Graphic on Limbaugh's website identified bin Laden as a Democrat
A graphic on the front page of radio host Rush Limbaugh's website depicted a screen shot of C-SPAN's Washington Journal doctored to show Osama bin Laden appearing as a guest identified as "Mr. Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan."
The graphic, which was featured prominently on the website on July 25 and 26, linked to a transcript of a segment from Limbaugh's July 25 show, titled "Democrats Flip Wigs Over President Bush's Al-Qaeda in Iraq Speech." During that segment, Limbaugh said, "'Mr. bin Laden's group' is how The New York Times refers to Al Qaeda! Why don't they just say, 'Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan'? 'Mr. bin Laden's group'? Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan. Democrat, Afghanistan." The graphic of bin Laden also accompanies this portion of the online transcript.
As Media Matters for America has documented, a sidebar on the conservative website Townhall.com on April 17 featured a cartoon of a bearded man with a rifle -- presumably bin Laden -- wearing a button that reads "Obama 2008."
From the July 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you something else. This is absolutely hilarious. "Mr. Bin Laden's group" is how The New York Times refers to Al Qaeda. Why don't they just say, "Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan"? "Mr. bin Laden's group"? Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan. Democrat, Afghanistan. It's like Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat-Louisiana.
Typical Limbaugh. A real surprise here. Like anyone takes this serious, or as anything more than a partisan sniping comedic ripping of Democrats by Rush.
sure, just like when rush said that democratic senate leader tom daschle and the democrats were hoping for another 9-11 type attack so they could benefit politically. real knee-slapper.
Exactly. It's not humor. It's mean-spirited and meant to mirror the distorted picture that his followers already have.
It's like someone surreptitiously drawing a fake moustache on a picture of their enemy, and then trying to make a joke that their enemy has a lousy looking moustache. Their enemy doesn't have any moustache at all.
Sue,
Humor escapes you, we understand that. Now grow a moustache and be done with it.
humor apparently escapes you. because you fail to see the difference.
Paranoia haunts you.
I know a joke when I see it.
You're the one who missed the humor in Clam Casino's post yesterday, and you're the one who sees humor here where there is none.
It's not me with the out of kilter funny bone! I know a joke when I see it. You're the joke.
It is a curious thing that people use the "it's a joke" as a way to remove themselves from responsibility for some of the most heinous assertions made. This is a rhetorical move, it allows the speaker to state the most vile thing possible, and then skirt responsibility for it by claiming it a "mere joke" to those who are offended. To those who are not offended, they know it was no joke in the first place. It is a tired rhetorical move. There have been a number of sociolinguists who have looked at the rhetorical use of the "joke" frame to make racist and sexist comments, all under the cloak of "humor."
I do not buy your, "it's only a joke" line. You are either being patently dishonest or you are naive.
Tommy, naive?
Never.
Guess that only leaves one choice.
bin laden is a republican. He hates America and the troops as he wants to kill them. The only problem is bush is killing our troops and by the time bin laden gets serious, there will be few left. bush is destroying America from the inside so bin laden my have nothing to work with there. I think bin laden and bush are the same people as I have never seen them together, have you? limpbaaaaa is a digusting drug addict. His gutteral utterances are meaningless and only a fool would listen to him. He is a charlatan cretin
I doubt BinLaden is a Republican, however he is certainly a conservative. Living proof of what classical conservatism does to people.
As I've stated many times, when you take a look at the wars throughout the last 200+ years they have generally been started by conservative leaders--including the present Iraq war. The progressive countries (the U.S., England, etc.) generally win. Let's hope that once again Liberalism wins.
Of course bin Laden is a Republican. After all, his brother was meeting with Poppy Bush at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on 9/11 as the planes crashed. And while all flights were grounded in the days after 9/11, Pretzelboy Bush allowed members of his family to be flown out this country on a private plane so they conld not be questioned.
Osama bin Laden is a Republican, all right.
This is not okay, nor is it not important.
If you don't think it's important, then just shut your piehole.
It is important for MMfA to highlight behavior like this. They have to keep pointing out this behavior. For too long those on the left kept silent, and we see the results in the government we have today and the morass we are in.
Your posts are alarmingly familiar.......hmm? If I didn't know better, I would think you are.......
SUE!!! (again)
Lots of people have made fun of you over the last few days over your insistence on posting these "why are they here" posts.
Sometimes paranoid people actually have stalkers. Most of the time they imagine it. It's clear where you stand. You think that Clams Casino is stalking you too. How many other stalkers do you imagine you have? Do you see them outside your bedroom window at night? Do you imagine they're waiting in the back seat of your car when you leave your troll workplace?
Sue, Your nastiness always gets you banned, it's only a matter of time, for the umpteenth time.
Watch your mouth and your fingers, they tend to get you in a heap of trouble.
Paranoia haunts you. That and delusions too, because I haven't been nasty to you or anyone else.
Good Catch Tommy, I did not realize that Sue/Ellie/Notthatgeorge is back again. Lets see if "Numbskull" and "sockpuppet" are used again.
I fear she is.......but I think she's smartened up a little and won't use those words unless she slips. Those words were the reason NotthatGeorge was discovered.....now she's using "piehole".
But she can't escape that Sue-temper.......she isn't that controlled.
That makes 6 straight hours of Tommy on the MMFA message board....again.
Remember: most of MMFA stories are "unnecessary", according to the live-in troll.
That makes 6 straight hours of Tommy on the MMFA message board....again.
And you sat here & kept track?
What does that make you Gannon?
A stalker or just a loser?
How about just observant?
Remember, Jeter, it is the FRAMING of the question that makes a poll credible - and you need greater care in the selection of your choices.
How about just observant?
Conley,
Observant is noticing someone is around a lot. Knowing exactly how long they've been here requires actually keeping track of a person's coming & goings.
A lot of posters are here on & off all day, myself included. I mostly post from work whenever I have a few minutes. Occasionally I post in the evening or on weekends from home.
Why Gannon should even care when, or for how long any poster is here is IMO, odd.
Instead of keeping precise records about the length of time Tommy or anyone spends here, why not just debunk his opinions...if you can.
Thanks J,
Worrying or even caring how much time or how many posts someone does here is a little pitiful, I agree. Which is why Gannon's posts leave me with a "meh" indifference.
I believe your description of him in an earlier post was dead on.
And virtually all of Tommy's posts are also unnecessary.
More paranoia and delusions on display.
People use the same word as someone else and it means their the same poster pretending to be anyone else?
That's a pretty sick delusion. Rather than spending 6 straight hours on this site, maybe you should consider getting help for that paranoia and those delusions. Maybe then you wouldn't see humor, banned posters and stalkers where none exist.
Welcome back Sue/Ellie/Notthatgeorge. I hope you behave this time.
Well, well, well.
You know for a fleeting moment yesterday [on the Colbert thread] after reading one of NoMoBush's post I thought....that sounds rather Sueish.
But I figured it might take me a few more of NoMo's posts to get a really good read on this.
But I do believe you've nailed it Tommy.
Let's face it, Sue will always be with us, in one form or another...
I can't blame her for returning, we're all hooked. This is the best of the forums around, IMO. I've tried out a few others, but always come back to this one.
Like the Eagles once sang:
You can check out anytime you'd like
But you can never leave
Typical Limbaugh. A real surprise here. Like anyone takes this serious, or as anything more than a partisan sniping comedic ripping of Democrats by Rush. Tommy
Tommy, I, while not agreeing with you a lot of the time have always respected you and your willingness to debate topics here.
You want to trivialize Rush and pretend that it’s only a few people who listen to his drivel while aware, I’m sure, of many in the MSM who repeat Rush’s bull. A lie repeated enough times can be perceived as the truth which is why you stop the lie.
Pearlene,
Olbermann is the one who labels Limbaugh a comedian. I was just agreeing with him and giving my take on how seriously comedians should be taken. Which is not much.
You can disagree with Olbermann, but I think he aptly described Limbaugh to a T.
I agree Tommy:
this is just a bunch of satire. No different from anything Bill Maher does.
Since Bin Laden isn't a U.S. Citizen, he clearly cannot be a member of the Democratic party. So this is a perfect example of conservative misinformation. I hope people aren't overly confused by this obvious and blatant falsehood.
I don't know Bruce,
You know those ditto heads all have such low IQ's they might really think Bin Laden is a Democrat, and they'll tell their friends, and their friends will tell their friends...
This could confuse at least 50% of all Americans.
Jeter,
don't you mean at most 50% of americans?
Personally, I think it will only confuse 30% of americans, the ones who are terminally confused all the time.
And Rush? This is war. You've gone too far, you fat jerk.
Of course, the point isn't that anyone seriously thinks that Bin Laden is a Democrat. It's a way of insinuating that Democrats are terrorists. It's more of the same from Conservatives. If you disagree with them, then you must be with the terrorists.
Marv,
Bruce & I were obviously being sarcastic.
I don't think Rush is insinuating Democrats are Terrorists, maybe just Terrorist appeasers. Yeah I know, not much better...
It's not really all that much different then the way some like to throw around the Nazi label whenever referring to Republicans, or more specifically the Bush administration. I don't think anyone actually thinks Bush is a Nazi....
Of course O'Reilly & Savage have attempted to identify Democrats/Liberals as Nazis, which is silly, everyone knows Liberals are pinko Commies ;-)
Is this graphic funny? Nah. It's lame. But it's also nothing to get in a tizzy over the way a few have here.
What Rush is doing is reinforcing a message about Democrats.
His listeners have a low opinion of Democrats, and this is another way to continue the demeaning comments and behavior.
It's not innocuous. It has a purpose, and the purpose is not to be a joke. Separate from the fact that it's not humorous, it's not put out there as a joke. That's the excuse Tommy et al try to put out there, but it's not true.
If Bin Laden were to belong to a mainstream political party in the US it would be the Republican Party. He's a conservative who doesn't want foreigners on his people's lands. He wants religion to hold sway over a nation's leaders and he wants to use religious morals to run that country. He doesn't mind violating laws to get what he wants. That's a man made in the mold of George Bush, the leader of the Republican Party in the US.
This has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative political ideology.
Limbaugh is playing to his audience. An audience that truly believes that Democrats are weak on defense & in fighting terrorism, and in some cases appeasers of the Islamic jihadist movement. That's what this graphic is obviously meant to depict.
Level-headed, reasonable folks [and believe it, or not this does include Republicans] know this is just part of the far-Right's [neocon] banter. Or propaganda if you'd like. Rush, Hannity & others carry this message to their followers.
But those that buy into it are not mainstream voters. And this graphic is not likely to convince anyone, other than those already believe it, that Democrats are somehow traitors or appeasers.
BTW, your suggestion that bin Laden would be a Republican is as ridiculous, irresponsible & irrational as you are accusing Limbaugh of being.
Do you even realize how silly it sounds for you to berate Limbaugh's behavior, then turn around & mimic it?
Like I said, the purpose of this was to reinforce the distorted picture of Democrats that Rush Limbaugh's audience has. I don't know why you started out your post with that message about liberal or conservative philosophy. My point was that Bin Laden would belong to the Republican Party, as his actions and philosophy are much more similar to the right than to the left. The picture that Rush and others have painted is not realistic.
Oh, and BTW, I did not mimic Rush's behavior.
Rush mocked Democrats with an unfair comparison to Bin Laden.
I did not attempt to mock Republicans with the comparison. I was pointing out that Bin Laden bears a much closer similarity to those on the right than those on the left.
I was debunking Tommy et al's comments that this is just a joke and inconsequential. I was not trying to berate Rush for his behavior.
I did a good job of debunking your false statements, though, and when I did that, I guess I hurt your feelings. That made you lash out at me. Sticks and stones can break my bones but your names will never hurt me.
Do you realize how silly you look trying to tell me I'm not being fair when you are the one who has lost touch with reality?
If Bin Laden were to belong to a mainstream political party in the US it would be the Republican Party.
Writing something like that really does make you no better than Limbaugh. Funny how you can't see that.
But using your logic here I guess you'd also say that if Stalin were to have belonged to a mainstream political party in the US it would have been the Democratic Party. The same could be said Chavez & Castro today.
Of course just like you often need to have humor explained to you, it appears insults, Rush-style, also escape you or go right over your head.
Limbaugh is not suggesting bin Laden is a Democrat in the sense that you seem to think.
He's not suggesting Osama is in favor of Universal Health[socialized medicine] care for instance.
What this graphic means is simply that Rush thinks Democrats are soft on defense, security, & that they appease terrorists. He's poking fun at them because the NY Times referred to Al-Qaeda as 'Mr. bin Laden's group'. Limbaugh thinks of the NY Times as Liberal & Democratic Party friendly.
Therefore it's bin Laden, Democrat from Afghanistan. Do you get it yet?
Other posters were even having fun with this further on in this thread, assigning an R or D to their favorite villains or heroes.
But not you. You obviously lack a sense of humor.
So let's move on...
He's a conservative who doesn't want foreigners on his people's lands.
A ridiculous statement. Americans, both Conservatives & Liberals welcome foreigners aka immigrants...as long as they come here LEGALLY. For you to imply otherwise makes you a liar. [BTW Bush R fought for that Immigration Bill incase you've forgotten]
He wants religion to hold sway over a nation's leaders and he wants to use religious morals to run that country
Another foolish statement. Most of our leaders be they Republican or Democrat have been people of faith. Morals naturally came from religion. Even a moron knows that. But morals are not exclusive to being religious or to one party. Unless you're saying Democrat/Liberals are immoral?
He doesn't mind violating laws to get what he wants.
You are condemning the entire Republican party because of George Bush? Well your narrow minded thinking doesn't shock me. It's always been one of your trademarks.
Perhaps you better read up on bin Laden, Islam & Al-Qaeda, then get back to us.
I did a good job of debunking your false statements, though, and when I did that, I guess I hurt your feelings. That made you lash out at me. Sticks and stones can break my bones but your names will never hurt me.
Actually you debunked nada. But it's always been your M.O. here to applaud yourself even when you're dead wrong.. and your above statement is so typically *Sue*, that if I had any doubts that you [like a bad penny] had returned, I don't anymore.
And you think I lashed out at you? How so? By disagreeing with you? By pointing out where you were wrong? Me thinks you need a thicker skin Miz Susie-Q....
Let's see if NoMoBush will have a longer shelf life than Sue, Ellie717, & NotThatGeorge did ;-)
<b> Since Bin Laden isn't a U.S. Citizen, he clearly cannot be a member of the Democratic party. </b>
Bruce:
Maybe he's a member of the Democrat Party. We have been told here many times that there is no Democrat Party in the US, but maybe there is in Afganistan.
There is no Democrat party ANYWHERE just a Demcratic party and a ReNAMBLAcan party
Look at this in the context, its comedy, just like Comedy Central and just like Keith Olbermann. Comedy.
Casey,
Repeat after me: Only Democrats/Liberals know what's funny.
And they'll tell us when we can laugh ;-)
You are correct Jeter. Only liberals know whats funny. Can you name me any funny conservatives? Please don't say Dennis Miller.
Jeter.
OK, any funny conservatives that are employed as commedians...
If Jeter is employed as a comedian, I rest my case.
"Can you name me any funny conservatives"
Limbaugh is. Your hero Keith Olbermann even calls him "comedian" Rush Limbaugh.
Even YOU must hear the sarcasm in his voice when KO refers to "comedian" Rush Limbaugh.
satire is based on reality...
Telling your audience that a political party of United States are all traitors is hardly funny.
Go to FrontPage Magazine, their lame humor and warped sensibilities are right up your alley.
I usually do not have a problem with humor but I have a hard time seeing the humor in calling a man responsible for killing 3000 Americans on 9.11 a Democrat. Members of the Democratic Party are not responsible for 9/11. Rush should be ashamed of himself, however this man has no shame. Most Drug Addicts are selfish and only think of themselves. Rush fits into that category.
Limboob is a fool.
He's just riding out the end of his career. Sadly, he's become little more than a drug-addled buffoon.
It took all of 4 posts to get the drug addict mention. Slipping fellas.......
We were trying to avoid being redundant for your benefit.
You don't like redundancy and repitition. So we were avoiding it.
Being redundant, I mean.
"repitition"?
Sorry, Tommy. "rep 'E' tition", of course. I meant to type "repetition", but typed "rep 'I' tition" by mistake. I didn't mean to type "rep 'I' tition".
Tommy, the guy who spams the same message dozens of times per topic, doesn't like redundancy or repetition? Tommy thinks that repeating himself over and over actually strengthens his argument.
He's just riding out the end of his career
;)
Limbaugh is as funny as Tommyboy is factual, remember Tom (plageri.......)
He's just riding out the end of his career
You wish ;-)
Really. And if a Democrat gets the WH in 2008, he will become more popular than ever - just like his meteoric rise during Clinton's term.
Be careful what you wish for........
Actually, with all due respect, his meteoric rise came during Bush I, when he went from being a Sacramento nincompoop to a nationally syndicated drug-using sexually-dysfunctional half-witted fat prevaricating republican water-carrier. (his description by words and deeds, not mine).
No, his popularity and increased relevance were a direct result of Clinton and his daily obsessions with him and his presidency.
Since Bush II took office, he is struggling to get some of that back.
Doesn't really matter. I just wanted to get in the "drug-using sexually-dysfunctional half-witted fat prevaricating republican water-carrier."
You forgot 'bigoted, draft-dodging, womanizing, child molestor.'
You forgot baby eater and baby kitten killer. You might as well add two more ridiculously hateful insults.
RH,
How many wives has Rush had?
How many tours did he spend in Vietnam?
How many times has he singled out minorities?
Why did he have someone else's Viagra in one of the biggest sex trade countries in the world?
RH,
I am not one for insults, but I can guarantee if Rush was a liberal, you would be critiquing those same qualities.
"am not one for insults, but I can guarantee if Rush was a liberal, you would be critiquing those same qualities"
Maybe, but I wouldn't use the same kind of hateful rhetoric that many on here use. I don't throw out those kind of personal insults at Democratic politicians or commentators. It definitely isn't good that Rush has had three wives or had the Viagra with him on that occasion, but I'm not going to personally insult him for making a few mistakes. We all make mistakes in life, and we try to own up to them and move on.
Please try to remember that when you group democrats into one large group the next time.
I criticize the Democrats for their ideology, but I don't attack them personally. That's a big difference. I leave the personal stuff out of it. Ideology is fair game. It's what we're supposed to be focusing on.
But you stereotype and generalize instead of discussing what is in the post you start with "Democrats want this" or "Democrats think this" many times your points are overgeneralized.
Your attempt at pretending that puts you on the high moral ground is ludicrous. Insulting a few million people with your BS is not morally superior to insulting one person directly. Only your astonishing capacity for self delusion and your WISHING it were true allows you to believe it does.
You shouldn't be insulted by someone criticizing your ideology. If you really have strong beliefs than it shouldn't even phase you. Ideology should be debated and the personal stuff should be left out of it. For example, the poster Tex bashes the conservative ideology on a regular basis, but at the same time he usually stays away from personal attacks, at least from what I've seen. I'm not offended when he calls conservatives anti-worker or anti-poor or whatever else. He's simply criticizing my ideology and not me personally. That's the way that it should be.
How about Pervez Musharaff, R-Pakistan? Bush is giving the General more than 1 billion dollars a year to ignore Waziristan. Imagine if a Clinton was in the White House? Michelle Malkin and Michael Yon would be hammering the President for aiding and abetting, literally, THE ENEMY of the US. They would be arguing for tactical nuclear strikes on the whole of Waziristan. I wonder if O'Leilly will be outraged that Mr Limbaugh is trafficking hate on his website? I believe identifying the mastermind behind the deaths of 3,000 Americans as a memeber of the Democratic Party is a bit more serious offense than a picture of Bush with a goat. At least they didn't put the picture of him reading "My Pet Goat" 7 minutes after he was told "America is under attack", now that would be really embarrasing.
Joseph Goebbels
R - Germany
( )
O O
V
SATAN R- Hell
Putin (R), Russia
Kim Jong Ill (R), North Korea
HBL - YOU THE MAN!
Maybe it's the Friday, I don't know. But I didn't see Satan in your graphic at first glance.
I was thinking "okay, she's got a boufant hairdo, and....is that a coconut bra?"
I think you're just horny, Neon. The V was supposed to be a goatee. What do you see there?
I thought she was reading a book?
Beach,
I thought it was a self-portrait ;-)
I love it. It's an excellent example of how lame Limbaugh is. His followers were probably rolling in the aisles...
You're right, they probably were. And it should get the same reaction from Democrats for it's a silly harmless joke, but not for some here.
Harumph!!.....how dare he!
Tommy
R - Red China
This is fun!
Saddam Hussein - Reagan Republican, formerly from Iraq.
Joe Libermann R- Connecticut
Fidel Castro D-Cuba
Timothy McViegh R Ok
Ted Bundy R Utah
Pol Pot R Cambodia.
God R Heaven
WOW!!!!! I would hope God is above either party.....
Yeah, I was just joking. I just wanted to see what kind of response I would get.
Well played, but I know you secretly believe it ;)
Jesus
D - The World
Please increase your medication.
See how much fun you guys are having with this...
So why get all pissed off at Rush :-)
Idi Amin
(R) - Uganda
George Bush
R - Cluelessville
Whats funny to me is the fact that bin laden is, in fact, a conservative. A RELIGIOUS conservative.
Yes, but this bit of irony is certainly lost on the Limbaugh crowd. Uh... Christian fundamentalism... Islamic fundamentalism... you say, tomAYto...I say TomAHto...
Considering his well timed video minutes before the 2004 election, one could argue that this was not good news for Bush for Americans to be reminded of bin laden.......and a benefit to Kerry.....but who knows?
I would say the opposite is true. It seemed like for years that whenever Bush was in trouble a new Bin Laden video would pop up. I think they had some weird symbiotic relationship.
And naturally, this isn't true. For whatever peculiar reasons, an ignorant majority thought pre-Nov2004 that Bush was better on National Security. So the Bin Laden message was a boost for Bush.
It's part of the same game of boosting the terror levels on "gut feelings." Hide the bad news of lying and corruption, and play to the one perceived strength you've got. Unfortunately for Bush, not as many people buy it anymore.
CIA anylists came to exactly the opposite conclusion. What were the chances?
"CIA anylists came to exactly the opposite conclusion." - Solon
Exactly. The viewpoint of the CIA analysts is that Bin Laden released the videotape at that time as a deliberate move to help Bush win the 2004 election. Bin Laden is beyond evil...but he is not dumb, not random...he quite likely understands the U.S. media and electorate better than most living in the U.S. do.
Now, since Fox News, Rush, Bush, ... want our military to stay in Iraq for a long time, and since intercepted Al-Qaeda transmissions indicate Al-Qaeda also desires the U.S. to stay in Iraq for a long time, it is pertinent to ask why Fox News, ... are working on the side of Al-Qaeda? Why do they wish to defeat our country and its Democracy?
Fox News, assorted U.S. media members, NeoCons, Administration members, ... are being played by Al-Qaeda big time. If more had that understanding, then maybe our current situation could be turned around.
It is a rough time to be a responsible citizen in this country.
Additional points and information here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030207D.shtml
Kevino, if OBL isn't a T-Warrior, I don't know who is.
TOMMY (R) - GOP Mailroom Grunt
Hear hear, Tommy. I mean, really, Democrats take themselves soooo seriously! Why would anybody be offended by a radio host jokingly comparing an American political party to the man who is responsible for murdering some three thousand Americans? It's silly! Lighten up! It's not like American soldiers have died in battles against Al Qaeda or anything, right? Take a chill pill, Democrats!
Of course, don't tell Limbaugh that it's silly. As with allegations against the Clintons for criminal involvement in the death of Vince Foster, Limbaugh "plays up" the notion that Democrats and Al Qaeda share common goals and political positions.
So it's just a harmless joke! Except when it's not. Unless it is.
Actually, the funny part of the joke is that C-Span can find Bin Laden, and Bush still can't after 6 years.
Come on, George. You've hunted dems before, and this guy's registered. Why so incompetent?
You're right.
It's not an innocent joke or a harmless jab at Democrats.
It's a sly way to reinforce the distorted image Bush and his minions have pushed.
Cut and Run Democrats.
People who want to help the terrorists because they don't support the ridiculous choices that Bush has made.
People who don't support the troops because they don't support Bush's policies.
Tommy would have us believe that it's innocent fun and the problem is that we don't have a sense of humor. We don't laugh at something that's not funny and that's because we have brains, compassion, integrity and a good sense of humor.
Actually, what is even more sly is the way you reincarnate yourself so quickly after your nasty posts find you in the banned bin.....come on Sue, you're in no position to lecture any of us on credibility or integrity.
Try something less formidable.
Paranoia and delusions strike again.
Really, get some help, man.
Here is one vote for NOMOBUSH!
Even if you were once Sue, or NotThatGeorge, or whomever, until you do something bad, you do have every right to tax Tommy with his faults - and you have done so in quite civil fashion so far.
Keep up the good work, NOMO!
"Really, get some help, man"
You call that civil? I would hate to know what you consider uncivil.
Sorry, reasonable people don't put much seriousness in anything comedian Rush Limbaugh (aptly labeled by Olbermann) says. Just can't muster up the fear, sorry.
Read the post above yours.
It is a sly way to reinforce the distorted image that Rush's followers have. It's not a true portrayal of Democrats. Bin Laden would be a Conservative Republican if he were an American based upon the tenets he holds dear. Humorous things are based on reality. The posting of this picture by Limbaugh is not based on reality, but rather on the distortion of reality by Rush and others that went uncontested for way too long in the 1990's.
"Bin Laden would be a Conservative Republican if he were an American based upon the tenets he holds dear"
So Osama believes in lower taxes, a smaller government, and personal responsibility?
What makes you think Republicans believe in all that? At least THIS bunch of Republicans anyway?
Maybe not this bunch of Republicans, but traditional conservative Republicans have always believed in a smaller government and individual freedom.
Many also believe in a theocratic state dominated by religion with no separation of church and state. Some call that a "liberal myth."
I don't know of anyone who wants that. Most social conservatives simply want freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. But I don't know of any conservatives who are advocating the government force people to attend a certain church.
What do you mean by "Freedom from Religion"?
Some people believe that "the seperation of church and state" means that they shouldn't ever have to see religous symbols in public places, prayers shouldn't be allowed at sporting events, etc. In reality, all the "seperation of church and state" really meant is that the government can't force people to attend a certain denominational church. Great Britain had forced their citizens to attend a certain denominational church, and our founding fathers wanted to give the people of this country a choice as to which church they would attend or if they wanted to attend church at all.
"Some people believe that 'the seperation of church and state' means that they shouldn't ever have to see religous symbols in public places"
The government should not be in the business of promoting anyone's religious beliefs, mythology or whatever you want to call it. If you have a problem with no religious symbols in public places, wear a cross or walk around with a picture of Jesus or the ten commandments.
"prayers shouldn't be allowed at sporting events, etc."
Who's stopping anyone from praying at a sporting event?
"In reality, all the 'seperation of church and state' really meant is that the government can't force people to attend a certain denominational church."
The government cannot promote anyone's religion.
Oh - you must mean as in Bungle's "Faith-Based" office, with more and more coming to light about evangelism as part and parcel of the activities of those creepuscles.
Would far rather see a nation of total heathens than see the Government allowed even to acknowledge religion - but that is just me. On the other hand, Bungle seems determined to finance his chosen religion, and that is wrong by any reasonable standard.
So helping those in need is wrong? I thought that liberals loved to help those in need? Or when faith is involved is it not all right to help those in need? Statements like that is the reason why Democrats can't and won't ever get the majority of evangelical Christians to vote for them.
"If you have a problem with no religious symbols in public places, wear a cross or walk around with a picture of Jesus or the ten commandments"
I'd love to but the ACLU would probably sue me, so I better not.
"Who's stopping anyone from praying at a sporting event"
The ACLU again. Who would've thought?
"The government cannot promote anyone's religion"
The government can promote religion all day long. They just can't force people to attend a certain denominational church.
"If you have a problem with no religious symbols in public places, wear a cross or walk around with a picture of Jesus or the ten commandments"
I'd love to but the ACLU would probably sue me, so I better not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a liar. You well know as it has been pointed out to you several time the ACLU has gone to court quite often to PROTECT peoples right to express their religion your next try was a lie too. YOU are a liar. And as has been pointed out many MANY times your last point is flat out wrong the establisment clause doesnt say government cannot establish A religion it says it cannot establish religion. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or are you nothing more than a breathing talking point.
You have been taken apart quite well in the next post I will say you have already been corrected on your ludicrous assertion several times. YOU dont care about the truth or reality and keep repeating it because it is necessary for propaganda purposes and therefore to you it becomes true for that reason alone. NO it is NOT all the establishment clause means. It says government cannot ESTABLISH RELIGION if what YOU said were true it would say government cannot establish A religion. You are wrong. You KNOW you are wrong and you keep repeating a talking point already demolished a dozen times because you ONLY care about the propaganda that protects your delusions.
personal responsibility? No he said he would be a Republican. Try to keep up
I meant personal responsibility as in relying on yourself to get through life rather than relying on the government to drag you along.
Like the no-bid contracts given by this administration that are costing you and I huge amounts of money?
I'm not happy with this administration's record on fiscal issues, but my point was that conservatives generally believe that people should rely on themselves to make it through life and liberals believe that people should at least rely on the government in part for their needs.
So you're saying the conservative ideology boils down to: I've got mine, f*ck everybody else.
No, we can certainly help the poor out by giving to charities such as Habitat for Humanity and the like, but a big and intrusive federal government usually just makes things worse for the poor. The government really isn't capable of running anything efficiently except for the military, and sometimes they can't even run that efficiently.
"No, we can certainly help the poor out by giving to charities such as Habitat for Humanity and the like, but a big and intrusive federal government usually just makes things worse for the poor."
It depends on who's in charge. I wouldn't trust any modern day conservative with any governmental programs. They don't believe in government so how could they possibly run (other than into the ground) programs that help the destitute, the disadvantaged, the ill, the handicap, the elderly and the wronged. They're all trying to use government to line their own pockets.
The government really isn't capable of running anything efficiently except for the military, and sometimes they can't even run that efficiently. Rino
Sorry Rino but I think FEMMA under Clinton ran much better than FEMMA under Junior. Can you say Katrina?
Can you say "You're doing a great job Brownie"?
Thats such mindless BS. The government brought us rural electrification rural republicans would still be reading in the dark except for government. The highway system, in fact this country has always had socialism for the rich a big part of what the Pentagon does has nothing to do with defense and is a flat out redistribution project for business do you really think they were paying 600 dollars for a hammer because they couldnt find a Home Depot? They do the R and D for high tech the satellite system that our telecomunication industry was built on was entirely developed by the military. You have to be one of the most brainwashed people in the history of the world. A lot of the research done for the pharmacuetical industry is done by the NIH. All that is fine with conservatives give till it hurts when giving to the rich and corporations but when helping the neediest people in the country its time for hysteria.
I don't support giving subsidies to the rich or corporations. I simply believe that the government should leave us alone and let us live our own lives. The government should cut taxes for everybody. The money that the government keeps should be used for basic common resources like roads, public education, etc. It's the income redistribution government programs which lead to all kinds of waste.
Isn't that why we pay taxes? Do you want a society where everyone fends for him/herself completely?
Yes, I want a government that can provide things that I can't provide for myself and I rely on them for that. I also think that people, like Rush was once, should get some help when they need it from the government.
RH, my point is this. The people in office currently call themselves Christians and do so little for the least amongst us over and over. They set up an education policy, but they don't fund it setting up the poorest schools for failure. More of the Katrina money went to a Bush ally in Mississippi when it was needed by the poor in LA. The joint chiefs recommended a pay raise of a certain amount for the army (who are not exactly millionaires), Bush rejected it. The latest kids health insurance thing is another example. The health insurance bill had the sponsorship of one of the most conversative men in the Senate, Orrin Hatch, he vetoed it.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect the government to take care of you simply because you were born here. I don't believe that the government owes it's citizens anything except public education and basic resources like roads, law enforcement, etc. For example, I believe that health care is something that people should earn. I don't believe that everyone "deserves" to have free health care. The government only has an obligation to ensure that we receive a good education, and then after that we're on our own.
I completely and totally disagree with you on health care, especially for children. How are children supposed to "earn" health care? They were not asked to be born poor. You can tell me that their parents should have to earn it, but children are in no position to take on that challenge.
I was talking about adults, not children. I agree with you that if the parents are unable to pay for their child's health care, the government should help out.
Careful -- that's a slippery slope you're standing on.
I hope you are as disgusted as I am by Bush's latest veto then.....
When did Bush veto it and what exactly was in the bill?
Never mind. I found a link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071500206.html
According to this article this legislation requires a tax hike as well, and that may be the main reason why Bush is vetoing the bill. Bush has always opposed tax hikes.
Oh well then "we" must forget about helping children since it involves a tax hike?
On the other hand, they'll fund the military for weapons of mass destruction but short sheet the troops. The waste and fraud at the Pentagon is appalling.
Well that is YOUR take but I prefer the Constitutions view on this that the government should promote the common welfare.
It actually says to promote the GENERAL welfare, and since we didn't even have an income tax in this country until the Civil War days, I'm pretty sure that our founding fathers weren't talking about massive federal government programs.
Yeah those parasitic infants ought to get jobs or starve to death, those slackers. You really DO have a pin up poster of Ebeneezer Scrooge in your bedroom dont you?
I was talking about adults, not children. No one expects children to pay for their own health care.
Tommy, if that's true, then why do top Republicans give interviews on Limbaugh's show? Why have Tony Snow, Donald Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney (among others) all given interviews to Limbaugh?
It seems an odd thing for a sitting Vice President to do if reasonable people don't take Limbaugh and his show seriously.
You'd have to ask them, or Keith Olbermann, that was his description of Limbaugh, not mine.
Or should that be here under misinformation by Olbermann? Now there's a scoop!
Tommy, I wasn't taking issue with your characterization of Limbaugh as a comedian. We've talked about this before, and I think you and I agree that Limbaugh seems to conceive of himself primarily as an entertainer.
Nor do I disagree that reasonable people don't put much stock in what Limbaugh has to say.
I was honestly asking: why would a sitting Vice President give an interview to someone who no one reasonable takes seriously?
I really don't know the answer. It seems like one possible answer would be that Cheney sees Limbaugh's listeners as uncritical and sympathetic to his position, and that speaking on Limbaugh's show would reinforce in them a sense of community and shared opposition to "mainstream media".
The point, however, would be that Cheney, Snow, Rumsfeld, and other clearly do see value in communicating their views on Limbaugh's show. So regardless of whether or not reasonable people take Limbaugh seriously, top Republicans seem to believe that Limbaugh's show is consequential. And on this, I think they may be right.
That's just my guess, though, and I'd be curious to know what you think.
No, you're right on the mark.
Rush Limbaugh reinforces the distorted picture that the right has painted of the left.
They said the media is liberally biased, and that's why the news appears to favor the left. That's one of their first lies that allowed Rush to become a powerful influencer.
Tommy tries to minimize the effects of this distortion by Rush by saying it's harmless humor and that it doesn't do anything to influence people's opinions. But it's not harmless and it does influence people, just like FoxNews distortions made a large percentage of their viewers believe that Bin Laden and Saddam were linked.
Reasonable people dont think Limbaugh is really a comedian. They recognize him as a sick, lying, drug addled propaganda aparatchik without a shred of human decency.
"They recognize him as a sick, lying, drug addled propaganda aparatchik without a shred of human decency"
Nope. That's only the far left. Reasonable people see Limbaugh as an entertaining and successful commentator who revolutionized talk radio.
RH,
I see him as someone who has warped one of his listener's minds quite dramatically.
Consider:
This person I know thinks that FDR wanted Social Security to be privatized
She thinks the Clintons murdered Vince Foster
She thinks that Iraq had something to do with 9/11
I could go on and on, but those are the thoughts someone very close to me dispenses at least every day because of what Rush told her.
When did Rush ever say any of these things, other than his joke about the Fince Voster death?
Rino, does this sound like he was just joking?
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) February 3, 1994, Thursday 11:15 AM HEADLINE: CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, NEW YORK POST, INVESTIGATES VINCE FOSTER DEATH, FINDS EVIDENCE SUPPORTS MURDER RATHER THAN SUICIDE
...
LIMBAUGH: ...we're going to--we're going to get into the death of Vince Foster tonight. And note that I did not say the suicide of Vince Foster. LIMBAUGH: I never did believe that Vince Foster's suicide was as clean, as simple as it was reported last July. Just as I never believed that Ross Perot spontaneously decided one night in February to run for president without telling anybody or even thinking of it himself first. Christopher Ruddy of the New York Post, a courageous investigative reporter, has single-handedly been looking into the death of Vince Foster and has uncovered some of the most amazing information that's being ignored by everybody else in the mainstream media. But we're going to talk to him after this break, and find out exactly what he's discovered. And when you hear this, you're going to be as curious as anybody else should be about Vince Foster and his death and what really may be behind it. So don't go away because Chris Ruddy coming up on the phone right after this.
...
Last week Christopher Ruddy, on the 27th of January, began what has become a series of reports on the Vince Foster suicide. (Visual; New York Post headline reads, "Doubts Raised Over Foster's Suicide'") LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) There you see that first story. Doubts raised over Foster's suicide.' And a number of discoveries were unearthed by Mr. Ruddy that nobody had reported previous to his story. For example, the--the position of his body. It was--it was as though he was laid out perfectly in a coffin with his hands at his side. The gun--and this is an exact replica of the gun--was found in his hand just like this at this side, laying down just like this. This after he shot himself in the mouth. LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) And there was barely a trickle of blood coming from his mouth. There were no forensics tests done on the gun, the bullet wasn't found. None of this. All of it unearthed by Chris Ruddy who we have on the phone. Chris, welcome to the program. What got you started with all this? How--how did it come to be that you decided to investigate this? Mr. CHRISTOPHER RUDDY (Investigative Reporter, The New York Post): Well, about a month ago a friend of mine down in Washington said, You know, you should take a look at the--at the Vince Foster case, because he--this person in Washington was concerned that he was still holding the gun.' And there were some small press reports that mentioned he still had the gun in hand--in his hand which is unusual. It's rare that a suicide victim would have the gun. LIMBAUGH: Unusual. Isn't it impossible? I mean, I've got the gun--I mean, I--I don't want to actually act out what happened here but if I were to take this gun and put it in my mouth and pull the trigger, I doubt that it would stay in my hand and that I would still be conscious enough to lay down perfectly and put the gun at my side and then lay down and die so that I could be discovered having committed suicide. That's--that seems impossible....
...
LIMBAUGH: Christopher Ruddy of the New York Post, thank you very much for taking time to join us. I've always said, folks, that if you want to get to the bottom of whatever went on in Fornigate, Whitewatergate, you've got to find out what happened to Vince Foster. And thanks to Christopher Ruddy, we're a lot closer to knowing than we would have been otherwise. We'll see you on our next show. Hope you've enjoyed this one. Adios.
I was just talking about the fact that these days he usually just jokes about the incident, but from that transcript it looks like he may have actually believed it at one time. I don't know if he still believes it or not, but looking at that transcript I have to agree that he probably believed that there was foul play at that time.
RH,
I checked back with the person I talked about in my previous post. She told me that there must have been a connection between 9/11 and Iraq because she believed Iraq was such a sponsor of terror that when Rush connected Iraq and Terror and used that to justify his support for the war, she figured that since Rush loves this country by reference Iraq sponsoring terror must have meant that Iraq sponsored 9/11.
As for the privitization thing, I had that wrong. She told me that Brit Hume gave her that idea about FDR. My apologies
He also said there is no such thing as an implied contract, there are more Native Americans alive today than when Columbus landed and countless other flat out delusions the man has lost all touch with reality. Those of us in the reality based universe know this.
No you are mistaking brainwashed idiots for reasonable people. Thats ok its a common mistake made by those brainwashed by constant rightwing propaganda which they mistake for reality
You're the one who once said that Rush is intelligent. You can't take that back now.
It's clear now..thte Republican master plan! The cunnunigly maneuver the Congress--losing the majority was all part of the plan--until the time comes for a vital quorum call.
Then, when Bin Laden hurries into the chambers to cast his vote--WHAM! They've got him!
Brilliant!
Rush Limbaugh must think his fans are morons... wait... he's right.
Surveys actually show that Rush's audience is the most informed audience in the country. You just can't handle the truth about Rush and the intelligent people who listen to his show.
"Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan. Democrat, Afghanistan."
Rush Limbaugh, A-Talk Radio. Autocrat, Talk Radio. You asked for it, Rush.
I've got a better "A" word for him.
We get it already, Rush. Ya got bupkis. You can't even formulate a decent argument anymore so you just toss out feeble mockery.
The Republican agenda is stale and you know the Republicans are going to get shellacked in 08. People recognize the right's way is the wrong way for working men and women. People see that the Democratic Congress is fighting to restore the balance of powers ceded to the Executive Branch by the 109th Republican usurpation accomplices. People see the 110th Republican obstructionists are blocking the path to healthcare, broad prosperity and job security for American families. People see that the GOP lusts for perpetual war for perpetual profit.
The plan for a permanent Republican majority is failing, thanks in large part, to corporatist elites, like yourself, who sit around all day in their over-stuffed breeches spitting lies and derogations at the last real patriots left in America; the American left.
I'm sure his sycophants did find this funny. After all, they think "The Half Hour News Hour" is cutting edge comedy....DOH!
ouch, that's gotta hurt!
We need another special prosecuter to see who outed OBL!!!
Please take things more seriously and continue to look for a Haliburton connection in this.
(by the way, notice his pants...is he happy to be on C-SPAN or just getting fashion tips from Sandy Berger?)
Well, if he is a Democrat, at least the Bush Administration will finally be able to find him when he shows up for debates.
If he's a Democrat why is George W. Bush his recruiting sergeant?
You're not meant to mention that Bush Jr is the best thing to happen for Bin Ladens recruiting for years(ever?).
The "D" stands for Dittohead"
Here's how Limbaugh went nationwide all of a sudden in the late 80s. Ailes went to all these small- to mid-size markets and told station managers, "Look, I got this guy, 3 hours a day, he's right-wing, your advertisers'll like him, and you can have him free. All you gotta do is give me a few ad minutes out of that 3 hours that I can resell to national advertisers." Well. 3 hours of programming FREE? All it costs is a few minutes' ad time? They JUMPED on it.
All of a sudden he's in hundreds of markets, Ailes can show national advertisers that he's in hundreds of markets, and Ailes is in clover.
That's it. Nobody was crying for flatulence in broadcasting, Ailes wasn't filling a need -- it was a marketing gag. And it found its audience because crap always finds an audience in the USA. Britney Spears, monster truck shows, cage fighting. YOU don't want crap, nobody you know wants crap, but there it is. It sells and it sells big.
It also helped that the Fairness Doctrine had just been abolished, so station owners didn't have to worry about airing opposing views to this moron. See how the plan began to unfold?
Oh, don't get me stawted on these freeloading bums. If they had to pay the OWNERS of the public airwaves the free market value of their usage ....
THEIR part of the bargain was to "operate in the public interest." We don't even get THAT out of the deal. Grrr, swindled again.
I suspect that every rightwing nut in the internet universe is feverishly downloading this image to their hard drive for future display on every blog they can get to. Oh well, every Ditto Head knows its just one of good ole Rush’s knee slapping, satirical, not to be taken seriously, the Dems just can’t take a joke, isn’t he a funny guy kind of bit. HA HA
And this is what limbaugh calls excellence in broadcasting? Pathetic!!! Dittoheads really are stoopid.
This is a very deceptive ploy by Mr. Rush...he is trying to brown-nose Bin Laden because Bin L and the boys want control of the opium fields in Afghanistan and Rush "THE BLOW" Limbaugh wants a front row seat on them thar drugs. You may think this is nutty but it was in the Pakistani Mountain Times Gazette under the heading "Rush Limbaugh, Drug Addict, Knows Bin Laden Personally" or at least he saw his voter registration card.
C'mon Rush, this isn't fair. Do people go around saying, RUSH LIMBAUGH, Drug Addict. OOPS, I guess they do.
Insanity there is strength.