Rush Limbaugh - Page 10 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tankdriver · #**136** 10-04-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I think that's too bad.

I think that people do like admiration of their technical proficiencies and not just soldiers. Woodworkers, artists, steelworkers, anyone who works and does a good job at it likes to be noticed for it. It has to do with pride in doing a good job. It's the main reason why I end up doing pretty much everything around the house and on the cars. There's a real lack of pride in workmanship that is prevelent today - it shows in the crap work that is done. That's why I go out of my way to notice when someone does a good job at something. I like to reinforce pride in good work in the hopes that it'll happen more often.

I understand what they meant, but I'm not sure I could ever admire someone for being really good at killing other people. I can acknowledge our soldiers capabilities, but I don't know about admire it.

BTW, MoveOn = the left's Rush Limbaugh. If one was out of line, then so was the other. One of them, Congressmen voted to censure for their free speech.

peragro · #**137** 10-04-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I understand what they meant, but I'm not sure I could ever admire someone for being really good at killing other people. I can acknowledge our soldiers capabilities, but I don't know about admire it.

BTW, MoveOn = the left's Rush Limbaugh. If one was out of line, then so was the other. One of them, Congressmen voted to censure for their free speech.

I think there's a lot more to soldiering than just plain killing. Especially in Iraq. But stories and books about that aren't that hard to find if you do some searching.

And yes, I can see why you'd want to equate the two statements.

My thoughts are that they are not. While both the General and Limbaugh are in a sense public figures; one was a direct attack on a person meant to defame and discredit with the only evidence offered having nothing to do with supporting any claim of treason. Even the paper that published the ad admits that it was wrong to do and violated their policies.

The other can be looked at two ways. The first in that a public figure's comments were taken out of context and in opposition to many years of previous statement. That seems to be the response of the "publisher" in this case. The second way of looking at it involves suspension of basic reading comprehension skills and common sense in some kind of bizarre partisan game of "gotcha back". It involves a public figure vaguely stating something repugnant about a general group of peoples with no specific target. Then a mental game of Twister ensues in which the vague statement is acribed meaning by an organization specializing in character assasination. I wonder if MediaMatters has an Ombudsman?

They are equal I suppose in that both parties are free to say what they want because of the First Amendment. That is; as long as you think that the word "people" actually means people like in the Second Amendment.

tankdriver · #**138** 10-04-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I think there's a lot more to soldiering than just plain killing. Especially in Iraq. But stories and books about that aren't that hard to find if you do some searching.

And yes, I can see why you'd want to equate the two statements.

My thoughts are that they are not. While both the General and Limbaugh are in a sense public figures; one was a direct attack on a person meant to defame and discredit with the only evidence offered having nothing to do with supporting any claim of treason. Even the paper that published the ad admits that it was wrong to do and violated their policies.

The other can be looked at two ways. The first in that a public figure's comments were taken out of context and in opposition to many years of previous statement. That seems to be the response of the "publisher" in this case. The second way of looking at it involves suspension of basic reading comprehension skills and common sense in some kind of bizarre partisan game of "gotcha back". It involves a public figure vaguely stating something repugnant about a general group of peoples with no specific target. Then a mental game of Twister ensues in which the vague statement is acribed meaning by an organization specializing in character assasination. I wonder if MediaMatters has an Ombudsman?

They are equal I suppose in that both parties are free to say what they want because of the First Amendment. That is; as long as you think that the word "people" actually means people like in the Second Amendment.

I've read Rush's transcript. He implied there were many of these so called phony soldiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

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.

I see no difference between what he said and what MoveOn's ad said about Petraeus. Both are political. Both are free to say what they said. Both are attacks on the opposite side. What we have here is two sides of the same coin. The only difference is that MoveOn is not on the radio. Rush is as ridiculous as MoveOn.

guage · #**139** 10-04-2007, 09:28 PM

Harkin, who Falsely Claimed to Fly Vietnam Combat Missions, jumps on the personnel attack campaign against Rush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcwYzaspd9M&mode=related&search=

Botnst · #**140** 10-04-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

...

I see no difference between what he said and what MoveOn's ad said about Petraeus. Both are political. Both are free to say what they said. Both are attacks on the opposite side. What we have here is two sides of the same coin. The only difference is that MoveOn is not on the radio. Rush is as ridiculous as MoveOn.

Yeah, that makes sense concerning "no difference" between the attacks.

I know you would agree with me that the two people, Limbaugh and Petraeus, occupy entirely different positions in society. That being the case, would you not agree that two different approaches to criticism might make the criticism more meaningful?

B

cmac2012 · #**141** 10-04-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Please define attack. Instead of focusing on me, as you do above, why not focus on the argument?

Good lord, did you type this with a straight face?

Botnst · #**142** 10-04-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Good lord, did you type this with a straight face?

Yes. And with patience and humility, you too could learn polite discourse.

B

cmac2012 · #**143** 10-04-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

My thoughts are that they are not. While both the General and Limbaugh are in a sense public figures; one was a direct attack on a person meant to defame and discredit with the only evidence offered having nothing to do with supporting any claim of treason. Even the paper that published the ad admits that it was wrong to do and violated their policies.

I must have missed that claim of treason. Petraeus was appointed by Bush to act as a firewall deflecting public criticism. This game plan has been followed strenuously. Hannity and your esteemed self have said Hillary called GenDP a liar, and the "treason" gambit has gotten much traction. Interesting that some on the left are doing a similar inflation of words with Rush with this comment:

"This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Many, including the vet in question, have said Rush called him a suicide bomber. He did not use those words. His metaphor was very poorly chosen but he didn't go so far as to actually call him a suicide bomber.

I don't think it's too likely that Rush will have any dissenting vets on his show for a lengthy, fair debate any time soon, however.

peragro · #**144** 10-04-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I've read Rush's transcript. He implied there were many of these so called phony soldiers.

Yeah, there are. As evidenced by the ABC news report the day after Limbaugh's broadcast.

Is the distinction of singular and plural where the heart of the matter lies in Limbaugh's comments now? If so, that's even weaker than the 110 seconds lapse. Couldn't Reid et. al. find something of more substance to play "Political Gotcha Back" with?

Here, let me try something. I'll spend the next few minutes finding some names of folks who've lied about their service - you know phony soldiers.

Botnst · #**145** 10-04-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Yeah, there are. As evidenced by the ABC news report the day after Limbaugh's broadcast.

Is the distinction of singular and plural where the heart of the matter lies in Limbaugh's comments now? If so, that's even weaker than the 110 seconds lapse. Couldn't Reid et. al. find something of more substance to play "Political Gotcha Back" with?

Here, let me try something. I'll spend the next few minutes finding some names of folks who've lied about their service - you know phony soldiers.

Not in the Senate, surely!

peragro · #**146** 10-04-2007, 10:17 PM

Ok, here we go. With a little help from Wikipedia, Google and others I found these folks:

Jesse Macbeth
Paul Lemman
Walter Carlson
Wes Cooley
Terry Powell
Micah Wright
Al Hubbard

and evidently

Sen. Harkin
Sen. Kerry

All of whom misrepresented what they actually did while in the service or did not serve at all but said they did.

peragro · #**147** 10-04-2007, 10:18 PM

That took 4 minutes.

cmac2012 · #**148** 10-04-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yes. And with patience and humility, you too could learn polite discourse.

Take a long look at yourself, master of butt covering. Your 'hahahahahahahahah' routine is some of the rudest $h!t that appears on these "pages."

Mocking in general is not to strong but on these virtual pages it's seriously weak. You regularly focus scorn on the other when you have no other ammunition at hand.

Who am I kidding? Conceding any point, no matter how sound or trivial is a sign of weakness in your catechism. No wait, you have done it once or twice. Hope springs eternal.

As for bias, did I claim to have no bias?

Bias: an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.

Bias is not far removed from "preference." Again, the definition has the "esecially" clause, but is not limited to it.

The big question is, does one's bias have any legitamacy? Peragro's remark about Blackwater bearing no differently on Iraqi opinion of the US in general than any other US corp. is patently absurd. Only a person devoted irrationally to the shining goodness and glory of US armed force would make such a statement.

Botnst · #**149** 10-04-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Take a long look at yourself, master of butt covering. Your 'hahahahahahahahah' routine is some of the rudest $h!t that appears on these "pages."

Mocking in general is not to strong but on these virtual pages it's seriously weak. You regularly focus scorn on the other when you have no other ammunition at hand.

Who am I kidding? Conceding any point, no matter how sound or trivial is a sign of weakness in your catechism. No wait, you have done it once or twice. Hope springs eternal.

As for bias, did I claim to have no bias?

Bias: an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.

Bias is not far removed from "preference." Again, the definition has the "esecially" clause, but is not limited to it.

The big question is, does one's bias have any legitamacy? Peragro's remark about Blackwater bearing no differently on Iraqi opinion of the US in general than any other US corp. is patently absurd. Only a person devoted irrationally to the shining goodness and glory of US armed force would make such a statement.

Take a long look at yourself, master of butt covering. Your 'hahahahahahahahah' routine is some of the rudest $h!t that appears on these "pages."

Mocking in general is not to strong but on these virtual pages it's seriously weak. You regularly focus scorn on the other when you have no other ammunition at hand.

Who am I kidding? Conceding any point, no matter how sound or trivial is a sign of weakness in your catechism. No wait, you have done it once or twice. Hope springs eternal.

Backatcha,

B

cmac2012 · #**150** 10-04-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Ok, here we go. With a little help from Wikipedia, Google and others I found these folks:

Jesse Macbeth
Paul Lemman
Walter Carlson
Wes Cooley
Terry Powell
Micah Wright
Al Hubbard

and evidently

Sen. Harkin
Sen. Kerry

All of whom misrepresented what they actually did while in the service or did not serve at all but said they did.

You, of course, can substantiate all of these claims. Many are still debated, yet you pass it off as fact.