Yep, that's true. I guess folks can continue to speculate on did he or didn't he mean what he said when he said it. Luckily, we have groups now that tell us what a person means when they say something rather than deciding for ourselves. 110 seconds and whether it was "soldier" or "soldiers" is hugely weak evidence. But folks want their lynching. It's too bad that it'll be happening to someone else soon and maybe the next person won't be a political hack like Limbaugh. But the bars already been set way low.

Likewise, I'm sure I'll be seeing lots of links from MediaMatters that point me to something or another of supposed importance. At least, for me, I've been educated somewhat on what MediaMatters is and who David Brock is. I'll treat the future links accordingly.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

If you say so. I would think the literal meaning of someone's statement would carry at least some weight. The good news is that the literal meaning of Limbaugh's statement is not the only evidence against him. It's not as if the evidence on Limbaugh's side is so air-tight.

First off:

Listening/reading ONLY the words YOU WANT TO will get you the results you expect to find...

In the course of discourse, one must LISTEN TO ALL OF THE CONVERSATION, OR NONE OF IT WILL BE UNDERSTANDABLE BY THE PARTICIPANTS.

Maybe, Rush needs to give a test, during his last hour, each day, to all the LibbyDemLeftComWacks out there, to see if they even have a clue as to what was talked about during that day's broadcast.

Even in my own household, when one of my family members starts "blabbing off" about something they THOUGHT they heard, I have to shut them up so that I can hear what is being said at that moment...when the show is over, I THEN ask the family member what the HELL they were going nuts about...

99.9999% of the time, they were reacting to WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HEARD AND NOT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID!

So, all you LibbyDemLeftComWacks, you missed the point of the conversation, you didn't hear the original broadcast in ITS ENTIRETY, so you present a very flawed and baseless arguement to shut Rush down.

And the embarassing part about this? Harry Reid, somehow, got SUCKED INTO THE FRAY and all you LibbyDemLeftComWacks just keep dragging his wrinkled ass through the mud of disinformation...

Good job!

This gives me a very good idea how the country would be run if Hillary "Ramrod" Clinton gets anywhere near the White House...

BTW, how has NY done with Hillary in the Senate? Are you guys getting your "lion's share" of the pork like you used to?

You NYers certainly screwed yourselves kissing up to another "DemmyFluff" personality.

Good job there!

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Rush is an idiot, but he's smart enough to lead you there without specifically saying it. Seems pretty clear to me he impugned the honor of soldiers who are anti-war, but you don't have to say, "I impugn the honor of soldiers" to do it.

For a while now, the right's had the market cornered on this kind of thing, and the kind of thing MoveOn printed. Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter/O'Reilly, et al. sling some ridiculous crap. Well, the left doesn't have talk radio, but they've got their MoveOns and MediaMatters so the right gets a little tit for tat now. Congress jumps down MoveOn's throat with both feet, it's reasonable to expect it'll come down on Limbaugh - unless of course they're hypocrites who censure one and not the other.

I've done the same with those right-wing versions of MM that you used about the Pelosi/MILCON 'improprieties'.

__________________
1984 300TD

Vanity Fair did a review of Limbaugh earlier this year.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/wolcott200705?currentPage=1

That's the spin you wish to jump to. I've said it before, see if you can get your mind around this one:

A person could be utterly convinced they were telling the truth even though they were speaking delusional nonsense. Truth is relative. You and Botnst believe (I think I have this right) that the war in Vietnam could have been won if we hadn't stopped funding the South in what, '74 or '75? Or could have been won if not for the cowardly left at home.

I don't call you liars for saying this but I'd have to suspend disbelief to accept it as fact.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Dude, I have ***** slapped you from here to east Texas. Your blinders, apparently now composed of cartilage, bone, and skin, prevent you from seeing it.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

It was Sen. Feinstein not Rep. Pelosi who was head of the Senate MILCON Committee. The story was broken by a left wing organization. Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington Executive Director had this to say;
Maybe you should do some more research instead of just say you did.

The whole reason I threw that out there was to see if you were actually concerned with war profiteering or are you just concerned with blaming Cheney and Halliburton of it. I guess my right-wing versions of MediaMatters that spread the lies about Pelosi's Senate Committee on MILCONS gives me the answer to that.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Well, Hell and Tarnation! Texas sure is humid!

What's the next step beyond cartilage, bone and skin. I was at rose colored glasses and scales years ago. I'd like to see where I'm headed (figuratively of course, can't literally see with all that stuff on my eyes)

BTW, does this mean you'll be saying something sensible now?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Well, that was a bit rude, even by my standards. Let's review:

You really couldn't make sense of this? I'mo s'plain it to you.

Much gnashing of teeth about NPR et.al. unfairly competeing with private broadcasters. Private broadcasters nonetheless making Major profits with General business. Could be the competition from CPB etc. (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) has forced private media to improve.

Good thing, because in the 50s and early 60s, there was nothing on the publicly owned airwaves that remotely resembled educational programming.

Instead we had psuedo doctors talking about the benefits of smoking.

I've made plenty of good points here for which you have no good answer. Instead you traffic in nonsense. Step up to the plate, slugger.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

The only one I've heard gnashing teeth about private competitors to NPR is you, on another thread.

I don't think Limbaugh is competition for CPB, the closest comparison would be Bill Moyers who is as partisan as is Limbaugh - he is publicly funded.

BTW, nobody on the other thread said they disliked CPB they just said they questioned government funding of it. No one here or on any other thread or in any other venue that I'm aware of has ever suggested Limbaugh be publicly funded.

I do have problems following your train of thought at times. All I have to go on is what you write. My tinfoil cap clouds my psychic ability to a great extent. Perhaps you could just make it simple and present one thesis at a time and on the pertinent thread? Oh, and as the ***** slapee, I think that cuts me some slack in how I reply; maybe you could adjust your standards accordingly?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Rush is an entertainer...

Just like Hannity & Colmbs...

Just like Olberman...

Just like Al Franken...

But, the minute they start passing legislation...then I'll have a problem.

Harry Reid, talking about restricting free speech...and he's suppose to defend the Constitution, against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic?

"BowelMovementOn.org?" It's a PAC with a Capital "P" to counter all the real free-speech going on...and I thought that CPB didn't have any bedfellows...

With MY tax dollars paying for CPB, I should have a right to object to their propagandising for all things Left and off the cliff...I could give a rat's @55 about "BowelMovementOn.org" and their line of thinking (more like a "drunken doodle" than a line...)...they never have the facts to back up their hack job of pablum-puking and their childish "wordplays" of names is sophomoric, at best...more in line with pre-adolescent school-yard name-calling.

And good money (and House & Senatorial editorializing) is being spent on that?

Take all the cash (read that as: Tax Dollars) the Left is spending on slamming the Right and put it towards the National Debt and we'd have a balanced budget with a month...

But, as usual, that would be TOO SENSIBLE...and we know that the Left has no room, or place, for sense whatsoever...tune in to the nightly news...right in your living room, every night...for all to see and experience the Left (hardly) at work...

BTW...does Brittney/Paris (whatever) have pubes back on "downstairs" yet? Inquiring minds just have to know...

At least w/Rush, he'd "deep-six" that crap before it got to the mic...or call it for what it is...non-news.

As usual, the Left is trying to down-play their boners by slamming someone with way more brains than they could ever hope for...

BowelMovementOn.org tries to be serious in its presentations and fails miserbly every time because their message is convoluted and distorted...hell, they even throw darts at themselves and they don't even realize it.

Rush is entertaining and yet, at the same time, informative in getting facts out there that the Left doesn't want you to know about or hear about...and all the material is available for the public TO READ FOR THEMSELVES.

Now, Rush CAN'T make you understand what you read...that requires a level of comprehension that usually is available for folks w/IQs over, at least, 95 points, or so. But, it you have an IQ of >95, the more the IQ, the better the humor.

I would go so far as to say that Rush approaches the humor level of Will Rogers, but I won't go too far to say that he is Will Rogers. There's a "difference" between the two that should stay separate, but the level of observational humor is similar in style.

All we have to remember is this: Nothing is ever funny to those that are either wrong or caught. And you can count on them to be the first to ALWAYS blame someone else for their predicament.

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

I see. You can dismiss any left leaning source, but right leaning sources shouldn't be.
And I wasn't talking about war profiteering. There is no doubt war is profitable. I believe that's why you don't have a problem with the Cheney/Halliburton connection. And people have profited from it in every war. I was talking about the new shape war is taking.

__________________
1984 300TD

Uh, you were the one who said my story re: MILCON committee was from a right wing source. It was actually a left wing source and a Senator rather than a Representative. Who is dismissing whom here?

Hello? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Tell the truth now, did you speculate as much on what the actual intent was with Kerry's "get stuck in Iraq" gaffe?

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K