AP misrepresented context of Limbaugh "phony soldiers" comment
A September 28 Associated Press article about comments made by Rush Limbaugh on his September 26 radio show -- in which, as documented by Media Matters for America, he called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers" -- reported: "In a transcript of Thursday's show posted on his Web site, Limbaugh said the comment followed a discussion of Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison earlier this month for collecting more than $10,00 [sic] in benefits to which he was not entitled." In fact, the "phony soldiers" comment did not "follow a discussion of Jesse Macbeth"; Limbaugh did not mention MacBeth on the September 26 radio show until 1 minute and 50 seconds after his "phony soldiers" comment, as Media Matters noted.
On the September 28 broadcast of his program, Limbaugh claimed that his September 26 "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, an anti-war activist who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran. However, as Media Matters noted, at no point during his September 26 radio show prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment did Limbaugh refer to MacBeth, or indeed any specific soldiers whom he considered to be fake. One minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh told listeners, "Here is a 'Morning Update' that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities. One of them was Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh then read from a September 25 "Morning Update" article (subscription required) posted on his website about MacBeth. Limbaugh's "Morning Updates" also air on the radio separately from his nationally syndicated show.
During the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh asserted that "Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. In fact, the clip he then aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1:50 discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here. However, even the edited clip Limbaugh played showed that his discussion of Jesse MacBeth came after his "phony soldiers" comment during the show that day.
Further, the AP article did not note that the transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh's website, which Limbaugh described as being the "anatomy of a smear," while showing that the discussion of MacBeth came after the "phony soldiers" comment, does not make clear how much time elapsed between the two -- or even that any time did elapse. As Media Matters noted, Limbaugh's transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used.
From the September 28 AP article:
In a transcript of Thursday's [sic: Friday's] show posted on his Web site, Limbaugh said the comment followed a discussion of Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison earlier this month for collecting more than $10,00 [sic] in benefits to which he was not entitled.
Macbeth, 23, of Tacoma, Wash., tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement by claiming to have participated in war crimes when in fact he was kicked out of the Army in 2003 after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga.
"He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up," Limbaugh said Thursday [sic: Friday]. "I was not talking ... about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth."
You know Rush and his handlers went back on the tape to see how they could spin his gaff. Limbaugh thinks any body against the war is a traitor, if limbaugh were to meet face to face any soldier opposed to this fiasco, he would be on his knees in a Latty Craig second!
Since Rush Stonedbaugh did not serve when he could have, he himself cannot be a " phony soldier ', only a " phony " .
This is so funny...........................
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/30/abc-reported-phony-heroes-three-days-rush-limbaugh-did
Time to moveOn....
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125111.guest.html
Rush will get away with this, of course. Most people do not listen to him. Those that do know what he said, and they do not care that he calls soldiers who oppose the war "phony soldiers." They have heard him say much worse. But this full-court spin that he is putting on now, which includes altering the transcript, will be enough to make those that do not listen to him think that there was a misunderstanding, and that he did not really say what he most certainly said. This will allow the owners of the stations and his sponsors to "stand behind him" and the whole thing will die down and go away. Limbaugh is a weasle and a liar. And when it comes to "phony" he is the ultimate "phony patriot." The people who listen to his tripe are amazing--they never hold him to any standards whatsoever. Even after he admitted that he "carried water" for the Republicans and said things he did not believe, his listeners did not care. They most certainly will not care about this, no matter how repulsive it was.
The RIGHTWING, as a whole, have nothing but CONTEMPT for our soldiers.
Sure, they give lip service to "honoring the troops" ... for THEIR OWN aggrandizement, THEIR OWN claim to "patriotism", and as a substitute for their OWN records of non-service (i.e. personal cowardice).
But look at what the Rightwing DOES, regularly.
In legislation, they shortchange Veterans and their families. The Rightwing routinely smear and insult decorated combat veterans, if they happen to be Democrats, or even if they happen to be opposing the "favorite son" chickenhawk (Bush vs. McCain). These campaigns of disrespecting those who put their lives on the line for their country are based on rumors, uncorroborated "testimony" ... and nothing else. They have no proof, they have only SMEAR, and the decorated combat vets MUST be smeared, because the Republicans they run against have not served at all in combat.
This Iraq war in particular is a continuing disrespect for our military. They were sent in on false premises, with false goals and false "predictions" of outcomes. Their lives and limbs have been kept in harm's way for no other reason than the egos of the Bush Administration, unable to ever admit a mistake.
The huge loss of life in Iraq has been discounted by Rightwingers, calling it a "small price to pay,", a "blip in history", and an "acceptable level" (compared to other wars).
Bush has not attended a single funeral for a returning casualty of his war.
Bush routinely USES the military as a backdrop for his speeches, because active duty military are under orders to do as the commander in chief says, cannot BY LAW criticize the president in such circumstances, and so are portrayed as universally in agreement with the President ... an impression that is phony and fraudulent since the soldiers are not allowed to speak or act candidly.
The Rightwing supported the Swift Boat Vets as they claimed that combat medals have been issued in error, and thus THE SYSTEM is corrupted and veterans who are decorated cannot be honored ... because their medals may or MAY NOT be valid. In so doing, the Rightwing has smeared and belittled ALL decorated combat vets.
Retired officers who are finally allowed to speak out are routinely insulted and slandered by Rightwing political pundits. Officers who dared to express opinions at odds with the Bush Administration were routinely fired. Yet, Bush FALSELY claims that his every action in Iraq has been directed by military leaders, hiding behind the military to mitigate his own responsibility as "the decider".
The Rightwing really has no respect for our military. They USE the military, to bolster their own "patriotism", as fodder for wrongheaded conflicts, and as tools to advance economic bonanzas for their friends in industry.
If you support Republicans, you do not support the troops, you instead wish them the ill that Republican leadership brings to military people; USED, used up, and discarded cheaply.
If you truly HONOR the troops, you will work to make sure they have civilian leadership that is worthy of the honor, instead of incompetent, avaricious chickenhawk NeoCons who have nothing but contempt for our fighting forces.
TEX, as usual you are right. "Support the Troops" is just cover for "Support Bush" and any soldier who does not support Bush is treated with contempt by these people. Look at the complete disregard that all these people showed for the men who actually served on the same boat with Kerry. In essence all these men, who supported Kerry, were treated with disdain. The only troops they "support" are those that say the right things.
TEX,
I salute you.
I’m retired Army and I agree with everything you say. If I thought I could get a hearing about my opposition to the Iraq War on the E (excrement) In B (brow beating) Rush Limpballs radio show I would try. If I, by some miracle, was allowed to express my feelings I’m positive he would try to disrespect my 20 years and 10 days of honorable service. But then I am a Democrat and would have to lie about that to even have that chance. If Mike (Caller 1) was a Republican, and I unlike Rush believe he was, can so easily be called a liar by Rush, then saying you are a Democrat opposed to the war would get you no where.
Any way just wanted to express my thanks for your support for our troops by being one of the loyal opposition that bears the label of Left Wingnutbag, Kool Aid drinking, Commacratic, Liberal Myrmidon, and etc. that I have been called long before Iraq became the rallying call for all things Conservative.
You are obviousely a phoney soldier!!!
[according to rightwing, hate talk radio] :-)
I say give the call a try. Rush, Boortz, Hannity, etc. all say that liberal callers move to the front of the line. Why not try?
Sadly, I doubt the MSM will cover the truth. They have to be "Fair" to the right, even when they're lying.
Limbaugh played the whole show that was relevent to the "phony soldiers." MMFA then created a post asserting that he removed comments about the "phony soldiers comments." He did no such thing.
In truth, Rush removed comments about WMDs that he said well before the phoney soldiers statments and is irrelevant to determine the context of his statements.
See entire show here....Notice how MMFA circled in red what Rush actually kept in the transcript to mislead their audience.
Moreover, it was clear that Rush wanted to talk about the phony soldier before the caller brought it up. That is why he said it within the same conversation. It was all in context and Rush was talking about a Phony soldier.
MMFA's attempt to mislead their audience is nothing new; here is a great example.
Keep taking money funneled through George Soros' middle men non-profit organizations. MMFA, you have lost all clout as a truth-seeking organization. It is all about smears and partisanship.
Copius, Are you really the Rush himself trying to tell us that all of this is just a joke...Once again, your post is hilarious...to the BoilButts that follow the BoilButt.
Rush won't be laughing when someone in the Right Wing Mainstream media finally wakes up. Probably sometime this week. Copious, shame on you. You always seem above the spray.
P.S. Rushs' spin will be pounced on by O'Reilly..he hates smearers
Here is more proof that MMFA cut the transcript, NOT RUSH.
Aw, c'mon, copiouslies.
We already got to hear the entire conversation, and there is no "almost the very next words" goin' on here. In fact, I wonder if you ever listened to any other than Gumbaugh's lies, and his lies to cover up his lies, and his lies to evade the consequences of the lies he couldn't cover up . . . and his wingnut liar buddies' lies to defend Gumbaugh's lies. More, knowing that you must have been glued to the receiver when the original attack was launched, who edited the transcript in your head, to elide the blatant change-of-subject and the almost-two-minutes of other lies, between?
Are you auditioning here (and on you own lie-fest blog) as a potential replacement for whichever wingnut liar in the Corporate Media conspiracy first fails physically?
Since you just declared by fiat that Rush lied without providing any justification, I will assume the following:
1) MMFA intentionally edited the first transcript;
2) Rush Limbaugh showed the whole transcript in its entirety, with the exception of statements about WMDs, which had nothing to do with the phony soldier comments;
3) MMFA then claimed Rush Limbaugh didn't post the "phony soldier comments" in its entirety, which is a lie (they circled in Red what Rush actually kept in the transcript but claim he took it out);
4) You didn't read the full-transcript unedited, or you don't care about the truth about what MMFA did to mislead you.
That is a joke. And if you believe it, you are the one being misled by your hero. There should be a study on Ol' Boilbutt to get an average of how many lies-per-hour he tells.
You are absolutey full of crap.
1. MMFA never edited the transcript.
2. Rush Limbaugh posted a partial transcript on his website without telling his viewers he did so.
3. MMFA stated correctly that Rush cut out 1:30 seconds both from the transcript and from his show.
4. We have pointed out exactly where Rush edited the transcript.
You really are a joke. We can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears exactly what Rush omitted. You alpparently think that if you state something with indignation we and others will believe you. The proof shows you are wrong, and that your insisting you are not shows you as one of the most dishonest posters ever.
Yes they did.
Sorry, here it is.
Your URL is invalid.
No they didn't. You are again lying right through your teeth.
You said yesterday that Rush didn't cut out the part on WMDs. You were absolutely wrong.
You need to apologize and admit that Rush is dishonest, not MMFA.
MMFA I think is preventing me from posting the link.
Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
And again, I am not going to watch some crap by John Gibson, nororiously dishonest in his own right.
You are presenting a moving target argument.
Yesterday you called us damned liars when it turns out we were right. Now today you are denying you even said that.
You certainly are the most dishonest poster ever.
And again, I am not going to watch some crap by John Gibson, nororiously dishonest in his own right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
You don't want to hear the fact that MMFA cut the tape and how they did it. You're not worth arguing with, and the only reason why you posted after it is because you don't want others to see it.
In fact, MMFA won't let me post the link.
Oh yes. Are you actually going to deny that you lied yesterday and today?
The youtube you linked to showed Rush cut out 1:30. Are you denying that you linked to that yesterday and that Rush cut it out?
After a careful review of the audio from your Gibson link, and the audio that MMFA provides here...
YOU ARE MAKING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FOOL OF YOURSELF, COPIOUS!!!!!!!!
Gibson played the edited version with the missing 1:35 and claimed it was what MMFA posted!
GIBSON EITHER HAS HEAD UP HIS *** OR HE IS LYING!!!
Listen very carefully to the second half of the audio posted here. IT'S ALL THERE!
Here's your link.
(Proof that copious's inability to post a link is in no way some sort of conspiracy by MMFA to keep him from posting his irrelevant link.)
No, it is not a joke when phony soldiers claim they are in Iraq and burned bodies and murdered people when they were never there and dropped out of boot camp.
Then tell me, who are the other phony soldiers that Rush is speaking of. The ones killed and maimed by "phony bullets". If so, those "phony Gold Star Mothers" should return those Folded American Flags which they received. You can die for your country but you better fall within the guidelines of the PHONY Republicans.
Copious, Rush dishonored ALL soldiers just to get his way. And also, can you PROVE to me that George Soros funds MMFA? Or will you edit that out of your post and say you never wrote it?
Excuse me, I take back the Soros comment. O'Reilly proved it with a NoSpin chart.
First, I'm sick of posting links if you aren't even going to go to them because it answers your questions.
The phony soldiers are people like Jesse MacBeth.
Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.Too bad MMFA cut this out the transcript with their first post.
again - I will accept this one as a "phony soldier - this Jesse guy who I had never heard of btw prior to Rush bringing him up. But again, you can't hide that fact that he clearly said "phony soldiers" PLURAL!!!!!!
There are several prominient ant-war Iraq Veterans (Jon Soltz who Melanie Morgan has smeared on countless occasions) who were anything but phony soldiers. I want definitive proof he did not mean these guys in his comment. I want to know the plural "soldiers" he was speaking of.
Any more examples?
"This Jesse guy who I had never heard of btw prior to Rush bringing him up."
It is okay. I feel your pain. What you are experiencing now is the first sign of someone suffering from "Battered liberal syndrom."
Even after being beaten up by liberals for years, you keep going back to them for the truth.
But, this is the first step to understanding why people on the Left and Right listen to Rush - he provides you with stories that can be backed up (Jesse MacBeth is not a fake story), and you never heard about it before you heard him say it.
It must be that "right-wing media" that is keeping this information from you.
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT! I CAN SEE, I CAN SEE! I HAVE LEGS. I CAN WALK, I CAN WALK! Oh, my God. I wish I had started worshiping Limbaugh years ago!!!
Now you are just trash taling.
Again, you need to apologize for being so wrong yesterday. You claimed that Rush didn't cut out 1:30 from his show. You were indignant and called us damned liars. I listened to the tape and Rush cut it out exactly where MMFA said he did.
Now you are substituting insult for reason because you are so embarrassingly wrong.
I claimed that they didn't cut the red circle out. The chunk you are talking about is the WMD part, which is again misleading.
WMDs has nothing to do with phony soldiers.
See here.
See here also.
Please address these youtube links. Because 3 of you have demonstrated that you didn't even listen to them.
Um, the red circle shows were Rush cut out the text. You can't circle text that isn't there, unless you live in some kind of fantasy world. The red ink clearly shows were Rush doctored his own transcript and didn't tell his veiwers he did so.
That's called a lie. And it was perpretated by Rush, not MMFA.
You further were so foolish yesterday that you told us to go to e:30 in the video and we would see that Rush hadn't cut out anything. Are you going to deny doing this? I responded that Rush had cut out audio, and pointed he didn't. You claimed the stuff about the WMD was there. Those were your words which it will take anyone five minutes to see. You called us damned liars.
Now you are changing your story and claiming that the WMD is irrelivant. No, it is not, but your dodge certainly is. MMFA was very specific on what it said Rush had done. It posted in bold what Rush cut out.
Again, this is probably the most dishonest exchange on your part ever. You lied yesterday and you lied today.
Are you seriously saying you didn't call us damned liars and are you seiously claiming that you didn't say that Rush did not cut out the WMD part?
You have absolutey no regard for the truth. If you had any dignity you would apologize for being so wrong and insulting yesterday and admit that Rush is dishonest.
Yes, I did call you damn liars. I never said the WMD part wasn't taken out.
I said the following:
Rush never took out the part that was circled.
The WMD part had nothing to do with the Phony soldier part. (Please find where I said the WMD part was taken out)
MMFA took out the part about the phony soldier (Macbeth). Had they kept it in, none of this mess would have started. But, then that wouldn't fit their agenda.
See here.
That wasn't the part that MMFA circled.
Can't you even understand the context? He's being smeared about his soldier comments, not the WMD comments before the whole talking point.
Moreover, the WMD comments didn't come out at 3.30, you're a damn liar. copiousdissent.blogspot.com /
Saturday September 29, 2007 07:56:44 AM EST
Just in case anyone is missing anything, notice how Copious says "Moreover, the WMD comments didn't come out at 3.30, you're a damn liar."
But in his last post he never claims to have said this.
Wow. You are the most dishonest poster ever.
You have posted the same bogus lilnk multiple times, maybe in an effor to fool others that you have proof. Your url only says "[link to "] so I don't even know if you are making an honest mistake or just lying. Again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
Since MMFA is preventing me from posting the link.
You still continue to lie. And no, you don't get to just link posts from Gibson and expect us to waste our time watching it. You have proven yourself a liar multliple times. I posted exactly what you said yesterday, which you now deny making today.
You didn't address that.
Instead, you just keep posting more right wing crap. You think that you can lie, and act indignant, you can not address your own lies and Rush's lies, and just post something else and then change the topic to that. That is called a moving target argument.
You lied. Rush lied.
"you don't get to just link posts from Gibson and expect us to waste our time watching it."
I love it. Blind yourself.
Yes, of course. You lied yesterday and you lied today. I have pointed that out and you cannot address this. Instead you post another link to a right wing hack. When we naturally refuse to follow you on a wild goose chase (is there any reason why should believe anything you ever say considering what you said yesterday and today), you accuse us of blinding ourselves.
You can't dismiss an argument by who said it.
He posted the MMFA transcript vs. the real transcript.
So you finally actually sumarized his argument!
And you really think I don't think Gibson, given his own record of outright lying, isn't doing so now?
Further, *you* linked to a youtube video yesterday that showed Rush cut out 1:30. That was your link. Are you claiming that link was doctored as well?
Are you going to deny that you lied yesterday and now are denying you lied today? Like I said, you are the most dishonest poster ever.
Well, if someone offers you a crap taco, you don't have to take a bite to know it's gonna taste bad.
I'll try to link to the BS.
Funny, I had no problem. Must be a conspiracy.
You actually made the claim *twice* yesterday that Rush didn't cut out parts from his show.
YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF LIARS!!!!
HE POSTED THE WHOLE THING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY
HE POSTED THE WHOLE THING...INCLUDING THE RED CIRCLE
copiousdissent.blogspot.com / Friday September 28, 2007 06:47:50 PM EST
But he didn't post the whole damn thing. Yet you were calling us damned liars. Rush lied, not MMFA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
MMFA was the one who did the editing.
Again, you are an embarrassment. You lied yesterday and then come on today and try to lie again. When I point out your exact words, you post a link from Gibson, a man with a laughable record.
You liled yesterday. You said Rush didn't cut out portions from his show. You lied today by trying to claim you didn't say that.
You are the most dishonest poster ever. No wonder you defend Rush, who edited his own show and his own transcript to try to hide the truth from his viewers.
Princeofwheels asked you to name the phony "soldiers." He wants to know who they are in the plural. You only named one.
But even if you can name more than one, when Rush originally spoke, he meant soldiers who dissented. That is clear from context. It is also clear because later in the tape he calls Murtha a phony soldier, which absolutely proves MMFA is right when it asserts that Rush meant dissenting soldiers, not soldiers who never really served.
- - funnymanpants / Saturday September 29, 2007 04:25:02 PM EST
No you are. He never called Murtha a phony soldier.Yes he did, as the text which you posted shows.
No...Rush never called Murtha a phony soldier. He said Murtha needs to apologize like the guy from the New Republic.
Yes he did. He lumped him with MacBeth, who he called a phony soldier.
But what can Iexpect from you, having lied yesterday and now having lied again today.
You are the most dishonest poster ever.
But just keep it up. When other posters look at this exchance and read what you wrote yesterday and how you denied it today, they will certainly have a good laugh.
More lies. He did not call Murtha a phoney soldier.
I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?
Jesse McBeth's not the only one. The only one what? Phony soldier. There's also Scott Thomas and Jack Murtha.
What the hell else do you think he's saying? Are you really saying that he was talking about other "phony soldiers" but suddenly was talking about something else when he mentioned Murtha?
If you can't see the transition from talk about the phoney soldiers -- which Rush has talked about on many, many shows -- and more lies told by democrats including Murtha, I can't heal the terminally ignorant.
What's the transition? He's specifically making the point that there are other phony soldiers. Then he names Murtha.
There's no transition there. If Rush thinks he made some sort of distinct topic change, then he is a moron.
Trash talking is all you have.
I would add that Murtha supports redeployment, ending the occupation of Iraq. And since withdrawal = phony soldier in limbaugh world, he most definitely considers Murtha a phony soldier.
Leatherhelmet, stop making a fool of yourself. You're better than that. You have the reading skills to comprehend that if someone says "there are other <something>s too. Mr A for example, who did <this>. Mr B, who did <that>." that means that someone is saying that Mr A and Mr B are <something>s.
I shouldn't even have taken the time to make such an obvious point, but this is getting ridiculous.
Do you guys think Rush would stand up for you the way you stand up for him? If he could make money on it, he'd throw you to the wolves. I can't understand your loyalty.
the people here that continue to claim that Rush thinks our brave fighting men and women are phony have really got BDS bad.
Thank you dittohead: Felonious Baloneyus Nobiscum.
See you're the liar.
See, you are a troll.
Yesterday you claimed that Rush didn't cut out 1:30 of his show, even after we had the link to youtube. You claimed he didn't cut out anything.
Now today you deny making that claim. Unfortunately for your case, I had posted your words which show you were lying.
At this point you are just posting anything in hopes that no one can see how blatantly dishonest you are.
No, you and MMFA are the dishonest people.
MMFA cut the transcript.
Proof below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
Sorry, but Gibson does not consist of proof. (I notice you don't eve try to sum up his argument, which I would guess is because he does not have one.)
Is there any reason why we should believe you? Yesterday you claimed twice that Rush didn't cut his own words. The very site you linked to proved you a liar, but you continued on your dishonesty.
You are simply posting anyting now because you have embarrassed yourself.
Sum of his argument:
1) MMFA cut the transcript;
2) Here is how they did it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
Sum of argument. *You* linked to a youtube video that shows Rush cutting out 1:30 of his show. That is what you l inked to. You then denied that Rush didn't cut out the WMDs part yesterday. Then you denied making that claim today.
I'm still waiting for you to address lying so flagrantly in two day.
And no, MMFA did not cut out that 1:30 in the transicript.
I have never seen a more dishonest person in all my life. You are so desperate to back up Rush that you will tell lie after lie to make that argument. And then you have the gall to claim MMFA won't let you post links when the truth is you are apparently not doing it right, yet you keep that lie going too because it suits your purpose, which is to smear MMFA.
This site has no reason to edit Limbaugh's words, or anyone elses for that matter. So grow up and accept the fact that your heroes are becoming patently stupid and the country is waking up to see them for what they are, which is bigoted, racist greedy pigs who like to claim victim status as they try to drive a policy of taking away free speech from anyone not of their following, denying rights to anyone not of their liking and enforce a policy of strip mining the earth of everything possible in their lifetime because they could care less what happens to the human race once they die.
And you are truly pathetic in your defense of the indefensible. May god have mercy on your soul.
i listened to the clip of John gibson provided by copius.
Rush's phoney soldier comment was in regards to soldier's who disagreed with the war policy. he and the caller were discussing the soldiers who dissent, the phoney soldiers comment was made, and then, gibson claims, mmfa cuts off the transcript. gibson then plays the part he claims was cut out. Limbaugh switches to a new topic attacking this macbeth guy (whom i had not heard of either.) My hearing and literacy is just fine, and my understanding of the clip provided by copius is as i have written.
Funny manpants, i like how you call this copius guy on his bull, but please, listen to the clip. even if you cant stand gibson. it proves MMFA right. im betting copius posted the link thinking no one would listen to it.
so just some advice, always listen and respond to "evidence" posted by the trolls. refusing to listen makes us no better than them.
Ryan Gerbehy
Yes, you are absolutely right, I should have listened to Gibson. But for one I had no sound on the machine I was posting from. For another thing, Copious wouldn't even sum up Gibson's argument so I knew what I was looking for. He just wanted to send me off to listen to what could have beena long clip. Keep in mind when he did this yeserday, I did listen to his clip, and it proved him wrong, and he still came back and denied what was on the clip and called us damned liars.
He is just playing games, but yes, the best way to respond is to look at the piece of evidence and try to judge it.
What YOU are suffereing from is kool-aid toxicity and frustration from having your head handed to you over and over on this site BY liberals. Your delusions of adequacy have reached Weinerdogian proportions. Ya got nothin you are flat out wrong get over it and rejoin the reality based universe or revel in your ignorance. Its all the same to me
From your friend's own admission, I'm not allowed to post links demonstrating that MMFA actually cut the transcript, because it is not worth your time.
Maybe you'll be different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
Ah, no. The linke you posted yesterday shows that Rush cut out 1:30. You called us damned liars yesterday, though your own linke proved you are wrong.
Then you denied having lied yesterday.
I am still waiting for you to address this point as well as:
1. Rush cut out 1:30 from his broadcast.
2. Rush cut out 1:30 from his show.
Both segments he cut out had to do with the WMD.
To be fair, I'll try to post the Copiousconsenter's link, just so he canquit pretending that he wants to provide it, but can't.
I did not say it was a fake story, just that I had not heard of him.
And this is great news. We are making progress.
More trash talking, huh?
Still waiting for you to address your two flagrant lies from yesterday and today.
Only if YOU are begining to finally understand the English language
Copius,
You sir, are an amazement in and of yourself. The man said what he said. He spoke of soldierS, plural as somoen else pointed out. Why do you want to defend a man who talks of his unending patriotism but was a pure and simple COWARD, COWARD, COWARD when it was his turn to serve. Do you routinely support draft dodging COWARDS?
Micah Wright is one I can think of immediately, the lying scumbag.
Leather,
Why do you support a draft dodging COWARD?
Princeofwheels asked you to name the phony "soldiers." He wants to know who they are in the plural. You only named one.
But even if you can name more than one, when Rush originally spoke, he meant soldiers who dissented. That is clear from context. It is also clear because later in the tape he calls Murtha a phony soldier, which absolutely proves MMFA is right when it asserts that Rush meant dissenting soldiers, not soldiers who never really served.
"later in the tape he calls Murtha a phony soldier"
I want a link to where he called Murtha a phony soldier.
Sorry, it was the next day:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280011?f=h_latest
Now, will you apologize for being so wrong yesterday?
"LIMBAUGH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to, in the sense that you're -- I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman [Jan] Schakowsky [D-IL], Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians? If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat [sic] Party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology, they owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology."
He never called Murtha a Phony Soldier you liar. He lumped Murtha in with a writer of the New Republic, and others who lie about troop atrocities. They owe the Military an apology, not Rush.
Wow! Even when Rush's own words show you are a liar, you post them and act indignant as if he didn't say exactly what he did.
And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?
He is lumping in Murtha with MacBeth. So when Rush said "phony" he meant any dissenters, exactly as we have claimed.
The Marines DID engange in the wanton murder of women and children in Haditha, as they did in Falluja and in other places in Iraq. Marines seem to have a problem with the rules of war, but considering their leadership is composed of Bush-picked psychos who like killing people for Jesus, one can only guess at what orders and attitudes are coming down to the troops. One problem with Marine training, they try to wipe out all humanity from the minds of the grunts and turn them into stone-cold killers. Atrocities then occur at higher than normal rates. I wonder why.
You have no clue as to the importance of the military. You're wanton disregard for our soldiers continues to be overlooked by other posters here. I can only assume that they agree with you. That is what marines do REDKING they kill to protect you. They are trained to kill because that is what happens in war. I would love to see your idea of bootcamp. Flowers, water bongs, birkenstocks, long talks about the system and how violence is awful. You really need to wake up and face the reality of the world we live in. Your idealistic pleasantries and jaded view of our military is pitiful. You should be flat out ashamed about your constant tirades about how our soldiers are terrorists and murderers. I hope the day never comes when you will need the direct help of a Marine to save your life, but if that occurs I expect you to refuse it.
So Marines shooting Iraqi grandmothers and toddlers is protecting my freedoms? Are you insane?
You point to isolated incidents and equate that behavior to all Marines. And you ask if I am insane? You've got to quit smoking that stuff. I know when your high and you write that drivel it sounds so good. But, man if you could only see it through something that you obviously don't know about, REALITY.
Let me ask you this as well, Was the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII a war crime? Was dropping the atom bomb on Japan a war crime? Were our armed forces fighting in the Ardennes and Okinawa in WWII murderers? Were they protecting our freedom then?
Now who's generalizing?
Those are specific instances. I don't what you mean. Those questions go right to the heart of this discussion.
I was also wondering...what are the normal rates for atrocities? Were atrocities lower when there were no marines? surely not.
What's an acceptable number of atrocities in your mind? One per person? Per squad? Platoon?
Just trying to get a feel for what you're advocating here.
I'm not advocating anything sir. REDKING said that due to the training techniques used by the marines there is a higher than normal rate of atrocities. That is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever had the displeasure of reading. What is a normal rate? You can't expect someone to make such a statement without substantiating the original premise. I would hope, sir, that you don't agree that our troops are terrorists and murderers as REDKING. Do you?
Glad to hear you are sick of posting links. When you get sick of posting period, we'll really be getting somewhere.
Peddle your fascist, memory-hole crap somewhere else, please. Most of the people who post here don't get their "information" from Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson or the Swift Boat Veterans for Liars. Our brains function well enough to be able to tell the difference between an edited transcript and an unedited one. We know that the word "Soldiers' is plural. We know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, even if the Dear Leader and his Minions insist it does. Please, just go away. There are plenty of sites where you can find comfort and affirmation in your Edited By Fox and Limbaugh worldview. This isn't one of them.
Media Matters admitted they were funded by George Soros's groups.
By groups that he funded? That doesn't mean he funded MMfA, unless you have evidence he specifically ordered money funneled in that manner. That's like saying if one of your employees buys drugs, you are funding drug-dealers. It's your people and your money, right?
You have no argument, and it doesn't mean a thing even if it's true. Typically brainless right-wing talking point.
No. You are brain dead.
Some of the groups funding MMFA only had TWO donors with Soros being the main donor. MMFA cannot prove it didn't receive money from Soros. So they slither and hiss that they admit they received the group, even though he was half the group.
Half the donors of the group. That doesn't mean that if that group donates money somewhere else that Soros or the other donor made that decision.
Do you understand the difference between funding and operations? I could run an organization with one donor and donate money to anyone I wanted without their approval. They're funding. I'm operations. Two different things.
There's no reason for any funneling. There's no illegality to be avoided. He's not afraid of writing checks to other organizations, so why would he feel the need to be stealthy about this one?
You have no point, still.
Soros doesn't fund MMFA and he hasn't directed any organization to fund MMFA.
Can I add, how is anyone supposed to prove they didn't receive money from anyone? The burden works the other way, that you have to prove they did receive money from Soros, and you trolls always fail at that.
The whole thing is a non issue anyway. While true that Soros hasn't funded Media Matters, so what if he had? Gosh, these right wingers are filled with projection.
Their rich guys set up right wing "think tanks" and newspapers and "news" channels then act like it would be criminal if any progressive did the same. Hmm...
Quite true. I can see their Soros and raise them a Richard Mellon Scaife, and what else can they say? How many millions did that guy spend trying to bring down Clinton?
"MMFA cannot prove it didn't receive money from Soros."
MMFA's accusers do the same thing every time the Soros conspiracy is uttered: they put the burden of proof on the accused.
Unless I missed some other stunning revelation, the prosecution presented its case with red arrows, while MMFA refuted it with financial records.
I think it's time for the DA to present some new evidence or STFU.
Media Matters admitted they were funded by George Soros's groups.
Assuming for the moment this is an accurate statement... um... so?
So Rush removes audio from his own tape, but MMFA took him out of context by showing the entire transcript and providing all of the audio?
Also, Rush did not say "phony soldier" but clearly said "phony soldiers" implying more than one.
I listen to Rush and Hannity a lot and this is the way they think about anyone not gung ho about the war - we are phony Americans. Rush just took it to the next level.
Well, they didn't show the whole transcript.
See here.
Notice how MMFA is now backtracking and making arguments that they never made when they first posted the cut transcript.
Now they are trying to argue that because Rush was talking about a phony soldier 1 min. after he said phony soldiers that he wasn't talking about a phony soldier.
It was the same conversation with the same person.
He spoke about phony soldiers and gave an example of one. The phony soldiers are those who lie about being soldiers and blame the military for atrocities that never happened.
That is the context. Had MMFA wanted to make the argument that they are making now, they should have posted the full-transcript the first time so everyone could see it in context.
But, then there wouldn't be a story would there be.
Uh, if you really want us to use the links you provide, it would be better if they were real links. This one goes nowhere . . .
My, you are a persistant little conservative. I listened to and read the transcript, and it seems that you need to get a grip on reality.
Here is an important question:
If an individual admires a three times divorced, womanizing, draft dodging, drug addicted, lying, college dropout, (who is perhaps a sex addict with tendancies toward pedophilia) and looks at that scum as a hero, is that individual in need of professional help with these self loathing tendancies, or is he/she just stupid ?
Just wondering.
THERICK:
What's really hilarious is here's Rush Limbaugh, arguably the rightwing's most heard communicator, who makes his living with WORDS, and even often says "WORDS MEAN THINGS".
And here's Copiouswhatever trying to tell us what Rush MEANT, what he was really referring to, which is not what was obviously being said.
In any walk of life, if you have a spokesman who has to constantly be explained and made excuses for and have to do damage control on "what he MEANT to say" ... then you are a complete fool for having a communicator who cannot communicate clearly.
And that goes for GW Bush, too.
Rush has contempt for the troops. He lets that contempt slip out from time to time, and that TRUTH is not part of the rightwing "patriotic" narrative, so it must be denied. That's what this is all about: Denying the obvious.
Ya know, Tex, I made that exact point a couple of times in posts over the last week or so. It certainly can't be said enough. So here goes...
Why do right wingers always insist on telling me what Rush really meant to say?
If 'X' is what Rush meant, why didn't he just say that instead of saying 'Y' ?
I have this discussion often with a couple of Republican friends. I remind them of Rush's poor citizenship record, and it drives them nuts. More accurately--wingnuts.
THERICK:
I still recall the convoluted twists and tortured turns the Rightwing went into to explain away GW Bush's response to Matt Lauer about the War on Terrorism.
"You can't win it," Bush said clearly.
Ah, but that contradicted the White House's "official" position that VICTORY was not only possible, but was just around the corner.
So we were treated with dozens of explanations of what the president MEANT to say, how what he said was really the opposite of what he actually said, don't take his words literally, blahdy-blah-blah.
I for one do not need team wingnut telling me what their heros MEANT, when I can hear and see and read perfectly well, and prefer FACTS to damage-control mindreading by partisan excuse-makers.
If you refuse to be fooled, you are the enemy. You MUST accept the version of events as explained by the rightwing collective, or you will never be assimilated. Lack of acceptance without question makes you the ENEMY.
Tex, I agree totally.
Don't forget that we, the collective enemy--Left wing, Democrats-- must always be careful of what we say because one never knows what poorly chosen dialog might one day put our troops in harms way.
(Republicans may say whatever they wish.)
oh well I see Tex has BDS bad as well..... . The current crop of Democratic Senators and Congressmen is such a fine example of good upstanding, caring folks..... hmmm Ted , I didn't kill her honest, Kennedy... Robert, KKK I love those colored folk, Byrd...John, I was there when we started shooting into and burning huts full of peacefull women and children, Kerry..... Ah forget it this is to easy
Your url is invalid.
Wow. Talk about desusional. You posted a link to youtube yesterday. We listend to it, and Rush cut out 1:30, *exactly* as MMFA said.
You embarrassed yourself yesterday and you are embarrassing yourself today. You said that Rush didn't cut out 1:30 and linked to a youtube that showed the exact opposite.
No, MMFA was very, very precise on what it said Rush cut out. They put what he cut out in bold.
You need to apologize for callilng us damned liars when you were so wrong. You need to admti that Rush is being incredibly dishonest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
I know, I think MMFA won't let me post it.
Yea, right.
Still waiting for you to address the lie of yesterday and the lie of today.
Did *your* own link not show that Rush cut 1:30 from his show? Did you deny that yesterday, and then did you then deny having denied that yesterday?
You must be a very special case, to cause MMFA to set special rules, and assign at least two interns full-time to enforce those rules.
I personally had no trouble using the url you provided, creating a very nice link to Gibson's nonsense rant (which you had shown earlier, as well). I chose to replace that link with the first paragraph, in order to spare the balance of the community the frustration of viewing that same braindead video yet again; but I had already previewed, and tested the link, so that is how I found out about the "special rules" to which you, and you alone, have been subjected; I also wangled introductions to the two full-time interns (one is female, and may choose to send me a jpg) currently committed to fouling up your links. With those odds stacked against you, perhaps you should just return to your own blogspot, where only those of persuasion similar to your own will deign to comment, or attempt to post links.
I can't believe you even have the nerve to post here again. You got caught flat out lying in the last exchange. You claimed Rush didn't edit out the text. We challenged you and you still asserted that, and then called us damned liars. You asserted that MMFA had made something up when MMFA didn't.
You were wrong and couldn't even admit it.
Now you are back with more spin. Oh, Rush didn't edit out the "relevant" parts. Rush claimed he played the whole tape. He didn't. He lied, something he has a habit of doing. The cut out section certainly is important because it changes the context of what he said. By taking out that 1:30, he tries to make it look like he meant like he meant one particular soldier rather than all soldiers who dissented.
If you have any honesty you would apologize for calling us damned liars, admit you were wrong, and admit Rush is misleading, not MMFA.
"If you have any honesty you would apologize for calling us damned liars, admit you were wrong, and admit Rush is misleading, not MMFA."--Funnypants
If he did that, the brainwashing requires him to shoot himself, and this time not in the foot.
COPIOUSDISSENT’s defense of Limbaugh, PART I:
CD: “Limbaugh played the whole show that was relevent to the ‘phony soldiers.’ "
RESPONSE: Limbaugh branded ALL soldiers, agreeing with his caller, as “PHONY” if those soldiers disagreed with Bush’s Iraq policy. It is clear from the context that Limbaugh, AND his caller, defined “REAL” soldiers ONLY by the criteria of supporting the WAR and supporting Bush. The best way to identify “PHONY” soldiers is by the fact that THE MEDIA presents these soldiers’ opposition to the war, by running stories by and about their views. If you are a soldier, and your opposition to the war is covered in the media, then you are a “PHONY” soldier. This was Limbaugh’s original message, his claim in complete context.
Once a firestorm erupted, Limbaugh realized he had to change his claim, because it wouldn’t do to tar so very many active duty soldiers, fighting and dying for their country, as “PHONY”. So Rush went into damage control, and attempted to deflect his charge of “PHONY” to one particular soldier. In this, he had a “context” problem, because he did not mention this particular soldier until much later in his show. What to do? In order to make it SEEM as if the context was focused on that one particular person, Limbaugh edited out the ensuing talk to make it seem as if the “CONTEXT” was “PHONY SOLDIERS”, followed immediately by a direct reference to a specific “Phony Soldier” (singular).
So, Limbaugh DID NOT “play the whole show”. He TRIED to create a context that was “relevant to the phony soldiers”, but this was not a valid edit. The issue at hand was not relevance to phony soldiers, but the CONTEXT ITSELF, which Limbaugh manipulated.
CD: “MMFA then created a post asserting that he removed comments about the "phony soldiers comments." He did no such thing.”
RESPONSE: No, you are again WRONG (attempting to deceive).. MMFA noted that Rush claimed to have run the exchange “in its entirety”, and that this was a LIE. Rush edited the tapes (and transcript) of what actually occurred, cutting out almost two minutes in order to try to “connect” passages that were not connected originally.
CD: “In truth, Rush removed comments about WMDs that he said well before the phoney soldiers statments and is irrelevant to determine the context of his statements.”
RESPONSE: This is a LIE. The comments Rush removed occurred AFTER his phony soldiers comment, and BEFORE his later discussion about a particular “phony soldier”. In CONTEXT, these were two separate discussions, the former a blanket defining and branding of all soldiers fitting the criteria of opposing the continuation of the war, and the latter the identification of a PARTICULAR phony soldier.
COPIOUSDISSENT's defense of Limbaugh, Part II:
CD: “See entire show here....Notice how MMFA circled in red what Rush actually kept in the transcript to mislead their audience.”
RESPONSE: The “red circle” indicates the point at which Limbaugh EDITED OUT two minutes of discussion. This was an attempt by Limbaugh at misleading his audience, trying to create a type of “context” where none originally existed. He wanted to create the impression that “I was talking about THIS guy, and ONLY this guy,” when a full reading of the exchange, IN CONTEXT, shows no such thing.
CD: “Moreover, it was clear that Rush wanted to talk about the phony soldier before the caller brought it up. That is why he said it within the same conversation. It was all in context and Rush was talking about a Phony soldier.”
RESPONSE: What is clear is that the caller wanted to brand all soldiers who voice dissent against Bush’s Iraq policy as “PHONY”, and Rush readily agreed in this PLURAL branding. There were only two criteria, and those were (1) favor getting out of Iraq, and (2) in the MEDIA. The audience could draw no other conclusion that all soldiers reported in the media as being FOR withdrawing from Iraq were indeed, in the minds of Limbaugh and his caller, “PHONY”. As clarification, “REAL” soldiers were then defined as those who supported Bush’s policies. With this clarifying claim, there was NO DOUBT who-all Limbaugh and his caller were talking about.
CD: “MMFA's attempt to mislead their audience is nothing new; here is a great example.”
RESPONSE: Calling your own blog a “great example” does not make it so.
CD: “Keep taking money funneled through George Soros' middle men non-profit organizations. MMFA, you have lost all clout as a truth-seeking organization. It is all about smears and partisanship.”
RESPONSE: Indeed, it’s all about smears and partisanship. MMFA exposes, and you deny … and your denials are without merit or validity.
Thanks Tex,
I dittohead that and have passed it on to my dittohead braindead friends. I will guess that none of them will dispute your post. Rushbo may now be in limbo.
And for you, the intern reading this, QUIT your job
"Here is more proof that MMFA cut the transcript, NOT RUSH.
- copiousdissent.blogspot.com"
The link leads to Limbaugh's edited version played by John Gibson of Fox News, not the full version
copiousdissent.blogspot.com, you've been had.
Wow. You have got to be f***ing kidding me. I don't have sound on this computer (I have it on the other one), so I couldn't listen to it, but Gibson is a liar, and Copious is probably the most dishonest poster ever, so I didn't bother with it. I thought Gibson would spin. I didn't think he would outrigh tlie like that.
It's possible that Gibson didn't deliberately lie, but rather just like copiousdissent.blogspot.com, he took Limbaugh at his word rather than checking for himself.
But I mean, are you saying that thiat is Gibson's argument--that he compares the edited audio to the edited transcript and claims MMFA is lying? Is his segment that idiotic, or am I missing anything else.
Holy Cow, several posters have spent an entire beautiful autumn afternoon/early evening calling each other liars, etc without changing anyone's mind, I'm sure. (and I wasted the better part of an hour going through the tedious, repetitive posts). We should examine our priorities, I think.
Wait - are you saying that lies and liars should go uncontested? Are you longing to be the next headline on MMFA: "Oscar leaves unchallenged undeniable lies by Gumbaugh and his krew"? Oh, I did have the f'ball game on in the background, and spent several hours in the middle out picking up walnuts and raking.
Oscar, do you think that the rustle of fall leaves, and sunshine in September are more important than the troops? Don't you understand what Limbaugh's trying to do here?
--Just kidding, thought I'd try my hand at hate talk logic. :-)
If you read back through most of the posts, they just say the same thing over and over. Not at all saying that this topic shouldn't be here, but the salient points were made early by both sides and the rest, IMO, deterioated to name calling. What has been said here could have been said in 20 posts and there are now over 90 and nothing new has been accomplished (except to raise some blood pressures, probably). And if you want to get into a "your liar" "no, you liar" exchange, thre is plenty of time to do it after the sun goes down. Outside of the hour I feel I wasted this afternoon with my first visit here, I enjoyed the beautiful fall day outdoors.
Sort of a false equivalence there, don't you think? CD is lying through his teeth. That's been shown over and over. It's not just "name-calling" if it's true. You're suggesting that both sides are guilty of something, when only one actually is.
Blame CD. He's the one who keeps lying and called us liars yesterday. If he made some minor effort to be honest, there would be no problem.
Meanwhile, that behavior should be called out for what it is. And CD should be banned, in my opinion.
So you want Dissent banned? (In all cases?). After reading through the exchange between ObeseDisagreement and ArgyleKnickers (name calling, I know, but the images are "seared" in my mind) yesterday, I felt that most of it was redundant and did nothing to further the discussion or promote actual discourse. Calling them as I see them, but, hey, you are free to disagree.
I'd love for you to point out where I say all dissent should be banned. Please, go for it.
CD's behavior is atrocious. He is repeatedly lying and is impervious to all facts, no matter how well demonstrated, no matter how obvious.
That is clearly someone that is impossible to have a reasoned conversation with. He is the one who is harming the discourse, not the people who are pointing out his lies. Now, you can demonstrate where FMP was ignoring a valid point by CD or lying himself if you like, but I don't think there is such a case.
If you can explain what reason there is to keep someone who behaves like CD around, I'm willing to listen. I don't think you'll have much to say, though. Thoughtful, honest dissent? Fine. Trolls? Not so much.
If you re-read my post, Dissent was capitalized the first time, referring to CD (or OD) and uncapitalized the second time. This was done to ask you a question, not accusing you of necessarily wanting to ban all dissent. Just suprised me in reading through the earlier posts how ObeseDisagreement and ArgyleKnickers kept going back and forth, repeating almost exactly the same thing each time. Did that add to the discourse? Not in my opinion, reminded me of two youngsters yelling at each other. That exchange went on far longer than necessary, IMO. Should OD be banned? That, I think, is up to MMFA. Could OD be more civil and stay on point better? Certainly. But, hey, the exchange was good for drug sales (Hypertension Medicine).
I noticed your capitalization, but there is no second time you said "dissent". When I read "So you want Dissent banned? (In all cases?)" I sort of have to figure the capitalization is a typo, because if you're speaking about a specific person then of course they're going to be banned "in all cases". That phrase doesn't make any sense whatsoever there. If someone is banned, then they're banned, there are no "cases" to be distinguished anymore. In general, if anyone behaves the way he has, I would want them banned. I have very little tolerance for dishonesty from people on either side.
I'm not saying it's up to anyone besides MMfA whether or not he should be banned. I'm just pointing out why he should be. And it's not just a matter of staying on point or being civil. If he really had a point and FMP was ignoring it, then I wouldn't care if he got testy. But all he's doing is lying, in an almost psychotic manner, and you can't have a rational conversation with someone like that. So what can someone like that contribute here?
I wouldn't expect a conservative to just let someone lie and get away with it if it was the other way around either. Let them push the issue and show just how dishonest and unreasonable that person really is. That's fair, either way.
Please re-read the above post, the first Dissent was capitalized, referring to OD, the second was meant as a general question, to get your side. Did not accuse you of necessarily wanted to stifle all dissent, just wanted to know where you are coming from. I felt the exchange between ObeseDisagreement and ArgyleKnickers said the same thing over and over without adding anything substantial to the discourse. Should OD be banned? That's up to MMFA. Could OD be more civil? Certainly. But, it looks like the discussion may have been good for Drug sales (Hypertension Medicine).
I have just spent 20 minutes reading all the posts above and I just want to say something: Copious, you have been made to look foolish, and it is obvious that you will not accept reality when it is staring you right in the face. Rush lied, he doctored the transcript and you will not admit it even though the evidence is overwhelming.
That's why I always refer to him as DUBIOUSDISSENT.BLOGWHORE.NUT.
I heard the Rush Limbaugh show that you are referring to and you really don't have to do the minutes and seconds, don't be ridiculous. It is all there on his website for you. Why are you so defensive anyway? Why do you hate Rush Limbaugh? That is something you really should pursue. The show You are talking about, he was talking about the Left liking losing and liking losers. Jesse MacBeth, loser. He claimed to have a Purple Heart. He claimed a lot of things, Liar. The Left talked him up as something. He was a loser. He claimed to see things in Irag. He never got to Irag. He was a loser. He didn't even make 40 days in boot camp and yet he claims to have seen atrocities in Iraq. He got 40 days in the hoosegow for that crap. i'D HAVE GIVEN HIM pickng up shi*t in Irag for his lies. Anyhow Rush Limbaugh was only complaining about these lying soldiers, like Jesse MacBeth, who didn't make boot camp, the left love him, coward. Now, are you going to stick up for this lying coward? Are you going to admit you have been humiliated because of his lying? Remember his name. Jessie MacBath, liar. Rush Limbaugh was only referring to liars like Jessie McBeth.
"The Left talked him up as something." -latest troll
Straw man alert.
Who is Jesse MacBeth? I listen to a great deal of lib radio and I'd never heard of him until he was conjured up by this gang of natural born liars. This is a strawman argument formulated by Rush (a man too cowardly to own his words.)
It's simple, Rush and his gang of Republican party loyalists only support the troops that are convenient to support. Any other soldier is phony.Â
I did google his name and the only people propping him up as anything at all are rightwing hyperventilators.
You say Jesse is representative of something when in fact Jesse is just Jesse shunned by all, except as a strawman, by movement conservatives.
But you just keep distracting attention from Rush's blatantly disrespectful comments about our soldiers. All these distractions just reaffirm how worried Rush and his gang of loyalists are about how deeply he has stepped in the doo-doo
Roundhouse, don't you remember? Jesse McBeth is all we talked about here for months on end. How great he was, how much we love a loser, how his stories proved that th military is made up of evil monsters.We barely had time to discuss taking guns away from people and doubling taxes to pay for forced abortions and arranged gay marriages.
Just kidding, I never heard of him either. I do listen to Rush sometimes, and often hear him bring up issues that "the Left" and the media is obsessed with. Generally I've never heard of these things anyplace else, except for the Rush comedy show.
Jesse MacBeth said he had seen atrocities committed by US soldiers. He tried to get the public to believe that American soldiers had committed war crimes. But he wasn't too smart. He got kicked out of boot camp, had never been in Iraq. What are you talking about? Jessie MacBeth follows closely in the footsteps of John Kerry. You can listento his lies if you wish when he lied to the US when he came back from Vietnam. His infamous Gengis Khan speech. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Rush Limbaugh is only trying to bring truth to te matter He talked about one so called soldier Jesse MacBath, who couldn't cut it./ This Jessie Macbeth was a liar, said he saw things in Iraq, he couldn't have seen I
Last week I predicted (correctly) that MMFA was going on a witch hunt when it attempted to make a "racist" out of Bill O'Reilly. (The man went to lunch with a black community leader, to a black neighborhood, to a black-owned restaurant, with predominantly black patrons, and you call him racist? I'd hate to see what you would call him if he went with white friends to a white neighborhood to eat in a white-owned restaurant full of white people.) Anyway, as I predicted, this story has quickly been exposed as a witch hunt, it has faded into oblivion (9 items on Wed, 4 on Thurs, only 1 yesterday, I declare it DEAD!) as will this one. MMFA is getting desperate. They know that talk radio DOES make a difference in this country. They KNOW that liberals cannot compete with the conservative voice in the market, so they are trying to blueprint a sure-fire way to remove them from the airwaves. Imus was the guinea-pig, they now have bigger fish to fry: BillO, Hannity, Beck, Rush. They are pathetic.
In other words, you are a Rush apologist. Rush lied. You can't disprove that, so you make general statements about a witch hunt.
I guess lying is okay with you?
I'm NOT defending Rush. I'm pointing out MMFA's desperation to TRY to get conservative voices removed from the corporate-owned airwaves before the '08 election hits full stride. It's pathetic.
They're trying to get a racist and a guy who calls some troops phony off the air.
On second thought I don't think they're trying to do that. They're trying to diminish O'Reilly and Limbaugh's relevance by showing the public who these guys really are.
BUSH LIES...that says just about everything. OOPS!
Thank God for someone like you posting here because when the next "SwiftBoat" type Conservative witch hunt appears on the horizon, you will be the FIRST to denounce it as a piece of crap. See, we can all get along...but NOBODY LIES here, even Rush.
Bill O'Reilly...went to lunch with a black community leader, to a black neighborhood, to a black-owned restaurant, with predominantly black patrons, and you call him racist?
Yes.Lunch only takes about an hour.You're easily fooled.
And Bill the racist made racist statements after going to that resteraunt. Then he made more racist statements in trying to justify his racist statements. He engaged in a bit of stereotyping that was quite...racist.
Quote me one, ONE statement that BillO said that can be quantified as "racist". I've had this discussion before, and so far, NOBODY has given ONE example.
He said he couldn't get over how it was just the same as white restaurants, and it was somehow notable that black people behaved in a civil manner there. Expecting uncivil behavior from black people is racist.
Nope, doesn't work. Cultural ignorance is not racist.
Negative stereotypes are racist. It doesn't matter if they're based on ignorance or not.
Racial prejudice - the act of judging beforehand based on race. That doesn't speak to causation whatsoever.
Stereotypes are stereotypes. Prejudice is prejudice. Racial prejudice is a type of prejudice. Neither one is racism. Your not getting anywhere here.
Racial prejudice is not racism? How the hell do you assert that judging someone on their race is not racism?
Where do you think you're going with this, exactly?
Just proving to the world that YOU don't understand racism.
American Heritage Dictionary:2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Besides, the expectations expressed by O'Reilly clearly imply inferiority. Uncivil behavior is sociologically inferior. Black people are "beginning to think for themselves". Beginning? They're not quite as far along as white people in that regard? Inferior.
You have no argument.
Nice cherry-picking of a SECONDARY definition. However, EVERY other dictionary defines it differently. YOU have no argument. You're against the wall, so now your next move is to...
No, I already showed how his comments assert the inferiority of black people. That is in accord with many primary definitions, the only exception being it doesn't necessarily assert the right to rule over them.
Besides, a secondary definition is still valid. Racial prejudice is racism.
If this is your usual style, it's obvious why nobody has "proved" anything to you. Rational people accept dictionaries as credible, objective sources.
your next move is to.........back pedal, back pedal, back pedal. You're too predictable, and you're still wrong. You don't even understand the nature of the discussion.
Feel free to demonstrate how I'm backpedalling. I'm standing by everything I've said. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of that word, either?
Nice job admitting that O'Reilly was guilty of racial prejudice. That is the nature of the discussion, and it's why you're reduced to empty trash-talking now.
Yes, you stand behind everything you've said, and you STILL haven't given me an example of a racist comment from BillO: So, you have re-stated you're original claim - backpedalling.
You've been held to the fire, and you've been burned. Now you're second-guessing yourself.
Could you prove to the Supreme Court that what BillO said was genuinely "racist"? No.
Restating my original claim is not "backpedalling". You don't know what the word means.
Prove it to the Supreme Court? Is this really your standard? In any event, yes, putting forward what he said, showing why it is racial prejudice, showing why it implies inferiority in blacks, showing the definitions of the word, that should prove to any impartial person that what he said was racist.
Considering your lack of valid arguments so far, I'd ask you to present your case to the SCOTUS for the opposing side. Basically all you have is to restate your opinion that it's not racist, which is not convincing in any court of law. So much for your standard.
"Battered Liberal Syndrome"
Brabantio, see if Hillarycare will cover it.
No substantive response? What a shocker.
I'm still waiting for you to show me how BillO is a racist. So far your argument, much like MMFA's accusation, is weak.
Actually, I'm waiting for you to respond to the points I've already made. You just saying "weak" is, itself, weak.
You admitted it was racial prejudice. I showed why it implied inferiority of black people. The dictionary supports me, several definitions at that. You can't refute any of it, apparently.
If you're trolling, then you're worthless. If you're serious, you look like an idiot. You've had plenty of chances to make an actual argument. So please, put up or shut up. Fair enough?
Racism: "The belief in the GENETIC superiority of one race over another". Case closed, counselor.
BillO would surely think you're black, based on your display of intelligence.
That definition does not invalidate the one I used. You do understand words sometimes have more than one meaning, I'm sure.
Are you seriously going to say that people who used to argue that black people were incapable of becoming "civilized" weren't racist? What they were saying didn't necessarily speak to inherent differences, as opposed to cultural ones. Yet, it's a clearly racist sentiment. If you assume that a black person is going to rob you, that is obviously racist. But it doesn't mean you think black people are genetically inclined to commit crimes.
An even better example, I had a friend of a friend who was robbed by a black man, and "became" prejudiced after that. He told a black waiter "I don't like dark meat". Now, I have no way of knowing if he thought black people were genetically inferior or not. But yet, he was a racist, by any reasonable assessment.
If that's all you have, and it looks like it was, then you're done.
What you fail to realize is that you can exhibit ALL of the behaviors that you cited without being a racist! For example:
"Poor blacks are more prone to live a life of crime than poor whites." NOT a racist comment.
"Most poor black children have NO positive male role model in the community." NOT a racist statement.
"I hate N***ERS!!" Surprise, surprise. NOT a racist statement!!
"Blacks still eat pig intestine and neckbone because that's all they were allowed to eat when they were slaves." NOT a racist statement.
"I believe that white people are naturally more able to grasp the concept of advanced physics than black people." RACIST STATEMENT!!
Key words: GENETIC SUPERIORITY!!
Looks like you're a racist too, eh? No wonder you're defending Billo.
Again, your definition does not invalidate the one I used, no matter how many capital letters you use. Sorry.
Look, you're at the point where you're saying ""I hate N***ERS!!" is not a racist statement. Come on, are you kidding? Do you really think the Supreme Court is going to be swayed by that?
Dictionary.com:3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. It doesn't matter if it says 2. or 3. or 27. It's racism by definition.
So no, I'm not going to "realize" that you can say any of those things without being racist, because it's simply not true.
I believe that black people are uncivilized and are incapable of eatting in public places without yelling for some MFin' iced tea... That better?
I have to second the surprise that Bush Lies is seriously trying to forward the meme that saying "I hate nig*ers," is not a racist statement. I doubt the man he is here defending, Bill O'Reilly, would agree with him. BL: I hope posters here remember this and hang it around your racist neck for a long time to come.
You're just proving to the world that you're trying to lie FOR a racist.
I'm not lying, and BillO is not a racist. I respectfully disagree.
I disrespectfully call you a liar and Billo a racist. Cause you and he IS. Next you'll be pulling that "but we're all racists somehow" crap on us, worm-tongue.
Here is a download link to the entire second hour of Limbaugh's 9/26 show (if anyone is interested). Nineteen minutes into the clip is where the first Mike calls in.
Give it up MM! You're lying. He did not call those who disagree with him on Iraq "phony soliders". He called those who misrepresented their service phony soliders. Everyone who heard this knew what he meant. You people are desperate!
Give it up MM! You're lying. He did not call those who disagree with him on Iraq "phony soliders".
Of course he did.
CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
Get that? Any real soldier is proud to serve and wants to be in Iraq. So he's talking about soldiers that want us to get out of Iraq just like the majority of Americans. Those are the "phony soldiers". Rush agreed with that sentiment, without correction, without qualification.
Case closed.
Over 70% of the troops polled said they wanted out of Iraq. I guess Rush thinks they're all phonies who just snuck in to skew the poll results away from the "real" soldiers who want to stay and get their legs blown off by an IED for Cheney's stock options.
stay and get their legs blown off by an IED for Cheney's stock options.
Interesting statement. Care to explain it or maybe provide some credible documentation?
Halliburton's stock prices have skyrocketed in this war crime. The typical IED-wounded are missing legs and even genitalia. So put 1 + 1 together and you got US servicemen getting their balls blown off to make Cheney's wife, who's still on the Halliburton board, even richer. Iraq = NO WMD, no threat to the USA, nothing but oil and war contracts. Get it yet?
Nope, you're full of baseless accusation. Tell me, how much profit has the division of Halliburton that is involved with projects in Iraq produced since the beginning of the war? NOT Halliburton as a whole, JUST the division that is working in Iraq.
Here ya go BushLies: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y
This is Halliburton's stock price over the last 5 years. Note that in 2006 it split 2 for 1. This is proof that over the last 5 years it's value is more than 6-1/2 times what it was this time in 2002.
The next link shows the comparison of Halliburton's stock to the Dow.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=indu
Simply amazing isn't it, a mere 360% higher growth than the Dow.
Now, I know you stuck a qualifier in about proving that their profit came from the war. That is easy enough to show in yet another graph which shows that in 20 years from 1982 to 2002 their stock only doubled (note the split).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
So what happened in 2002 that spurred such huge growth? Dead soldiers pays a great premium nowadays.
Need more proof?
Yes, I need more proof, because you haven't provided the correct information.
And, based on your dumb logic, looks like Google is reaping obscene profits off of the war, also:
http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart3:symbol=goog;range=5y;compare=^dji;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined
BTW, how does Halliburton's stock rise compare to Exxon Mobil? Do you think that perhaps oil prices have had anything to do with it? Stop looking through such a narrow lens. Their stock has increased as oil demand and crude prices have increased, duh!! They practically mirror Exxon and BP, but I don't hear you howling about BP profiting off of dead soldiers, now do I?
Now, the division of Halliburton involved in Iraq: How much have they profited since the war began? Come on, now, don't avoid the truth.
Excerpt from "Baghdad Ground Zero" by Naomi Klein, written in September, 2004:
"I couldn't help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is “a huge pot of honey that's attracting a lot of flies.” The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq's famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.
Looking at the honey billboard, I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn't have “a postwar plan.” The only problem with this theory is that it isn't true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.
* * *The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself.
The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
Touching, but completely irrelevant. Still, I have no answer.
"still I have no answer." Boy, you got that right, kiddo.
You say you see, therefore, your sin remaineth.
Amen, sister. Thank God for Me.
so be it on your head, for sure. Hope you enjoy the sulfur fumes.
And both parties are whining that Iraq didn't pass that oil investment law they're pushing on the Iraqi parliament, to allow US firms to buy up the Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure. It's one of the "benchmarks" they're placing on our puppet government over there, who's proving to be a little less puppet to the war-mongers liking. That's why they're calling for Maliki to go on both sides of the aisle. He won't hand the US corpos Iraq's oil industry. Iraqis still want it to be a nationalized operation.
BTW, how does Halliburton's stock rise compare to Exxon Mobil? Do you think that perhaps oil prices have had anything to do with it?
Their profits rise every time the U.S. is engaged in some sort of conflict because of lucrative contracts they have with the government.
And oil prices have risen because of the volatile situation created by Bush and Cheney.
Now, the division of Halliburton involved in Iraq: How much have they profited since the war began? Come on, now, don't avoid the truth.
I don't know. How much? And how much have the higher -ups made?
Well, finally an answer! "I don't know". Well, I DO! And I'm not your econ teacher. Look it up yourself!
Google? Strawman?
Are you saying Google received huge military and rebuilding no-bid Iraqi contracts?
Or, are you saying that Halliburton has not received huge no-bid Iraqi contracts?
Or, are you saying Halliburton started a search engine website? [If so, please provide link]
Ironic that you state I'm the one using twisted logic. Now, try to answer the questions above. I know you can do it, focus.
I'm saying that if I wanted to draw uneducated, mindless accusations about "profit from dead soldiers" just by looking at the Dow, I could find thousands of good examples. Nice try. I still haven't seen anyone tell me how much Halliburton has profited off of the dead soldiers. Too lazy to do a little research, folks?
The division of Halliburton that Bushlies refers to is KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root). They are by far the largest contractor in Iraq, having amassed $17.2 billion in Iraq-related war revenue from 2003-2006.
Apparently, KBR was too much of a detriment to Halliburton's squeeky clean image, having completely divested KBR earlier this year.
Dead soldiers pay high dividends.
Give me some numbers, TheRick, tell me how high those "dead soldier" dividends are. I STILL have NO ANSWER from you folks. Just baseless accusations ("OOOHHHH, Halliburton, Halliburton, Profits, Cheney") WHERE ARE THE FIGURES, PEOPLE? DO SOME RESEARCH!!!!
We've given you answers, but you insist on acting like an unpatriotic anti-troop lapdog.
I suppose a company that cruised along doubling it's worth every 15-20 years coincidently rose in net worth 650% over the 6 years that this war has been going. And, the same company coincidently received BILLIONS in no-bid contracts from said war. And the same company coincidently employed our Vice President up until the time he served in office.
If that's what your selling, you might try finding a Republican website. I hear they'll believe anything.
So, you're saying that you have absolutely no idea how much money Dick Cheney and his buddies have profited off of dead soldiers. Thanks.
So you're saying that Dick Cheney and his buddies have made zero dollars off of dead slodiers. Thanks.
sorry, should have read soldiers
Nope. If you would do some ACTUAL RESEARCH, you would discover that Dick Cheney and his buddies have LOST MONEY due to the projects in Iraq. NET LOSS!
Prove it
Again, we're having a "Moonbat" competition here. Someone will come up with the correct answer soon enough. This is gonna be GREAT. I'm convinced that maybe one or two people have already learned the truth through good detective work, but are too ashamed to post their findings. This is almost an equivalent to having to admit that Bush told the truth! I love it.
Ahh, so you demand numbers from us but won't post any yourself. And when we post numbers, you ignore them and demand numbers again and again. You're not just a liar, you're insane.
But, I still haven't gotten a real answer. All I get is BS about "revenue" "operating income" and a bunch of other crud that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the bottom line. Look, I have already told you that Halliburton has LOST money on it's operations in Iraq. Why do you think that they have completely divested that branch of the company? Because it kept LOSING MONEY. Oh, but you moonbats don't want to hear that, do you? Your party line is "Halliburton is evil, evil profits from the blood of soldiers, blah, blah, blah". Just like the tired "Bush Lied, Kids died". You have separated yourself from the real world with your rabid hatred of the Republican party and the Bush Administration. When you're blistered with facts and logic, you're ability to think reasonably is smashed by your disdain for GWB and then you get mad. "NO" you howl, "Bush lied and his cronies are getting rich off of the war!!" Whatever. You're all pathetically twisted. "No blood for oil!!" you shout, but if we went to Iraq to steal the oil, then why the hell am I still paying $3.00 a gallon?? There's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but YOU PEOPLE don't want to hear it. HOURS ago, I asked for a VERY simple piece of data, and NOBODY came up with it. You just keep spouting the same junk, "Cheney's profits, Cheney's stock options, Cheney's $2 million". Well, EAT THIS:
http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html
Every single one of you has just been exposed as mindless liberal lemmings.
Call 1-800-784-2433 while the realization sets in, just in case.
You're projecting again. It was for oil, even Greenspan admits that. Halliburton stock prices did sky-rocket, they did get loads of big contracts, KBR made BILLIONS on this war crime, and you defend a fascist regime. You are insane.
So tell me BushLies, when you posted the following, were you aware of the fallacy you wrote, and if so, did you do it on purpose?
"I'm NOT defending Rush. I'm pointing out MMFA's desperation to TRY to get conservative voices removed from the corporate-owned airwaves before the '08 election hits full stride. It's pathetic."--BushLies
I'm quite certain that many of our Liberal friends know what I'm refering to, do you?
Oh, yeah, I know EXACTLY what I said. Corporate owned airwaves.
No No Rick. You've got it all wrong. KBR didn't show any substantial profits. And we all know it's because they're over there out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean, heck, none of the contractors are there to make a profit. They're there to support our troops. That's all. And they'll do it for a loss because thats what good patriotic American companies do. Thats why KBR hasn't profited. THEY DON'T WANT TO. Wake up and see the light you stupid moonbat.
Forget it, Bush lies, these Media Matters types are sub-morons. They have no clue as to how stupid you are making them look.
All they can do is parrot the lies that they have been spoon fed.
Ooooh, so close. But I still don't have an answer!
I'll give Pete some credit for his research, but I still have no answer. I'll tell you what, I will crown the first person to post the correct answer "Moonbat of the Month".
September or October?
Well, I figure it will be October before I finally get an answer, so October it is.
BUSH LIES (I agree):
http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2005/corpnws_072105.pdf
EXCERPT (from their own books, which I have not personally audited, so may or may not be accurate):
"Halliburton’s Iraq-related work contributed approximately $1.4 billion in revenue in thesecond quarter of 2005 and $48 million of operating income, or a 3.4% margin."
So, that's $48 million in just ONE QUARTER (of a four-year-so-far, 16 minimal quarter WAR).
If this were their ONLY net profit from that billion-plus revenue flow, that could be divided by the nearly 4000 American soldiers killed, and we get Haliburton profiting $12,000 for each American soldier's life.
Of course, their profit spans 16 quarters, so we can extrapolate that Haliburton does not sell our soldiers cheap, reaping a whopping $192,000 per coffin. So far.
WAR is very profitable for very many industries. The suppliers of guns and bullets, rockets and vehicles, oil and gas, food and supplies ... all have enormous increase in business (demand) and all make enormous profits.
Rebuilding what has been bombed is also very profitable. Controlling resources in "conquered" lands is known as the "spoils of war".
Soldiers don't reap them; the military-industrial complex does. Soldier's reaping comes from the Grim Reaper ... fodder for profit. Some think, a fair and good trade-off. Haliburton continues to pay Cheney.
As Senator Boehner said; "It's a small price to pay"
I posted; “Halliburton’s Iraq-related work contributed approximately $1.4 billion in revenue in the second quarter of 2005 and $48 million of operating income, or a 3.4% margin."
To which BUSHLIES responds, “Listen to me carefully..........PROFIT!!! That's what I'm looking for....PROFIT!!!”
Ah-HA. I think I see his problem; the term “operating income”.
http://www.investorwords.com/3460/operating_income.html
Operating Income: A measure of a company's earning power from ongoing operations, equal to earnings before deduction of interest payments and income taxes. Also called OPERATING PROFIT or EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes).
So, BUSHLIES, that’s $48 MILLION in PROFIT claimed for only ONE QUARTER. What’s your comprehension problem here?
OK, that's ONE QUARTER. What does that bring the TOTAL profit to?
BUSH LIES, and so does BUSH LIES!
From the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives December 9, 2004:
Halliburton has several major contracts in Iraq. The largest, called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), is a COST-PLUS contract to provide support services to the troops. As of December 2, 2004, the value of Halliburton's Iraq task orders under LOGCAP was $8.26 billion.
The second largest Halliburton contract is the COST-PLUS RIO contract to restore and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure, which Halliburton was awarded on a NO-BID basis in March 2003. The value of the work Halliburton performed under this contract is $2.51 billion.
The combined value of these two contracts is $10.77 billion. This is significantly more than any other contractor has been awarded in Iraq. For example, the maximum value of Bechtel's Iraq infrastructure contracts is $2.8 billion. Halliburton will reap profits of between $133 million and $424 million on its two contracts. (3)
The actual value of Halliburton's Iraq contracts is likely higher than $10.77 billion. In January 2004, Halliburton received a follow-on oil contract for southern Iraq worth up to $1.2 billion. The Administration has not disclosed the value of the work given to Halliburton under this contract.
Under Halliburton's COST-PLUS contracts, the government REIMBURSES THE COMPANY FOR ITS ACTUAL COSTS and then pays an additional fee. For LOGCAP, Halliburton receives a base fee of 1% of its costs and an additional award fee of up to 2%. This yields a profit range of $83 million to $248 million. For RIO, Halliburton's base fee is 2% of its costs and its additional award fee is up to 5%. This yields a profit range of $50 million to $176 million.
Kindly explain to the class, BUSHLIES, how a company could POSSIBLY “lose” money on a COST-PLUS contract? It cannot be done. It costs what it costs, you bill that, and then you are awarded your agree-to “fee” and any applicable “award fees”. Those fees are PURE PROFIT. No “expenses” come out of them … they are COVERED.
Damn, BUSHLIES, you got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do lying to the readers about how Halliburton could POSSIBLY have LOST money on “COST-PLUS” multi-billion dollar contracts projected in 2004 to yield from $130 million to $420 million in clear profit.
Link us, please, to the site that explains how this multinational company could have BLOWN an idiot-proof profit sweetheart deal like THIS? Eh? NO EXPENSES, guaranteed profit. What the hell happened? How’d they manage to take all this taxpayer money, and say they made nothing (as you have CLAIMED, but have failed to PROVE?)
Your “MOONBAT” award is dangling around your own neck like an albatross, old boy. It’s stinkin’ to high heaven.
Listen to me carefully..........PROFIT!!! That's what I'm looking for....PROFIT!!!
Put 2 and 2 together for cryin' out loud.
A company's stock does not go up when it's hemorrhaging money.
A little excerpt from HalliburtonWatch about CEO David Lesar, sourced directly from the SEC.
"In March 2003, the first month of the Iraq invasion, corporate disclosure records show Lesar owned 1.476 million common shares and share options in Halliburton worth $30 million. At the end of stock trading yesterday, those shares were worth $93 million, for a $63 million gain. Subsequent to the Iraq invasion, Lesar boosted his total holdings in the company from $93 million to $108 million by acquiring a net 243,000 additional shares, thereby increasing his stock holdings by $78 million since March 2003."
Not a shabby net worth increase for 2 1/2 years.
Still nothing.
BUSH LIES:
Whatd'ya MEAN, "still nothing"?
Why, you have won FOR YOURSELF the coveted "MOONBAT" award, by challenging folks to find Haliburton making a profit on Iraq operations, and that was done.
I expect you to now change your screenname to "BUSHLIES the MOONBAT", as a testament to your losing the bet.
NOONE has provided an accurate figure to my original question!!
That's because you are not really asking a question. Your intention is to lie with statistics and you've been called on that. Give it up. You are hurting America
I'm amazed that so many people on this thread continue to play Bush Lies' game. Here's how it works: Someone makes an accusation. Bush Lies says "Prove it." Bush Lies is provided with links and endless streams of information. Bush Lies then says "nope, not satisfied." So he's provided more information. Bush Lies says "So are you going to admit, you have no proof?" And it goes on and on.
Bush Lies makes an accusation. Another blogger says "Prove it." Bush Lies makes another accusation, or provides a link to nowhere, or a link to Faux News, or a link to Limbaugh's site, etc. "There, here's the PROOF!", and if you dispute it, well, you just have your head in the sand. O'Reilly isn't a racist. Yes he is. No, he's not. Here's a definition of Racism that proves he is. Well, I don't accept that definition. Well, here's what O'Reilly actually said. Well, that's not racist. Then this moron even posts a series of paragraphs designed to tell us what is racist and what isn't, like he's fricking Noah Webster handing down Wisdom from On High.
Is this fun for anyone? I gave up trying to educate trolls months ago. They aren't here to be educated. If you told them the sun was out and they insisted it wasn't, dragging them outside into the bright sunlight wouldn't be good enough evidence for them. There just isn't any point to any of this. They are like their heroes in the media- they know what they know, and facts be damned.
"Still nothing."- bush liesNice summation of your posts
BUSH LIES:
My source was Halliburton itself. In that site, they claimed $48 million PROFIT (that's PROFIT) on about a billion "revenue", net and gross, for ONE QUARTER in 2005.
Now, if you've seen something which says Haliburton has made no profit, or that one division is not making profit, that would contradict what their website says about their Iraq operations.
However, for PR or accounting purposes, a big conglomerate can shift around money to show about anything they want.
James Garner fought for YEARS with the Hollywood production firm that was franchising "the Rockford Files". They claimed they never made a dime on the franchising of that show, and so he was due ZERO in royalties. Seems they had "expenses", lots and lots of expenses which just ate up that profit, and "poof" it was gone from the books. A jury saw this accounting, and promptly awarded Garner a multi-million settlement and that production company was audited by the IRS. Seems it's criminal to hide profits for whatever reason.
So, if you maybe have an AP story that says, hell, Haliburton is doing all that Iraq stuff at a LOSS, out of the goodness of their hearts ... I'd have to ask what they did with the $48 million they claimed in this website.
Maybe it's one story for the shareholders, and quite another for "the public"? Eh, BUSH LIES?
My story shows CASH for Haliburton as long as it's CASUALTIES for the U.S. Military. PROFITS, as you say. How do you account for what their website clearly says?
Interesting but NOT accurate. Try again.
Oh, sorry. I forgot to answer your question.
How do you account for what their website clearly says?
The answer is: That's not the figure I'm looking for.
OK, here's PART of the answer:
http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u18Mq.htm
So, let me see if I understand this. Because KBR was unable to show a substantial profit with thier ventures in Iraq due to poor management or mis-management or whatever, that means that they are NOT TRYING to profit from the war effort....Got it.
Apologies for all typos past, present, and future....
So long as you're content with how your tax dollars are being spent in Iraq, I guess the fact that people have gotten rich on the backs of our soldiers will remain elusive and irrelevant to you.
BUSHLIES:
You claim Halliburton made NO PROFIT from their Iraq-related work, yet here's THIS from YOUR OWN LINK:
"In 2006, Iraq-related work contributed $4.7 billion to consolidated revenue and $166 million to consolidated operating income, resulting in a 3.5% margin before corporate costs and taxes. We were awarded $120 million in LogCAP award fees during 2006."
WOW. That's $280 million in PROFIT, just for 2006.
Hoist on your own petard, old boy. Busted.
BUSHLIES:
I recognize you now. You're the same guy who was doing PR for ENRON.
Not the figures you're "looking for"? You wish us to quote the "official" figures issued by the ENRON front office, I suppose? LOL
The "MOONBAT" award is solidly yours, pal. You won it, you deserve it, and in case you haven't noticed, REALITY trumps rightwing BS around here. You've been thoroughly trumped, and there is no reason to go further with even more rebuttals of your ridiculous claims.
Enjoy that "MOONBAT" around your neck, turning putrid and identifying the quality of your "information". Dismissed, you LIAR.
As long as Bush Lies and his ilk can keep responding "nope, I want more" to whatever information you give them, they are going to keep doing it, and the rest of the people here will jump through the hoops they set up. Get a clue, people: Bush Lies, Leather, Copius etc. DONT WANT INFORMATION. Thats why they LISTEN TO RUSH AND O'REILLY. All they want is confirmation of their ignorant worldview. Stop feeding the trolls, and eventually they'll go elsewhere.
JJ:
I agree with you on their bankrupt technique, these trolls who demand answers and appoint themselves as the only "arbitors" of what is SUFFICIENT.
It's a transparent technique, but I respectfully disagree that they should simply be ignored. Challenges such as they offer bring up REAL issues that deserve to have the REAL proof aired, such as Halliburton's war profiteering and incentive to have our soldiers KEEP DYING.
That's important to have exposed, and important for people to know, and if that proof is provided in response to a "technique troll", so be it. That's what happened here: The technique troll made a challenge, and it was met and proven, and it doesn't matter a whit if the troll himself was "satisfied". As you note wisely, he will NEVER be satisfied by the truth, because that is the transparent technique.
What matters is, the PROOF is displayed once again that Halliburton (and other Bush friends) are voracious in their desire for blood money, and Bush is only too glad to provide all the blood they require to grab those billions.
Well, here it is Monday night, yet NONE of you have been able to answer a simple question. So I'll pose it again:
How much PROFIT has KBR (former Halliburton division) made since the beginning of the Iraq war on it's Iraq projects?
Anyone?
You are still hard at it, trying to pull off a lie with statistics to prove....that Hallliburton received obscene amounts of tax payer money but made no profit. Hard to imagine this dishonesty.
Re-read Tex's posts. Your phony condescending professor schtick isn't flying, sonny.
Wow
are you sure it was a whole 1 minute and 36 seconds or 1 minute and 50 seconds as you started the story off with? Which is it?? My heavens it is so important to know.... I mean if your going to smear the man you really should get your timing straight. You know what happend to Nixon and his altered tapes.......
Again you folks look like fools suffering BDS, I don't think you have enough people that are so totaly devoid of their own thoughts that you will be able to make a obvious attempt at a smear like this to stick. It will be fun to watch you twist and self destruct.
Oh I am still waiting for the full retraction on the Jessie story. You were so happy with yourself that you could not be bothered to check out the story beforehand. It did not take a rocket sientist (fourtunatly for me) to see that there was something very wrong with his account
Steve
Are you really denying that Rush edited it? Why do you think he did that?
"are you sure it was a whole 1 minute and 36 seconds or 1 minute and 50 seconds as you started the story off with? Which is it??"
From the article:
"Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1:50 discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth"
How is that hard to understand?
"Oh I am still waiting for the full retraction on the Jessie story."
A retraction from whom? Media Matters? Was that story ever mentioned here? I listen to Thom Hartmann, Ed Schutz, "Mr. K" (here in Los Angeles); read Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, HuffPo and other liberal blogs, and never remember any mention of this Jesse guy, much less some kind of "Look at this guy! It proves that soldiers are mindless killers!" huffing and puffing that you're accusing someone (MM? Liberals? A crazy drunk you met on the street?) of.
I used to listen to Rush until I woke up and realized he was lying to me. I felt insulted, being someone who doesn't like being lied to. I'm amazed that there are still people who are like I used to be after Rush admitted to "carrying water" for Republicans. He openly stated he had been lying to his audience solely for the cause, and people still jump to defend him. I just don't get it.
"Again you folks look like fools suffering BDS"
I love this BDS thing. It reminds me of another affliction that started quite a few years ago- "BCD" otherwise known as "Blame Clinton Disorder". The good news is that the cure for BDS is a mere 13 months away. The bad news- no known cure for BCD.
Rush Limbaugh says soldiers are phonies,
If they don't go along with Bush cronies
Limbaugh carries their water
And enables their slaughter
While the dittoheads swallow balonies.
Mary, I think there's a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding the swallowing of balonies.
Revealed for the first time...the dittoheads' secret Latin motto:
Felonious Baloneyus Nobiscum
Sounds like a sour fruit.
So I have heard. X-(
Face it folks - even the AP isn't stupid enough to fall for this one. Better luck next time.
Nope, instead they fell for Rush's "I meant this when I really said that" B.S.
Published in K.C.Star ; Letters to the Editor: Last week I closed down my bank account. I have been at this bank for 13 years, I liked some of its features, but I found another bank just as nice.
"My bank" has forever been a sponsor on AM Talk Radio, and I have always been embarrassed by "my bank's" participation in that political environment. No more.
All of AM Talk Radio carries Russ Limbaugh, and Sean Hanity. Limbaugh spends 75% of his three-hour program hammering American journalism ("the drive-by Media")---and the other's shtick is a love of all things Dick Cheney.
Ten years ago their pursuit of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was sleazy entertainment. It’s serious now. I fear the talkers could bring America to the brink of bankruptcy and a broken military. They are the leading spokesmen for the Occupation, and to even consider getting America out of the Middle East is called: Surrender!
At least the Talkers have shut up promoting "Jeb Bush in 2008."
Ed Gentry
One thing is for sure: after seeing copiousdissent and leatherhelmet bury themselves in their insane defense of Limbaugh, they lost any shred of believability they might have once had. When people have the facts saved and linked to for all the world to see, and people STILL deny those facts, you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
I can see why Limbaugh does it - he makes millions on his lies, so he has to desperately defend them. I have no idea why his listeners feel the need to lie about what the man clearly said.
I think the answer is emotional investment and fawlty logic. :)
None of this is surprising. When Rush got busted for his Oxy addiction I figured - That's it. He's done. The way he's come down on drug use over the years no way can he shake this off. Yet, he did. When tough guy, family values champion O'Rielly settled his sexual harasment suit out of court instead of fighting it to clear his name (you know, cause he's such a warrior)- Again I was wrong. I guess I just grossly overestimated their respective audiences.
Their audience keeps listening, even after the talkers exhibit such anti-social behavior, because these listeners have finally found someone who understands and encourages their deep seated prejudices.
All their lives, their parents, teachers, church priests and pastors, have told them don't be selfish, be kind to others, the golden rule. And, all this time, they wanted to be just the opposite.
Then, Rush came along, and told them it was okay. It's the other side that is wrong. And they bought it hook, line, and sinker, because it was easier. IT IS EASIER. More proof that many conservatives are just plain lazy.
It's called dyssocial sociopathy. The dyssocial gloms onto a psychopathic leader who commits outrageous crimes. They are too weak-willed to do it themselves, so they heroize someone worse than they. They live for negative attention and delight in hurting others. The dyssocial is a ultra-loyal follower, never a leader. The type is often found in the lower ranks of gangs and organized crime. The vast majority of the far right exhibit this or the alienated type of sociopathy. They are literally insane.
The sissies at MMFA obviously do not realize that we in the military support Limbaugh because he has always supported us.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125113.guest.html
Diehard dittoheads with a vengeance.
Rush supports the war mongers that have put the troops in harm's way; and he demonizes soldiers who criticise Bush's policies. We know where he should put that flag pole he likes to raise all the time.
Limbaugh only supports those soldiers who agree with his point of view.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Reid nicely summed up Limbaugh:
"During his show last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This rant was unremarkable and indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, until he crossed [the] line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq 'phony soldiers.' This comment was so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone. And yet, he followed it up with denials and an attack on Congressman Jack Murtha, a 37-year active member of the Marine Corps ...
"Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in civil war. Yet he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who are on the front lines."
Kevin, if you are in the armed forces (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, so I'll take it at face value), I respectfully thank you for your service, and extend my best wishes to you. My prayers go out to you and all of our troops.
Now comes my disagreement with your opinion; Limbaugh supports the troops as long as they are in agreement with George W. Bush, and the Republican party. Although he has never said this outright, he made this very clear in many of his divisive statements.
I want to point out a few flaws in the Congressional resolution that you linked:
Armed Forces Radio broadcasts Rush as stated. They used to broadcast Air America Radio also, so that both parties could reach the troops with their support. But, Rumsfeld pulled the plug on AARadio. Further more, Al Franken, a Democrat, has been to Iraq to entertain the troops during the Christmas season on 3 occaisions.
Limbaugh's 'Adopt a Soldier' program is cited, yet they failed to mention what that program is. The progam works as follows: If I buy a subscription to the RUSH newsletter, I have the oppertunity to buy another one which is forwarded to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other word, he will make twice the $ while saying that this program supports the troops. How utterly obscene.
The Congressmembers then cited "Rush's desires to see American troops achieve a successful outcome Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever soldiers are stationed" To which I simply would reply: WE ALL WANT THIS. It's patently dishonest for Rush, and our Republican members of Congress to say that Democrats want our troops to fail. We will support them regardless of the outcome. And allow me to state a true, hard fact-- If there is failure, it is this administration that failed the troops, the United States and Iraqi citizens.
Finally, they mentioned Limbaugh's "tireless public support for American troops and their families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support." I'm not aware of Rush's fundraising, other than his bogus 'Adopt a Troop' program which only puts more money in his pocket. And, as far as broadcasts are concerned, Rush was on the radio before the war, and he'll probably be there afterwards, bashing anyone who disagrees with him. His broadcasting have nothing to do with the troops, and everything to do with making millions and millions.
Godspeed to you.
Here's more info on the PHONEY 'Adopt a Soldier' program:
https://members.premiereinteractive.com/store/28566/45108.html
I refer to him as Rash Limburger.He is about as welcome as a rash and reeks like Limburger cheese.
I am not a Rush Limbaugh fan in the least bit, but MediaMatters is completely wrong in this campaign. I fear it will backfire on them much the same as the Petraeus ad backfired on Moveon.org.
After reading and listening to the words in question, I believe the events took place as follows:
1) The caller brought up the term, "fake soliders."
2) Rush echoed what the caller said, "the fake soldiers" (Knowing he had a story on his desk that corresponded to the term.)
3) This lead into a conversation almost 2 minutes later. (contextually relevant to the previous caller) in which Mr. Limbaugh described the story of someone he thought was a "fake soldier."
The few times I have listened to the show, I have noticed that Rush sets up callers to lead into topics. I think this time was no different. Either the caller was prompted to mention the term, or the producers pulled up the archived story regarding Jesse Macbeth and gave it to him to correspond with the call.
Whether he defined the term prior to the call is irrelevant, as the caller was the first to use the term.
I think that when Rush leaves radio that the world will be a better place, but making disingenuous accusations about the man is not going to make that happen faster. I believe that by this time next week that MM will have been harmed in much the same way Moveon.org was with the Petraeus accusations.
Choose your battles more wisely. No one ever wins a battle of semantics, especially when contextually significant speech which refutes your claims exists within a couple of minutes of the embattled speech.
This is a lost cause. Give it up now before you ruin any credibility you once had.
It's the common wisdom of our Beltway media that MoveOn.org was "harmed" by the Petraeus/Betray Us ad, but how exactly were it "harmed"? The ad garnered more coverage than any ad that MoveOn.org has run in years and led to record donations for the year so far.
MoveOn.org is now building on the success of the ad with a whole new series of "betrayal of trust ads:
http://pol.moveon.org/betrayaloftrust/
Mutual disdain, you picked that name for a reason, I wonder what it is?
I predict that Media Matters will continue to point out misinformation and that MoveOn will continue to raise issues that need to be addressed. Frankly, since Rush has already admitted he carries water for the Bushies and has criticised Paul Hackett and John Murtha and John Kerry, among other vets, and advocates in the meanest terms for the wrong things constantly,
it is no surprise that his own words are hard for him to swallow.
MutualDisdain, I believe your point is sincere, but there's a problem with your premis.
If what you believe happened during Limbaugh's broadcast is correct, he could have explained, and the whole thing would be over after a short, well-worded semi-apology.
Problem is, instead, he refused to apologize, and in fact edited the tape of what he actually said. This is very much like Watergate: What he did was bad enough, but the coverup seals it air tight.
Genuine soldiers should target Rush!
"...at no point during his September 26 radio show prior to making his 'phony soldiers' comment did Limbaugh refer to MacBeth, or indeed any specific soldiers whom he considered to be fake. "
Rush did a morning update the day prior talking about phony soldiers. He was using the call as a segway to talk about the issue even more.
I don't really blame MMFA though. They're seeing what they would expect to see. When they finally see what they want, they run with it.
If that was the case, then he should have corrected the caller when he insulted the troops. And he shouldn't have edited the transcipt and claimed it was complete.
Dishonesty doesn't inspire confidence in Rush nor you.
The is a long tradition of liberals using phoney soldiers to make claims of US atrocities going back to Vietnam when Kerrey toured the country with a phoney soldier who made claims about US atrocities in Vietnam.
You are just plain wrong. The atrocities were documented, sadly, and have been listed here earlier in the thread. Please take the filters off and listen and learn.
This is a b.s. story. If you cannot do any better than this, you should just give up. I was listening to the "enemy" each time you say he denigrated the military, and he was not attacking our military men.
Media Matters (very little) has gotten its knickers all twisted! My oh my, how the lefties scream for the troops they so love.
Problem is MM(vl), the military knows who respects them and who doesn't. Soldiers wish Armed Forces radio would have 3 hrs of Rush everyday rather than the nonsense from Hot Air America. They know that it is liberals like Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, et al., who would 'Hadifasize' them at the drop of the hat. Given an opening, they would jump to accuse our troops of war crimes, Gestapo tactics and like Senator Kerry himself who says that the soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi women and children and reminds us of his 'respect filled' comments about fellow Vietnam era soldiers who "razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
American soldiers know who's patriotism is phony and who's is not.
MM(vl)-Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much!
" the military knows who respects them and who doesn't."
Yeah, they know...
The soldiers know who respects them every time they see their positions replaced by private contractors who get paid a much higher salary for the same work, so that the soldiers can be freed up for guard duty or patrol.
The soldiers know who respects them when they see their duty tours extended without equal time at home with their families and see efforts to equalize that time obstructed by members of Congress.
The soldiers know who respects them when they send requests for MRAP vehicles up the chain of command and it takes two years for the first ones to arrive.
The soldiers know who respects them when contractors provide what amounts to shanties for troop housing in Iraq, while the contractors get to stay at a posh oceanside resort in Kuwait.
Yeah, they know.
You guys are a joke. It's really pretty hilarious how you guys can take raw information and twist it into meaning something that it clearly does not. You want something to be true so bad that you will twist, insist, plead, manipulate, & justify anything so that you might portray a lie as truth. How do you sleep at night?
If you think it's clear, then you can respond to any one of the dozens of explanations of how Rush was smearing the troops.
You don't do that, so it's hard to accept you have an actual argument to make. All of you Rush fans are basically just coming in here and saying "nuh-UH!", nothing more.
I thought you all excelled in the "marketplace of ideas". What happened to that?
I have listened to the Limbaugh comments and agree that his reference was to soldiers such as MacBeth, who certainly deserves this label. What we should be angry about are the defamatory remarks against our military made by Harry Reid, John Kerry , John Edwards and others.
Dittohead eh? Read the whole thread slowly, you may learn something.
Limbaugh certainly has the art of lying down to a science!
Harry Reid continues to tarnish the Democrat party by treating Limbaugh's comments as though they're the Nixon White House tapes. Repeated attempts to divert attention from the historically low approval ratings for the 'new' Congress and Senate make the Democrat leadership look desperate and foolish.
Whatever, the real problem here is words or phrasing being taken out of context. The democrats hate Rush like they hate Bush or Hannitty or anyone else that doesn't agree with their side. They're always looking for ways to convict someone. Does any of this really matter??? We have Senators, who've been trashing the troops and the war for years and are now offended by what Rush Limbaugh supposedly said, which was obviously was taken out of context. The Democrats want Rush off the air, that's the issue here. Unfortunately for Mr. Reid, Rush's approval rating and base of listeners is better and larger than his.....that's the true root of the issue here.
You and the other dittoheads who are tagging your crap onto this thread at the end are just revealing your own ignorance. You like to demonize people who disagree with you, just as Rush does. Here's somethiing earlier in this thread that sums things up pretty clearly:
Glad to hear you are sick of posting links. When you get sick of posting period, we'll really be getting somewhere.
Peddle your fascist, memory-hole crap somewhere else, please. Most of the people who post here don't get their "information" from Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson or the Swift Boat Veterans for Liars. Our brains function well enough to be able to tell the difference between an edited transcript and an unedited one. We know that the word "Soldiers' is plural. We know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, even if the Dear Leader and his Minions insist it does. Please, just go away. There are plenty of sites where you can find comfort and affirmation in your Edited By Fox and Limbaugh worldview. This isn't one of them.