them as freedom fighters, first fighting off the Russians, then us, and now the UN. In the historical context, I see Gen. Nathaneal Greene was a freedom fighter, but I'm sure Gen. Cornwallis thought otherwise. Or a better example, those individuals that participated in the Boston Tea Party may be a better fit for the definitions above.
Per Webster:
Freedom fighter : (noun) a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment
A terrorist would be a person who engages in terrorism, i.e., the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, for which the applicable defintion of terror would be:
Terror : (noun) violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
Of course, in regular use, the terms generally have a positive (in the case of freedom fighter) or negative (in the case of terrorist) connotation. However, the terms are actually not mutually exclusive, but can be flip-sides of the same coin, as implied by the saying. For those who do attribute a connotation to the terms, which side you see depends on your point of view.
You were far more eloquent than I. Thank you.
All this "point of view" stuff. Would you say that from a bank robber's point of view he is perfectly justified because he has no money? Perhaps, but it is still wrong, nonetheless - would you agree? The point of view is irrelevant in this instance, and in your equivocating of freedom fighters vs. terrorists.
Why all the disclaimers? Why is so hard for some of you to say evil is evil? This is what scares many people about liberals, and apparently it's justified with these dangerous and ridiculous "point of view" comments.
The fact is that terrorists, such as the 9/11 terrorists, use fear and intimidation and killing innocent people to achieve their goal. Freedom fighters do not use fear, intimidation and terror to achieve their goal.
But you are entitled to your opinions and points of view. We disagree........and this is really off topic anyway.
Freedom fighters do not use fear, intimidation and terror to achieve their goal.
Guantanamo; Sanctions; Shock and Awe.
A rose by another name...
Nicuragua, Panama just to name two more of ours
The line is not always so clearly drawn. I agree that someone who blows up a busload of children is a terrorist. What about someone who blows up a truckload of armed soldiers? Does it matter what uniforme the soldiers are wearing? Were the Afghanis who killed Soviet soldiers freedom fighters or terrorists?
It can be even less defined. The King David Hotel was the headquarters for the British in the Palestine mandate when the terrorist Stern Group blew it up killing more than 90 people. Now while it was an attack on the British government most of those killed were secretaries and civilian staff. Now there isnt any question that Menachem Begin, and other terrorists of their day. Like Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu who became the leaders of Israel saw themselves as freedom fighters trying to free their homeland. To me terrorists just like the Palestinians who blow up civilians. To MANY freedom fighters bringing a much needed homeland to the Jews. As the original statements said one persons terrorist another persons freedom fighter
Freedom fighters do not use fear, intimidation and terror to achieve their goal.
Ah...that's where you are mistaken. The definition of "freedom fighter" does not mention the methods they use. However, you can't interpret the absence of methods in the definition to preclude the use of those methods.
E.g., going back to the hunter/gun-owner analogy, nowhere in the Webster definition of hunter will you find the mention of guns. However, that doesn't mean hunters cannot use guns.
Why is so hard for some of you to say evil is evil?
Because, Tommy, little in the world is so black-and-white... and the larger you make the frame, the more that is obviously the case. Was what Cho did at Virginia Tech an act of evil. Sure it was. Was Cho himself evil? Well... maybe so and maybe not. Maybe he was mentally ill, which does nothing to mitigate the evil he perpetrated, but would certainly put him on a different level that a John Wayne Gacy.
Now what about the insurgents in Iraq? Is every one of them evil? Is a guy who just wants to defend his family, but shoots back at an American soldier who is mistakenly targeting him as an insurgent, evil? Even though he ends the life of a good kid who is just following orders? Is that Iraqi on the same level as the guy who planted the IED that killed an American soldier in a different part of Baghdad?
What some call "moral clarity," I think of as "moral laziness." And it's fine if some people want to sit on their asses, morally speaking... but it will do little to address some of the complex, incredibly important issues that face us as a nation, and as a species.
Val, Where did I bring up insurgents? I was talking about terrorists. You made that leap, I did not.
The terms are often used interchangeably, but it's fine. Pick a "terror" group, say Hamas. Is the guy who blows himself up at an Israeli checkpoint in Tulkarem morally equal to a guy who blows himself up at a pizzeria in Haifa?
It's not that far of a leap. In fact one defintion of Freedom Fighter refers to insurgent. Again, it's the whole I-label-you-you-label-me talk.
Amen brother (or sister), Amen.
"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people." — Terry Pratchett
Totally unbelievable!!!! How can you for one minute defend anyone who attacks one of our soldiers? Unbelievable!!!!!!!
Tommy,
I would love for you to imagine our country invaded by China (just an example), our leaders murdered, our electricity and water supplies bombed, our military executed and their bodies strewn about the streets all willy-nilly. Walls erected, detention centers without trial (enemy combatants), Chinese guards roaming our streets in tanks. They can't speak the language so you can't communicate with them.
You obviously wouldn't fight because that would be "terrorism" right?
I only point out this example because you seem to be unable to "put the shoe on the other foot" i.e. imagine yourself Irish, Palestinian, Iraqi, etc
If that happened what Americans would do to the invaders make the Iraqis look like Ghandian pacifists.
Tommy, I don't have any problem saying something is evil. How about invading a country who didn't threaten us and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 3300 American soldiers. We had no business going into that country and creating a situation that has resulted in a civil war. And millions of Iraqis are displaced, unemployed, depserate and there will be a whole generation of kids who didn't get educated. We have opened up a huge Pandoras box with extreme consequences not just for the middle east, but the whole world.
I also call it evil when our soldiers return home and can't get the medical care they need and are often times redeployed when they have physical and mental problems. I call it evil when good people like you defend the war criminals and let them get away with all the evil they have wrought in this and other countries.
Evil sustains when good people do nothing. YOU and Rush are part of the problem. Not to say Rush is good, but I beleive you are.
,
Julia, I agree with your post - except the "defending the war criminal" part - I have no idea what you are referring too? But if it's Bush, I do not defend his handling of any of this.......in fact, I hold him 100% accountable and have said so many times.
Thank you for recognizing evil, it exists in many forms.
Hey T, thanks for the pat on the head. But think about evil really carefully when you defend people who lie and spew hate on the national airwaves on a daily basis. If you can defend this, then you are part of the problem.
Even though it was rather heavy-handed, I thought the movie "V for Vendetta" made some interesting points regarding this. V was both a terrorist and a freedom fighter... and I see no reason to make the terms mutually exclusive.
But if you're talking about today's real-world terrorists, I find it hard to define any of them as freedom fighters.
The link you provided only proves my point. It's so short it's almost like the reporter was challenging himself to use as few words as possibble.
Why isn't the word "terrorist" used? Clearly it's a politically motived terrroist attack. Clearly there are Christian Terrorist groups in this country actively sending threats through the mail and planting bombs.
I also want to point out the bias of the MSM to label these places "Abortion Clinics". When I was in college and had no insurance I got my birth control and pap smears done at Planned Parenthood. It is clear the MSM uses the term "Abortion Clinic" to imply there is no one there not involved in abortions.
You are correct in your indictment of Corporate Media's presentation of the issue. Insofar as the brevity of the article cited, a somewhat more developed story was afforded a link (MSNBC) by another poster.
I am sorry I posted the above response to conleytgwinn's link posted way earlier.
That's okay. I've completely forgotten what the MMfA article that got this started was about...
Thank you, if I ever find him/her, so help me................
I went to Planned parenthood for the same reaqsons. To get check ups, pap smears and other things. It was what I could afford at the time. Many young/poor women still need these places for their affordibility.
I'm still waiting for RUsh Limbaugh (aka "Jeff Christie") to tell his dittohead listeners the truth about his arrest in Pittsburgh in the '70s in the company of a male prostitute.
Since I'm sure either Rush or someone in his organization is reading these posts on MMFA, I will continue to post this in every Limbaugh thread until he does.
It would be helpful, maybe, if you included a link to any supporting documentaion you have. One of his braindead listeners might accidently click the link and read.
The stories one can find on the arrest of "Jeff Christie" are second hand, rumors mostly. The Smoking Gun doesn't even have anything. Too bad. Would have made for a stimulating topic for awhile.
Of course, by our current administrations standards, the lack of evidence is in itself evidence of a cover-up....
Why is Rush refusing to release his arrest records in Pittsburgh? What is he hiding?
Me too! (How's that for schoolyard argument?)
I acknowledge the aka is valid, but could not find (in limited investigation) documentation of the arrest/detention. Help would be appreciated, since I just love knowing the dirt on the "holier-than-thou"s.
Speaking of bait...
Rush, master baiter that he is, proved that MMFA has gotten his attention by actually saying "Media Matters" out loud on the air. Now that he's taken the bait, it's time to set the hook - hard.
On the other hand, BO will not say the name "Olbermann" or even let a caller or guest speak the name into one of his microphones.
The day BO says "Olbermann" out loud on the air will be the day his giant head finally explodes.
Can't wait.
This is all a symbiotic relationship. Face it, when Rush disappears from the threads for a few weeks you all start going into withdrawal mode waiting for him to say something stupid again so the insults can come flying.
Not me. I consider it a good week (or month) if I didn't feel compelled to respond to what the puppets are yammering about.
I would much rather read and spend time disecting the content of the network news (what stories are covered, time devoted to stories, different view points offered, etc.) than Rushes, O'Reillys and Coulters.
They reduce constructive and effective dialog to mere playground taunts.
Back and forth go Rush and MMFA - they feed off of one another, you're so right. The "fat, oxycontin, drug addict" jokes get backed up and need a periodic release.
I think you're confusing the posters to the website than the actual postings by MMFA.
Fans can be vicious, nasty bastards. (That's my opinion not MMFA).
I may be wrong, but I've never seen (or read) a MMFA story that uses those exact words to describe Rush.
I was not referring to MMFA threads on Rush, they never use such language. I was agreeing with Bruce on the conduct of the poster's language.
Of which always gets your undies in a bunch, as if liberals and progressives are the only ones capable of such online behavoir. As I've said before, you really need to start your own blog so that you can take anonymous online liberals to task for their insensitive behavior, because waging your crusade for the Tommy brand of decency here is a futile effort.
You might have, but the post you responded to didn't make that distinction, but you didn't say otherwise, until now.
The description was of the Rush-MMFA relationship, not the Rush-MMFA posters relationship. To me there's a difference, and I would like to think that others think there is a difference as well.
QFT.
I've never seen MMFA call anyone a 'liar'. I've never seen them refer to anyone using insults or slurs. Every post I've seen has been of a civilized tone.
"waiting for him to say something stupid again so the insults can come flying."
Yeah, we want and really, really desire Limbaugh to say things like a it's a "fact" that a mass-murderer must be a liberal --solely so that we can just have an excuse to insult him.
Brilliant.
Not much projection there....
It couldn't possibly, possibly be for the reason that what Limbaugh says isn't true. Can't be that we simply respect truth. Can't be accountability. Couldn't be because we hold broadcasters to a certain standard. Couldn't be that he's using a horrendous event to score political points on behalf of Republicans.
No, just like policemen want more crime because they enjoy arresting people, we want more lies and insults thrown our way. Right.
Apparently there is only one way to convince certain right-wingers of the fact that us progressives are interested in accountability and truth, and not solely and exclusively in "insulting" Rush Limbaugh. We must cease and desist writing anything that even vaguely "insults" Mr. Limbaugh. We must do this even in the face of him saying the most demeaning, hate-filled things like "Cho must be a liberal...it's a fact". We must show Mr. Limbaugh the utmost respect, because, you know, he shows so much respect to us.
And of course there's the example Limbaugh sets for us. Rush would never, ever go looking around for "stupid" things a liberal says, just so that he can "insult" liberals on his show.
Dave- You're not a name-caller and I respect that. Others around here are, they like to point out Rushs flaws because they see the hypocrisy in his words v his actions. Rush is a hypocrite, he has not lived the life he preaches should be lived. Few of us do. Fair enough, I've said it before people are welcome to take their shots at him because he takes plenty himself.
Reading his comments, I didn't get that he ever said it was "fact" that Cho was a liberal. The way I read it was he was stating it as "fact" that the drive by media would accuse him of attacking liberalism by comparing Cho to liberals. Perhaps I am misinterpreting or am not reading the part you were taking the quote from.
I said on another thread that I don't think Limbaugh should have used this instance to dig at liberals because the whole thing was so tragic. There are plenty of other events that take place in the world where he can make his arguments and analogies on why he thinks liberals are wrong about everything, or whatever he claims on the given day.
"This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out."
<> This is the quote from his original rant on this topic. He did state it as fact. Of course, his apologists say he was just kidding. I don't buy it.Limbaugh: "I was making a joke..."
Right on cue, there it is. Again. Confronted with their very own, damning, inexcusable words, the right-winger always, always then, afterwards cops the plea that they were "joking".
Of course, at the time they make the damning, inexcusable statement, what they're saying is a "fact"--not a joke. (Limbaugh: 'I'm just pointing out a fact [Cho] had to be a liberal').
In this case, Limbaugh adds the laughable, infantile Pee Wee Herman-ish 'I meant to do that' (bait Media Matters) defense.
The really pathetic 'fact' is that millions of blinder-wearing morons listen to this clown and buy-into his excuses.
If Rush now feels it’s necessary to use his airtime to make excuses when he does something stupid like branding Cho a liberal because he hates rich kids, even jokingly, then I think MMFA is having its desired effect.
Exactly, Pete.The most entertaining part of this is watching Rush nervously flip=flop between "I'm just stating facts" and "I'm just joking", then seeing the dittoheads posting here, about equally divided between those pointing out how stoopid liberals are for not seeing the accuracy of Rush's views, and those pointing out how stoopid liberals are for not understanding that Rush is doing satire.
They've been listening to this crap for so long, they don't even know what they think anymore.
Luckily for them, they don't have to think. They have Rush and the rest of the ilk to do it for them.
How many times is Limbaugh going to keep going back to this well? He made some asinine remarks, then backpeddled and made even more asinine remarks. I mean, where does it end? You would think that Limbaugh would get tired of embarrassing himself by now.
Well, it's hard to get embarassed when you're paid $500 a minute to tell lies.
Today, Rush, the man who jokes about mass murder, schools us in humor.
Next Monday, the man who couldn't fight in his generation's war because he had a pimple on his butt, schools us in manliness.
On Tuesday, the man who's a serial divorcer schools us in fidelity.
On Wednesday, the doctor-shopper schools us in ethics.
On Thursday, it's manliness again, as the pain-killer addict schools us in taking it like a man.
Then it's rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.
Holly, what about Friday? Ha. Maybe he can school us in not bearing false winess while purveying his usual lies.
bearing false witness. Sheesh.
false wines(s) are such horrible tasting drinks.
JuliaJayne, "bearing false winess" is such an interesting typo. Rush seems to have won, since he's rich, but in accruing personal wealth, he's supported a party that has impoverished our nation. So, he won as an individual, but we've lost as a nation in part to his part. Thus, "false winess" is apt.
HOLLY:
I look at it differently. Rush may have piles of money, but as a HUMAN BEING he is dysfunctional and a total wash-out. He is unlikeable and nobody can bear to live with him. He even abuses the people PAID to be with him (the maid) by making her participate in illegal drug buys.
His "job" has him sitting alone in a booth, deaf as a post.
There is NOTHING about Limbaugh's existence to "envy". As the Beatles once sagely pointed out, "Money can't buy me love." Limbaugh is both unloved and unlovable. He is an object only for pity; His self-loathing is palpable.
Sorry, but I just don't buy the "Rush is a Comedian" excuse. He often retreats to this fiction when someone dares to call him on his asinine comments, but I really don't think that many in his regular audience consider him "just a comedian". Jon Stewart is a comedian. Dennis Miller is a comedian. Is Sean Hannity a comedian? Glenn Beck?
I've listened to his show for 16 years now, off and on. He has always presented himself as a political commentator and "truth detector". Yes, he does some things tongue in cheek, but the undercurrent of his constant dishonesty is very serious. If you don't think so, then you don't know many Rush listeners.
He's not doing comedy.
ESPECIALLY when he IS doing comedy, he's not doing comedy...
And I've heard some bad parody singers in my time, but that guy he has doing his parody songs...phew.
I guess Bob Rivers would have cost Rush too much?
Rush plays Media Matters like a stradivarius.
He's holding the dog biscuit up and asking media matters to beg.
Too funny.
Yep. And he sticks his butt into the face of his audience and says "kiss this"...and they happily comply.
You trolls eat up trolling, don't you?
And the MMFA watchdog keeps ignoring the biscuit and biting Rush in the hindquarters.
And despite his getting bested by MMFA time and again, you continue to cheer for rush.
Now that is too funny.
---"Rush plays Media Matters like a stradivarius."---
Did you know that Media Matters posts these items solely to attract right-wing, liberal-bashers like you? So how does it feel to be duped, fiddled-with and strung-along like a violin?
Yes, they post his comments for posterity. That's what the site is about. And we all know that he expressed his honest opinion, whether it was a joke or not.
No Rush plays YOU like a KAZOO. He tells you what to think then inspires you to come to places like this and spew the stupidity like a fire hydrant.
So let me get this straight, Limpballs: You say something not because you believe it, but because you're looking for a response.
You're a meatspace troll. Glad to see you admit it, Flush.
Wow. What a wanker.
And can we please point out that JOKING about the shootings is not acceptable behavior EITHER?
Sure it is - just so long as the "joke" is at the expense of LIB-RULZ.
Where do you want to come with this, Pig Man?
Do you want to say "I'm going to rape your son/daughter", and expect us not to react? Forget about it, Rush. If you don't want us "to be baited" you better shut the f-ck up.
Sissy.
Rush doesn't have the courage to accept responsibility for his utterly heartless comments.
Rush is trying a very transparent tactic here. He is telling MMFA that whenever they show one of his racist or just plain stupid statements he will claim he was baiting them. The attempt is to put him beyond the reach of the light they are shining on his churlish behavior. I have to think the only reason he is even trying this weak strategy is that MMFA is getting to him. Most likely only an annoyance but to massive egos such as his NO ONE gets away with criticising him. Its sad and it wont work. Just keep trying the it was a joke and I was baiting you idiocy. No one with any sense will take it seriously
What difference does it make why Limbaugh says the venomous things he does? Whether he's "only joking" or "baiting" Media Matters and "the drive-by media," he's still spewing toxic garbage and needs to be called on it.
Limbaugh and Rosie are so different! For example. Limbaugh NEVER complains about the flavor of his dog biscuits, he eats whatever kind they hand him.
I'm still waiting for Ann Coulter to finally come on Fox News and announce, "Ha, Ha. Fooled everyone! I was just joking all of these years. You all fell for it!"
Dittoclones are hands down the stupidest people on the face of the earth. bimbaugh proves it everytime that he opens up his mouth.
RUSH SOUNDS WORRIED...
I would not be surprised if Rush has received a number of e-mails from listeners expressing disappointment in his "VT shooter is a liberal" comments. I would also not be surprised if his sponsors have expressed some "concerns". Remember, Rush is operating in the post-Imus media world. Of course he's attacking MMFA and making lame excuses... he's worried that he's got a bullseye painted on his back. Not just by liberals, either... sponsors have proven to be fickle.
He must not remember what he said. I've heard he switched to Vicodin and the stuff's still settling in.
"[Y]ou're going to have to learn not to be baited when I'm baiting you, because you end up illustrating and proving exactly what I'm saying."
Actually Rush you may be the one who has to learn not to be baited when we are baiting you. After all you get several hours of taxpayer owned bandwidth every day to make your points and convince everyone (not just your adoring retinue of dittoheads) of the validity of your arguments. It is not our fault that you have failed. Have you ever considered that the reason that you have critics is that your unsubstantiated opinions are pretty much worthless in the marketplace of ideas? Probably not. As Tommy notes (regarding MMFA)--giving us too much attention may just be making our influence stronger than it is. A piece of advice--if you can't stand our responses to your daily emmissions of verbal flatulence just ignore us, or better yet start engaging in meaningful debate with your opponents on the air. Or does you pilonidal cyst keep you from doing that too.
It should be noted that just prior to this nonsense, Rusty reported that Sheryl Crow was insisting that her toilet paper comment was a joke. Which, BTW, it clearly was and which, BTW, had previously been reported as such.
Rusty, however, would have none of it. He smugly asserted that she was covering her rump. Without access to the day's transcript, I can only proffer that which is predominantly posted on his website:
So it looks like Rusty got punk'd himself. Or perhaps 'twas another joke on his part: "I said that I didn't believe she was joking, but I was joking." But then, maybe Sheryl was joking about joking.
Ah, the mechanics of mobius humor. Takes me back to my halcyon days...
Zamfir? Isn't that the guy who plays the panflute? You know. That instrument where you place your lips on a row of tubular objects and blow.