Wednesday, October 03, 2007

The difference between Limbaugh's comments and moveon.org's ad

1. The moveon.org's message is very clear in the ad. No disputing it, it is in black and white for all to see. Rush is a talk show host. He talks around 2 hours a day (taking out news and commercials). It is much harder to determine what a few sentences meant in the context of an entire day or week or year. So, at best liberals can only say it is POSSIBLE Rush was trashing anyone in the military who didn't agree with the war. Or MAYBE he meant this or that.

2. Which story does the media run with and report as a fact? The story that could never be proven 100%. I will agree that Rush probably did not make it perfectly clear which soldiers or soldier he was talking about in that specific segment. But again, it is not clear. If you listen to the show all the time you would most likely understand who he was talking about. And if you watched ABC news you might have figured out he was using a term that they used a few days ago.

3. Finally, Rush Limbaugh is one person saying something on a radio show. Moveon.org is a far left wing organization who gets money from Soros. It is a full out, entire liberal effort.

16 comments:

hashfanatic said...

"It is much harder to determine what a few sentences meant in the context of an entire day or week or year. So, at best liberals can only say it is POSSIBLE Rush was trashing anyone in the military who didn't agree with the war. Or MAYBE he meant this or that."

No, it's not.

In this case, it matters little what he "meant"...it is what he SAID.

I don't care that he said it because I don't care about the soldiers anyway and think they should be a bit more thick-skinned, but there's no question that Rush simply let it slip that he considers any soldiers who disagree with neocon policy in the Middle East to be fake, and that is certainly believable, because the vast majority of rightists believe that, even though they are too chickenshit to admit it publicly.


"The story that could never be proven 100%."

Ordinarily that would seem believable, and I think he'd definitely be given the benefit of the doubt (as he always is), but the problem with that is he EDITED HIS OWN TRANSCRIPT.

Out of arrogance, he thought he could get away with it (as he always does) but he wound up shooting himself in the foot.

I'm not going to lie and say I'm not thrilled about this.


"And if you watched ABC news you might have figured out he was using a term that they used a few days ago."

Bullshit. The idea that Rush was likely or even would have any interest in such a segment on ABC, titled as it was, strains credulity, and that's a nonsensical excuse anyway, given the context of the call.

The ABC segment and Rush's little faux-pas are TWO SEPERATE, TOTALLY UNRELATED STORIES, and if the flying monkey right hadn't needed to push their luck and challenge Harry Reid's obligation to duly register the appropriate indignation with Clear Channel, this whole ridiculous spectacle would have evaporated by now.

Now it's clear the whole little manufactured controversy was designed to divert an increasingly disgusted American public's attention from America's failed policies and unprecendented military failures in the Middle East, which may shortly reach catastrophic proportions.

OH, WELL...

Glad my hands aren't swimming in blood.

The Game said...

There is NO WAY for you to know what Rush meant and that is the point. You think one thing, I think he meant another.
I don't think HE watched the ABC story, but I am very sure he had one of his people watch it and told him about it. A local guy here fills in for him sometimes and he said that Rush has atleast three people read every paper, look at tons of web sites, and watch every news and morning show for material. So yes, I think he did know about the story.

blamin said...

I've read the lame arguments about Rush's comments not being clear, bandied about by the lefty basement bandits on this blog.

Total BS. The statements were clear to anyone who listened to the entire show, period.

It’s nothing but an attempt to save face after supporting the manufactured outrage over Rush’s comments, and then realizing they’ve had their strings yanked once again.

The Game said...

Democrats have to get their base to forget that they have not done anything the voters voted them in to do...
Mainly stop the Iraq war...they get an F for that...

PCD said...

Hash,

We know you are nuts and dysfunctional, but do you have to spend all day proving it.

Rush is one big defender and supporter of the troops. YOU are not hash.

One thing not mentioned is how much money Rush has raised for the troops and their dependants. The democrats on the other hand, especially Soros, only give a pittance when challenged.

hashfanatic said...

"Democrats have to get their base to forget that they have not done anything the voters voted them in to do...
Mainly stop the Iraq war...they get an F for that..."

Absolutely correct.

American said...

blamin,

When was the last time a rightwing talkshow didn't make a sense to you?? I'm sure it all made perfect sense to you!!

Those phony soldiers in Iraq!! We need true patriots like Rush, Bush, Mitt and Rudy...!!

The Game said...

I'll take Bush, Sean, Rush and anyone else who praises the troops and raises money for them over your list of Biden, Murtha, Kerry, and the rest.

Ron said...

If one was to be rational about this, one might think that the soldiers might somewhat resemble the population as a whole. Certain restrictions keep out the worst of the worst. Other than that it is likely there are some excellent wonderful people in among the troops. Quite likely there are many that resemble what you might consider your average American, and yes even those that are probably less than respectable. Our soliders are us, good and bad. As a Liberal I respect the fact that they are willing to do a job that is a service to the community as a whole. I respect that it might involve death. That said, it is likely that there was more involved in their decision to join than that. The recruiters sure seem to think so.

My problem with the rightists comes from their desire, over the last several years especially, to use "support the troops" as a bludgen to attack my patriotism. To worship them as an unapproachable icon. To twist and spin things so sadly that I have been turned into an enemy of my country. To negate my opinion with spin and lies. I find it beyond the pail.

What is happening here is people trying to point out that patriotism or lack of it is not party selective....or even political philosophy selective. It's pretty much a judgement call for everyone. Unfortunately the rightists never get the hint. Never evolve. They are so self absorbed in how horrible the left is that they, to coin a term, miss the forest for the trees. Listen to Rush or Sean or any of them and you will clearly hear who the enemy is. It's about people not about ideas or solutions. It is non stop divison of this country using not ideas but people. It's easier for the slow ones to grasp. If the jahidist is mentioned at all it is almost always in connection with an American they don't like or an American group they don't like. We are using talk shows and blogs to snark. We are raising an entire generation that confuse this with political discourse. We are falling apart not coming together. We need to quit saying America so much and start saying the United States. Just maybe the reminder might help. I honestly feel we are in the most literal sense moving toward two countries instead of one.I've even had positive thoughts about that myself. It's likely not what should happen to a civilized society though.

Ron said...

For example, lets look at the posts on this very blog.

The first post right now is about Hil and Rudy.

The second makes its point with Gore and saying his views are liberal.(maybe true)

The next is about Rush vs. liberal organization.

The next is about Rush vs. Democrats

The next is largely a political but rational point on society.

The next is Billo and Rush vs. the liberals and democrats.

The next is Rush vs. the liberal media

The next is Murtha and liberals vs the "true patriots".


I could go on but that makes the point. It is not about solutions or ideas or even viewpoints unless you consider as much divisiveness as possible a productive viewpoint.
I can say that I am guilty of this on my own blog often. It's hard not to do when people go so far as to make you an enemy of the state. You are inspired to strike back in kind. ..Hey, I'm a guy and I admit to enjoying wrestling in the mud now and then but most of the time I wish the entire country could be more inspirational(at its most basic) instead divisive. You know, like actually thinking!

PCD said...

ron,

The country would be more free thinking if the liberals were kicked into the ashcan of history. All the liberals know is take away freedoms and property via government.

Ron said...

Thank you for making my point pcd.

Realism said...

funny, no comments about how rush admitted that he edited his transcript to fool the demented cattle who listen to him into thinking that he wasn't referring to any soldier who disagrees with him.

PCD said...

Phil,

He edited out the caller going off subject while Rush waited for a printout of the point he made after the caller wound down. Only a partisan fool like yourself, with your head up the Donkey's butt, refuse to be honest about this.

The smear didn't work. Now, admit it. You Democraps are so desperate that you have to resort to smears over substance to try to win the next election.

Realism said...

You believe anything he says, don't you? You fucking slave.

This reminds me of the time that Ann Coulter lied and said that Bill Maher wished Cheney dead. Even after I dug up the transcripts showing him explicitly saying that he did NOT wish Cheney dead, you could not bring yourselves to call Ann a liar.

Morons like you are incapable of processing information on your own. You need someone to tell you what to think.

"LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.
"

It's clear from the context (at least to everyone besides the brainwashed cattle) that Rush was referring to soldiers that oppose the war in Iraq with the "phony soldiers" commment.

Ron said...

Frankly PCD you are embarrassing. I cringe whenever you post. You can't wait to step in line behind the leader. If you have independent though it is hard to see. You need a leader, be it Bush or The General or Rush to fall in line behind. Then you are the consumate little soldier. Never questioning anything they say..EVER. You get it down word for word. Always defending and never stepping outside the talking point or marching orders. You would be an outstanding solider. You make a shitty citizen.