Limbaugh attacks troops. Dem's Outraged. [Archive]

corplinx

1st October 2007, 08:05 PM

<shrug> Turnabout's fair play and all that I suppose.

I was thinking this as well. However.....

Moveon took out a full page ad in a major newspaper naming the general by name and implying he was betraying the country. It was planned and thought out before hand. Moveon is a large grassroots organizer for the Democratic Party. The text added to the bill didn't address moveon directly.

Limbaugh was ad-libbing with a caller and made a dumb/glib remark and didn't mention anyone directly. Limbaugh is a radio personality. Resolutions being drafted are calling him out by name.

This isn't turnabout or fair play. Its just retarded. Much more retarded than the original retarded thing they are retaliating against. Its an escalation that doesn't make sense to me anyways.

I think what the democrats will find is that the contest they are trying to win is akin to the special olympics in that the winner of the patriotism PR battle will still be retarded.

Metullus

1st October 2007, 08:14 PM

I thought that his comment was specifically about Jesse MacBeth, a genuinely "phony soldier"?

Wheezebucket

1st October 2007, 08:16 PM

Well I hate the troops, and I hate them more every time something like this comes up. Hurray for nonsense.

Just thinking

1st October 2007, 08:39 PM

I thought that his comment was specifically about Jesse MacBeth, a genuinely "phony soldier"?

You're absolutely correct ... those smearing him on this are either knowingly taking his comment(s) out-of-context or from MediaMatters. I heard the complete phone-in conversation and that is exactly what he was speaking about --- those claiming to be who they are not.

corplinx

1st October 2007, 08:42 PM

I don't think he had anyone in mind when he said it. I think he was just talking out of his butt. I'm not buying the "he was talking about this guy or that guy" line.

Just thinking

1st October 2007, 08:44 PM

shemp

1st October 2007, 09:29 PM

...wasted senate time...

Redundant.

corplinx

1st October 2007, 09:38 PM

Redundant.

Noted

steverino

1st October 2007, 10:59 PM

Its just retarded. Much more retarded than the original retarded thing they are retaliating against. Its an escalation that doesn't make sense to me anyways...

...the winner of the patriotism PR battle will still be retarded.

This use of the word "retard" is politically incorrect, and an insult to dumb people who are special.

Skeptic Ginger

1st October 2007, 11:31 PM

One shouldn't confuse pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning MoveOn and ignoring Rush with actually being outraged at Rush.

I think the criticism is legit regarding Limbaugh's claim that Iraq vets against the war are fake vets. But the only feigned "outrage" is sarcastic feigned outrage. That's why you don't see any Democrats moving to propose a condemnation of Rush bill in the Senate or the House for that matter.

steverino

1st October 2007, 11:41 PM

That's why you don't see any Democrats moving to propose a condemnation of Rush bill in the Senate or the House for that matter.

Not only that, I don't see any A-list Democrats moving to end the war.

gtc

1st October 2007, 11:44 PM

One shouldn't confuse pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning MoveOn and ignoring Rush with actually being outraged at Rush.

What about the hypocrisy of condemning Bush over his use of the phrase 'democrat party' and not condemning MoveOn?

That said, the letter to Clear Communications doesn't seem to be sarcastic (though it doesn't seem to be particularly outraged either).

Skeptic Ginger

1st October 2007, 11:53 PM

Skeptic Ginger

1st October 2007, 11:55 PM

Not only that, I don't see any A-list Democrats moving to end the war.I don't get your point.

geni

1st October 2007, 11:57 PM

We aren't out of the primary season and were being assaulted by phony baloney patriotism baiting congressional acts and 12 year old handicapped kids.

Not a vast amount else to do really. Dems can't overturn the presidential veto.

Patriotism and 12 year old handicapped kids are something the house can at least pretend to agree on.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 12:01 AM

Did you listen to the phone-in conversation? --- that point is clearly made by the caller. Going to the original source is needed.

Rush made it very clear that he was not criticizing dissenting solders of the military, but of genuine phonies.

And ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227) ran a story on this very issue prior to Rush's comment(s) ... validating his phrase as accurate. Jesse MacBeth is highlighted in this article as well, so if anyone saw it (as likely Rush did), his image would easily come to mind.If that one guy is really who Rush was specifically referring to then Rush shouldn't have been taken out of context. I take it Rush didn't make it clear he was referring to one single fake vet against the war, but if it is now clear that's what he meant then I'm glad I didn't try to feign outrage.

gtc

2nd October 2007, 12:26 AM

How the heck does calling attention to the use of a propaganda ploy, calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party, make it hypocritical to call attention to the Republicans on another propaganda ploy, feigning outrage at the MoveOn Petraeus ad?

Don't feign ignorance. I have explained it twice in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93924).

You complained when Bush used the phrase 'democrat party' as it was (apparently) a deliberate mangling of the democratic party's name to create a subtle smear.

You did not complain when MoveOn General Patraeus's name to create a not so subtle smear.

Now, as I shall not be returning to this board for a while I will set out my personal views (in case it is an issue).

I personally believe that Bush either mispoke (not uncommon) or was fed the simpler version by speech writers who were either ignorant or thought that democrat party was snappier or less fancy sounding or less likely to be mangled by Bush.

I personally believe that General Betray Us was a silly choice by Move On. In a democracy no government or military official should be immune to criticism (and it is theoretically possible that Petraeus may be betraying the US). However, the way they chose to criticise Petraeus is cheap and offensive to many. As such, I think they will have lost for the Democrats the support of many centrists. They may be courting controversy (which would explain the Hitler advert they allowed onto their site).

I personally believe that Rush was courting controversy (as per usual) but that he was probably thinking of the Iraq war critic who turned out to have been a fake soldier and the other one who turned out to have faked aspects of his service. I don't think that he will hurry to clear up the confusion as being the subject of complaints from the democrats is good publicity.

I will try to return to this thread in a few weeks.

steverino

2nd October 2007, 12:43 AM

I don't get your point.

Democrats aren't moving to do much of anything...Oh they did pass the popcorn lung thinggy...

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/3959/20

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670

pgwenthold

2nd October 2007, 06:23 AM

Just thinking

2nd October 2007, 06:24 AM

If that one guy is really who Rush was specifically referring to then Rush shouldn't have been taken out of context. I take it Rush didn't make it clear he was referring to one single fake vet against the war, but if it is now clear that's what he meant then I'm glad I didn't try to feign outrage.

No, it wasn't explicit --- but thinking it implicit is highly reasonable. In colloquial conversation (which this obviously was) we imply things all the time; and when it is necessary to be specific, we either are at the time or go back and clear up any ambiguity. It is very reasonable to think that Rush (or his staff) heard (or heard of) the ABC report --- his phraseology was almost identical to the report. He (Rush) is also a news/political commentator, so this sort of information is vital to his programming. You don't have to agree with him to know he is one in strong support of the troops and their missions, and that something like the report mentioned (specifying MacBeth) would come to mind when a caller mentions false accusations made by US troops. I believe it was something like a day or two old at the time.

Snide

2nd October 2007, 07:20 AM

This use of the word "retard" is politically incorrect, and an insult to dumb people who are special.Oh yeah? "Dumb" is offensive to mutes.

;)

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 07:26 AM

Did you listen to the phone-in conversation? --- that point is clearly made by the caller. Going to the original source is needed.

Rush made it very clear that he was not criticizing dissenting solders of the military, but of genuine phonies.

And ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227) ran a story on this very issue prior to Rush's comment(s) ... validating his phrase as accurate. Jesse MacBeth is highlighted in this article as well, so if anyone saw it (as likely Rush did), his image would easily come to mind.
No, but Rush edited the clip (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top) so that people would think that is what he meant. Here is Rush's No True Scotsman (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top) in all its mind numbing glory and context.

Darth Rotor

2nd October 2007, 07:32 AM

No, but Rush edited the clip (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top) so that people would think that is what he meant. Here is Rush's No True Scotsman (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top) in all its mind numbing glory and context.

The NTS was originally offered by the caller, but of course, that never stopped Rush from coopting a convenient turn of phrase, if he thought it was useful.

Difference between Moveon.org and Rush: One is a for profit entertainment show, with a conservative blowhard, and one is a PAC in all but name.

Is it correct to compare them as apples to apples? I am not sure, though neither respects the center, and both believe in the ad hom/ personal attack as standard fare.

DR

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 07:39 AM

Difference between Moveon.org and Rush: One is a for profit entertainment show, with a conservative blowhard, and one is a PAC in all but name.
The other difference is that MoveOn actually stuck to their principles (rightly or wrongly) when called out on them. Rush lied, spun, and blamed others with some help from his friends.

Is it correct to compare them as apples to apples?
So, let's compare him to another for-profit entertainment show. How does Rush's integrity and level of hypocrisy compare to, say, John Stewart's?

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 07:46 AM

So, let's compare him to another for-profit entertainment show. How does Rush's integrity and level of hypocrisy compare to, say, John Stewart's?

I would compare him to another partisan radio host and not Stewart. Stewart is on for 30 minutes a day using visual SNL style comedy, while Rush is on for 3 hours a day using audio political talk with threads of comedy.

steverino

2nd October 2007, 07:50 AM

The other difference is that MoveOn actually stuck to their principles (rightly or wrongly) when called out on them. Rush lied, spun, and blamed others with some help from his friends.

So, let's compare him to another for-profit entertainment show. How does Rush's integrity and level of hypocrisy compare to, say, John Stewart's?

"Jon" Stewart is a 'cool' comedian, and therefore gets a pass for his hypocrisy because people who laugh at his sarcasm feel young and with-it, and, wink, wink, we get that it's humor, Jon, but we ride your hip bus.

To defend Rush is to have B.O. and fatso glasses, even when he is sometimes correct with his observations.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 07:51 AM

I would compare him to another partisan radio host and not Stewart. Stewart is on for 30 minutes a day using visual SNL style comedy, while Rush is on for 3 hours a day using audio political talk with threads of comedy.
Aside from the duration and radio vs. television, I fail to see the difference between the two formats.

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 07:51 AM

I would add that Stewart is a hell of a lot closer to the middle.

LordoftheLeftHand

2nd October 2007, 07:56 AM

(Breaking, yet once again my self-promise not to participate in threads about US politics).

Flip-flopper!!!!
LLH

delphi_ote

2nd October 2007, 07:57 AM

I am not sure, though neither respects the center reason, and both believe in the ad hom/ personal attack as standard fare.
The center isn't always the right place to be. It shouldn't be considered more respectable than the left or the right because it is fair. Sometimes, we have to make choices. We should make those choices rationally. Reason is the viewpoint we should respect.

ETA But not necessarily a magazine we should respect... ;)

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 07:57 AM

"Jon" Stewart is a 'cool' comedian,
er... no, I mean this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_(comics)).

Yeah, that's the ticket.

:o

and therefore gets a pass for his hypocrisy
For example?

To defend Rush is to have B.O. and fatso glasses, even when he is sometimes correct with his observations.
Do you find his observation correct in this case? (The original case, not the phony cover he made up later.) Republicans and soldiers who are against the war can't possibly be Republicans and soldiers?

Darth Rotor

2nd October 2007, 08:00 AM

The center isn't always the right place to be. It shouldn't be considered more respectable than the left or the right because it is fair. Sometimes, we have to make a choice. We should make those choices rationally. Reason is the viewpoint we should respect.
No, though thanks for the point. ;)

I meant the center. Compromise is required in politics. Polemics may highlight issues, but as I see it, they do not serve the larger interest, particularly when too narrowly used as a basis of policy. Unless, of course, you are for the polarization and balkanization of the polity in America. I am against disunity: the last time disunion happened, our bloodiest war was a result. (Yes, slippery slope warning. :) )

DR

delphi_ote

2nd October 2007, 08:03 AM

Compromise is required in politics.
Okay. Let's teach the controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy).
Unless, of course, you are for the polarization and balkanization of the polity in America. I am against disunity: the last time disunion happened, our bloodiest war was a result. (Yes, slippery slope warning. :) )
Poisoning the well and slippery slope in one sentence two sentences. Nicely done.

Darth Rotor

2nd October 2007, 08:05 AM

Okay. Let's teach the controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy).

Poisoning the well and slippery slope in one sentence two sentences. Nicely done.
Appreciate the non sequitur tossed back over the net. What does ID have to do with this?

Tennis, anyone?

DR

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 08:06 AM

Aside from the duration and radio vs. television, I fail to see the difference between the two formats.

15 hours of taking calls and blabbering against the liberals vs 2.5 of mostly headline news and comedy sketches.

I fail to see the similarity other than the shows being politically based.

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 08:09 AM

Republicans and soldiers who are against the war can't possibly be Republicans and soldiers?

Can you show me where Limbaugh said that? Or is that what you think he said?

steverino

2nd October 2007, 08:09 AM

For example?

I am not a regular viewer, and he is funny, but I find that when a Dem. acts egregiously (s)he often gets a pass, but a Rep. gets nailed every time. When I spent every day on this forum and we'd all argue on both sides of the aisle, there was plenty of wrong-doing on both sides to argue about. Then I'd tune into Stewart, and he wouldn't touch on topics of misbehaving Dems we here just spent all day hashing out. And this really bothered me, like he was spoon-fed topics by 20-something hipsters, graduates from liberal colleges and former Viet Nam protesters and Hollywood types.

Darth Rotor

2nd October 2007, 08:10 AM

Can you show me where Limbaugh said that? Or is that what you think he said?

Read the link that Upchurch provided with the transcript of Rush and the callers in the conversation. It is pretty clear.

DR

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 08:23 AM

Read the link that Upchurch provided with the transcript of Rush and the callers in the conversation. It is pretty clear.

DR

I've read it on mediamatters and on limbaugh's site, no it's not pretty clear.

Show me where this is;
Republicans and soldiers who are against the war can't possibly be Republicans and soldiers?

pgwenthold

2nd October 2007, 08:23 AM

Read the link that Upchurch provided with the transcript of Rush and the callers in the conversation. It is pretty clear.

DR

Let me quote the relevant part

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 --

So Rush affirms the characterization that

"Real soldiers": Want to be over in Iraq
"Phoney soldiers": Don't want to be in Iraq

What led to that discussion? See the conversation with the previous caller:
CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.

[...]

CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: What is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

Caller Mike is military and a Republican. But he can't be a Republican, because he doesn't agree with Rush. So that is what brought up the point of "phoney soldiers" with the next caller.

If you listen to the full exchange, starting with the first caller, there is no doubt they are accusing _that_ caller, and all soldiers who oppose the war, phoneys.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 08:25 AM

I am not a regular viewer, and he is funny, but I find that when a Dem. acts egregiously (s)he often gets a pass, but a Rep. gets nailed every time.
Yep, you're right. You aren't a regular viewer.

When I spent every day on this forum and we'd all argue on both sides of the aisle, there was plenty of wrong-doing on both sides to argue about. Then I'd tune into Stewart, and he wouldn't touch on topics of misbehaving Dems we here just spent all day hashing out.
Nor does he touch all of the topics of misbehaving Republicans either. Probably unintentionally, but you are cherry picking the aspects that bother you and ignoring the aspects that don't bother you.

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 08:26 AM

Let me quote the relevant part

So Rush affirms the characterization that

"Real soldiers": Want to be over in Iraq
"Phoney soldiers": Don't want to be in Iraq

What led to that discussion? See the conversation with the previous caller:

Caller Mike is military and a Republican. But he can't be a Republican, because he doesn't agree with Rush. So that is what brought up the point of "phoney soldiers" with the next caller.

If you listen to the full exchange, starting with the first caller, there is no doubt they are accusing _that_ caller, and all soldiers who oppose the war, phoneys.

Of course, how stupid of me!!!! CALLERS TO RADIO SHOWS NEVER LIE

steverino

2nd October 2007, 08:27 AM

Yep, you're right. You aren't a regular viewer.

Nor does he touch all of the topics of misbehaving Republicans either. Probably unintentionally, but you are cherry picking the aspects that bother you and ignoring the aspects that don't bother you.

Cute reply, Churchman, but in this case your mind is cherry-picking the shows you think I have, and have not seen.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 08:29 AM

Of course, how stupid of me!!!! CALLERS TO RADIO SHOWS NEVER LIE
Non-sequitur. No one was claiming that callers to radio shows never lie. The question is whether or not the opinion was expressed and Rush supported and/or agreed with it.

eta: and, to a lesser extent, the degree he went to cover up the context of what he said.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 08:34 AM

Cute reply, Churchman, but in this case your mind is cherry-picking the shows you think I have, and have not seen.
Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.

It doesn't matter what episodes I think you've seen. Your critique does not match up with the content of the show. They take on both parties and often point out the craziness of both. Heck, of all the current Presidential candidates, John McCain has been on the most often, something like 10-11 times in the last 4 years.

bjb

2nd October 2007, 08:45 AM

I am not a regular viewer, and he is funny, but I find that when a Dem. acts egregiously (s)he often gets a pass, but a Rep. gets nailed every time. When I spent every day on this forum and we'd all argue on both sides of the aisle, there was plenty of wrong-doing on both sides to argue about. Then I'd tune into Stewart, and he wouldn't touch on topics of misbehaving Dems we here just spent all day hashing out. And this really bothered me, like he was spoon-fed topics by 20-something hipsters, graduates from liberal colleges and former Viet Nam protesters and Hollywood types.

I remember when Bill Clinton was president and all of the comedians made fun of that guy. I think it is interesting that they weren't being accused of being Republican shills for making fun of a Democratic president, but these days, a comic that makes fun of Republicans can be accused of all sorts of unpleasant things.

There are a couple of significant differences between Limbaugh and Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart is not afraid to make fun of Democrats, especially the insincerity of the presidential candidates and the overall absurdity of the current campaign for the nomination. Limbaugh, on the other hand, will not criticize a Republican, unless, perhaps, the Republican is not conservative enough. In this respect, it would be more fair to compare Al Franken to Limbaugh because Al Franken also won't say anything negative about his own party.

Another reason Republicans are targeted by The Daily Show is that they project an image of being the moral guardians of the United States. Politicians from both parties are equally immoral but Republicans look much worse when they get caught. For example, how many Republicans have been caught in gay scandals and corruption scandals compared to Democrats? The same applies to Jon Stewart vs. Limbaugh. Stewart is open about his recreational drug use while Limbaugh is the one who got prosecuted for his addiction.

steverino

2nd October 2007, 08:45 AM

Heck, of all the current Presidential candidates, John McCain has been on the most often, something like 10-11 times in the last 4 years.

He's a safe counter balance.

I'm talking about Bush and Cheney, and all the venom. Does Stewart pound on Democrat war profiteers?

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/lt_code_pink_feinstein_070409.shtml

steverino

2nd October 2007, 08:50 AM

Politicians from both parties are equally immoral but Republicans look much worse when they get caught.

That's what I just said.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 08:55 AM

He's a safe counter balance.
Safe only in that he has a good sense of humor and can laugh at himself, not for any political positions.

I'm talking about Bush and Cheney, and all the venom. Does Stewart pound on Democrat war profiteers?
They have a half hour, four times a week. Little stories from both sides will fall through the cracks. The vast majority of what the President and Vice President do are not little stories, but even then, they don't make fun of everything they do.

Have you ever heard how Stewart talks about John Kerry?

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 09:00 AM

Have you ever heard how Stewart talks about John Kerry?

You mean now that he's no longer running for president?

steverino

2nd October 2007, 09:02 AM

You mean now that he's no longer running for president?

:D

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 09:04 AM

You mean now that he's no longer running for president?

Okay, how about Hilary Clinton?

(His Kerry voice is funnier, though)

bjb

2nd October 2007, 09:08 AM

That's what I just said.

Really? When?

And when has Rush Limbaugh purposely made the Republican party look foolish? (Other than belonging to it)

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 09:11 AM

I've read it on mediamatters and on Limbaugh's site, no it's not pretty clear.

Show me where this is; Republicans and soldiers who are against the war can't possibly be Republicans and soldiers?

I'm still waiting. You couldn't have extrapolated that from one phone caller who was probably lying about his political party, could you? Just show me where you say this "cover up" is.

He was clear who he was talking about. Here is what started it all;

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. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. 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.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html

Anyone who listened to the show knew exactly what he was referring to. One person, Jesse MacBeth and those like him.

*Jesse Macbeth, 23, Tacoma, Washington, sentenced today in connection with his fraudulent claims of military service. Macbeth sought medical benefits claiming to suffer from PTSD related to service in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, Macbeth was discharged from the Army about a month after he joined. Macbeth never traveled outside the U.S. with the Army. Macbeth duped reporters, claiming to be a decorated Army Ranger who had witnessed war crimes.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 09:14 AM

I'm still waiting. You couldn't have extrapolated that from one phone caller who was probably lying about his political party, could you?
So you agree with Rush that someone who is against the war could not possibly be a Republican?

Bob Klase

2nd October 2007, 09:29 AM

I'm still waiting. You couldn't have extrapolated that from one phone caller who was probably lying about his political party

How did you determine that he was "probably lying"?

JoeEllison

2nd October 2007, 09:36 AM

Aside from the duration and radio vs. television, I fail to see the difference between the two formats.

So you admit that Limbaugh is a comedian and no form of journalist whatsoever?

What a shocking level of honesty!:)

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 09:37 AM

Instead of hair splitting about what he said, what is really interesting is the news coverage of this madeup brouhaha today. This whole controversy is more forced than a Tom Cruise smile.

Just thinking

2nd October 2007, 09:38 AM

No, but Rush edited the clip (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top) so that people would think that is what he meant. Here is Rush's No True Scotsman (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top) in all its mind numbing glory and context.

So you go back to MediaMatters as a source? ... they're doing the smearing. And let's not try to get off-track with True Scotsmen diversions.

Please link to where Rush is calling dissenting soldiers as phonies --- not people making false (phony) accusations.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 09:44 AM

So you go back to MediaMatters as a source? ... they're doing the smearing. And let's not try to get off-track with True Scotsmen diversions.
No, they're just hosting the clip and providing the transcript. I'm using Rush's own words in his own voice as a source. The file is here (http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20070926-soldiers.mp3), if you want to listen to it outside of any MediaMatters context.

Please link to where Rush is calling dissenting soldiers as phonies --- not people making false (phony) accusations.
oh, got ahead of myself. There ya go.

JoeEllison

2nd October 2007, 09:46 AM

Somebody must have tricked Rush Limbaugh... while he was on drugs! That's it!

Gord_in_Toronto

2nd October 2007, 09:47 AM

Flip-flopper!!!!
LLH

I'm struck to the core! :o

I actually had a pair of sandals that made a flip-flop noise as I walked. I wore them on a trip to London and they made a great sound as I walked up and down the steps of the Tube stations. Drove my wife crazy and I think she threw them out when I was not looking. :mad:

And now back to the originally scheduled thread. :D

Just thinking

2nd October 2007, 09:58 AM

No, they're just hosting the clip and providing the transcript. I'm using Rush's own words in his own voice as a source. The file is here (http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20070926-soldiers.mp3), if you want to listen to it outside of any MediaMatters context.

oh, got ahead of myself. There ya go.

Thanks for linking to the entire clip.

And it helps me see how you are making your point --- nowhere does Rush state that dissenting soldiers are phonies --- he had strong issues with the previous caller who could not understand the gravity about a too early withdrawal from Iraq --- he also questioned his political stand, and highly doubted him as a Republican, but he did not call him a phony. In fact, the conversation with the second Mike shifted to a second demographic of folks, the phony soldiers sounding as a subset of that group.

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 10:08 AM

Is this Imus Part 2? MediaMatters raises a fake controversy over something a radio show's own fans aren't upset about and tries to get the radio host (whom they vehemently hate) run off the air?

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 10:09 AM

Thanks for linking to the entire clip.
You're welcome, but that's what I did in the first place.

And it helps me see how you are making your point --- nowhere does Rush state that dissenting soldiers are phonies ---
Nowhere?

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

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.
Real soldiers joined up to be in Iraq.

he had strong issues with the previous caller who could not understand the gravity about a too early withdrawal from Iraq --- he also questioned his political stand, and highly doubted him as a Republican, but he did not call him a phony.Nor did I say he called him a "phony", although he did when you consider his military experience. I said that Rush said that the caller could not possibly be a Republican because of his war position on the war.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 10:10 AM

Is this Imus Part 2? MediaMatters raises a fake controversy over something a radio show's own fans aren't upset about and tries to get the radio host (whom they vehemently hate) run off the air?
What is fake about it? Did he say what they reported he said? Did he edit the clip the way they said he did?

What is a "fake controversy" anyway?

Just thinking

2nd October 2007, 10:11 AM

Yes ... nowhere.

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 10:14 AM

What is fake about it? Did he say what they reported he said? Did he edit the clip the way they said he did?

What is a "fake controversy" anyway?

Im glad there are useful idiots for every retarded made up controversy.

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 10:21 AM

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 10:34 AM

Upchurch deserves better than that comment (maybe, he seems to be willingly obtuse). But only Rush Limbaugh knows what Rush Limbaugh meant by that comment. Personally, I think he was just talking out of his butt as banter. Limbaugh says he was thinking of the actual phony soldiers. The lib groups are claiming to have read Limbaugh's mind and say he was besmirching all soldiers.
See, this is where I think you are being willingly obtuse. His meaning is quite plain, given the context in which his comments were made. Given that what he says later does not match up with the context, his attempt to alter the conversation when he played it later, and his motivation to not be caught with an anti-soldier statement hanging over his head, which is more plausible: That he said something stupid and was trying to back peddle furiously or that he meant something else entirely from the start and did the editing and lied about it for no apparent reason?

In an attempt to reciprocate the really dumb BetrayUs controvery, this is being pushed on us.
What makes you think this is related to the MoveOn ad? If anything, I would think this (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003) is more in line with that theory, not this "phony soldier" thing.

Its pretty transparently phony. Its insulting that we are even discussing this as legitimate on this forum. The discussion here is how dumb the media is for carrying the story, how dumb congress is for going along with it.
Again, what has been faked or is phony about it? Other than Rush's editing of the conversation?

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 10:50 AM

See, this is where I think you are being willingly obtuse.

What makes you think this is related to the MoveOn ad?

Selectively quoted for irony. The reason this story has legs is because of statements and actions by senate/house members that are fairly obviously retaliation over the MoveOn ad that was used to embarass them. They have even mentioned the ad in their statements.

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 11:10 AM

So you agree with Rush that someone who is against the war could not possibly be a Republican?

WOW Where did you pull that out of?? Wait don't tell me, I think I know. I never said any such thing and Limbaugh didn't either. He called one caller a liar,that's all. I didn't even imply it. You just assume that I think like that. Obviously there are some people in both parties that oppose the war. Media matters has lied, and you believe. Don't drink the Kool Aid.

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 11:15 AM

WOW Where did you pull that out of??
Okay, I'll take Bob Klase's approach: What makes you think the caller was "probably lying"?

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 11:20 AM

The way he answered other questions.

Now if I can throw this right back at you. What makes you think he was telling the truth?

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 11:34 AM

The way he answered other questions.
Well, that's a non-answer. What, specifically?

Now if I can throw this right back at you. What makes you think he was telling the truth?
Couple of reasons. First, I believe it is possible to be a member of a group and not adhere to all the policies of that group. So, thinking that there is no point is staying in Iraq does not automatically disqualify him as a Republican. Second, in leu of anything you present to the contrary, he didn't give any reason to think he might be lying rather than telling the truth.

The Painter

2nd October 2007, 12:04 PM

Couple of reasons. First, I believe it is possible to be a member of a group and not adhere to all the policies of that group. So, thinking that there is no point is staying in Iraq does not automatically disqualify him as a Republican.

I said the very same thing 3 or 4 posts back, so?? This in no way indicates that the guy was truthful.

Charlie Monoxide

2nd October 2007, 12:07 PM

Someone posted earlier a statement that "Rush is funny". I just spent about half and hour checking YouTube for a clip where Rush is saying or doing something funny. Mostly it's clips criticizing Rush and shots from Rush's old TV show. Not a single giggle in the bunch.

Please post a link to something humorous from our favorite right-wing guy to hate ...

Charlie (putting Rush's head on Al Franken doesn't count) Monoxide

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 12:07 PM

I said the very same thing 3 or 4 posts back, so?? This in no way indicates that the guy was truthful.
Then what indicates that he was "probably lying"?

Upchurch

2nd October 2007, 12:28 PM

I didn't actually address this post:
I said the very same thing 3 or 4 posts back, so?? This in no way indicates that the guy was truthful.

Nor did I say it was. I was merely pointing out that it in no way indicates that the guy was lying.

WildCat

2nd October 2007, 01:26 PM

I think the theme for this election cycle will be: "which party will go lower?"
Yes, they will. Much lower.

Snide

2nd October 2007, 03:31 PM

Media matters has lied Where?Don't drink the Kool Aid.Now that's irony!

delphi_ote

2nd October 2007, 05:42 PM

What does ID have to do with this?
Sorry. I'll dumb it down for you a bit. There is no center position on ID vs. Evolution. Sticking in the center is not a respectable position. Sometimes "the right" is right. Sometimes "the left" is right. Pretending to be above the fray by claiming to be "centrist" is just adding another irrational label for a different lump of opinions on unrelated subjects. I'm tired of people pretending that being mealy-mouthed is "fair" or "wise". (Republican+Democrat)/2=truth is an equation that just doesn't work.

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 05:59 PM

Sorry. I'll dumb it down for you a bit. There is no center position on ID vs. Evolution. Sticking in the center is not a respectable position. Sometimes "the right" is right. Sometimes "the left" is right. Pretending to be above the fray by claiming to be "centrist" is just adding another irrational label for a different lump of opinions on unrelated subjects. I'm tired of people pretending that being mealy-mouthed is "fair" or "wise". (Republican+Democrat)/2=truth is an equation that just doesn't work.

Thanks for putting into words something that has been nagging me.

RandFan

2nd October 2007, 06:41 PM

What makes you think this is related to the MoveOn ad? If anything, I would think this (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003) is more in line with that theory, not this "phony soldier" thing.It's self serving politics on the part of those who are "outraged".

Damn, let's all get upset over speech.

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 07:15 PM

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 08:36 PM

Don't feign ignorance. I have explained it twice in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93924).

You complained when Bush used the phrase 'democrat party' as it was (apparently) a deliberate mangling of the democratic party's name to create a subtle smear.

You did not complain when MoveOn General Patraeus's name to create a not so subtle smear....Sorry you won't be around to read this for a while but when you do get around to reading this, you really should consider what motive someone would have before you accuse them of purposefully pretending to not know what you were referring to. Sorry but I don't have your every post memorized especially when the comment was something from weeks ago and I hadn't given a lot of thought to it even then. Maybe you think the comment was earthshaking, but I didn't.

And your comparison maybe makes sense to you, but the two are completely different issues to me. In one case the purposeful distortion was intended to be subliminal to a certain extent, call the Democrats a name without admitting you did so. It's no surprise Bush claimed it was an accident and Bush supporters believe that (and there's no reason to rehash the issue in this thread). That's what the intent was of using the phrase Democrat Party, a sleazy marketing tactic. It wasn't the fact the name was altered that mattered. It was the message one could slip into the comment and deny later.

In the case of Petraeus, there was nothing secret, no focus group reporting the image "betray us" elicited, no denial later that a derogatory description was used. You see significant parallels, I see insignificant ones.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 08:40 PM

Everyone seems to forget that the democratically controlled congress did, in fact, pass legislation that included timetables for troop withdrawal. It was vetoed by the President, and there weren't enough votes to override it.

Yet congress is still blamed for not ending the war.The Democrats are not unified, they aren't aggressive enough for my taste in standing up to Bush and they haven't drawn enough attention to their actions. More of us need to push the Democrats harder on these issues. We don't have a lot of other options.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 08:45 PM

"Jon" Stewart is a 'cool' comedian, and therefore gets a pass for his hypocrisy because people who laugh at his sarcasm feel young and with-it, and, wink, wink, we get that it's humor, Jon, but we ride your hip bus.

To defend Rush is to have B.O. and fatso glasses, even when he is sometimes correct with his observations.
Not to change the subject here but what hypocrisy of Stewart's are you referring to? Is he a secret drug addict badmouthing all other drug addicts publicly? Did Stewart claim the government had every right to spy on and invade the privacy of people Stewart didn't care about then cry like a baby when his privacy was invaded? Did Stewart make a crappy statement about phony vets then pretend he said something else? Just what hypocrisy?

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 08:50 PM

The Senator Betrayus article is an example of how MediaMatters isn't a reliable source of information. Senator Betrayus broke ranks and voted with democrats. Senator Betrayus was one of many names radio personality Rush Limbaugh used to describe republicans who broke party lines such as RINOs. Its part of his act.

The MoveOn ad implied a general was betraying the country. Rush glibly nicknamed a senator for betraying the GOP.

However, mediamatters equivocates the two. I would suggest that you stop going to a partisan organization for content. We keep seeing mediamatters articles posted here on the JREF forum but I notice the more conservative posters don't go around posting the drivel from the Media Research Center which is the right leaning media watchdog with about the same credibility.

Really, just stop.Media matters, truthout, and some of the other 'liberal' media watchdog groups are more reliable for truthful fact checking than the right wing say anything groups. Facts are facts. If the right wing sites were reliable, I'd have no problem getting information from them. The opinions I can form for myself and recognize theirs for what they are. You seem to be griping about opinion as if it was the same as false facts.

articulett

2nd October 2007, 08:53 PM

Not to change the subject here but what hypocrisy of Stewart's are you referring to? Is he a secret drug addict badmouthing all other drug addicts publicly? Did Stewart claim the government had every right to spy on and invade the privacy of people Stewart didn't care about then cry like a baby when his privacy was invaded? Did Stewart make a crappy statement about phony vets then pretend he said something else? Just what hypocrisy?

Moreover, WHEN was Limbaugh ever correct with his observations?

(And I think that the conservative posters reveal their political biases a lot more than they might imagine--they just hear it a lot louder when someone says something they disagree with...)

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 08:56 PM

Media Rearch: Blitzer Joins MSNBC in Distorting Limbaugh (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)
CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday night matched MSNBC in distorting the target of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment as The Situation Room devoted a full story to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attack on Limbaugh based on a Friday hit job on Limbaugh by a far-left group.

Media Matters: FACT CHECK: "Phony Soldiers" and Limbaugh's Revisionist History (http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020011?f=h_top)Radio Talk-Show Host Falsely Claims Comments Taken Out of Context; Records Show Otherwise...the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "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?"

So which one is factual, corplinx?

JoeEllison

2nd October 2007, 09:03 PM

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 09:08 PM

"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?"

This is a perfect example why both sides make me want to puke.

First, that we know Rush implies things all the time without saying it directly. So we all know what his true opinion is.

Second, while media matters is technically correct in that he used the word for more than one example, they are proud to use a couple of liars as their example to prove they are right.....that he used it plural.

Barf.

Slimething

2nd October 2007, 09:11 PM

That coward Limbaugh's been attacking his betters for years and years now... I don't know why we should even bother discussing him anymore. He's a liar and a scumbag and a hypocrite. He hates and rejects pretty much everything America stands for, in favor of some twisted right-wing delusion. Anyone who respects his viewpoint almost certainly shares at least a couple of his flaws.

A while back, I read a few newspaper interviews with Limbaugh. He freely admitted then that his ultra-rightist prattle was an act and that he really meant little of it. That was back in his heyday, though, when he had audience to burn. Today, he's on the decline. Maybe his hateful attacks are merely the dying embers of a copy of the Constitution he set on fire. Let's hope.

I'm with you. The moron could tell me my money's green and I'd have to check.

RandFan

2nd October 2007, 09:12 PM

Moreover, WHEN was Limbaugh ever correct with his observations?

(And I think that the conservative posters reveal their political biases a lot more than they might imagine--they just hear it a lot louder when someone says something they disagree with...)I use to be a big fan of Limbaughs. I actually think he was at one time a pretty good talk show host. Perhaps it's just that I've moved to the left and he has always been rediculous.

I'm not really disapointed in Limbaugh's positions as much as I'm disapointed in his inability to reason and use logic. He is attrocious and has made an art from battling strawmen.

I do know many examples of Limbaugh being dead right. He went against popular opinion and fought the McMartin Preschool witch hunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial). Limbaugh had a lot to do with me changing my mind at that time. I was damn certain they were guilty.

In any event, I'm not really here to carry Limbaugh's water. Limbaugh deserves all the critisicm he gets.

I do think it is hypocritical and self serving to decry the "outrage" at moveon.org all the while being outraged at Limbaugh.

Let me also take the time to note the Savage affair (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57947). I don't agree with Savage but it amazes me that government is taking the time to condemn speech.

Isn't speech, good or bad, what it's all about?

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 09:19 PM

I use to be a big fan of Limbaughs. I actually think he was at one time a pretty good talk show host. Perhaps it's just that I've moved to the left and he has always been rediculous.

I'm not really disapointed in Limbaugh's positions as much as I'm disapointed in his inability to reason and use logic. He is attrocious and has made an art from battling strawmen.

I do know many examples of Limbaugh being dead right. He went against popular opinion and fought the McMartin Preschool witch hunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial). Limbaugh had a lot to do with me changing my mind at that time. I was damn certain they were guilty.

In any event, I'm not really here to carry Limbaugh's water. Limbaugh deserves all the critisicm he gets.

I do think it is hypocritical and self serving to decry the "outrage" at moveon.org all the while being outraged at Limbaugh.

Let me also take the time to note the Savage affair (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57947). I don't agree with Savage but it amazes me that government is taking the time to condemn speech.

Isn't speech, good or bad, what it's all about?

I agree. I find it humorous (or not so much) how Dems/Reps complain about the other side shredding the constitution when they are tearing it up from both ends.

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 09:28 PM

In any event, I'm not really here to carry Limbaugh's water. I do think it is hypocritical and self serving to decry the "outrage" at moveon.org all the while being outraged and Limbaugh.

Moveon attacked a named general directly and implied he was betraying the country. The attack was carried in a major newspaper. Moveon is a big organizer of grassroots support for the Democratic party. It was intentional and stated. There is no debate about their intentions. There was a silly reaction by senate members to draft text that did not actually call out moveon org by name to condemn this behavior.

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative news commentator who made a comment that is being deliberately being blown up out of proportion. Text is being drafted singling him out by name condemning the blown up version of his comment.

Perhaps the real reason behind this dogpile is to discredit people upset with the moveon ad if they are not equally upset with the blown up Limbaugh thing.

Disclaimer: I think both of these situations are dumb. I said exactly what the GOP was trying to do by drafting their moveon resolution in the thread about it. I think some people may have a legitimate gripe with the moveon ad, but that what free speech is about baby.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd October 2007, 09:38 PM

This is a perfect example why both sides make me want to puke.

First, that we know Rush implies things all the time without saying it directly. So we all know what his true opinion is.

Second, while media matters is technically correct in that he used the word for more than one example, they are proud to use a couple of liars as their example to prove they are right.....that he used it plural.

Barf.So are you saying that one pathological liar means the other couple thousand Iraq vets against the Iraq war should be discounted?

Macbeth controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Veterans_Against_the_War)Jesse Macbeth was a well-publicized IVAW member who routinely went on record claiming that he had committed numerous attrocities in Iraq. This garnered him much attention on anti-war blogs and anti-war videos. It was later learned that he did not serve in Iraq. His service time was limited to that of partial completion of basic training.

IVAW disavowed Jesse Macbeth when they learned he was a fraud and using the IVAW name for non-IVAW sanctioned video recordings.[3] All members of IVAW have since been required to submit documentation of military service. [1]

Here is where you can find the rest of those 2000+ who have spoken out and aren't making up their past service:

Iraq Vets against the war (http://www.ivaw.org/)

2,036 vets have signed an appeal to end the war (http://www.appealforredress.org/) (as of 10/02/07 2100 PST)

General Anthony Zinni is an Iraq vet against the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni)

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 09:43 PM

So are you saying that one pathological liar means the other couple thousand Iraq vets against the Iraq war should be discounted?

uh....lol. I don't know what post you read.

Media matters gave an example of two other people he called out.....for lying.

If you think 2=1000, then sure, that's what I'm saying.

ETA:excuse me. 2000+

corplinx

2nd October 2007, 09:54 PM

Tailgater

2nd October 2007, 09:56 PM

Here is where you can find the rest of those 2000+ who have spoken out and aren't making up their past service:

Iraq Vets against the war (http://www.ivaw.org/)

2,036 vets have signed an appeal to end the war (http://www.appealforredress.org/) (as of 10/02/07 2100 PST)

General Anthony Zinni is an Iraq vet against the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni)

Which means nothing in this thread other than stating the obvious. Thanks for "informing" us.

RandFan

2nd October 2007, 11:28 PM

Disclaimer: I think both of these situations are dumb. I said exactly what the GOP was trying to do by drafting their moveon resolution in the thread about it. I think some people may have a legitimate gripe with the moveon ad, but that what free speech is about baby.Both are dumb. No question. Congress is wasting it's time getting outraged (outraged I tell you (http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics4/network1.jpg)) at speech.

Rush just can't figure it out, whether he is making idiotic comments about Donovan McNabb or mocking Michael J. Fox (a real class act BTW) he is just too blinded by his partisanship. I do think much of his repertoire is shtick but much of it isn't.

In any event, the outrage is just really, really dumb. Don't Senators have something more important?

Oh well, more of the us vs them BS that plays into the hands of the politicians. Demonize and hat Limbaugh, that will fix the world.

Dance monkeys, dance.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 06:07 AM

Damn, let's all get upset over speech.
To be fair, I only jumped into this mess to correct the misconception in this thread brought about by Limbaugh's creative editing. My dislike for the coward is incidental.

pgwenthold

3rd October 2007, 07:57 AM

Both are dumb. No question. Congress is wasting it's time getting outraged (outraged I tell you (http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics4/network1.jpg)) at speech.

Rush just can't figure it out, whether he is making idiotic comments about Donovan McNabb or mocking Michael J. Fox (a real class act BTW) he is just too blinded by his partisanship. I do think much of his repertoire is shtick but much of it isn't.

In any event, the outrage is just really, really dumb. Don't Senators have something more important?

.

So let's talk about the comments of a real LIBERAL radio personality, Rachel Maddow. Rachel is sharp, funny, and as liberal as Rush is conservative. OTOH, she isn't loopy like Randi Rhodes.

Her comments on the Rush Limbaugh affair: While Limbaugh is obviously an idiot, instead of wasting time on proclamations, the democrats should step up and do something that really supports the troops, such as work to fix the VA and get the pay raise passed. Let the republicans waste time with political grandstanding, while the democrats work to do something productive.

When is the last time you heard Rush say something so reasonable?

Darth Rotor

3rd October 2007, 08:15 AM

Sorry. I'll dumb it down for you a bit. There is no center position on ID vs. Evolution.
I never said there was. Thanks for both a red herring, and a moving of the goalposts. This was not a discussion of ID versus Evolution, though you seem bound and determined to drag that into this discussion. Why don't you just talk about Israel and Palestine while you are at it? Politics frequently relies on thesis, antithesis, synthesis (which latter often occurs due to a compromise) in order to find a path ahead rather than an impasse. That is one reason why it is called the "art of the possible."
Sticking in the center is not a respectable position.
You state that as though it is true in all cases. Sorry, wrong again. It is sometimes, and sometimes, it is a non position. (See Death Penalty. Hard not to be either or on that one.)
Sometimes "the right" is right. Sometimes "the left" is right.
And sometimes neither is right, and the center is. See again your simplisic, and wrong, remark one up about the center.
Pretending to be above the fray by claiming to be "centrist" is just adding another irrational label for a different lump of opinions on unrelated subjects. I'm tired of people pretending that being mealy-mouthed is "fair" or "wise".
The fray isn't always necessary. I note significant irrational adherence to "a side" for the sake of side, which is where compromise is rejected even as an option. Your ID/Ev is not a truism for all cases, though as a case for educational policy, I find it hard to see where a middle ground can be taken.

In some cases, see above, neither the left of right is correct, and your embedded false assumption that "either left or right must be right" is dead in the water.

Your mealy mouth, fair, or wise are more fish: red herring.
(Republican+Democrat)/2=truth is an equation that just doesn't work.
When you see me make that statement, rather than you attempt to put those words into my mouth, we can address it. Until then, feel free to talk to yourself about that problem.

ETA: What I don't seem to get to do, from the center and right center, is to pick one from column A and two from column B, thanks to the polemics of "all or nothing" in those two parties. One is stuck far too often with baggage when one is forced to choose from this current menu.

DR

Darth Rotor

3rd October 2007, 08:53 AM

pgwenthold

3rd October 2007, 10:35 AM

On the bolded part, aye.

On her sentiment in general:

That would be a good way to attract more votes in a little over a year, but I will bet the under on it coming to pass as she suggests. Grandstanding seems to have become a critical job skill area.

I didn't say it was the position of the democrats, just the position of one very liberal commentator.

I agree that the democrats will waste their time doing frivolous crap. However, this is a distinction between liberal democrat Rachel Maddow (once called a "left-wing cross-dressing lesbian" (a hat she wears proudly)) and conservative republican Lush Rimbaugh, where she is willing to call out the democrats for grandstanding instead of doing things that should be done.

Lurker

3rd October 2007, 11:21 AM

We keep seeing mediamatters articles posted here on the JREF forum but I notice the more conservative posters don't go around posting the drivel from the Media Research Center which is the right leaning media watchdog with about the same credibility.

Really, just stop.

Having been to both sites, I really don't think you can imply MRC and MediaMatters have the same credibility. Mediamatters does do a good job of including a lot of the quotes in order to provide a picture of the context. MRC is expert in slicing uot specific quotes so as to make a person look bad when the context has relevent info that might properly explain the quote.

That being said, having read the latest Limbaugh quote, I think it is a lot of hubbub about nothing. MM has gone a bit overboard in this attack IMO. then again, Rush Limbaugh makes his living quoting people out of context so there is some delicious irony that he is being attacked by the very same tactic he uses on a daily basis.

Lurker

Lurker

3rd October 2007, 11:27 AM

Rush just can't figure it out, whether he is making idiotic comments about Donovan McNabb or mocking Michael J. Fox (a real class act BTW) he is just too blinded by his partisanship. I do think much of his repertoire is shtick but much of it isn't.

I would say that Rush is far too arrogant to even think of apologizing even if he did not mean the slight. Rush, like so many others, seems to feel that apologizing signals weakness. Too bad.

Lurker

3rd October 2007, 11:31 AM

Her comments on the Rush Limbaugh affair: While Limbaugh is obviously an idiot, instead of wasting time on proclamations, the democrats should step up and do something that really supports the troops, such as work to fix the VA and get the pay raise passed. Let the republicans waste time with political grandstanding, while the democrats work to do something productive.

When is the last time you heard Rush say something so reasonable?

I have never heard Rachel Maddow. I think one problem with talk radio in general is that the hosts spend 99% of their time complaining. Only 1% of their time do they actually offer solutions to problems and when they do, it is so broad as to become useless.

"To fix the border problem let's build a fence" is about as deep as these hosts go when it comes to offering solutions. I guess when you get college dropouts like Limbaugh and Hannity hosting shows you can't expect any more depth than that. :(

Drysdale

3rd October 2007, 12:04 PM

Well, I think the biggest problem personally is others deciding what Limbaugh or anyone meant.

Who knows what he meant? Maybe he meant all dem servicemen, or he meant those parading as former soldiers like Macbeth. It's unclear either way. But here we go again with the thought police like the hate crimes legislation. A murder or assault is a murder or assault.

And what the hell is it to congress what he or others meant or said? What does that have to do with congress? And the same with moveon.org. They're way too liberal for my tastes, but they have the right to buy an ad and show people how biased they are dont they?

Freedom of speech isnt long for this nation at this rate.

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 12:14 PM

Having been to both sites, I really don't think you can imply MRC and MediaMatters have the same credibility.

I will disagree. MM has a better presentation meant to give an facade of credibility but they are not and never have been a credible organization. David Brock has as much credibility as any golden era yellow journalist.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 12:40 PM

I will disagree. MM has a better presentation meant to give an facade of credibility but they are not and never have been a credible organization. David Brock has as much credibility as any golden era yellow journalist.

In the end, it comes down to evidence. Who can support their position? When someone comes on this board and makes a claim, we ask them to back it up. Say what you will about how they frame it, MM provides original sources in context on what they report.

Either they support what they say or they don't. Writing them off because you don't like what they say is not honest.

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 12:51 PM

Either they support what they say or they don't. Writing them off because you don't like what they say is not honest.

I write them off because the guy who founded the joint was a former right wing scumbag and time after time MMfA has shown that its is not reputable. There have been other MMfA stories that were shown to be equally flimsy on this forum in the past.

To say that I write them off because I simply don't like them isn't honest. This isn't the first story of theirs we've pooped on.

In general sites like MMfA and MRC have a problem. That is, when you are looking for a conclusion you will find it. Think about the Project Alpha study that was infiltrated. (old school Randi stuff)

These sites specifically looking for a conservative or liberal bias in the news will always find one, because that is what they are looking for. Not suprisingly, newscasts shown to people who lean left/right in controlled studies showed that people perceived a bias of the opposite ideology in the news.

So in other words, there are willing marks for these types of sites. You have been posting on this forum for a long time Upchurch and I am surprised you are playing dumb about MMfA's credibility.

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 01:03 PM

Wow, MMFA made a fact check about their Rush story.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020011?f=h_top

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.

Yet, elsewhere on their own site.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709290002?f=i_latest
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.

Game, set match. They omitted information for their "Fact Check" that would show that MacBeth had already been covered. Information they obviously have since they mention it in another article on their site. They are dishonest and don't bear serious discussion as a news source. I'm not going to keep arguing about this. This is like arguing that the guys behind the swifties might set up a new news bias web page and we should all take it seriously because they quote a lot of information.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 01:10 PM

I write them off because the guy who founded the joint was a former right wing scumbag and time after time MMfA has shown that its is not reputable. There have been other MMfA stories that were shown to be equally flimsy on this forum in the past.
For example?

You have been posting on this forum for a long time Upchurch and I am surprised you are playing dumb about MMfA's credibility.I'm fully aware of their bias. They focus on only one topic. That doesn't mean that what they find isn't valid. Sure, most of it is piddly little things hardly worth mentioning, but that doesn't mean all of it (or any of it) is inherently incorrect.

The single biggest factor that lends credibility to what they say is that they support it with evidence and context. Do you disagree that they do this?

Ancestor

3rd October 2007, 01:21 PM

The person that remembers who said: The first act of dividing a people, is to get them to choose sides.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 01:22 PM

Game, set match. They omitted information for their "Fact Check" that would show that MacBeth had already been covered.
On a different day, on a different show. How does that change the context?

And you'll note that they did mention it on their site.

(You should be careful about that premature victory declaration problem.)

JoeEllison

3rd October 2007, 01:29 PM

On a different day, on a different show. How does that change the context?

And you'll note that they did mention it on their site.

(You should be careful about that premature victory declaration problem.)

Far be it from me to declare victory... but MM has the clear lead at this moment.

You have to wonder, though, at the desperation of people who really need to believe that Rush is telling the truth, and/or that MM is lying... that their need to believe forces them to abandon common sense and what appear to be clear facts in evidence.

Frankly, I'm just embarrassed for them.

Drysdale

3rd October 2007, 01:56 PM

On a different day, on a different show. How does that change the context?

And you'll note that they did mention it on their site.

(You should be careful about that premature victory declaration problem.)

Well, since he mentioned it on a show 2 days prior it does make sense to think thats what he was talking about when he made the phony soldiers remark does it not?

Anything to throw off the stink of that moveon.org ad since it was such a failure huh?

On a side note you do know Hillary claims to have started media matters right?

This isnt the first time MM has taken bits and pieces of a statement and twisted it into their political agenda which is foremost to promote and protect Hillary and secondly to do the same for the democratic party.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Snide

3rd October 2007, 02:00 PM

To be fair, I only jumped into this mess to correct the misconception in this thread brought about by Limbaugh's creative editing. My dislike for the coward is incidental.I'm with you 100% there. It reminds me of O'Reilly's "Pulitzer" slip-up. When he jumped on Franken for attacking him for having misspoke. But it wasn't of course that he simply misspoke, it's that he first said he never said it, and only after being called on it did he claim he just misspoke. And then he tried to slam the opposition by lying about what the opposition was opposing him for.

I could try to re-write that last sentence, but it makes enough sense and I'm too busy... :)

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 02:04 PM

On a side note you do know Hillary claims to have started media matters right?
First I've heard of it. Source?

This isnt the first time MM has taken bits and pieces of a statement and twisted it into their political agenda which is foremost to promote and protect Hillary and secondly to do the same for the democratic party.
Again, source?

Snide

3rd October 2007, 02:12 PM

First I've heard of it. Source? I just googled Hillary claims to have started media matters.

What I found was quite entertaining. A bunch of blog entries noting, among other things, a la AL Gore, that Hillary claimed she invented it, claimed ownership of it, etc. Look at what the one idiot said on the top of this page (http://boards.atlantafalcons.com/index.php?showtopic=272488&pid=4466794&st=0&#entry4466794).

Classic!

Drysdale

3rd October 2007, 02:15 PM

Snide

3rd October 2007, 02:23 PM

Here's the youtube link where she said it,straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F2007%2 F10%2F02%2Faudio%2Dhillary%2Dclinton%2Dbrags%2Dabo ut%2Dstarting%2Dmedia%2Dmatters%2FI saw the clip. She did not say what you claim she said. Because I trust you do not want to look like the Al Gore bashers did regarding his internet comment, I look forward to your retraction/correction.

Thanks.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 02:27 PM

Here's the youtube link where she said it,straight from the horses mouth.
Either she's lying or MM is one of the organizations she "supports" rather than "created".

Now what about your claim about their agenda?

Snide

3rd October 2007, 02:33 PM

Either she's lying or MM is one of the organizations she "supports" rather than "created".

Now what about your claim about their agenda?Important distinction: "helped create"

(not that she did, because as you said, she could simply support them...)

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 02:42 PM

On a different day, on a different show. How does that change the context?

And you'll note that they did mention it on their site.

(You should be careful about that premature victory declaration problem.)

They mentioned it where it didn't negate their point but omitted it in their "Fact Check". Could you be any more of a tool for these guys?

Where they are reinforcing the script that Limbaugh badmouthed the troops, they carefully mention he didnt mention any fake soldiers until later after his comment. In reality, it had been a recent topic just the day before on his website and his morning broadcast.

They acknowledge this though in their criticism of the APs coverage of the context of the comment.

In other words, MMFA is deliberately omitting the greater context to suit their agenda.

MMFA can quote all they want. Its what they omit that is their problem.

Game, set, match Upchurch. Now is the point where you concede and we move on.

The Painter

3rd October 2007, 02:47 PM

Now what about your claim about their agenda?

Are you saying they don't have an agenda?

Skepticybe

3rd October 2007, 02:53 PM

I don't like Rush and don't listen to his show. Of all the things to criticize him about, they pick this? One comment by a pompous ass is intentionally twisted and misconstrued to give these guys their grandstanding platform. Have the dems run out of legitimate things to talk about?

Let's suppose, for a moment, that the comment wasn't misconstrued. It still doesn't warrant a @#$%ing act of congress!

I'm insulted as an American that Senate dems think we are so stupid to fall for such a gross misuse of their power. And that's before you even consider the hypocrisy of the things some of these same dems have said about our troops. The republicans lost my support long ago. The dems may have just earned it back.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 02:56 PM

They mentioned it where it didn't negate their point but omitted it in their "Fact Check".
Context, context, context. How does the fact that Limbaugh talked about this guy the day before on a different show impact the context of what he said on the episode in question?

I don't have access to the exact quote he said on the other show, could you let us know what he said and how it pertains?

Could you be any more of a tool for these guys?
Yes, I could disregard what was actually said and just rah-rah-rah them, but I'm not going to.

Where they are reinforcing the script that Limbaugh badmouthed the troops, they carefully mention he didnt mention any fake soldiers until later after his comment.
Read what they said again. You (ironically) left something out.

In reality, it had been a recent topic just the day before on his website and his morning broadcast.
I don't know what was said. Did he refer to the guy as "phony soldiers" then? Is that applicable to the conversation he was having at the time when he declared that someone believes we should pull out of Iraq couldn't possibly be a Republican?

In other words, MMFA is deliberately omitting the greater context to suit their agenda.
How far outside of the context of the conversation to you have to accept in order to justify your interpretation? Would something Limbaugh said a week ago be pertinent? A month? A year? A decade?

MMFA can quote all they want. Its what they omit that is their problem.
You omitted a detail above to prove your point, which is the very thing you are arguing against. What are we supposed to take away from that?

Game, set, match Upchurch. Now is the point where you concede and we move on.
You can claim victory all you like, doesn't make it true.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 02:57 PM

Are you saying they don't have an agenda?
No. What makes you think that?

eta: Oh, I see what you are saying. I'm asking Drysdale to provide a source to his claim about their agenda, i.e. "foremost to promote and protect Hillary and secondly to do the same for the democratic party."

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 02:58 PM

Let's suppose, for a moment, that the comment wasn't misconstrued. It still doesn't warrant a @#$%ing act of congress!
Agreed. That was moronic.

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 03:07 PM

I tuned into his show today and heard a brilliant piece about how if you believe in God, you can't believe in global warming. The sad part is, I have to defend this ignorant jackass on this forum not because he's smart, funny, or agrees with me but because the charge against him is so overblown and phony. The rest of what I heard was mostly him railing against his persecutors.

To right wing christians, being persecuted is a sign of their divine allegiance. It vindicates them. After Rush, that bastion of logic and reason Hannity came on. From the way he talked, you would think it was him they were talking about. Apparently, Rush is first and then congress and the great Soros conspiracy are coming for the rest.

Persecuting these people martyrs them to their audiences.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 03:09 PM

because the charge against him is so overblown and phony.
Wait, what do you think the "charge against him" is?

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 03:19 PM

Context, context, context. How does the fact that Limbaugh talked about this guy the day before on a different show impact the context of what he said on the episode in question?

Its part of the greater context.

Let me explain skepticism to you. Some people are making a claim that Limbaugh claimed all soldiers who don't support the war are fake soldiers. These people have to provide evidence of their claim.

We know that the day before Rush said "phony soldiers", he had done a piece on MacBeth. We know that 1.5 minutes after saying the phrase, he talked about MacBeth.

Now, the basis of the claim that he was dissing all dissenting soldiers seems to be this:
Limbaugh did not say it explicitly, but we know that was what he meant and have a partial context that makes it look that way.

The reason this attack seems dishonest on the surface is that people like MMFA actually know the greater context but seek to either ignore it or dismiss it.

The sad part is, I'm having to explain this like you are a kindergartener.

By the way, what did I supposedly omit?

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 03:29 PM

Wait, what do you think the "charge against him" is?

Well, lets look at the title of the original piece that started this swirl.
From: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 03:39 PM

We know that the day before Rush said "phony soldiers",
Do we? How? The quote you posted only has Limbaugh referring to "fake soldiers" after his "phony soldiers" thing. I don't know what he said in the earlier story about MacBeth, as the article is not available without a subscription.

Now, while you are explaining skepticism to me, please make sure that you get to the part about recognizing and questioning one's own assumptions.

Now, the basis of the claim that he was dissing all dissenting soldiers seems to be this:
Limbaugh did not say it explicitly, but we know that was what he meant and have a partial context that makes it look that way.
You left out the fact that he had just finished telling a caller who was against being in Iraq that he could not possibly be a Republican and appears to doubting that he was actually in the military, but that is debatable. Further the second caller who was brought up the phony soldiers line was specifically responding to the first caller.

The reason this attack seems dishonest on the surface is that people like MMFA actually know the greater context but seek to either ignore it or dismiss it.
Whereas you are ignoring or dismissing the immediate context in which the conversation took place.

By the way, what did I supposedly omit?
They specifically said that he did not mention MacBeth in that episode before "phony soldier" was mentioned. By omitting that one element, you did the very thing you're claiming MM did.

Well, almost. It would be as if you were accusing me of lying because something I said in this thread doesn't quite agree with something I said in another thread, even though the context in the first thread may be entirely different.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 03:40 PM

Well, lets look at the title of the original piece that started this swirl.
From: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Which leads me back to my earlier question, how is that overblown and/or phony?

eta: if anything, Congress, and possibly Limbaugh himself, made it overblown.

Ancestor

3rd October 2007, 03:57 PM

I have finally found the link to the Demipublicanz.

RandFan

3rd October 2007, 04:28 PM

To be fair, I only jumped into this mess to correct the misconception in this thread brought about by Limbaugh's creative editing. My dislike for the coward is incidental.Understood.

RandFan

3rd October 2007, 04:31 PM

So let's talk about the comments of a real LIBERAL radio personality, Rachel Maddow. Rachel is sharp, funny, and as liberal as Rush is conservative. OTOH, she isn't loopy like Randi Rhodes.

Her comments on the Rush Limbaugh affair: While Limbaugh is obviously an idiot, instead of wasting time on proclamations, the democrats should step up and do something that really supports the troops, such as work to fix the VA and get the pay raise passed. Let the republicans waste time with political grandstanding, while the democrats work to do something productive.

When is the last time you heard Rush say something so reasonable?No argument whatsoever. I like Rachel. She had equaly reasonable things to say about the guy who was tassered at the Kerry speech.

It would be hard to find a liberal equivelent of Limbaugh, Savage or Coulter. They are beyond the pale.

Slimething

3rd October 2007, 04:45 PM

It would be hard to find a liberal equivelent of Limbaugh, Savage or Coulter.

Why would you even look? I'm sure they're out there and will surface soon enough.

I try to stick to the center when it's a choice. Mostly because the center is the furthest you can get from the extremes, not because I'm such a great political thinker. If I could get further, I would. :covereyes

The Painter

3rd October 2007, 05:01 PM

Which leads me back to my earlier question, how is that overblown and/or phony?

eta: if anything, Congress, and possibly Limbaugh himself, made it overblown.

Because it is a lie. It is not what he said and it is not what he meant. show me exactly where he said this;

Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Drysdale

3rd October 2007, 05:06 PM

No. What makes you think that?

eta: Oh, I see what you are saying. I'm asking Drysdale to provide a source to his claim about their agenda, i.e. "foremost to promote and protect Hillary and secondly to do the same for the democratic party."

Think if you read what is posted on MM it's pretty evident. I always thought MM was another Soro's toy but then Hillary said she created it. And lets face it, if it's Soro's baby he's doing exactly what I said.

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 05:27 PM

Which leads me back to my earlier question, how is that overblown and/or phony?

eta: if anything, Congress, and possibly Limbaugh himself, made it overblown.

......

You have to be ****** kidding me. Is this a circular type thing? I have repeatedly shown how this charge is phony and and overblown, so then you ask what the charge is, then I explain it, then you ask how its overblown.

I honestly like you and believe you to be a generally reasonably person. However, the Papa Funk I've been arguing with here just seems to be deliberately obtuse and its driving me up the wall (especially since you only have a passing interest in this topic apparently).

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2007, 09:26 PM

uh....lol. I don't know what post you read.

Media matters gave an example of two other people he called out.....for lying.

If you think 2=1000, then sure, that's what I'm saying.

ETA:excuse me. 2000+I don't have a clue what you are on about here but you had to have misread my post. Try again.

On the website, Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.org/), there are over 2,000 Iraq war vets who have signed their names to a petition to end the war, An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq (http://www.appealforredress.org/).

I wasn't even talking about Media Matters in making the point that a couple of pathological liars claiming to be vets (one even got free medical care at the VA using his scam) does not deserve the attention which really belongs to the real vets who really are against the war.

JoeEllison

3rd October 2007, 09:31 PM

Think if you read what is posted on MM it's pretty evident. I always thought MM was another Soro's toy but then Hillary said she created it. And lets face it, if it's Soro's baby he's doing exactly what I said.

Wow, what right-wing Bizarro World did that post drop in from?:D

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2007, 09:31 PM

Which means nothing in this thread other than stating the obvious. Thanks for "informing" us.What do you mean it means nothing? Limbaugh badmouthed these vets, then claimed he was only talking about a single person who fraudulently claimed to be a vet. But Limbaugh's own words caught before he edited them tell another story. They say Limbaugh was badmouthing all the vets against the war. Now the NeoCons are trying to draw attention to the single liar (2 liars if you say so, I haven't looked) as if Limbaugh's comments were only about the liar.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 09:40 PM

I have repeatedly shown how this charge is phony and and overblown, so then you ask what the charge is, then I explain it, then you ask how its overblown.
And I have repeatedly shown you where MMFA's article was not phony because of the context in which the statement was made. (The overblown part came later with plenty of blame to go around.)

So, where does that leave us?

I merely asked what you thought the "charge" was because you seemed to be going off on a fanciful tangent. Fanciful, maybe. Tangent, no.

I honestly like you and believe you to be a generally reasonably person. However, the Papa Funk I've been arguing with here just seems to be deliberately obtuse and its driving me up the wall (especially since you only have a passing interest in this topic apparently).
Thanks ...on the first part, not the last part.

I'm not trying to drive you up the wall. I'm trying to get you to look at this objectively. You're ignoring the immediate context entirely and going off of a largely unknown context from a day earlier on another show as if it were relevant. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but do you really know that is or are you guessing?

Given the information that we actually have (i.e. the documentation of the conversation and it's context within the show it was presented), Limbaugh said something incredibly stupid and then moved to cover it up by editing the audio clip. It doesn't matter than it was pointed out by MMFA, the source material is available for review. Take it out of the MMFA context entirely, Limbaugh still said what he said.

Now, if you want to present new information on the expanded context that is somehow relevant, I'm more than willing to consider it. For example, if the day before he had said:
Now, tomorrow, I'm going to call people who disagree the war funny names just to rile people up.
Then, yes, that is relevant. If he just had a story about MacBeth, that isn't necessarily relevant.

Upchurch

3rd October 2007, 09:44 PM

show me exactly where he said this;

Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"
This is tiresome, Painter. That's already been pointed out to you in this thread.

Tell you what: You still owe me an explanation specifically of what it was about how the first caller answered the other questions that led you to the conclusion that he was "probably lying". If you answer, that I'll rehash the transcript for you.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2007, 09:44 PM

I have never heard Rachel Maddow. I think one problem with talk radio in general is that the hosts spend 99% of their time complaining. Only 1% of their time do they actually offer solutions to problems and when they do, it is so broad as to become useless.
...Perhaps you are just listening to the wrong programs. Thom Hartmann (http://www.thomhartmann.com/tencommandments.shtml) is big on solutions. I don't agree with all of them but he does more than complain. Maddow is informative. Stephanie Miller is hilarious.

I don't bother with Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy. They are the liberal equivalent of Limbaugh and while not quite as full of lies as Limbaugh, they still are not reliable sources.

The others fall into either of the two camps. Not every program on Air America is a skeptic's type of program. But there are some good ones.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2007, 09:48 PM

I will disagree. MM has a better presentation meant to give an facade of credibility but they are not and never have been a credible organization. David Brock has as much credibility as any golden era yellow journalist.You haven't really cited any examples. You said something about MM which was specific to opinion. But can you cite any examples of actual facts which were false. I cited an example of MM backing their facts up with evidence and MRC's false facts on the same matter.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2007, 09:50 PM

In the end, it comes down to evidence. Who can support their position? When someone comes on this board and makes a claim, we ask them to back it up. Say what you will about how they frame it, MM provides original sources in context on what they report.

Either they support what they say or they don't. Writing them off because you don't like what they say is not honest.Ditto, except I'd use a different term than "not honest". I'd call it a blind spot.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2007, 10:03 PM

Well, lets look at the title of the original piece that started this swirl.
From: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010Your own citation has Limbaugh saying soldiers who are interviewed and are against the war are phony.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.And the first caller said he was a Republican in favor of pulling the troops out now and Rush told him he couldn't be a Republican, he had to be a Democrat.

I don't get your "overblown phony charge" claim.

(And I see UpChurch made the exact same observations.)

BTW, I don't think you are being "deliberately obtuse". I think you have a blind spot for the facts here.

corplinx

3rd October 2007, 10:06 PM

And I have repeatedly shown you where MMFA's article was not phony because of the context in which the statement was made. (The overblown part came later with plenty of blame to go around.)

The MMFA article had an interpretation of his comments that could only be known by psychic power. In lieu of the fact that the person clarified the comment less then 2 minutes later, I'm not even sure why they bothered interpreting it so extremely.

So, where does that leave us?

It leaves us with occam's razor and bottle of reason. The person hasn't maligned troops who don't support the war before. He clarified his comment later. The context it is immediately in is vague at best and isn't evidence of any interpretation.

I merely asked what you thought the "charge" was because you seemed to be going off on a fanciful tangent.

Pardon my fancy tangents.

I'm trying to get you to look at this objectively. You're ignoring the immediate context entirely and going off of a largely unknown context from a day earlier on another show as if it were relevant. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but do you really know that is or are you guessing?

I'm not ignoring it at all. Its vague at best and points to nothing.

Take a look at the immediate context:

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.

Nowhere in there does it challenge anyone's war beliefs or patriotism. Only when you look at what the _caller_ says _after_ the phony soldier phrase does it appear to challenge the patriotism of anyone.

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.

So, not only are the people who claim that Rush was slamming all dissenting soldiers psychics. But Rush himself is also a psychic since he knew what the caller would say next?

Its clever misdirection. The context is what immediately precedes the phony soldier comment, but what is said immediately after is also presented as context. We should not be falling for this sort of easy to spot deception. ;)

Now, if you want to present new information on the expanded context that is somehow relevant, I'm more than willing to consider it. For example, if the day before he had said:

Then, yes, that is relevant. If he just had a story about MacBeth, that isn't necessarily relevant.

How could it not be relevant? He mentioned it shortly afterward. He had covered the story the day before. Phony soldiers were a timely topic. Its a much simpler explanation than a person who doesn't have a history of disparaging armed forces suddenly doing so.

This is a fairly easy case for skeptical review. The conclusion they reach is one which requires knowledge of what the person was thinking and it is out of character for the person. There isn't really any evidence to back up their assertion even in the immediate context.

In Tenet's words, "its a slam dunk bros". (he didnt say bros in the woodward book, but i like to imagine he did)

JoeEllison

3rd October 2007, 10:09 PM

It leaves us with occam's razor and bottle of reason. The person hasn't maligned troops who don't support the war before.

Is your blind spot really that large?

JoeEllison

3rd October 2007, 10:30 PM

There's something seriously wrong with a country and media where someone can say something hateful, get caught, and many people will simply re-write reality in order to defend some piece of garbage.

RandFan

3rd October 2007, 11:09 PM

Let's all be outraged. Speech can be a very dangerous thing.

RandFan

3rd October 2007, 11:16 PM

There's something seriously wrong with a country and media where someone can say something hateful, get caught, and many people will simply re-write reality in order to defend some piece of garbage.I hate to be the lone voice crying in the wilderness but the sky is NOT falling.

Limbaugh attacked a group of people he didn't like. It was politically asinine. Yes, there are people who will defend him. There has always people who will defend idiocy.

Northing's changed. The hyperbolic rhetoric is self serving polemical BS.

Show me a period of time in America's history where there were not aholes spewing nonsense and apologists defending it.

The funniest thing about the whole mess is that a week ago people were upset at the "outrage" of Republicans toward Democrats over the moveon.org ad. Now Democrats are "outraged" at Limbaugh and those who defend him. And this advances what message?

Hypocritical nonsense.

JoeEllison

3rd October 2007, 11:33 PM

Slimething

3rd October 2007, 11:36 PM

In a perfect world, Rush Limbaugh would be ignored by everyone. I intend to start that trend right now.

RandFan

3rd October 2007, 11:47 PM

Let me clarify. There's something wrong with a country AND MEDIA, where someone can say something hateful and stupid, get caught on tape, and many people IN THE MEDIA will simply re-write reality in order to defend some piece of garbage, all the while ignoring the real issues that actually matter one way or the other.

Watch the media's behavior on this, and the MoveOn thing... watch them almost completely ignore the idea of actually stating hard facts, analyzing those facts, and then getting on with business. Instead, we get a circus, few facts, and tons of spin.

What Rush said is pretty common for him: we know he's a hateful little person for whom lying and hypocrisy come as naturally as breathing. MoveOn is a small group that uses broad strokes in order to get maximum impact, in a world that mostly ignores their viewpoint. Neither issue is interesting in itself. The way politicians and the media react, and don't react... that's where the interest is.

I will agree with this to a degree. When it comes to the media there is good news and bad news. The good news is that there is democracy of media. The bad news is that there are few if any standards. News is what sells. It shouldn't be that way.

That said, as long as folks will admit that the political BS happens on both sides of the aisle I'm cool. If you find the outrage of Republicans toward Democrats is just political grandstanding and ALSO that the outrage of Democrats toward Republicans is just political grandstanding then we are on the same page. Well, almost, I don't see Moveon.org as benign as you and I don't see Limbaugh as malevolent as you but I don't equate them either.

Lurker

4th October 2007, 04:26 AM

Well, since he mentioned it on a show 2 days prior it does make sense to think thats what he was talking about when he made the phony soldiers remark does it not?

Damn, context now extends back for days? Who would have thought it?

It still does not correct Rush's insinuation that real soldiers wanted to go to Iraq.

Lurker

Lurker

4th October 2007, 04:29 AM

(about Hillary starting MM)

First I've heard of it. Source?

I can tell you his source since I was listening to Rush. Limbaugh said Hillary admitted started MM and then played a clip where she was speaking BROADLY about how liberals are putting things in place to combat Republicans and used MM as an example.

As usual, Rush extrapolated that to mean Hillary herself claimed to have started mediamatters.

Lurker

4th October 2007, 04:38 AM

Perhaps you are just listening to the wrong programs. Thom Hartmann (http://www.thomhartmann.com/tencommandments.shtml) is big on solutions. I don't agree with all of them but he does more than complain. Maddow is informative. Stephanie Miller is hilarious.

I don't bother with Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy. They are the liberal equivalent of Limbaugh and while not quite as full of lies as Limbaugh, they still are not reliable sources.

The others fall into either of the two camps. Not every program on Air America is a skeptic's type of program. But there are some good ones.

Alas, Air America was cancelled here only to be replaced by a moronic sports show. I used to enjoy flipping between AA and conservative talk. At this point in time, no liberal talk exists on radio in my area (other than NPR which only counts half).

Lurker

Lurker

4th October 2007, 04:44 AM

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.

So, not only are the people who claim that Rush was slamming all dissenting soldiers psychics. But Rush himself is also a psychic since he knew what the caller would say next?

Its clever misdirection. The context is what immediately precedes the phony soldier comment, but what is said immediately after is also presented as context. We should not be falling for this sort of easy to spot deception.

Yet, what did Rush say next which you carefully edited out? Oh, here it is

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq.

'They' refers to the caller's statement of "Real soldiers" wanting to be in Iraq. So Limbaugh agreed with the comment that real soldiers want to be in Iraq. Hmm....

Lurker

pgwenthold

4th October 2007, 05:43 AM

It would be hard to find a liberal equivelent of Limbaugh, Savage or Coulter. They are beyond the pale.

IMO, Randi Rhodes is the left's version of Limbag.

I can't stand her.
She can't hold a candle next to Maddow.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 06:35 AM

It leaves us with occam's razor and bottle of reason. The person hasn't maligned troops who don't support the war before. He clarified his comment later. The context it is immediately in is vague at best and isn't evidence of any interpretation.
Via Occam's Razor, how do you determine that your explanation requires the fewest assumptions, given the number of idiotic things Limbaugh has spouted in the past. You mentioned his religious stance on global warming or some such nonsense. Should we assume that he is wholly rational and well thought out?

Pardon my fancy tangents.
I was just making sure we weren't caught up in a misunderstanding.

I'm not ignoring it at all. Its vague at best and points to nothing.

Take a look at the immediate context:
Well, if....
'They' refers to the caller's statement of "Real soldiers" wanting to be in Iraq. So Limbaugh agreed with the comment that real soldiers want to be in Iraq. Hmm....
...Lurker read my mind. Psychics abound on the board, apparently.

(You aren't off the hook, Painter.)

How could it not be relevant? He mentioned it shortly afterward. He had covered the story the day before. Phony soldiers were a timely topic. Its a much simpler explanation than a person who doesn't have a history of disparaging armed forces suddenly doing so. That would be the same person who has a history of disparaging anyone who disagrees with him politically? That guy? What is the stronger part of his personality: his support of the millitary or his political views?

Besides, you forget: "[Real soldiers] joined to be in Iraq." The corollary is: those who don't want to go to Iraq are not real soldiers.

As I said, the earlier story about MacBeth could easily not be relevant. It really depends on how he presented it and how it relates to what he said later. You are simply assuming that it is and inexplicably claiming victory because of it.

Here is the portion that Rush replayed. I have no idea if this is the full text and context:

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, though. 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, a 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 -- 44-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.

Now assuming that is the whole piece, how does that relate to Rush disparaging the earlier caller who was self-identified as a Republican and military man or saying that the real soldiers "joined to be in Iraq"?

This is a fairly easy case for skeptical review. The conclusion they reach is one which requires knowledge of what the person was thinking and it is out of character for the person. There isn't really any evidence to back up their assertion even in the immediate context.
The thing is, this isn't out of character for Limbaugh to attack someone regardless of their other qualifications simply because they adhere to a different set of politics.

In Tenet's words, "its a slam dunk bros". (he didnt say bros in the woodward book, but i like to imagine he did)
Yeah, Tenet was wrong, too.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 06:37 AM

Let's all be outraged. Speech can be a very dangerous thing.
Don't confuse disagreement for outrage. This is an internet forum board, after all. If we all agreed, what would we do with ourselves? Work? :rolleyes:

:D

Tailgater

4th October 2007, 06:42 AM

I don't have a clue what you are on about here but you had to have misread my post. Try again.

On the website, Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.org/), there are over 2,000 Iraq war vets who have signed their names to a petition to end the war, An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq (http://www.appealforredress.org/).

I wasn't even talking about Media Matters in making the point that a couple of pathological liars claiming to be vets (one even got free medical care at the VA using his scam) does not deserve the attention which really belongs to the real vets who really are against the war.

Exactly what my statement in 105 means. Media matters is so rabid to prove what context and plurality Rush used a word. They could just as easily argue the arguement, but that wouldn't have the tabloid edge. His general message is the same from week to week. It doesn't take a brain scientist to know his positions. That's one of the reasons I dislike both sources for facts. While the material they are using might be based in "facts", it is how they use those "facts" to get their message across.

JoeEllisons last post touched on the same opinion.

Your links to soldiers in Iraq who don't want to be there are irrelevant to the thread. The fact these soldiers exist is not in dispute.

Snide

4th October 2007, 07:17 AM

...then Hillary said she created it. You can say that as many times as you want, and it still won't make it true.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 07:21 AM

Think if you read what is posted on MM it's pretty evident.
So, just your opinion then?

I always thought MM was another Soro's toy but then Hillary said she created it. And lets face it, if it's Soro's baby he's doing exactly what I said.
Why would you think that? Do you ever look into anything before drawing a conclusion about it?

RandFan

4th October 2007, 08:11 AM

Don't confuse disagreement for outrage. This is an internet forum board, after all. If we all agreed, what would we do with ourselves? Work? :rolleyes:

:DI understand. I really do.

We've got two threads going side by side. In one the focus is on the outrage of Republicans toward Dems for the betray us ad. A number of posters deftly keep the focus on the distraction the "outrage" causes.

Here, it would seem, the same posters are not focusing on the distraction caused by the "outrage".

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. I really don't care otherwise if people disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I've certainly taken him to task.

That said, I do however disagree with a lot of the rhetoric that is directed at Limbaugh personally rather than his arguments. There's a lot of personal attack and vitriol in this thread and not not much substance. I'm not saying there is none but much of it is simply hate for Rush. That's fine to a degree. People have a right to their feelings and god knows that is what JREF is here for.

Let it out folks, let it out.

I'm just pointing out that at the end of the day free speech is a good thing. I'm damn glad Rush has a platform even if he is a wind bag.

ETA: No free speech doesn't gurantee Limbaugh a platform.

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 09:38 AM

You can say that as many times as you want, and it still won't make it true.

I was gonna just ignore you since you obviously did'nt listen to the clip but here's the exact transcirpt.

We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress

What part of that do you no understand?

And it's really kinda funny.

Oh no..Rush meant dem soldiers against the war with that remark I know but Hillary,well, that was just taken out of context.

Pitiful.

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 09:47 AM

So, just your opinion then?

Why would you think that? Do you ever look into anything before drawing a conclusion about it?

Have you ever looked at media matters website?

If so, do a unofficial tally of how many stories support dems and then attack non dems.

Then tell me how many negative stories there are on Bush,Cheney etc and how many negative ones are on Hillary,Barrack etc.

And no I'm not gonna waste my time looking it up for you. I think you know the answer to these,

Snide

4th October 2007, 09:48 AM

I was gonna just ignore you since you obviously did'nt listen to the clip but here's the exact transcirpt.

What part of that do you no understand?

And it's really kinda funny.

Oh no..Rush meant dem soldiers against the war with that remark I know but Hillary,well, that was just taken out of context.

Pitiful.Thanks for responding.

That you still don't get she did not say she started Media Matters is quite funny, yes. It's pretty simple English. Read more slowly, and maybe you'll get it. Also see Upchurch's responses. (If she only supports Media Matters, then there is nothing wrong with what she actually said.)

You are making the same laughable reach Al Gore's critics did in saying he claimed to have invented the internet.

pgwenthold

4th October 2007, 09:57 AM

You are making the same laughable reach Al Gore's critics did in saying he claimed to have invented the internet.

Don't think this is not intentional. In fact, your statement is probably true on many levels. Among others, the fact that it is laughable. I have a suspicion that Limbag did it purely as a joke, for that very reason: to parallel the stuff about Al Gore.

The sad part is that people actually take it seriously and repeat it. Rust has to be laughing himself silly over it.

Snide

4th October 2007, 10:24 AM

Don't think this is not intentional. In fact, your statement is probably true on many levels. Among others, the fact that it is laughable. I have a suspicion that Limbag did it purely as a joke, for that very reason: to parallel the stuff about Al Gore.

The sad part is that people actually take it seriously and repeat it. Rust has to be laughing himself silly over it.Point taken. Although I am a little confused...Limbaugh hasn't yet said that Hillary claims to have started MMFA, has he? I was simply addressing Drysdale's making the claim.

pgwenthold

4th October 2007, 10:28 AM

I thought Drysdale got the claim from Limbag?

Whoever started it probably did it as a joke, and is now laughing at the morons who believed it.

"Who said that any wish
Would be heard and be answered
When wished on the morning star

Somebody thought of that
Someone believed them
Look where it's gone so far"

Lurker

4th October 2007, 10:56 AM

I'm just pointing out that at the end of the day free speech is a good thing. I'm damn glad Rush has a platform even if he is a wind bag.

Randfan, why are you belaboring the obvious? I have not seen a single person who would forcefully take Rush off the airways. This is a huge nonsequitor on your part.

We are simply using our free speech rights to counter his free speech rights and call him names. Calling names is a God-given right unless you are a child and then it is up to the parents.

Lurker

Lurker

4th October 2007, 10:59 AM

Point taken. Although I am a little confused...Limbaugh hasn't yet said that Hillary claims to have started MMFA, has he? I was simply addressing Drysdale's making the claim.

I heard him say that on the radio yesterday (or the day before, I forget). I presumed Drysdale heard the same thing.

Lurker

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 11:09 AM

I heard him say that on the radio yesterday (or the day before, I forget). I presumed Drysdale heard the same thing.

Lurker

Yea, it was on Rush or one of the others I listen to. I do listen to quite a bit of talk radio nowadays, mainly because as I've gotten older I guess and just dont like rap,hip hop,country or most of the newer rock.

I do long for the days of purer rock and that old motown sound,R&B etc.

Now,back to our featured thread.

Snide

4th October 2007, 11:17 AM

I heard him say that on the radio yesterday (or the day before, I forget). I presumed Drysdale heard the same thing.

LurkerCool. Makes even more sense now. :)

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 11:17 AM

Thanks for responding.

That you still don't get she did not say she started Media Matters is quite funny, yes. It's pretty simple English. Read more slowly, and maybe you'll get it. Also see Upchurch's responses. (If she only supports Media Matters, then there is nothing wrong with what she actually said.)

You are making the same laughable reach Al Gore's critics did in saying he claimed to have invented the internet.

You're not disputing she said that statement are you? And if not, what was she trying to say when taken out of context and where is that link?

Snide

4th October 2007, 01:29 PM

You're not disputing she said that statement are you? And if not, what was she trying to say when taken out of context and where is that link?You have got to be kidding me. Why are you the only one here who doesn't get it?

No, I am not disputing she said: "...institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."

I am disputing that "Hillary claims to have started media matters." Your exact words.

Hint: They are not the same. This is elementary stuff. It has nothing to do with being out of context or in context. It has everything to do with fifth grade reading and comprehension ability.

Snide

4th October 2007, 01:34 PM

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 03:14 PM

Hypothetical:

I helped build Tom's house.
I painted Bob's house.

I say, "It's nice to visit houses I helped build and paint, like Tom's and Bob's."
You say, "Whoah!! You're claiming you built Bob's house."

When you realize why neither did I say I built Tom's house, nor did I say I built Bob's, then you are on the right track.

Fifth grade stuff.

OK, fifth grade level lets go.

I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress

Did she or did she not say she helped start it?

Yes or no?

JoeEllison

4th October 2007, 03:16 PM

OK, fifth grade level lets go.

Did she or did she not say she helped start it?

Yes or no?

So fifth grade is too confusing for you?

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 03:19 PM

That said, as long as folks will admit that the political BS happens on both sides of the aisle I'm cool. If you find the outrage of Republicans toward Democrats is just political grandstanding and ALSO that the outrage of Democrats toward Republicans is just political grandstanding then we are on the same page. Well, almost, I don't see Moveon.org as benign as you and I don't see Limbaugh as malevolent as you but I don't equate them either.

I agree with this.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 03:21 PM

Then tell me how many negative stories there are on Bush,Cheney etc and how many negative ones are on Hillary,Barrack etc.
That's easy on all counts: zero.

Media Matters reports on conservative bias in media sources. They do stories about how papers, radio, and TV report stories.

Have you ever looked at the Media Matters website? Look at the home page. As of this writing, the headlines are about Limbaugh, USA Today, and the LA Times. The side bar is Coulter and Cuvuto. The Latest Items adds in the Washington Post, the NY Sun, Fox & Friends, and CNN. Not a single story focused on Bush, Cheney, Clinton or Obama.

JoeEllison

4th October 2007, 03:21 PM

I agree with this.

But you're sucking up stupid lies from the right-wing... why don't you feel insulted by and angry at them?

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 03:22 PM

So fifth grade is too confusing for you?

Apparently it is for you. Can you not just answer the question?

JoeEllison

4th October 2007, 03:23 PM

Apparently it is for you. Can you not just answer the question?

It is obvious that she didn't say what you think she said. VERY obvious.

RandFan

4th October 2007, 03:26 PM

Randfan, why are you belaboring the obvious? I have not seen a single person who would forcefully take Rush off the airways. This is a huge nonsequitor on your part.When did I say people favor forcefully taking Rush of the air. I don't believe that.

We are simply using our free speech rights to counter his free speech rights and call him names. Calling names is a God-given right unless you are a child and then it is up to the parents. I'm reasonably certain this is exactly what I said. Yes. I agree. Of course.

Let it out folks. That's what JREF is here for. Outrage, emotion, anger, you name it. Go for it. Of course, while you are here please be sure to stop by the moveon.org thread and decry those who are outraged.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 03:26 PM

Did she or did she not say she helped start it?

Yes or no?
No. She said she helped to start and support institutions like Media Matters.

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 03:34 PM

That's easy on all counts: zero.

Media Matters reports on conservative bias in media sources. They do stories about how papers, radio, and TV report stories.

QUOTE]

Exactly, here's their mission directly from their site.

[QUOTE]Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Thats my point. So how can anything they say be construed as unbiased and supposedly obectively understand what Rush meant as some in this very thread have portrayed?

JoeEllison

4th October 2007, 03:41 PM

Thats my point. So how can anything they say be construed as unbiased and supposedly obectively understand what Rush meant as some in this very thread have portrayed?

Are you saying that we should ignore the tape of Rush's comments, and just flip a coin?

RandFan

4th October 2007, 03:42 PM

Thats my point. So how can anything they say be construed as unbiased and supposedly obectively understand what Rush meant as some in this very thread have portrayed? That's a fair question. I think it is possible to target one side and still be objective but I think that it is hard and I think it is reasonable of any organization that only focuses on one side of the aisle. Again, it's falling into that Us vs Them crap.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 03:42 PM

Exactly, here's their mission directly from their site.

So.... you agree with me that they don't do negative stories about Bush and Cheney or positive stories about Clinton and Obama?

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 03:46 PM

That's a fair question. I think it is possible to target one side and still be objective but I think that it is hard and I think it is reasonable of any organization that only focuses on one side of the aisle.
It is a fair question. The answer to it should include answering the question of whether or not they support their claims with evidence.

pgwenthold

4th October 2007, 03:51 PM

How much does MM actually claim, though?

Half of the time when I see their stories, they are simply "Rush Limbaugh said this" and "Bill OReilly said that" and they have a transcript of what was said.

A quarter of the time it's "Ann Coulter said this, but these facts show that it isn't true"

The other quarter of the time is "Joe Scarborough repeats Ann Coulter's claim, even though we have already shown that it isn't true"

They make very few direct conclusions of their own. In fact, there are times when I look at something they've highlighted and questioned what the deal was, because they didn't even explain the signficance of it.

True, this thread has relied a lot on Media Matters, but mainly because it is the source of the transcript, which you can't get reliably from Lush's site.

Is there any reason to think that the Media Matters transcript is distorted in some way? (like Limbag's version?). We have been arguing about what Lush said, not Media Matter's take on it.

RandFan

4th October 2007, 03:52 PM

It is a fair question. The answer to it should include answering the question of whether or not they support their claims with evidence.Of that I have no doubt about. None whatsoever. Are they critical in their analysis and presentation of the evidence? They could very well be. That they are only interested in one side would lead me to be skeptical. But I don't condemn them for simply being one sided.

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 03:56 PM

So.... you agree with me that they don't do negative stories about Bush and Cheney or positive stories about Clinton and Obama?

No, I would'nt go that far.

Maybe not directly, but indirectly yes they defend Hillary,Obama etc and criticize Bush,Cheney etc.

But thats who they are and what they do,so be it.

But on the flipside the conservative talk show hosts Rush,Hannity,etc do the same thing to the dems yet they are attacked for it much more in the mainstream press. I'm talking newspapers, major networks etc.

Do you disagree with that?

corplinx

4th October 2007, 04:00 PM

Via Occam's Razor, how do you determine that your explanation requires the fewest assumptions, given the number of idiotic things Limbaugh has spouted in the past. You mentioned his religious stance on global warming or some such nonsense. Should we assume that he is wholly rational and well thought out?

Reference my earlier easiest explanation of the situation. He was talking out of his butt most likely and didn't mean anything.

That would be the same person who has a history of disparaging anyone who disagrees with him politically? That guy? What is the stronger part of his personality: his support of the millitary or his political views?

As he is carried on the AFN and I am pretty sure Rush counts his dollars, I am willing to wager on the weasel nature of man versus his ideology honestly. He doesn't want to get kicked off the AFN because it brings him money and reinforces his patriotic image.

Besides, you forget: "[Real soldiers] joined to be in Iraq." The corollary is: those who don't want to go to Iraq are not real soldiers.

And again, if we want to parse words, the soldier mentioned people coming up "out of the blue" and Rush actually interjected phony soldiers there. If you want to overparse you have to overparse equally. I stand by my statement that the immediate context is too vague to form an out-of-character opinion about.

As I said, the earlier story about MacBeth could easily not be relevant. It really depends on how he presented it and how it relates to what he said later. You are simply assuming that it is and inexplicably claiming victory because of it.

I claimed victory because the claim that is presented is woefully unproven on several points. There is simply no evidence other than supposition pointing to the MMFA interpretation. They are making the claim, they have to prove it. They do not even come close to doing so.

Now assuming that is the whole piece, how does that relate to Rush disparaging the earlier caller who was self-identified as a Republican and military man or saying that the real soldiers "joined to be in Iraq"?

Does it need to relate to it? Probably not.

Yeah, Tenet was wrong, too.

MMFA's case is flimsier than the case for WMD.

JoeEllison

4th October 2007, 04:01 PM

Do you disagree with that?
Yes, because it isn't true.

RandFan

4th October 2007, 04:07 PM

Yes, because it isn't true. "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." --Monty Python

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 05:09 PM

But on the flipside the conservative talk show hosts Rush,Hannity,etc do the same thing to the dems yet they are attacked for it much more in the mainstream press. I'm talking newspapers, major networks etc.

Do you disagree with that?
Yes, I disagree that they do the same thing. The critical difference is in the supporting evidence. Limbaugh and Hannity present mostly straw man arguments with little to no legitimate support for their positions.

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 05:45 PM

Yes, I disagree that they do the same thing. The critical difference is in the supporting evidence. Limbaugh and Hannity present mostly straw man arguments with little to no legitimate support for their positions.

Thats incorrect. Hannity I dont know, I really dont listen to him much.
But Limbaugh links everything he cites on his website.

Upchurch

4th October 2007, 08:55 PM

But Limbaugh links everything he cites on his website.
Really? How did he support this piece corp talked about earlier?

I tuned into his show today and heard a brilliant piece about how if you believe in God, you can't believe in global warming.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2007, 09:05 PM

IMO, Randi Rhodes is the left's version of Limbag.

I can't stand her.
She can't hold a candle next to Maddow.I can't stand Rhodes or Mike Malloy. I have heard nonsense on both shows like the antivax and conspiracy theories. I don't know though if they reach the level of false information of Limbaugh. Hard to say since I haven't listened to either in quite a while.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2007, 09:12 PM

That's easy on all counts: zero.

Media Matters reports on conservative bias in media sources. They do stories about how papers, radio, and TV report stories.

Exactly, here's their mission directly from their site.

Thats my point. So how can anything they say be construed as unbiased and supposedly obectively understand what Rush meant as some in this very thread have portrayed?You are confusing bias in what might be chosen to comment on with the factualness of the comments. Just because someone is only fact checking the NeoCon stuff doesn't mean they are not making valid comments.

There has been so much NeoCon material on the news in the last 8 years or so, Media Matters has a lot of material to choose from.

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 09:27 PM

Really? How did he support this piece corp talked about earlier?

Dont know. I'm not here to defend everything Limbaugh says. When he starts getting onto the religion and other assorted rants I generally tune out. I guess that's his opinion. Why dont you write an email and ask him what he meant?

Drysdale

4th October 2007, 09:35 PM

You are confusing bias in what might be chosen to comment on with the factualness of the comments. Just because someone is only fact checking the NeoCon stuff doesn't mean they are not making valid comments.

There has been so much NeoCon material on the news in the last 8 years or so, Media Matters has a lot of material to choose from.

First off. What is a neocon in this text?

Secondly, where is there a fact of Limbaugh saying all dem soldiers are phonies? Is that not an interpretation of what he said in an offhand remark by his admitted critics? Not his own interpretation? Now others are gonna start telling people what they're really thinking?

And the bottom line. Why are the dems in congress so obsessed with this? Limbaugh is a talk show host. He's not a politician. And even if he was. Where's the crime here?

Upchurch

5th October 2007, 05:47 AM

Dont know. I'm not here to defend everything Limbaugh says.
Okay, let's go to what he said about how that first caller couldn't possibly be a Republican. What source does he cite for that?

Drysdale

5th October 2007, 08:00 AM

Okay, let's go to what he said about how that first caller couldn't possibly be a Republican. What source does he cite for that?

So lemme get this straight. You're trying to verify facts for something that was obviously his opinion from a phone call? Dont really know if I wanna even bother wasting anymore time on this if we are going this direction.

The conservative talk show hosts basically do what media matters,moveon.org, etc al, do from the other side of the fence.

He comments on the dem. and rep. politicians and what he considers the liberal main media. Every topic he talks about he sources. Calling the caller a fraud is his opinion. (seminar caller is the term he usually uses, there are calls by people claiming to be republicans and are upset with the rep. party and I gotta admit there is a pattern to it. Usually starting with Bush lied and it's all about oil etc,etc)

Is it not MM and apparently dem congressmen's opinion he meant all dem soldiers? Especially considering the day before he ran a story on Macbeth the phony soldier that the caller probably heard and was indirectly referring to the previous day. Can you substantiate other than an offhand reference to the phony soldiers term thats what he meant? Have you a source of him writing that or saying that before? Can you provide any facts?

Lets face it, the left is mad because they got called on the Betrayus ad and looked bad and are trying to even the score. Pretty pitiful attempt albeit.

Snide

5th October 2007, 08:33 AM

OK, fifth grade level lets go.

Did she or did she not say she helped start it?

Yes or no?No, but you are getting closer. All you can gather for sure by what she said, if what she said is true, is that Media Matters is something that she either helped start or that she supports.

Drysdale

5th October 2007, 11:58 AM

No, but you are getting closer. All you can gather for sure by what she said, if what she said is true, is that Media Matters is something that she either helped start or that she supports.

Closer to what? I'm at a loss.

And if she did help start it certainly you can see the potential conflict since she's running for president?

Snide

5th October 2007, 12:51 PM

Closer to what? I'm at a loss.You are getting closer to recognizing what she actually said v. what you claimed she said.

And if she did help start it certainly you can see the potential conflict since she's running for president?No. At least not any meaningful conflict, as in a conflict anyone should give a hoot about.

Could you explain why anyone should care? I'm not being snide here; it's a serious question. Now I'm the one at a loss. Media Matters makes a lot of assumptions, yes, but they show the sources in full context and allow debate from both sides below each item. Not exactly what I would call a "smear" site. They report; you decide. If any other candidate regardless of political party "helped start" (or "supports") a political watchdog web site that operates in this way, I would have absolutely no problem with that.

The Painter

5th October 2007, 02:22 PM

Okay, let's go to what he said about how that first caller couldn't possibly be a Republican. What source does he cite for that?

Are you insane?? How could you possibly cite a source for a gut feeling?? You have lost it.

When Limbaugh said he had walk on the moon, THAT was the indication that he thought the guy was lying. He’s been doing radio for over 20 years. You get a feeling as to who is truthful and who is not after all that time. You disagree with his perception. He is a professional, you are not, he wins. Case closed

quixotecoyote

5th October 2007, 02:36 PM

Are you insane?? How could you possibly cite a source for a gut feeling?? You have lost it.

When Limbaugh said he had walk on the moon, THAT was the indication that he thought the guy was lying. He’s been doing radio for over 20 years. You get a feeling as to who is truthful and who is not after all that time. You disagree with his perception. He is a professional, you are not, he wins. Case closed

See, a Republican is a defined term: a member of a republican party, or more loosely, one who votes republican (as an apparent right winger, I thought you'd have known this). Therefore if being against the war means you can't be a member of the Republican party for vote for republicans, there needs to be supporting evidence for it, as it is quite easy to point to people fitting the standard definition of republican who do oppose the war. Of course he could be engaging in a No True Scotsman, or simply lying, either of which would falsify the claim.

The Painter

5th October 2007, 02:42 PM

Blah, blah, blah. Nothing to do with what I said. Keep trying though.

Skeptic Ginger

5th October 2007, 05:21 PM

First off. What is a neocon in this text?A NeoCon is someone from a narrow group of Republicans and/or other right wingers and the reason I use the term is to point out I am not referring to all Republicans. Limbaugh is a NeoCon.

Secondly, where is there a fact of Limbaugh saying all dem soldiers are phonies? Is that not an interpretation of what he said in an offhand remark by his admitted critics? Not his own interpretation? Now others are gonna start telling people what they're really thinking?Those are Limbaugh's direct words. See the link in this thread to the text and the audio file. I listened to it and heard the whole thing in context. Limbaugh calls soldiers (plural) who are against the war phonies.

And the bottom line. Why are the dems in congress so obsessed with this? Limbaugh is a talk show host. He's not a politician. And even if he was. Where's the crime here?You'd have to ask them.

Skeptic Ginger

5th October 2007, 05:24 PM

No, but you are getting closer. All you can gather for sure by what she said, if what she said is true, is that Media Matters is something that she either helped start or that she supports.About where in that 7 minute clip are the words (beginning, middle or end)? I tried to listen to it but I couldn't pay attention to the 7 minutes of banter.

Upchurch

6th October 2007, 05:34 AM

So lemme get this straight. You're trying to verify facts for something that was obviously his opinion from a phone call? Dont really know if I wanna even bother wasting anymore time on this if we are going this direction.
Ah, therein lies the difference. Limbaugh spouts unsupported opinion and passes it off as truth.

The conservative talk show hosts basically do what media matters,moveon.org, etc al, do from the other side of the fence.
Wrong-o-roni. Don't know about MoveOn, but apart from a small area set aside for editorials, MediaMatters simply reports what media sources say. Full stop.

Is it not MM and apparently dem congressmen's opinion he meant all dem soldiers?
Where did MM say "democratic soldiers"? Read/listen to it again. With the first caller, Limbaugh's point was that Republicans could not possibly be for pulling out of Iraq. His point with the second caller was that "real soldiers" are not for pulling out of Iraq. At no point did he even suggest there was such a thing as a Democratic soldier.

Especially considering the day before he ran a story on Macbeth the phony soldier that the caller probably heard and was indirectly referring to the previous day. Can you substantiate other than an offhand reference to the phony soldiers term thats what he meant? Have you a source of him writing that or saying that before? Can you provide any facts?
Hold up. Can you substantiate where he called MacBeth a "phony soldier", using that specific phrase before the episode in question? No one has provided evidence of that yet.

Drysdale

6th October 2007, 09:32 AM

Ah, therein lies the difference. Limbaugh spouts unsupported opinion and passes it off as truth.

BS, it was his opinion the caller was lying. He didnt say "That caller is lying and thats a fact." And all media uses opinion pieces. From newspaper oped's,to opinion pieces by broadcasters. And yes it is media matters opinion that they are saying what Rush meant because they dont really have anyway of knowing honestly now do they? Weak. Very weak.

Wrong-o-roni. Don't know about MoveOn, but apart from a small area set aside for editorials, MediaMatters simply reports what media sources say. Full stop.

With their little snipets of what he meant fact or fiction when they are leaving out content to make it look worse and why it was wrong numerous times in their opinion. Are they eligible to win the 1,000,000? They seem to have an ability to read minds.

Where did MM say "democratic soldiers"? Read/listen to it again. With the first caller, Limbaugh's point was that Republicans could not possibly be for pulling out of Iraq. His point with the second caller was that "real soldiers" are not for pulling out of Iraq. At no point did he even suggest there was such a thing as a Democratic soldier.

I got the impression this was what MM and the congressmen harping about it are referring to indirectly, democratic soldiers against the war. This was solely my view.

Hold up. Can you substantiate where he called MacBeth a "phony soldier", using that specific phrase before the episode in question? No one has provided evidence of that yet.

This is Rush's morning update transcript about it on Sept 25,the day before he said the phony soldier bit.

The anti-war left has its celebrities, and one of them was "Army Ranger" Jesse MacBeth. Now, what made the 23-year-old "corporal" a hero to the anti-war crowd was not his Purple Heart or his being afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No -- what made "Army Ranger" Jesse MacBeth 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 said he had witnessed in Iraq. American soldiers killing unarmed civilians -- hundreds of men, women, and even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Recently Jesse MacBeth, the poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail [and] three years' probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim; his Army discharge record, too. Yes, Jesse McBeth was in the Army. Briefly. 44 days. Before he was washed out of boot camp. MacBeth is not an Army Ranger; he is not a corporal; he never won the Purple Heart; he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.

But don't look for retractions, folks -- not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread his lies about our troops. Fiction serves their purposes; the truth, to borrow a phrase, is inconvenient to them.

I dont think it's a stretch that he was referring to this story from the day before. Especially since he is big on nicknames, calling Macbeth and there have been others that lied about it also "phony soldiers" is pretty much in line with his MO.

Drysdale

6th October 2007, 10:03 AM

You are getting closer to recognizing what she actually said v. what you claimed she said.

No. At least not any meaningful conflict, as in a conflict anyone should give a hoot about.

Could you explain why anyone should care? I'm not being snide here; it's a serious question. Now I'm the one at a loss. Media Matters makes a lot of assumptions, yes, but they show the sources in full context and allow debate from both sides below each item. Not exactly what I would call a "smear" site. They report; you decide. If any other candidate regardless of political party "helped start" (or "supports") a political watchdog web site that operates in this way, I would have absolutely no problem with that.

Well, if she helped start it I'm sure she has a vested interest in it. And while maybe not illegal, I'm not a lawyer, when running for any public office I'm not sure it's really ethical is it to have a newsource that a candidate has a vested interest in to potentially be in their hip pocket?

And I know it's not legal for them to accept donations from them if they have a stake in that particular business. Not saying she is, but it's certainly not out of the question since they are an admitted leftist site and if she is and she has a vested interest in them that would indeed be illegal I'm pretty sure.

RandFan

6th October 2007, 10:04 AM

I dont think it's a stretch that he was referring to this story from the day before. Especially since he is big on nicknames, calling Macbeth and there have been others that lied about it also "phony soldiers" is pretty much in line with his MO.Interesting.

Snide

6th October 2007, 12:01 PM

...when running for any public office I'm not sure it's really ethical is it to have a newsource that a candidate has a vested interest in to potentially be in their hip pocket?I'm not sure what kind of stand you are trying to take here, saying you're "not sure" and mentioning a connection between "vested interest" and "potentially in their hip pocket"...could you rephrase? It looks like you are softening your stance on the significance of her claim.

But since when is MMFA a news source? It is an admittedly biased watch dog source. Showing the public, in full context, stories it thinks fits the mission of showing right wing bias and/or misinformation in the media. It allows debate on each issue from readers of both sides. They report, you get to decide. Hardly anything unethical about a politician supporting, helping found, or even having a vested interest in such an organization, regardless of the political affiliation of the organization or politician.

(As an aside, folks will still continue to believe it is simply a "smear site," because their idols Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al say it is. I'm still surprised that BillO still gives it publicity. When you are #1, you are either a marketing idiot or a paranoid fool...or both...to give them any publicity. His viewers of even average intelligence can then go to the site, see that it is nothing like he portrays it to be, and then realize that it documents, in context, the stories that show he in fact is the one who is FOS.)

And I know it's not legal for them to accept donations from them if they have a stake in that particular business. Not saying she is, but it's certainly not out of the question since they are an admitted leftist site and if she is and she has a vested interest in them that would indeed be illegal I'm pretty sure.Until you have any evidence that she is 1) taking money from them, AND 2) she has a vested interest in them, this whole quoted part is simply wasted server space. And by evidence, I mean evidence which is much stronger than your unsupported notion that #2 is true, and your conclusion that if #2 is true, then it is a mere possibility that #1 may be true...you do realize how flimsy this is, don't you?

corplinx

6th October 2007, 01:48 PM

Showing the public, in full context

Lets not perpetuate this myth...... They selectively provide context as I showed earlier in the thread.

They are the liberal equivalent of the MRC, they just project a better "we have evidence" type image.

Snide

6th October 2007, 03:09 PM

Lets not perpetuate this myth...... They selectively provide context as I showed earlier in the thread.No you didn't. Your "game, set, match" proclamation, among other posts (#77 for example), was a real hoot!

They are the liberal equivalent of the MRC, they just project a better "we have evidence" type image.And they provide links to let the reader decide, and a place for people on both sides to debate the issue. That's why I like them. I go to the site, and for every ten or so things/issues I find, maybe eight I even care about (enough to consider newsworthy). For the other two, I am provided links, full context (ok, to please you, I will revise this to say "more nearly full context than any political 'watchdog' site I have found," and I am not convinced that any failure of showing full context are for the intent to deceive), and opposing opinions in case I'm missing something (although the supporters outweigh the opposing viewpoints, the opposers are at least vocal and persistent).

That's the beauty of it. People seem to think that regular readers of the site hang on to every word as if it is all evidence of how horrible the right is, and that we are all being hoodwinked. It's just not so.

Skeptic Ginger

6th October 2007, 03:36 PM

Corplinx, what myth? Are you that easily lied to? Listen to Limbaugh for yourself. Tell us how context changes his direct in context statement that Republicans who are against the Iraq war are not real Republicans and soldiers who are against the war are phonies?

Drysdale

6th October 2007, 06:25 PM

I'm not sure what kind of stand you are trying to take here, saying you're "not sure" and mentioning a connection between "vested interest" and "potentially in their hip pocket"...could you rephrase? It looks like you are softening your stance on the significance of her claim.

I dont have a stance. She said she helped start MM. You refuse to accept that but she did. It's right there, not misquoted,out of context, it's exactly what she said in that sentence.

"I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress"

Whats that word thats bolded there? And if it's not a big deal to you and others that she said she helped start it why are you fighting it so hard?
MM denies she helped start them. Ones lying about it and so loses creditability right there? Which one?

But since when is MMFA a news source? It is an admittedly biased watch dog source. Showing the public, in full context, stories it thinks fits the mission of showing right wing bias and/or misinformation in the media. It allows debate on each issue from readers of both sides. They report, you get to decide. Hardly anything unethical about a politician supporting, helping found, or even having a vested interest in such an organization, regardless of the political affiliation of the organization or politician.

And AIM,Hot air,newsbusters.org, as well as the conservative talk show hosts do the exact same thing but are labeled by the mainstream media as far right wingers etc. Now which side is the biasedness really in the mainstream media?

(As an aside, folks will still continue to believe it is simply a "smear site," because their idols Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al say it is. I'm still surprised that BillO still gives it publicity. When you are #1, you are either a marketing idiot or a paranoid fool...or both...to give them any publicity. His viewers of even average intelligence can then go to the site, see that it is nothing like he portrays it to be, and then realize that it documents, in context, the stories that show he in fact is the one who is FOS.)

It is no more accurate if as accurate than the ones I've cited and they omit text to further their views as well. If you dont think so you're as ignorant about it as the viewers you accuse of being ignorant.

Until you have any evidence that she is 1) taking money from them, AND 2) she has a vested interest in them, this whole quoted part is simply wasted server space. And by evidence, I mean evidence which is much stronger than your unsupported notion that #2 is true, and your conclusion that if #2 is true, then it is a mere possibility that #1 may be true...you do realize how flimsy this is, don't you?

Oh I dont know. Is it any flimsier than MM taking a sentence and trying to say what Limbaugh meant to further their agenda? I dont think so.

corplinx

6th October 2007, 08:15 PM

No you didn't. Your "game, set, match" proclamation, among other posts (#77 for example), was a real hoot!

How was it not selective context? They omitted context in their fact check. Its a simple thing to judge, its either there or it isn't. It was in another area of the site that _wasn't_ trying to reinforce their point.

And btw, it was game, set, match. They have zero evidence to backup their claim. Its only a hoot if you think MMfA gets a pass on backing up their claims. They claimed he said something and have only their own opinion to back it up.

"more nearly full context than any political 'watchdog' site I have found,"

Spinsanity was much better when it was going. I will agree that they provide more context than their counterparts.

Snide

6th October 2007, 10:53 PM

I dont have a stance. She said she helped start MM. You refuse to accept that but she did. It's right there, not misquoted,out of context, it's exactly what she said in that sentence.No, it is clearly not exactly what she said, as I have proven.

"I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress"

Whats that word thats bolded there? Wow. Look at the words you curiously did not bold. "Helped" and "support." Again, why are you the only one here who does not get this? Did you struggle with grade school English? (It started as a cheap shot, I admit, but now I'm seriously wondering...)

Look, I'll spell it out again, but for the last time. If she merely supports Media Matters, then what she said can be true without her ever having started it, or even helped to start it for that matter. "Helped to start, like MMFA and CAP," can mean she helped to start CAP but merely supports MMFA. Get it??

And if it's not a big deal to you and others that she said she helped start it why are you fighting it so hard?Not fighting, but rather correcting your ignorance, because it should be corrected, regardless of whether I care if she started it(MMFA), helped start it, or even owns it for that matter. An argument based on such shoddy logic and understanding of language should be exposed and shot down. Based on what she said, you can not accurately claim she said she started MMFA. It's plain English (with a touch of said logic required, which might better explain the problem here).

MM denies she helped start them. Ones lying about it and so loses creditability right there? Which one?Nope. Again, if she merely supports MMFA, then both could very well be telling the truth. It's amazing you do not recognize your false dichotomy. Listen to/read her original quote again. See my house painting/building example again...it's a very dumbed-down analogy that fits.

And AIM,Hot air,newsbusters.org, as well as the conservative talk show hosts do the exact same thing but are labeled by the mainstream media as far right wingers etc. Now which side is the biasedness really in the mainstream media?Relevance? Oh, and no they do not all do the exact same thing. That is hilarious.

It is no more accurate if as accurate than the ones I've cited and they omit text to further their views as well. If you dont think so you're as ignorant about it as the viewers you accuse of being ignorant.Well, since that wasn't my claim here, this is a non sequitor, isn't it? But when it posts the exact clip and quotes the transcript so the reader can decide whether the headline is a fair assessment of whatever happened, then yes, that is accurate.

Here are the Rush headlines on MMFA right now:

(From MMFA)
MEMO: Fact vs. Fiction in the Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy
A look at Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments along with documentation that corrects common misconceptions in the media about the controversy surrounding his remarks and subsequent statements on the subject. Read More

Limbaugh on wounded Iraq vet: "I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber"

Limbaugh expands group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Murtha

Limbaugh selectively edited "phony soldiers" clip, claimed it was "the entire transcript"

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

More Limbaugh "phony soldiers" coverageSure, there is bias in some of those headlines. But so what, we've covered that. Now, click the links. Then read the sources. Then note that they allow discussion on each topic. Show me the inaccuracies, please. But more to the point of my what you responded to with your non-sequitor, show me how this is anything close to what BillO leads his viewers to believe.

Oh I dont know. Is it any flimsier than MM taking a sentence and trying to say what Limbaugh meant to further their agenda? I dont think so.Of course it is. Is that even an argument?

And they took more than a sentence. They also gave you, the reader, a fair chance to decide whether their opinion of Rush is a fair one.

Snide

6th October 2007, 11:02 PM

How was it not selective context? They omitted context in their fact check. Its a simple thing to judge, its either there or it isn't. It was in another area of the site that _wasn't_ trying to reinforce their point.

And btw, it was game, set, match. They have zero evidence to backup their claim. Its only a hoot if you think MMfA gets a pass on backing up their claims. They claimed he said something and have only their own opinion to back it up.I followed your debate with others, read the site, and came to the conclusion that it was nowhere near "game, set, and match." But for fairness, I will-revisit it in when I get a chance and get back to you.

Spinsanity was much better when it was going. I will agree that they provide more context than their counterparts.Well, I guess we'll never quite agree on the credibility of MMFA, but that's fair. I don't always agree with their conclusions, or more importantly, I often find their stories to be non-issues. But, to cite just one example, when someone like BillO likens them to Fidel, and you go to the site and see that they were indeed accurate in what it was they said about him to get him so riled up, it's pretty easy to take their side. :)

corplinx

6th October 2007, 11:28 PM

Well, I guess we'll never quite agree on the credibility of MMFA, but that's fair

No, this is fair: www.fair.org

They are much more credible than MMfA. However, look at this sort of work:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2036

That's right, they were memogate apologists.

My biggest personal beef was during the 2004 election coverage. MMfA played up this big chart where they would track when different news networks declared victors in different states. They setup and presentation of the page seemed like a accusation about the previous election and the Florida call and winner declaration.

MMfA even had its own methodology for declaring a winner explained based on the number of agencies reporting a winner.

When their own metric had been passed showing Bush as the winner, they did not however follow through.

I could link you this, except they did what any reputable place would do. They deleted it.

Hence my vehement disgust with MMfA. I don't watchdog the watchdogs. I don't know if deleting things that don't pan out is common with them or not.

I remember MMfA also being memogate apologetics, but alas a search reveals no articles related to memogate at the time the scandal was current. Hmmmm....

Drysdale

7th October 2007, 08:10 AM

No, it is clearly not exactly what she said, as I have proven.

LOL, sure. You've proven nothing.

Wow. Look at the words you curiously did not bold. "Helped" and "support." Again, why are you the only one here who does not get this? Did you struggle with grade school English? (It started as a cheap shot, I admit, but now I'm seriously wondering...)

If she helped start it of course she's gonna support it. Geez, this is becoming tedious. None so blind as those who will not see.

Look, I'll spell it out again, but for the last time. If she merely supports Media Matters, then what she said can be true without her ever having started it, or even helped to start it for that matter. "Helped to start, like MMFA and CAP," can mean she helped to start CAP but merely supports MMFA. Get it??

Can mean? Then how come she didnt say it that way?

Not fighting, but rather correcting your ignorance, because it should be corrected, regardless of whether I care if she started it(MMFA), helped start it, or even owns it for that matter. An argument based on such shoddy logic and understanding of language should be exposed and shot down. Based on what she said, you can not accurately claim she said she started MMFA. It's plain English (with a touch of said logic required, which might better explain the problem here).

Nope. Again, if she merely supports MMFA, then both could very well be telling the truth. It's amazing you do not recognize your false dichotomy. Listen to/read her original quote again. See my house painting/building example again...it's a very dumbed-down analogy that fits.

This is all just jibberish. My claim that she said she started it is every bit as valid as MM's claim Rush meant all soldiers agaisnt the war.

Relevance? Oh, and no they do not all do the exact same thing. That is hilarious.

Sure they do, just from different vantage points. And your inability to see that is telling.