Limbaugh says he told journalist writing story on him: "[W]e're going to find out where your kids go to school"
During the October 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed to have "once" participated in the kind of "destructive reporting and behavior" that, according to him, reporters "dish out." Limbaugh said his target was a reporter, whose name he said he would not "mention," who was writing "a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it." Limbaugh continued: "[W]e found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, 'You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. We're going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We're going to find out what drugs you used. We're going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we're gonna find out how you paid for your house. We're going to do -- and we're going to do exact -- and we're going to say that, you know what? You are no different than Al Goldstein. You both masturbate.' "
Limbaugh then claimed: "And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- 'You can't do that.' We said, 'Watch us.' And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. But nobody does that to these people. Nobody does it to them. And that would be so much fun."
Limbaugh made this claim while discussing the founding of ProPublica, which "will produce investigative journalism in the public interest," according to its website:
ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that will produce investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work will focus exclusively on truly important stories, stories with "moral force." We will do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.
During his discussion, Limbaugh read from a post about ProPublica on the conservative website American Thinker, which read in part: "Efforts are being made to wrap this propaganda venture in the cloak of pure public interests." Limbaugh later commented:
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you, folks, the way to deal with this -- I have always said it. I don't know anybody who's doing it. Maybe I should found ProDestroya and get a bunch of people willing to do investigative journalism on these investigative journalists. You know, AntiPublica. They get to sit there -- who are these people that get to act as though they are sin-free, that they are as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, that they've got no skeletons in their closet? They can go out and dig up dirt on -- and everybody's got dirt. They can go out and dig whatever up and then they can slant it and taint it, smear it and lie about it, do whatever they want, and nobody examines who these people are. And if you try, they get mad. "Well, we're journalists, we're immune. You can't treat us the way we treat other people."
From the October 15 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Here's who it is that's funding this ProPublica bunch. "It is Herb and Marion Sandler, legendary capitalist, multibillionaire, builders of a financial empire, philanthropic allies of Peter Lewis and George Soros. They're ponying up $10 million a year for a charitable venture to supply investigative reporting at no cost to newspapers, which are laying off editorial employees and others as their bidness [sic] model becomes obsolete. Efforts are being made to wrap this propaganda venture in the cloak of pure public interests."
And ProPublica, does that -- you know, that's a Latin name. Does it not sound like something a bunch of socialists would come up with? ProPublica. "The board comprises a distinguished multi-ethnic panel that even includes a white, male former congressman, Jim Leach [R] of Iowa. Former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Steiger is in charge for the time being. No doubt there will be window-dressing stories going after subjects who could be described as liberal in some sense," just to show that they're, you know, balanced and so forth, but that'll be just at the outset here.
Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker says, "Given the background of the holders of the purse strings, there's reason to suspect that the venture will be used to go after opponents of the left. Even Jane Mayer of The New Yorker described them and their circle as hard-core partisans. The Sandlers are famous, celebrated, notorious for their policy of not spending a penny without getting their money's worth and more. They're going to hire up to 24 journalists and pay salary and benefits comparable to the biggest newspapers," which, in essence, you know what this is -- a safety net for some of those journalists who have been canned or who have been let go. So the same journalists who weren't doing their jobs in the first place are now going to get hired to not do their jobs as well as they had been. The whole thing is a ruse, and it's a tax dodge. The whole thing is a tax -- and it's giving away its work. It's a tax dodge for these donors. So, "No longer tethered to the responsibility of earning their way in the marketplace, this talent pool of investigative journalists can be turned loose on potentially anyone. If you look hard enough, you can find all sorts of difficult-to-explain matters that, at a minimum, can tie up and distract even the most innocent paragon of virtue. For real people born as sinners, there's always something that investigative journalists can find."
I'll tell you, folks, the way to deal with this -- I have always said it. I don't know anybody who's doing it. Maybe I should found ProDestroya and get a bunch of people willing to do investigative journalism on these investigative journalists. You know, AntiPublica. They get to sit there -- who are these people that get to act as though they are sin-free, that they are as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, that they've got no skeletons in their closet? They can go out and dig up dirt on -- and everybody's got dirt. They can go out and dig whatever up and then they can slant it and taint it, smear it and lie about it, do whatever they want, and nobody examines who these people are. And if you try, they get mad. "Well, we're journalists, we're immune. You can't treat us the way we treat other people."
I've had journalists tell me this. "Well, we're journalists." Why are you immune? Why are you immune to the same kind of destructive reporting and behavior that you dish out? You know, we have practiced -- I've practiced it once. I am not going to tell you the story because I'm don't want to give it away, and I would have to mention names, and I'm not going to mention names. But there was a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it. And we found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, "You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. We're going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We're going to find out what drugs you used. We're going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we're gonna find out how you paid for your house. We're going to do -- and we're going to do exact -- and we're going to say that, you know what? You are no different than Al Goldstein. You both masturbate. You're no different than Al Goldstein, and you're both journalists, and so forth."
And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- "You can't do that." We said, "Watch us." And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. But nobody does that to these people. Nobody does it to them. And that would be so much fun. But I'd need to be wearing body armor every day. Oh, no question, these people are playing for keeps.
No Rush. you should have been wearing body armor thirty five years ago.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Here is the rub, if a human is reporting on human events is it any surprise that they would have human flaws? Does that mean they can't report competant, truthfull, and accurate articles about issues political or not?
To Rush, Fox News pundits, and thousands of Radio and TV reporters the answers is yes unless you are supporting the Bush Administration and the RNC.
It's the idea that you have to be of a slant to be truthfull. The falacy we live with since we gave away our public trust to corporations that have only thier bottom line to consider.
Let's not assume anything until we see a fair body of work. I don't take any story whole cloth anymore, if you want to have an insight to our condition you must be as your own journalist and seek out reliable sources of information, and atleast a reliable second source.
Ah, the days of the Fairness Doctrine, responsible FCC regulation, and a public airways in and for the public is a thing of the past, until we SAVE DEMOCRACY, AND VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Ahhhhhh... it sounds like we are getting under the military hating, three time drug losers skin!
TOO FUNNY! I see the ditto-heads are now resorting to threatening the children of anyone who dares to call them out on their profit driven hate. If I was the reporter I would have asked the drug loser JUST EXACTLY he intended to do if he found my kids... then report it to the police. Get it on record.
The more these cockroaches are exposed the more vicious they become. That happens when a group of people like the racist drug loser have gotten used to getting over for so long.
I would have certainly put the contents of that phone call in the article along with calling the police. Rush is without a shred of decency
If it was considered ethical and SOP one could take the following out of context and have some fun with it:
Rush L .."on me coming out"
Oh the irony
Where did it say that conservatives beat her up?
You're not reading very well today, are you? ;)
Farther down it actually speculated that it is a hate crime because she was wearing a jogging suit, had no jewelry on, had no purse and wasn't raped. Sounds fishy, don't it?
Looks like someone flagged the post with link concerning Air America commentator that was supposedly mugged and/or MMFA removed it. Why?
Did you really just use speculation as proof?
Today we know she didn't even file a police report and has said "it wasn't a hate crime." Womp womp.
nope, sorry. if you read the whole article you would have seen other reports of hate crimes. One lib found several bullet holes in his car, and let's not forget the only radio commentater ever murdered was a liberal.
Good on ya, Rush.
The lying, hypocritical, corrupt scum in the MSM are having the tables turned by the new media.
Just waiting for someone to turn the tables on the hypocritical, corrupt scum like Rush.
Wouldn't do any good. Rush doesn't have a family, likely couldn't get laid in high school, and we already know what drugs he uses.
Not to mention the boil on his heinie.
Veiled threat to and slander of children: this is what the "new media" has to be proud of. Very representative of compassionate conservativism and the family-friendly party.
What is the 'new media'? You mean, like MMFA?
While the ignorant soulless hivemind morons that make up Rush's sychophantic appology squad are showing exactly what they are. Some of them are ignorant enough and show such lack of decency they would even cheer on threatening someones children for doing their jobs. Can you believe it? That anyone would be that ignorant, that soulless? Yeah its true. The Limborg is a rotting disease culture and its stench is starting to be noticed
Maybe this is why nobody in the mainstream media is investigating the lies and war crimes of the Bush administration....have they been threatened into silence? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Rush Limbaugh: Admitted thug, blackmailer, endangers children, added to drug addict, misogynist who cannot keep a wife, cowardly draft dodger, school dropout ... holy crap! This is the hero of the Rightwing, their ideal, their role-model "for the yutes of today" ... they guy all rightwingers wish to emulate?
What a sorry sad sack of a man. What a pitiful bully and coward. What a social misfit, a claimer of "VICTIM status" as a multi-millionaire sheltered behind multiple layers of protection, whining and crying like an infant.
In truth, Limbaugh is the PERFECT champion for the rightwing. He represents every aspect of character that shapes rightwing POLICY, and the rightwing is PROUD to have him (and Coulter) as figureheads and spokespersons for their "club" ... a club of haters and social misfits.
Pitiful and sad.
Rush makes a lousy victim.
Coming to a screen near you:
St. Rush the Martyr.
The ever brave Rush hiding behind the WE again. Maybe this new group will use EXACT QUOTES and EXACT TRANSCRIPTS in their journalism. Maybe it won't be such a NEW group after all....Looks like th WE WE's are trying to be MMFA.
P.S. For one of your first stories, how about an investigative venture into Jeff Christie, KQV radio, Pittsburgh. They would make an interesting start.
Stranger, are you referring to Fox News? You must be.
Ah yes. The good ol' days of Top 40 14K KQV Pittsburgh. Jeff Christie spinning the hits and trolling for gay sex in da 'Burgh.
C'mon Rush. Tell us your story. Quit being a spineless coward and come out with it.
Of course, people posting on this site will claim that Rush is being dramatic for effect. Well, the message is the same... and the tactics haven't changed. You mess with Rush - or any of these bullies - and you get strong-armed. Rush will say soon that he was just kidding... or that this was all taken out of context. Same crap, different day. But, no one should be afraid of this bloated, two-bit coward.
Greek, what would really be funny is seeing Rush, as the man that he is, threatening anyone face-to-face. Now that would be a joke.
Isn't it a shame that people like him, who have a platform, could really do something good for the world but instead only care about lining their own pockets. Shame on you Jeff, I mean Rush.
Well, since this is a confession of sorts... an admission of guilt... I wonder if said 'reporter' could possibly bring Limbaugh up on charges. I doubt any of it is true... I have a sneaky suspicion that this is Rush trying to play 'tough'. Probably all a lie.
I agree with you but there is likely some truth to the story which Rush then embellished as he does so well. The frequent use of WE is indicative. My first thought was this remined me of Tucker Carlson's recent claim that he and a friend once "roughed up" a man who solicited him for sex in a public restroom. Talking heads who feel a need to proclaim, "WE BAD".
Well, at least in Rush's mind he thinks he can strong arm and bully people. It sounds like the threats )'Reilly makes about sending his security staff over to caller's homes.
So HOW does Rush come up with this "60%" change in the tone of the story, that he thinks he affected by his bully tactics?
".....Limbaugh then claimed: "And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- 'You can't do that.' We said, 'Watch us.' And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. ........."
So, Limbaugh admits to threatening a journalist in order to get the tone of a story changed.
Add another tool to the far right playbook:
blackmail
noun 1. extortion of money by threats to divulge discrediting information
verb 1. exert pressure on someone through threats 2. obtain through threats
[link to dictionary.reference.com]
Just like MMfA says "Hey, we don't smear, we just report the story", if Rush looks into the reporter's history and just "reports the facts", how is it a threat?
One more time:
"So, Limbaugh admits to threatening a journalist in order to get the tone of a story changed."
Johnny,
Linking back to your own quote does not make it a threat.
Dex: Are you equating quoting a person's words to going after their children? Are you seriously being that intentionally and obnoxiously clueless?
BLR, we'll wait for the article to see if it's merely a statement of fact like most of MMfA's article, or it's essentially an op-ed piece.
Wait for what article? Did you even bother to read this one before commenting? Rush is talking about threatening a reporter who wrote something about him in the past.
Limbaugh also said he was able to get the tone of the story changed 60% after his little chat with the reporter.
Yep I misread that too, doh. My point remains the same though about playing Rush's game.
What exactly is your point about "playing Rush's game"? What game are you talking about? A reporter can't do a story on Rush without expecting to have his family threatened?
I've read the piece a few times and can't find the part about Rush threatening anybody. Finding out where this guy's kids go to school is not a threat. Neither is finding out how he paid for his house, who he knocked up, etc. Rush is guilty of only promising to return the favor to the guy writing the investigative story.
Why else would he want to know? Idle curiosity?
You all were screeching about "context" pretty recently, so let's take a look at some context:"Why are you immune to the same kind of destructive reporting and behavior that you dish out? You know, we have practiced -- I've practiced it once."
"Destructive reporting and behavior". That's the context, that's how Rush himself is describing what he did.
"Oh, no question, these people are playing for keeps."
And he's talking about turning the tables on these people. So talking about their kids isn't "playing for keeps"? "You guys are playing hardball, so I'm going to play right back, and find out where your kids go to school...for absolutely no malign reason."
Only a Limbaugh fan could believe that makes any sense. Others know better.
YOU are the one who compared Rush's threats to MMFA's reporting. YOU back it up with substance, or continue being revealed for the fool you apparently are today.
Hey DEXTER. I don't know if you have any kids, but I'll tell ya what. Some scumbag like limpbutt suggests he's gonna find out where MY kid goes to school, he' just bought more hell than he can handle. He'd have alot more to worry about than some pimple on his a$$.
No kidding. If anyone made a comment like that about my grandchildren, my wife and my stepdaughter would kill him. And I'm honestly not sure I just mean that figuratively.
How does digging into the reporter's background relate to any "story". Unless Good ol' douche limpbag can show that the reporter is irremedially biased in some way, what viritue has Rush's trying to dig up dirt, have? None. And how often has Rush ever told the truth? Nearly never, as far as I can tell.
As limbag said himself "W]e're going to find out where your kids go to school"? This isn't checking into someone's background, this is a threat.This is being an asshole, plain and simple. But then, being a one-trick pony like Rush, you've got to play that trick every chance that you get! Telling someone before you've actually done any research that "you masturbate" and that "you're just like the publisher of Screw magazine" (before having done any actual research) just proves Rush to be the lying blowhard that he actually is.
Johnny, do really expect any RushBots to take the dictionary literally?
You have got to remember that people like Rush can say whatever they please because they are comment-haters, I mean commontaters,I mean commentators.
You have a point, so let me break it down for them.
Fact 1: Limbaugh finds out a not so flattering cover story is being written about him.
Fact 2: Limbaugh finds out who's writing it and calls him.
Fact 3: Limbaugh tells the reporter ""You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. We're going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We're going to find out what drugs you used."
Fact 4: Limbaugh says the tone of the story changed 60%
This is classic blackmail and I really don't see any connection between this and what MMFA does.
You left out the part where rushbots comment about how we are stupid taking him out of context because you have to listen to rush every day to really understand what he means. They are so complex, those black and white thinkers...
Yes, we have to be Talmudic scholars because Limbaugh is so complex.
That line of thinking is really a crock.
But they are not perfected...ask Annie
The dictionary is an ancient tome, purportedly the word of Man, created by several different authors over several centuries, and translated from many different languages. It contradicts itself in several areas, and several interpretations of it have resulted in many different dialects. Each dialect has it's own reasons for adherence to those portions which it deems to be cardinal rules, ignoring other parts of the dictionary it may find contradictory to it's preferred interpretation. The dictionary's contents have been used for the good of society - to create societal organization and beneficial rules - but also for evil, such as property disputes, semantic battles, and verbal wars.
Some interpret the dictionary as the literal word of Man, however more and more contemporary scholars recognize it as being merely a book of suggested guidelines.
What's this from, Neon?
Webster 18:43
Yay, verily, Noah did build the dictionary; in which every animal is represented, both male and female.
Dex, that is the funniest line I have read in ages. And Neo, how dare you throw such a well-versed and researched line of thinking at a Rushbot. I thought it was 36:23:35 HIKE
All four to six million species?
Comutaters? Not a vegtable! No wait.
They'll just come back and remind us about how the Clinton's threatened GQ after they were planning on running a hit piece on Hill until bill threaten to back out of thier much anticipated cover story on him.
You're kidding. The difference between refusing to do a quid pro quo -- they could run whatever they wanted, just not do that and get an interview with Bill -- and this kind of aggressive, brownshirt behavior, is an entirely different thing.
Clinton offered them a better deal. He wasn't accused of threatening them.
There he goes throwing stones again...
I practically never listen to this clown anymore...Except, of course, when MMFA catches him saying something stupid (almost daily). However, I actually heard some of this discussion yesterday when I was at lunch. All I could think of was once again the reich wings tactic of going after the messenger was in full effect. Someone who takes so much Hillbilly Heroin that it makes them deaf while at the same time going after drug users as criminals who deserve incarceration deserves to be criticized to say the least. I wish more investigative journalists would dig into this paragon of virtue and his more than questionable character. For example, what was he doing in the Dominican Republic, a place that is supposedly known for child prostitution, with a bottle full of Viagra?
Yes, illegally obtained Viagra and nary a female in the Limbaugh entourage.
If I remember correctly, three wives (well, ex-wives) and no offspring ...
If he were a lib, they'd be saying he's light in the loafers ...
Just saying, there's no evidence of confirmed heterosexuality ... just evidence of viagra in a suitcase on a trip with a bunch of guys to an area where sex with kids has eyes averted ...
Eh, I think this headline implies that Rush would somehow threaten the safety or kidnap the reporter's kids, which is definitely not what he meant, taken in the context of the conversation.
I also don't see why this is so offensive...you play Rush's dirty game, you're going to get dirty as well.
If I see that word 'context' again I think I will puke. Seriously.
Eh, I think this headline implies that Rush would somehow threaten the safety or kidnap the reporter's kids, which is definitely not what he meant, taken in the context of the conversation.
Ok then what did he mean? Did he want to invite the kids to Candyland?
Not candyland, but I'm sure he'd like to know if they beat kids up and send them to SCHIP, haha.
Yeah see that is still a threat against his children not him. If you mean it didnt have to be a physical threat there are two things wrong with that. Since he didnt specify differently WHILE threatening the mans children the pysical threat is still implied and second its still a threat against the kids. That isnt threatening to embarass the reporter its a theat to bring his family into it and do embarass THEM. Its disgusting at best.
And we should never forget the foul influence Rush wields over some of the right wing fringe listeners in his audience. This is not to imply that fanatics are his core audience; but to believe that he doesn't have a percentage of violent, gun-totin', liberal-hatin', fundamentalists listening to him daily is an exercise in willful ignorance.
It only takes one self-righteous madman with a rifle, stoked up on hate speech, to commit the ultimate act of retribution.
...you play Rush's dirty game, you're going to get dirty as well.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this?Seriously, why would anybody privately investigate where someone's kids go to school.
I'm going to enjoy seeing the far right contort into pretzels trying to explain this one away.
It's just plain creepy. "I also don't see why this is so offensive...you play Rush's dirty game, you're going to get dirty as well." What the hell?!
Exactly. Why call Rush and tell him you're going to do a story, true or not, that's a smear?
My worry is that the "progressive" movement within the liberal/democratic umbrella is going to get just as bad, just as personal and smearing, as the neocons and their talking-heads. Want to get rid of Rush? NO PUBLICITY. You don't need to respond to him. You don't have your candidates talk to him, talk about him, or participate in debates on networks that carry him.
Seriously, if you're going to make sure it's "two-sided", why are you surprised or shocked when Rush will try to smear back?
Seriously, if you're going to make sure it's "two-sided", why are you surprised or shocked when Rush will try to smear back?
The assumption being Rush is the victim here...
No, I didn't say that Rush was the victim at all...I just wonder why most of you are shocked and dismayed that Rush is firing back. Stop spinning my words.
But you have no point. This is ridiculous. Media Matters prints transcrips of what he actually says, and this is somehow a smear?
He is recorded saying he threatens a reporter and implies that the reporter's kids could be harassed (not so far fetched considering what happened to the family involved in the Democratic radio address).
Come on Dex they didn't call him.
LIMBAUGH FOUND OUT WHO WAS DOING THE STORY AND CALLED THEM:
"But there was a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it. And we found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it."
You're right, I didn't read that closely enough. Apologies for my misstatement.
Fine, but PLEASE, for the love of christ, quit arguing about something you haven't read! This is the second time you've been forced to say you didn't read the article.
You say "exactly," but based on your posts in this thread so far, I do not think this word means what you think it means.
A story was written about Rush. He thinks it's a smear, but he has proven that he thinks simply quoting him in context is a "smear." We don't know what was in the story, and to call it a smear - especially with Rush's track record - is unfair to the writer. It was possibly a smear, but it may very well have been just a story that wasn't as friendly as Rush would have liked it.
Just because it's unfriendly does not make it a smear. Therefore, the notion that this reporter got what he was asking for is ridiculous - Rush is a public and controversial figure who regularly makes statements that are (to be polite) factually challenged. For a reporter to want to do a story on a man with this many listeners whose view on life is intentionally devoid of reality is understandable. For Rush to make a veiled threat regarding the man's children is disgusting.
"My worry is that the "progressive" movement within the liberal/democratic umbrella is going to get just as bad, just as personal and smearing, as the neocons and their talking-heads."
How can that be your "worry" if you don't take offense to Rush investigating where a reporter's child goes to school?
Let me be clear: I think Rush is offensive, and I don't want to see people in my party stoop to his level.
Got it, I'll disregard your "I also don't see why this is so offensive" post.
Sure ignoring Rush worked out so well that first decade or so
Yesterday some mouth-breather called a national radio show to say he thought Rush Limbaugh should have gotten that Nobel instead of Al Gore because he's been listening to him for YEARS and he's just such a swell guy who always tells the truth and he supports the troops and all that...
The fill-in host dryly replied that he certainly had NO DOUBT about the caller's claim that he was a regular listener.
It was just funny...
Yeah, Rush will be considered for the Nobel Prize roughly when my ass learns to chew bubblegum
Why does he have this tendency to insinuate or suggest things he does not really mean? He seems to do this every week.
Just so the game is two-sided. Check out Jeff Christie, Dex.
Prince, I hope you would agree that, after maybe we all settled down from being angry at Rush, that it's not a game WE want to play nor anyone should. Not that we can't come up with our own stuff, but it's uncivil and braindead.
Uncivil? What exactly is 'uncivil'? Exposing a lying hypocrite for the fraud he is, perhaps?
Yeah but as Gore found out in 2000 and Kerry found out in 2004 you just can't let the lies the far right go unanswered. They take on a life of their own and soon rise to the level of "fact."
I don't think MMFA sinks to the level of the far right talking heads.
It tries to hold it accountable.
I don't think, for the most part, that MMFA sinks to the level, either. I think it's great in that it just reports the falsehoods and explains why they are in fact false. That's how you deal with them..just expose them for what they are, and move on. Don't name call, don't write articles, don't give them the publicity they feed on.
You're not following me, Rabbit. I'm not saying things like what MMfA does (mostly) is uncivil, I'm saying stooping down to Rush's level while engaging him.
On that point we agree. I certainly wouldn't advocate MM going after the Rushs, Hannitys, and the Malkins of the world in the same slimy way that the righty talkers do.
Still... it would be a 'coup' for someone - ANYONE - to conduct a detailed expose of Rush's early days in the biz. There are juicy tidbits out there for sure and they can be written/talked about in a 'civilised' manner. Just the facts. :)
Right on.
This is about pointing out the differences between liberals and cons. Nothing need be mean or evil about it. It is simply part of the political process to sway public opinion by exposing the words and deeds of scurrilous liars.
Well if you mean we shouldnt threaten his family sure. I think he has shown he is very thinskinned. I think when he rude and insulting its fine if others treat him the same way. The highroad didnt make us look good that first decade or so no one attacked him it made us look weak. I would certainly draw the line at threatening any family were he enough of a man to actually HAVE one to say let him attack us and throw mud but we should refrain from returning serve THAT I disagree with.
"definitely not what [Limbaugh] meant"
For an experienced broadcaster, he appears to have a lot of trouble saying what he means.
And it's funny how what he really meant is always more benignthan what he said.
I think in context saying he would find out where the kids went to school is a threat to the mans children. The rest was threatening to expose embarassing information about the reporter and put in as cover so Rush appologists could say this. (Not putting that label on you) What could possibly be embarassing about where his kids go to school? It is a threat concerning the mans family. What would you think if in an argument when there is hostility between us I tell you I am going to find out where your kids go to school?
I think it is the oft used "argument" that if you speak up for the poor, you must be too poor to be in position to be heard. You know the John Edwards argument. If a reporter criticizes him on some issue re the poor he will point out that the reporter is rich enough to send his kids to a private school. That is his way of "rebutting" all such arguments.
We'll fine out where your kids go to school"
What exactly does that mean to you?
He wasn't going to bring them cupcakes for a party.
Exactly. What that means is that "If you publish this article, you are going to have to worry that I will send thugs to retaliate against your children."
To which I would have replied "You had better spend every night on your knees praying that nothing bad happens to my children because if it does, I will assume you are behind it and I will dedicate my life to..."
I will omit the rest of that sentence to prevent it from being deleted.
Ok, I think I get it. Rush does not like reporters to tell the truth so he "blackmails" them and uses strong arm tactics to get what he wants. Nice . What a piece of garbage this man is. Why would he even bring up children? What a disgusting little man.
Limbaugh around kids is a scary thought, he wouldn't have to travel to get his jollies. Right wing trash never stops, especially from this liar and coward.
I just do not understand why these people bring up kids and use that as weapons? From Mark Foley to Rush Limbaugh , I see no difference. Even how O Reilly smeared Shawn Hornbeck, when will they leave children alone?
One more thought about Limbaugh, if he lives such a pure conservative Christian life, why would he fear what reporters dig up? I don't expect his listening zombies to wonder about that, too much propaganda to stick inside their narrow minds. Reporters should dig deep, all those women who don't stick around him, mmmmmmmm
Limbaugh: "Maybe I should found ProDestroya"
Maybe you should. You've got the resume.
Hate, personal destruction, character assassination. Embodied in an illegal drug-buying, pill-popping, sex touring, draft-evading, conscience-free coward.
Limbaugh is the guy Republicans hold in such esteem they invited him to address the House in 1994 and even made him an honorary member. How can anyone say "who cares what he says." Its obvious who cares and its scary.
Well respected communist, er columbinist, Personal friend of Columbus, column climber, drum wrapper, and wonderful performer of all of us here. J. Edgar Rush. currently playing a flugel horn and running a popular ferret escort service. Institutionalization? One can only hope.
The implied threat is towards the reporter's children. That is WAY over the line. Rush continues to demonstrate that he is a bully, a coward and a hypocrite.
I wonder if he purchases kevlar lined adult diapers; the ones that get soiled every time someone criticizes him.
Absolutely.
"We're going to find out where your kids go to school."
What the hell would be the purpose of making such a statement, other than an implied threat? It's incredible to see his "family values" sycophantic dittobots trying to defend this.
These people must truly be idiots...what else can we conclude?
Yeah, just like that Malkin nut going after the Frosts. What a psycho.
I liked how Malkin said, after it was clarified that the Frosts were EXACTLU the reason to expand SCHIP, essentially said that they could sell their house to buy health insurance. That's really the point, right? Ugh.
Is it true the Frosts run thier own business?
Is it true the Frosts run thier (sic) own business?
No, Frost did, until the cost of healthcare for his and his employees' families became too expensive. That was when he closed the business.
Is it true you don't do any research before you ask questions that have no point in the discussion?
What was the implied threat?
One apparant to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex
"We're going to find out where your kids go to school."
It's really hard to imagine that a grown adult would say this about a persons children. Then again, we are talking about old "Blood and Guts" Rush Limbaugh.
I'll bet he's more afraid of the media than he ever was just thinking about the possibility of serving in Viet Nam. Alas, he can thank his rear end for actually saving it.
I think you're right. The only thing that could really hurt Rush is for his pinheaded audience to find out something truly disgusting about him...or proof that he really thinks they're all suckers for making him filthy rich, while they swallow every lie that he spoonfeeds them.
I think this little episode may demonstrate why nobody in the MSM has done the hit piece on him that he so richly deserves.
Yet Rush lacks such basic decency he not only says it he BRAGS about saying it later
Perhaps a writer for MMFA could check it out by digging up "big news magazine" cover stories about Limbaugh and asking the writers if he threatened them. I'm sure he's making the story up.
I have to admit this has crossed my mind.
If it really happened why would Limbaugh hold back the identity of the reporter and publication?
It sure doesn't seem to make much sense.
All right Rush. You've thrown the gauntlet down. You, having threatened those with whom you disagree, have a major ass-whipping coming. And soon. If you can't play fair you deserve it.
Rush throwing down the gauntlet is fine.
Saying to someone If you're gonna investigate me, then I'm gonna investigate you isn't out of bounds.
BUT it's the veiled threat of finding out where you're kids go to school that sounds sinister & crosses the line.
Of course attempting to get a magazine to alter an unflattering article has been done by others most recently Hillary Clinton, but somehow I doubt she went beyond the pale like Limbaugh did.
Jeter, where is the threat on the children? " We are going to find out where they go to school"? That is no direct threat to the kids. Maybe he wants to expose poor grades. Poor attendence. Ect ect.
Oh, of course.
"Change the tone of your article or I'll reveal to the world that your son got a D in Algebra 2!"
"No, no NO! Anything but THAT!"
Yes, it all makes sense now.
What was the threat?
Rush didn't say, did he? I'm not a mindreader, I have no idea what the hell he was thinking when he said it.
See, the thing is that if you're told "we're going to find out where your kids go to school", are you supposed to think he's going to bring him a toy? Not likely. It's clearly supposed to be something bad, even if you don't know what it is. So saying "what is the threat?" ad nauseum is not a compelling argument.
If someone says something like that, it's hard to believe that they're just joking. That's not the sort of thing reasonable people joke about in such a manner. So in one way or another, you have to believe that they're going to be interfering with your family happiness and sense of security.
If that was the only thing he said, I may take it as a threat. He combined that sentance along with many others that sound like he simply wants to EXPOSE dirt.
First off, just because he listed a series of threats doesn't mean that each and every threat is of the same nature. Second, as has been noted, even if it was to "dig up dirt", that's still over the line because we're talking about children. Third, I'd like to hear an example of what sort of dirt you can dig up about children, and how that's supposed to make the parent look worse than the blackmailer!
If you're going to blackmail someone, you have to be using something that's worse than the actual act of blackmailing itself. Do you get that? You can blackmail someone for murder, or embezzlement, or perhaps infidelity, but I can't imagine anything that a child's school record is going to provide that is worse than blackmailing.
If you don't have children of your own, you may not be able to comprehend the horrible fear that grips you when someone says to you, "We're going to find out where your children live."
Frankly, I cannot understand, do not even want to understand, how the boundaries harassment have been pushed so far that Rush's statement can approach any degree whatsoever of societal acceptability.
This is the stuff of totalitarian intimidation.
For this behavior Rush should be to account to any applicable measure of the law.
To boast of this, his arrogance, his impudence is astounding. He is a sick man in desperate need of treatment.
That's exactly right. Whether he meant it as a serious threat or not, whether the story is true or not, his telling of this story shows that he believes that making such a threat is a fair reaction. If someone says they're going to write a story about you, make a veiled threat regarding their children. That's the advice here.
No matter how you cut it, there's no excuse for this.
Zoomy, exactly what kind of dirt on a child is ok to expose? That the child was sexually molested? Check your self out some books on raising children before you start praising some one for digging up dirt on children. That is extremely cowardly, an adult with millions at his disposal picking on a child, how can you possibly defend that?
Even if true, and it really doesnt make sense. It is still a threat to HIS CHILDREN. Even if NOT a pysical threat and by leaving it vague that is clearly implied, it is still threatening to embarass his children not him. That is over the line.
I disagree. People are taking once sentence from many and making that the main piont. By itself, it soulds terrible. When you combine it with all the other crap he said, sounds like malarky.
Baloney. You are trying to erase that sentence and its CLEAR implications. He said what he said and its threat is clear. To any parent it is a very real threat and Limbaugh as soulless as he is is not stupid he knew EXACTLY how that would be taken had he meant something less sinister he would have made THAT clear.
Mazda guy...did you get tired of the Nomorotor moniker?
He probably got banned for his plentitude of trollish behavior the other day when almost all of his posts had to come down.
After scrolling down, I see he is trolling again. Asking the same inane, halfwitted and trollish question over and over.
Zoom,
Limbaugh could have meant just about anything by that statement, but the perception would likely be that of a veiled threat. And as you can clearly read from the posts here, most are quite certain he meant something sinister. I only said it sounds that way. If he's got a better explanation for what he meant, I'll be waiting to hear it.
Jeter, where is the threat on the children? " We are going to find out where they go to school"?
You can't be that stupid!. Hey where do your kids go to school? Better yet if you don't have any how about your brother or sister's kids? And if they don't have any, where does someone who is close to you, where does their kid go to school? GET IT?
You wouldn't happen to be talking about a certain GQ article would you? Are you a closet "On the Media" public radio fan as they just had a story on this Sunday?
You do realize the difference would be that GQ decided to kill the story based on the perceived monetary gain in having Bill Clinton on the cover. I see your point Jeter, but it's not really the same as making a threat against someone's children.
I see your point Jeter, but it's really not the same as making a threat against someones children.
Give jeter2 extra credit for somehow working HRC into a thread that obviously has nothing to do with her.
Actually MHK I don't recall where I heard or read it [about the GQ article], but since I don't listen to NPR it wasn't there.
My mention of Hillary was only to point out that many others have used influence, strong-armed or not, to get the media to tone down articles or kill them. Hillary basically used Bill. That's a form of blackmail I suppose, but certainly not in the same category as Limbaugh's rant. I'm not certain he meant any harm to the children, but as I told Zoom...perception is important.
Jeter
GQ caved into the Clintons on this issue and I think it stinks that they would put the potential money they're going to make off of a Bill Clinton cover in front of thier journalistic intergrity. Personally I think this says more about the magzine and it's motives then it says about the Clintons. Can we trust anything in GQ or is the magazine and it's coverage up for sale? This goes back to why an independent media is so important.
Rush is making veiled threats against children (disgusting pig)
You should check out "On the Media" it's a good show and as you can see from the story in question they issues on the both sides of the political specturm.
that would be - > they discuss issues on both sides of the specturm.
they discuss issues on both sides of the specturm
or spectrum... ;)
Adult education, look into it, try remedial reading for comprehension
OK either they deleted a post or I missed where I put this so its entirely without context and should be ignored except by whoever keeps saying what is the threat.
You know the excuse(s) are coming. (You're not expecting an apology, are you?). So what will it/they be?:
-It was a joke
-I was taken out of context
-Attack/Smear because I'm right
-They're trying to censor me/shut me down
-Other?
The correct answer is: All of the above
And what do you imagine he would do to the guys kids?
Who knows? Harass them, post pictures of them on the internet...maybe nothing. The point is, if you received such a threat, would you just shrug your shoulders and forget about it?
Sounded like he was just talking smack to me. What would I say? " Bring it on fathead".... Just being sarcastic like him. I see NO REAL threat at all. Just a bunch of hoopla.
Check one for the "it was just a joke" excuse.
Then I take you feel he was serious?
Since the man cannot read minds anymore than YOU can, he would be a fool NOT to take it seriously.
Listen to the Limbaugh audio again. Never once--- not even once--- does Limbaugh chuckle even the slightest bit. Quite the contrary. The anger and hatred, the breathlessness, the spittle coming from his mouth that you can easily imagine--- it's very disturbing. And of course it gets even worse when he mentions the kids and so forth.
This is one, sick, hateful person.
Ok, what did he threaten the kids with?
Threats don't have to be specific to qualify as threats.
Really? Now that will stand up in a court of law. Where was the threat again?
That will stand up in a court of law. I can't imagine any judge hearing that and deciding that it's not a threat of some sort. The very notion is utterly preposterous.
Way more than enough to get a restraining order. Most judges would even slap a restraining order just on hearsay of a veiled threat like that. Zoom , I hope you have your cold water survival suit on , you are way out there on thin ice with this "What threat? " meme.
You hiveminders are really well trained in abject reality denial arent you?
Limbaugh claimed his threats changed the tone of the story 60%.
This is blackmail.
I see. So he has to be more specific about what he's going to do to the kids in order to call it threatening.
Like, "and then I'll broadcast the info on my show so that my dittoheads can harass them.' But why oh why would anyone think Limbaugh has that much hate?! Can't imagine...
"I'm going to find out where your kids go to school"doesn't beg the question of 'what's he going to do next then?'. Oh no, not at all. Limbaugh just wants to know where they attend school so he can donate some books. Yeah, that's it. Certainly there was nothing malicious whatsoever at all in his "joke".
You are making the worst of assumptions. Where was the threat?
Suppose you tell us: what good, benign, innocent reason would Limbaugh (or any stranger for that matter) have for wanting to know where someone else's kids go to school?
Where is the innocence in his question?
The answers are that there is no good reason and that the question is not an innocent one. Anyone of sound mind knows this, but that does not include the "mind", such as it is, of a dittohead.
My point being, he MADE NO DIRECT THREAT. You are making assumptions on what he said. Sounds like he wants to dig up dirt on them, plain and simple. There was no threat. GET OVER IT!
You are wrong and your point is ludicrous on the face of it. He made a VEILED threat the only kind you can make without going to jail. HE MADE A THREAT get over it
So its OK to go after someone's kids to "dig up dirt on them?" You're one sick apologist.
Your parrot programming is just sad. Parotting over and over again where is the threat is dumb. The threat is obvious.
You're startin' to sputter out there Zoomer.
Go away troll anyone that can read knows what the threat was
That is ludicrous. A rich man tells you he knows where your kids go to school and you would say bring it ON? That is incredible
That's too disgusting to even contemplate.
What he might or might not do is irrelevant. When someone says something like "we (know|will find out) where your kids go to school, that's an implied threat!
If someone said that I should do something or (else) they would find out where my kids go to school, I would call the FBI in a New York minute.
Another odd dichotomy...people who are scared witless by the "Al Qaeda threat" and are willing to surrender the Bill of Rights to be safe... will come on here and tell us that they wouldn't be bothered by an implied threat to their children. Yup.
Making threatening statements, particularly about hurting a person's children, is a class A felony. Considering the manner in which it was delivered, it probably is a Federal crime. Something that should be enforced.
This is just typical of the bully-boy tactics of Murdock's paid propagandists for his neo-con agenda. Sounds like Hitler's Germany to me.
Yes, which again, makes me believe it is a totally made up story by rush.....otherwise any man/woman getting a phone call like that would have called the FBI. (that is unless they HAD done something that was really really bad) or, rush is leaving out parts of the story as usual, and really did threaten the children with bodily harm in no uncertain terms and the reporter took that serious.
Rush's arrogance totally obscures any judgement he might have. Were I the reporter in question, as soon as the clown mentioned that he knew where my kids went to school, he would have become my mortal enemy.
He should take his money and retire to obscurity before his karmic debt crushes him.
He was taking a page from the Clinton machine. Their intimidation tactics are well documented i.e. GQ magazine, NY City Restaurantuer.
I hope that was a joke. I cant believe even a feeble hivemind could take that seriously. Saying my husband wont cooperate with you if you trash me is only the same as I know where your children are to the completely deluded
B-B-But Clinton-- You knew that was coming. The GQ business was this: they apparently wanted to do an interview with Bill AND an unflattering piece on Hillary. What did they take him for, an idiot? Go ahead, they said, do your hit piece, but then forget about the story on Bill. No threats to find out where there children go to school, or whether they masturbate, either. No threat of Michelle Malkin-type behavior. Jus' good ol' hardball. And the restaurant? Chelsea goes there. Her picture is taken. The restauranteur uses the picture, unbeknownst to Chelsea, for commercial purposes. Chelsea, a private person, wants them to take it down, once she finds out. That's her right. Restauranteur refuses. Daddy gets a lawyer to send a letter, saying, please take this down or face legal action. That's completely legal, and in fact, if they used the picture for publicity without consent, they owe Chelsea a lot of money, if you really want to know.
How you can compare that with Rush's "people" threatening a reporter with smears in the right-wing media, having their children watched, and so on, is beyond me.
Rush's "people" , notice how he switches from the singular I to the plural we and back and forth. Who are these we, I'd guess the other voices in his head, or he's making it up as he goes along and forgets what frame he started in.
Yeah, like not talking to a publication denying them the prestige and profit your conversation would bring is the same as threatening a reporter on a personal level.
GQ made a business decision.
What business decision did the reporter Limbaugh threaten make?
The more I think about this the more I think Limbaugh is full of bs.
A story about how Limbaugh threatened a reporter would draw way more publicity to the publication than any profile which Limbaugh says he was able to alter the tone of ever could.
I suppose this must be the cover he's talking about.
[link to www.time.com]
If so, it should be pretty easy to find out who wrote it and fact-check what he's talking about.
Let me get this straight. What I see here are a bunch of people who think Rush Limbaugh is a liar. Yet you believe him when he says he said something to a writer? No, he's lying when he says he made a threat about a writer's kids -- and it would definitely have been a threat if he said it to someone with children. He never did so. It's nothing but typical Limbaugh poppycock.Rush Limbaugh: "And we found out who was writing it and made a couple [of] phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, 'You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. . . .'" Which of you would let him get away with saying something like that? I'll tell you. None. I damn sure wouldn't. Dollars to doughnut holes neither Rush Limbaugh nor his minions ever said, "We're going to find out where your kids go to school," other than his making a hyperbolic claim that he had said it oncet upon a time. Why would you believe him? I don't.Besides, if Limbaugh really wanted to threaten someone that way, he'd find out if she had children; then, if she did, find out where they went to school -- and only then say, "I know where your kids go to school."
You seem to miss the point. Machiavel. Even if it is not true, it conveys a threat in the present. It does not matter if it is true or not. It suggests that he might do it in the future.
Sorry to say, but I would be worried if Rush threatened me, because some of his listeners are a little unhinged. I've heard people on his show express a desire to physcially do harm to liberals, as well as on the Sean Hannity show. I wouldn't be surprised if happened one day.........
No matter what, you NEVER PICK ON CHILDREN in ANY way, shape or form! CHILDREN ARE OFF LIMITS RUSH, IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD. Limbaugh really did it this time, no two ways about it...
I share with some curiousity about a potential round two. MoozMoozMooz maybe an indication. I don't see editing working to well. I'm guessing the 3Mooz meme of "where's the threat", appearing as if ....by magic.
What a nasty rotten sbag chickenhawk, boilbutt Limbaugh is!
Pity nobody will be able to ascertain where Rush's children go to school. Since he has none nor never will have.
Though that is typical of fat aging men who are unmarried into their 50s and travel with suitcases full of Viagra. Guy with that much money who can't even get arm candy tells you a lot.
Do any of you ever go back and read your post before you send it? I seldom post in here because the intelligence level of at least half of the readers is so polluted with extremist political ire. My, God, does no one have a comment that is factual, interesting, adds to our information or is worth discussing?
I seldom post in here because the intelligence level of at least half of the readers is so polluted with extremist political ire.
And when you finally did deign to post here, the intelligence level of the thread dropped even more.
Journalist's today feel they are above reproach. We must admit that the media smears to get their story. We have all seen media reports about the family lives of those that they report on.
I think that in this case turnabout was fair play. If Limbaugh did dig up 'true' dirt on this journalist and reported it on his show to embarrass him it is no different than what we see these journalists do to people everyday.
The point here should be NOT TO SMEAR as opposed to who has the right to smear in the name of journalism.
Journalist's (sic) today feel they are above reproach.
If their stories are factually correct, there is no reason to reproach them. I wonder how Rush feels about the possibility of being above reproach himself? Just look at his attitude toward those who reproach him, and I think it is obvious. Rush is standing in the middle of a bonfire that he started, complaining about the heat.
His reference to "journalists" as third person was a subliminal admission on his part that he's anything but. Given the likelihood that the story was invented from the boughs holding 1/2 of his mush (the other half tied behind and stuck in this lower back side), much like his other fables, the little rant was merely an open threat towards would-be investigative journalists doing to him what he does to his opponents.
Keep up the good work, folks. With Limbaugh's name becoming a laughing stock even among many in his core audience, he's running out of issues to rail upon without exposing himself as a bloviating hypocrite. This far, far right whacko is cracking up before our eyes. I, for one, am enjoying the show.
Ah… the sweet smell of fear for the bleeding heart liberals…again MM tries to spin a piece on Rush and you all suck it up with out even thinking it through. I am astonished every time I log on and see simple minded “libs” gobbling up this disingenuous drivel. If you can’t see that you are being manipulated by pontificating elitist then you probably think that Rush is in the pocket of the Bush administration. In addition, this story has nothing to do with reporting misinformation (which is supposedly the “noble” purpose of this site) and all to do with promoting hatred among fellow American’s to further propagate a discord that only restrains the purpose of Democracy. Hate Rush for what he says, but don’t hate Rush for what he does.
Ok so you are stupid. YOU dont care that Rush threatens a mans children. That doesnt matter to you since you HAVE to support and appologize for ANYTHING the Oxymoron does. Who would do your thinking for you if Rushing down the drug addiction mountain went away. Your ignorance doesnt trouble me nor does your weak attempt to project it onto us. Recognizing you are too stupid to think for yourself and abdicating that responsibility to Rush is your right. If you think anyone takes you dittoheads seriously then it is just one more in the vast array of your delusions. Isnt it time for Rush to tell you what you think again?
About all Rush does is talk but some of it is speech plus. Like this. I am sure he left just enough ambiguity in his wording so that he can both convey a threat and be able to deny the threat if called on it. Am sure he can say I just threatened to find out things about reporters not do anything to embaras or harm their children but to report on them like they repost on me. on the other hand he conveys the threat to do something. I remember that famous time Hoffa said of RFK something like I will break his back. When confronted he said it was just a figure of speech. ElRushbo is about at the same level, anything to get his agenda. this is mobster tactics and he has been doing this for years. what resentments does he reinforce for you DBT-Hype that you can not see the obvious. Or do you see it but just want to join the mob?