Flush Limabugh.

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

Definitely not. I don't know other others, but I'm not relying on mediamatters. Nor do I give any credence to Rush Limbaugh's explanations.

I'm not the one claiming that this is "pretty clear". I don't find Limbaugh's story persuasive, but I wouldn't claim to know one way or the other what was really in his mind when he referred to "phony soldiers."

I find this controversy frankly amazing.
Look at Rush's history over 18 years of broadcasting. He supports the troops at every turn. He donates much $, and fund raises more all to support the troops. The troops know this and love him; they send him mementos to show their appreciation.

Sen Harry Reid, OTH has defamed the troops repeatedly.

Forget the transcript; look at his life's history. You KNOW what he meant.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

No, I don't know what he meant.

I take your word about all the good things he has done for the troops, but he also takes every opportunity to slime people who disagree with his view of the world. I would be surprised to hear him say anything remotely positive about a soldier who takes a stand against the war.

A man would slam the beliefs of others merely because the opinions are in opposition. Can you believe it?

B

That's not what I said.

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I find Mr. Limbaugh an example of what is wrong with the GOP today. He has engaged in criminal activity in the past, he has admitted it himself, yet posters here call him "honest". He claims to support the social values of the GOP, yet his personal life is one of serial marriage. His other hypocrisy, railing against drug abusers while abusing one of the most powerful narcotics available, also seems lost on his supporters, and here again we have an accusation that his "support" of troops is also hypocritically hinged on their political beliefs, and yet they howl in disbelief and buy this man's rather flawed explanation that what he said was not what he said. Most rational people know that the most obvious explanation is probably the truth. The man is a well-known hypocrite. His "support" of the troops is also obviously hypocritical, the truth is "the troops" are ok as long as they support his party's failure of a war. One would expect no less of Mr. Limbaugh.

These are the voyages ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8776918864494571714&q=spock&total=2455&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

Sure he supports the troops. As long as they support him and his beliefs. Give the fact that he hangs up or insults any who dare to contradict him I fail to see how you don't get it.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Amazing observation #327!!
People who appreciate Limbaugh's message think Limbaugh is being unfairly attacked.

People who think Limbaugh is a lying stinker believe this is another nail in his coffin of the undead.

B

Mr. Limbaugh is hardly a "private citizen", in fact he would never fit the legal definition of one. He is in fact the leader of a large faction of the GOP, a man who has daily access to some fifteen million or so voters. Mr. Limbaugh, with his constant diatribes whose aim is to demonize and discredit anyone who disagrees with him, has made himself a legitimate target of those for whom he creates demeaning nicknames and other schoolyard teasing that seem to go over well with his churlish audience. I rather enjoy seeing them get their licks in on this particular tormentor, who seems to get a free pass for committing many of the same sins "liberals" are excoriated for by he and his clonish sidekick, the holy Mr. Hannity.

Mediamatters is in fact an interesting operation. It is obvious by their reaction to it that the Right Wing Media Machine find it extremely dangerous. The "George Soros" claim has no proof and is routinely denied by the site, if you have some, you should post it to elucidate this conspiracy for us un-initiates. In reality, it was founded by David Brock, a one-time closeted Republican homosexual who wrote a rather interesting book called "Blinded by the Right". Mr. Brock was a press aide to Newt Gingrich for most of his career as a card-carrying Movement Conservative. He switched parties and then told tales out of school on the hypocrites for whom he worked, of how Mr. Gingrich supped with Pat Robertson and Dobson, followed with having his mistress for desert whilst his wife lay cancer-stricken in the local hospital, a location Mr. Gingrich deemed suitable for finally serving the unfortunate woman with notice of divorce, a most un-Christian act. Brock was most appalled at the steady stream of falsehood produced by the AM Radio - Fox News - Matt Drudge Alliance, and his web site is his attack upon it. The style of his web site is straight forward: he asserts a contradiction or falsehood, usually of the pundit class, and then uses transcripts of the person's actual words to indict them. There is very little editorializing. You engage in Limbaughizing when you describe it as "wacked out", it is actually one of the more intellectual attempts at holding people accountable using the power of the Internet that I am aware of, and the right wing would do well to emulate it. Mr. Brock is an accomplished author and an excellent investigator, indeed the right certainly thought he was when he worked for them.

That perspective is the foundation on which Fox built its "Fair & Balanced" empire. They understand that most people think of themselves as fair and balanced and want to be seen that way by others. Once you frame the discussion in those terms, you can force people to give both sides of each debate, no matter how ridiculous or dishonest one side might be.

And I don't think this is another nail in Limbaugh's coffin. There will always be demand for his brand of foolishness.

Amazing fact # 378
The most verbal critics of Mr. Limbaugh rely on what other people say about his show.

I do not listen regularly, but although I have often heard critics say Limbaugh hangs up on opposition callers, I have never heard it happen on those occdasions when I do listen. It is typical for liberal callers to initiate their on air time with personal attacks on Rush, often never getting to their point. ( Not all liberal callers act this way--I heard one, intelligent, well-spoken liberal caller last week)

I guess to follow the democrat reasoning--if you never served in the military/ aren't gay, aren't a women, you cannot have an opinion on anything military/ gay rights/ abortion-- One could say that if you do not listen to Rush you should not have an opinion

Finally, I am so happy that hypocrisy is only a right wing fault.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags