Limbaugh: Democrat Soldiers are "fake soldiers"

[Northgate]

It appears that comedian Rush Limbaugh as been repeated attacking our service members. He has been calling Democratic and progressive soldier's "fake soldiers", among other slurs.

Paul Hackett served in the 1st Marine Division in Ramadi and Fallujah during 2004 and 2005. When he returned home, Hackett was a vocal war critic and ended up running for Congress in a special election against Republican Jean Schmidt.

The Huffington Post obtained audio of Limbaugh smearing Hackett on his radio show in 2005. Limbaugh calls Hackett a "staff puke," claims he went to Iraq "to pad [his] resume," and attacks him as "a liberal hiding behind a military uniform."

I'm sure much will be made of these "wildly inappropriate" and "denigrating remarks" will be addressed by Congress immediately.

Oh...wait...

Shit. I forgot.

It's Okay if You're a Republican.

[@_@ Artman]

Since you didn't link to anything here's Mediamatters story...


Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top)

This says it all:

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.


On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."

From a fat-fuck who has never worn a uniform except for his hospital gown from a drug related stupor, Limbaugh should just STFU.

[Northgate]

But our service men and women are fragile little flowers that will wilt immediately upon criticism. Therefore I support an immediate Congressional amendment that decries the crudity of our political discourse in public forums.

Oh. Wait. Sorry, I thought I was in some alternate universe or something.

[trumptman]

It appears that comedian Rush Limbaugh as been repeated attacking our service members. He has been calling Democratic and progressive soldier's "fake soldiers", among other slurs.



I'm sure much will be made of these "wildly inappropriate" and "denigrating remarks" will be addressed by Congress immediately.

Oh...wait...

Shit. I forgot.

It's Okay if You're a Republican.

Well I read the transcript and listened to the conversation and I did not get from it the conclusion that Media Matters attempts to mischaracterize it to be.

That said, the correct characterization, the one Rush was playing off of from the caller who is a soldier, is that the left has a history of bringing forward actual phony or fake people who claim to have been military members, etc. and then level claims. That or they may have served but then lie about the manner and capacity in which they served.

That clearly is what was being discussed here.

Nick

[addabox]

Well I read the transcript and listened to the conversation and I did not get from it the conclusion that Media Matters attempts to mischaracterize it to be.

That said, the correct characterization, the one Rush was playing off of from the caller who is a soldier, is that the left has a history of bringing forward actual phony or fake people who claim to have been military members, etc. and then level claims. That or they may have served but then lie about the manner and capacity in which they served.

That clearly is what was being discussed here.

Nick

You're not even contesting the point, you're just slightly rephrasing it.

The point being that Limbaugh clearly believes that anyone that is against the war can't be a Republican, and can't be a real soldier. Which is, simply, an attack on any soldier that disagrees with him politically. Serving in Iraq but thinking the occupation is a mistake? Fuck you, your not really a soldier.

How is that not worse than belittling a commander for his specific political performance? Why do you hate the troops?

And BTW, what history of bringing forward "actual phony or fake people"?

[trumptman]

You're not even contesting the point, you're just slightly rephrasing it.

The point being that Limbaugh clearly believes that anyone that is against the war can't be a Republican, and can't be a real soldier. Which is, simply, an attack on any soldier that disagrees with him politically. Serving in Iraq but thinking the occupation is a mistake? Fuck you, your not really a soldier.

How is that not worse than belittling a commander for his specific political performance? Why do you hate the troops?

And BTW, what history of bringing forward "actual phony or fake people"?

I'm not rephrasing it. They are talking about how the media is so easily duped because these folks who come forward and have been fake fit the narrative of the story they are trying to tell. Meanwhile there are plenty of actual soldiers that don't need to "come out of the blue" and are right there serving, but are not interviewed, questioned, etc.

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.

They are referring to incidents like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth)

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

"Rush: you're as smart, selfless and courageous as I was as a 17 year old high school senior." (http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007/09/real-deal.html)

[franksargent]

I'm not rephrasing it. They are talking about how the media is so easily duped because these folks who come forward and have been fake fit the narrative of the story they are trying to tell. Meanwhile there are plenty of actual soldiers that don't need to "come out of the blue" and are right there serving, but are not interviewed, questioned, etc.

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.

They are referring to incidents like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth)

Nick

Please cite some ACTUAL statistics as to the percentage of "phony soldiers" instead of ONE anecdotal case! Let's get to at least a two handed count. :D

Let's see, 100% of real soldiers are "proud to serve" "want to be over in Iraq" "understand the sacrifice" and "willing to sacrifice for their country." Are these soldiers going in (haven't yet served in Iraq) or coming out (have served and/or are ex-military)? And why can't the military meet their quotas (similar to before the Iraq War), and have extended (15 month) tours of duty?

Rush Dimbulb's SOP just makes me ROTFLMAO! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[addabox]

I'm not rephrasing it. They are talking about how the media is so easily duped because these folks who come forward and have been fake fit the narrative of the story they are trying to tell. Meanwhile there are plenty of actual soldiers that don't need to "come out of the blue" and are right there serving, but are not interviewed, questioned, etc.

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.

They are referring to incidents like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth)

Nick

So you're saying that a simple lie ("They never talk to real soldiers") is a reasonable set-up for a wing-nut meme ("The phony soldiers"), which naturally leads to a viscous, patently false premise about what constitutes a real soldier ("If you talk to a real soldier, they're proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq") which makes the false point ("They signed up to go to Iraq"-- might want to ask the National Guardsmen about that).

And somehow the "context" that Media Matters fails to supply doesn't include the previous call, wherein Limbaugh simply dismisses out of hand the possibility that a caller who is against the war is either a Republican or a member of the armed forces.

Anyone who is against the war isn't really a soldier. Pretending that some loon who came forward with a false story, and who has since been incarcerated, constitutes some kind of well-known pattern of Democrats producing fake soldiers to speak out against the war, which accounts for the tone of the conversation, is entirely disingenuous.

It's not just Limbaugh, it's been a device of the right in general: being against the war means not being a good American, not being loyal, not deserving the title of "soldier", not deserving purple hearts, not deserving respect.

Simple as that. Just because you happen to believe that all that is true doesn't make it less a slap in the face of many people in the armed serves, past and present.

So, why do you hate the troops so much? What kind of "patriot" only supports troops that mirror his political sensibilities, and seeks, at every opportunity, to denigrate and smear those that do not?

Do you see members of "the left" on these boards rushing to heap abuse on the heads of any soldiers who speak out in favor of the war? Seeking evidence that they are not entirely what they claim to be? Looking for examples of any possible ambiguity in anything at all about their lives, to proudly hold up as evidence that they are "liars"?

So who really supports the troops?

[Northgate]

Well I read the transcript and listened to the conversation and I did not get from it the conclusion that Media Matters attempts to mischaracterize it to be.

That said, the correct characterization, the one Rush was playing off of from the caller who is a soldier, is that the left has a history of bringing forward actual phony or fake people who claim to have been military members, etc. and then level claims. That or they may have served but then lie about the manner and capacity in which they served.

That clearly is what was being discussed here.

Nick

Then is this good enough for you...

http://www.starwaypictures.com/web_pics/sycophantsoldier.jpg

I think this cover PERFECTLY illustrates the shameless level of politics these assholes will stoop to (and I'm talking about everyone who raised their phony fists in mock outrage over MoveOn).

And for the record I think The American Conservative has every right to publish this cover and their strong condemnation of the general (particularly the last paragraph). And that goes for MoveOn as well.

But I'm sure you'll somehow try to change the subject, move the goal posts or just generally obsfucate the blatant hypocrisy on display here.

Either these folks support the troops, ALL the troops, or they don't. But my god, please get off your fucking perches!

[Northgate]

Well I read the transcript and listened to the conversation and I did not get from it the conclusion that Media Matters attempts to mischaracterize it to be.

That said, the correct characterization, the one Rush was playing off of from the caller who is a soldier, is that the left has a history of bringing forward actual phony or fake people who claim to have been military members, etc. and then level claims. That or they may have served but then lie about the manner and capacity in which they served.

That clearly is what was being discussed here.

Nick

Also the transcript has been proven to have been altered and edited by Rush Limbaugh. Nice, huh?

[Northgate]

And BTW, what history of bringing forward "actual phony or fake people"?

I was kind of wondering the same thing. Whom exactly are they referring?

Last I checked the most recent "phony soldier" serving office was George Bush. :lol::lol::lol:

[trumptman]

Please cite some ACTUAL statistics as to the percentage of "phony soldiers" instead of ONE anecdotal case! Let's get to at least a two handed count. :D

Let's see, 100% of real soldiers are "proud to serve" "want to be over in Iraq" "understand the sacrifice" and "willing to sacrifice for their country." Are these soldiers going in (haven't yet served in Iraq) or coming out (have served and/or are ex-military)? And why can't the military meet their quotas (similar to before the Iraq War), and have extended (15 month) tours of duty?

Rush Dimbulb's SOP just makes me ROTFLMAO! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

What do you mean the one anecdotal case? Find me the media coverage of interviews with soldiers where their good deeds and their own words are put forward. There are so many soldiers and actions that it should be easy to find dozens of accounts daily. I challenge you to prove the anecdotal case is as you claim by showing a few dozen cases of soldiers being interviewed with regard to their pro-war views.

Whether it be 100%, or 90, 80 or 70%... find me their voice in the media. Find me some place where their views, actions and pride in them are mentioned in some context other than when they have been killed.

So you're saying that a simple lie ("They never talk to real soldiers") is a reasonable set-up for a wing-nut meme ("The phony soldiers"), which naturally leads to a viscous, patently false premise about what constitutes a real soldier ("If you talk to a real soldier, they're proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq") which makes the false point ("They signed up to go to Iraq"-- might want to ask the National Guardsmen about that).


You twisted yourself up so much in your rhetoric that you've become incomprehensible.

And somehow the "context" that Media Matters fails to supply doesn't include the previous call, wherein Limbaugh simply dismisses out of hand the possibility that a caller who is against the war is either a Republican or a member of the armed forces.

I'm dealing with the actual statement and words spoken. I don't listen to his show often enough to know if certain people try to fool or get past the screeners.

Anyone who is against the war isn't really a soldier. Pretending that some loon who came forward with a false story, and who has since been incarcerated, constitutes some kind of well-known pattern of Democrats producing fake soldiers to speak out against the war, which accounts for the tone of the conversation, is entirely disingenuous.

It's happened repeatedly. I'm not going to find every example, but I did find one so you we wouldn't have to argue about me "making it up."

It's not just Limbaugh, it's been a device of the right in general: being against the war means not being a good American, not being loyal, not deserving the title of "soldier", not deserving purple hearts, not deserving respect.

Maybe if the left could explain how their plethora of strange and conflicting views related to wars and actions, they would be seen by the public as pro-war and any attempt to label then as something different wouldn't work.

Simple as that. Just because you happen to believe that all that is true doesn't make it less a slap in the face of many people in the armed serves, past and present.

So, why do you hate the troops so much? What kind of "patriot" only supports troops that mirror his political sensibilities, and seeks, at every opportunity, to denigrate and smear those that do not?

Do you see members of "the left" on these boards rushing to heap abuse on the heads of any soldiers who speak out in favor of the war? Seeking evidence that they are not entirely what they claim to be? Looking for examples of any possible ambiguity in anything at all about their lives, to proudly hold up as evidence that they are "liars"?

So who really supports the troops?

Save your rants for someone else. I'm not here to answer to them and your twenty rhetorical questions.

Nick

[franksargent]

What do you mean the one anecdotal case? Find me the media coverage of interviews with soldiers where their good deeds and their own words are put forward. There are so many soldiers and actions that it should be easy to find dozens of accounts daily. I challenge you to prove the anecdotal case is as you claim by showing a few dozen cases of soldiers being interviewed with regard to their pro-war views.

Whether it be 100%, or 90, 80 or 70%... find me their voice in the media. Find me some place where their views, actions and pride in them are mentioned in some context other than when they have been killed.



You twisted yourself up so much in your rhetoric that you've become incomprehensible.



I'm dealing with the actual statement and words spoken. I don't listen to his show often enough to know if certain people try to fool or get past the screeners.



It's happened repeatedly. I'm not going to find every example, but I did find one so you we wouldn't have to argue about me "making it up."



Maybe if the left could explain how their plethora of strange and conflicting views related to wars and actions, they would be seen by the public as pro-war and any attempt to label then as something different wouldn't work.



Save your rants for someone else. I'm not here to answer to them and your twenty rhetorical questions.

Nick

IVAW (http://www.ivaw.org/);

Membership Eligibility:

Members have served in the United States Military since September 11, 2001. All recent veterans and active duty servicemen and women from all branches of military service, National Guard members, and reservists are welcome to join our ranks.

See also Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Veterans_Against_the_War)

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

Iraq veterans expose Jesse MacBeth to be a fraud (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/27/145957/376)

MacBeth came to Iraq Veterans Against the War in January 2006 asking for help, and the organization and its members extended itself to help him in various ways. Assisting veterans is one of the founding principles of IVAW and it is a mission that we take seriously. After looking into his recent claims, we have learned that Jesse is not what he represented himself to be. Accordingly, IVAW does not in any way endorse Jesse MacBeth or any of his accounts involving military service. He -- and he alone -- is responsible for them. IVAW was not aware of the creation of the video program featuring MacBeth, and did not authorize use of our logo in the program.



So Trum-pitty, it was the IVAW themselves who outed your anecdotal "phony soldier!"

So now you have EXACTLY zero statistical evidence in your "defense of DIMBULB" :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[spindler]

Trumptmann, you appear to be playing games here. First of all, to simplify everything, why don't you tell us whether or not you agree that it is OK to call American soldiers who have served in Iraq but are now against the war "phony soldiers"? Please answer this question REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THIS IS WHAT RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID. Tell US if you think it's OK to call them phony soldiers, it's not OK, or it would be extremely disrespectful of their service. Again, you should easily be able to answer this question regardless of what Rush Limbaugh truly said.

I have the feeling you won't answer this. You will either claim you are highly insulted and I don't deserve an answer, or you will go into some vague philosophical reason why you can't answer the question.

Second, from the text, "phony soldiers" does not mean plants of people who have never served but pretended to serve. There was no mention in this whole conversation about people pretending to be soldiers. Here is the text:

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

All that is mentioned is "soldiers that come out of the blue and talk to the media". Where do you get this whole idea that he is referring to plants?
Then you say you want us to tell us how many stories in the media there are of pro-war soldiers speaking their mind. That is irrelevant. Why should franksargent or anyone spend an hour trying to determine the ratio of pro-war to anti-war soldiers speaking to the media? It is irrelevant to this. Rush Limbaugh said that soldiers who come home and speak out against the war are phony soldiers. Is that acceptable or is it unacceptable?

[addabox]

You twisted yourself up so much in your rhetoric that you've become incomprehensible.

Nope, you're just being obtuse.

The "context" that you claim makes the Limbaugh remarks more palatable is based on a lie, articulated by the caller, repeated by Limaugh: that the Democrats only ever talk to fake soldiers, that they're "always" bringing forward these fake soldiers, and that this fact accounts for any instances of "soldiers" claiming to be against the war.

Clear enough for you?

I'm dealing with the actual statement and words spoken. I don't listen to his show often enough to know if certain people try to fool or get past the screeners.

Not relevant. Limbaugh had just finished dismissing a caller who stated he was a Republican, against the war, and in the military. Limbaugh dismissed him out of hand. Since he had no way of knowing anything about who was calling, it's clear he was operating from a preexisting assumption: real soldiers aren't against the war, Republicans aren't against the war. The latter is just willfully ignorant, the former simply an insult to the military personal that are against the war. Who the fuck is Limbaugh to start divvying up the services into "real" and "fake" personnel?

It's happened repeatedly. I'm not going to find every example, but I did find one so you we wouldn't have to argue about me "making it up."

What was that an example of? A guy who claimed to be a soldier who wasn't. For his own reasons, whatever they may have been.

We get a lot of this around here-- the vague assertion of some underlying malfeasance on the part of the left, insistence that such malfeasance is endemic, and impatientice with the idea that anyone should have to go through the exercise of actually providing evidence, since the crimes are so wide-spread and well known.

I have to assume this attitude comes from a steady diet of the right wing noise machine, where indignation serves in the place of logic, evidence or sense. Constant exposure to heartily decried but lightly substantiated atrocities from the left leave the impression that surely something is going on, even if the adherent is hard pressed to come up with any actual facts, when pressed. Doesn't matter, in this system 40 imaginary crimes equal at least one good conviction, so it's important to keep the imaginary crimes coming.


Maybe if the left could explain how their plethora of strange and conflicting views related to wars and actions, they would be seen by the public as pro-war and any attempt to label then as something different wouldn't work.

What does being "pro war" have to do with it? Newsflash, dude: the country is against the war. By healthy margins. I can't get over how the shrinking cadre of dead-enders continue to cling to the illusion that there is this thing called "the anti-war left", presumably largely comprised of hippies, dykes, al Qaeda sleeper cells and bitter losers, that "regular Americans" find repellent. Regular Americans find you repellent. You are part of an extremist minority. Rush Limbaugh is part of an extremist minority. We want out of Iraq. We don't think it was worth it to invade. We don't think it's going well, or is going to go well. We want out. Us. America.

Save your rants for someone else. I'm not here to answer to them and your twenty rhetorical questions.

Nick

What rhetorical questions? I want to know how you can consider yourself a patriot and supporter of troops when you only support the troops that agree with you politically. It seems to me to a perfectly legitimate question, given what you have posted.

I've notice that when people don't have a leg to stand on they reach for the "rant and rhetoric" dismissal. I'm thinking: you don't have a leg to stand on.

[trumptman]

Trumptmann, you appear to be playing games here. First of all, to simplify everything, why don't you tell us whether or not you agree that it is OK to call American soldiers who have served in Iraq but are now against the war "phony soldiers"? Please answer this question REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THIS IS WHAT RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID. Tell US if you think it's OK to call them phony soldiers, it's not OK, or it would be extremely disrespectful of their service. Again, you should easily be able to answer this question regardless of what Rush Limbaugh truly said.

I've answered it. I've said that they were discussing ACTUAL phony soldiers. I know you might find it skeptical to apply the word with the actual definition, but there you go. It is okay to call actual phony soldier the term phony. The abstraction of that to anyone who disagrees with the war, is a mischaracterization.

Second, from the text, "phony soldiers" does not mean plants of people who have never served but pretended to serve. There was no mention in this whole conversation about people pretending to be soldiers. Here is the text:

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

All that is mentioned is "soldiers that come out of the blue and talk to the media". Where do you get this whole idea that he is referring to plants?
Then you say you want us to tell us how many stories in the media there are of pro-war soldiers speaking their mind. That is irrelevant. Why should franksargent or anyone spend an hour trying to determine the ratio of pro-war to anti-war soldiers speaking to the media? It is irrelevant to this. Rush Limbaugh said that soldiers who come home and speak out against the war are phony soldiers. Is that acceptable or is it unacceptable?

I get that because "out of the blue" is not "coming home from Iraq" or "currently serving." Out of the blue is an idiom that means sudden, unexpected, surprised, something for which you are unprepared, etc.

Every once in a while, "out of the blue" you get someone who pops up, meets the media narrative, claims they were a top flight soldier, that the government is corrupt, the war is wrong, that they personally committed atrocities and that loads of atrocities are being committed out there, etc. and when they are investigated, often after the claims have been reported and broadcast, not before, they are found to have been phony.

There are plenty of soldiers who are not coming "out of the blue" who can still have their motives, rationals, etc. examined, but the media doesn't talk to them. They will ignore those presently serving, no matter if they support the war or not, and will jump all over these guys who show up with all the claims. Think again about what that idiom means. It means that all the soldiers who are not suddenly wandering up to the media with claims that we are surprised, unprepared for and were unexpected are given no voice. The media is not interested in them.

You can have 100,00 soldiers claim they have not engaged in atrocities. The media will ignore them. You have one guy show up and claim he was a sniper trained by the government, to assassinate, special ops, been in the service X years and who validates all the claims the media has been wanting to levy and suddenly he gets major air time without so much as a substantiation of of his background.

This is also why I don't mind sending Frank off on that little errand because out of the blue literally means an outlier, an exception. The media has not attempted to give voice to the regular soldiers (none outliers) because nothing "out of the blue" would be found there. Would the percentage of answers to every question and form of support be 100%? I doubt it but clearly it would be high enough not to cause skepticism. They follow the fallacy of attempting to raise skepticism by using the exception to prove the rule. The exception has often been found to be phony and I mean the word applied literally, a man or woman who has lied about their status and actions.

Nick

[trumptman]

Update:

Rush Limbaigh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html)

The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There's no retraction; there's no apology; there's no, "Uh-oh, sorry." After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you'll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply "yeah, the phony soldiers."


A search shows that Jesse MacBeth (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html?source=mypi) was sentenced on the 21st of this month so he certainly was a current event.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

Here it is, in your face trumptman...

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Real Deal (http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007/09/real-deal.html)

Blue Girl directed me to a very interesting story about Rush Limbaugh, who called veterans opposed to the war phony soldiers. Of course, this is the same Rush Limbaugh who threw a fit about the Moveon.org Petraeus ad, calling it "contemptible" and "indecent." Apparently anyone in the military is above criticism as long as they agree with Rush's brave belief that we should be in Iraq "as long as it takes." And I use the term 'we' loosely, as I believe the closest Rush has ever gotten to combat was watching We Were Soldiers with surround sound.

When I was a kid I watched Rush with my dad every morning when he was still on TV and always found him pretty funny and clever. Over the years I didn't have a very concrete opinion about him, I just knew him as the kooky conservative radio host who defended Bush at every turn (and hey, so did I). What did Rush and I have to lose when the war in Iraq started in 2003? I didn't have any family in the military, and all my friends were too young to even enlist. Why not go kick the shit out of a country, as long as someone else was doing it?

This was the last time Rush and I would agree on the war, so here's my opinion of you, Rush: you're as smart, selfless and courageous as I was as a 17 year old high school senior.

You make a good point that people who joined the military during the war knew they were going and shouldn't be against it. As I've seen since I joined in 2004, everyone in the military is gung ho to a certain extent, at least in the beginning of their career. I was part of a large group of new guys who got to a unit that just got back from a year long deployment. After our hazing sessions became less and less frequent in the following months, we listened to the stories all of them were telling, of vicious firefights and rescue missions. We all wanted to do our part, we all wanted to get some too. We were going to see what it was like to take a life. Too bad Rush missed his chance to do so, or maybe he'd be singing a different tune. In 1992, ABC newsman Jeff Greenfield posed a question to Rush, asking if he had ever served in the military during the Vietnam War. Here is what Rush had to say:

I had student deferments in college, and upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical- uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn't even know it existed- a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, where they chose your lost by birth date, and mine was high. And I did not want to go, just as Governor Clinton didn't.

As a phony civilian hoping to be a phony soldier, I tried to enlist in the military after I graduated high school in 2003. In 2002 I had a Nissen fundoplication operation to repair a hiatal hernia caused by severe acid reflux, preventing esophageal cancer later in life. I was immediately flagged on my attempt to enlist because of this surgery, as there was a chance that a physically stressful job such as Army infantry would complicate it. I had to be cleared by the surgeon general before entering the service. As the war kept on, so did I. I waited for a little over a year to get my results back: I would finally be able to join despite the surgery I had two years prior. As Rush found after dropping out of his first year of college at Southeast Missouri State University in 1969-1970, he found himself on draft status. Nothing that a claim of an old football injury or a boil on the ass can take care of, though! The medical deferment he was referring to was a pilonidal cyst, which apparently is a clump of severely ingrown hairs. That barred him from enlistment, and I'm sure he was ecstatic. After all, there was a war on. Here's a first hand account of the surgery that was done to correct it. She claims that in eight weeks, it was perfectly healed. Rush is willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans in Iraq but not his own ass (literally) in a simple surgery. I waited a year to get in, and he didn't try. Boy, do I really give an effort at being a phony soldier!

Speaking of phony soldiers, I wanted to show Rush a few that I know:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/leavethegun/rooftop.jpg

This was taken on a rooftop during a firefight on March 24 in Baqubah. One guy lost a leg up to his knee and another lost a foot in an IED blast that day. Talk about sacrifices! Out of seven Americans on that rooftop, one is going to reenlist! The rest decided to get out to avoid going to Iraq again, despite what Mike from Olympia, Washington said on your show about what real soldiers say, like "they want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country." All I see is a bunch of phonies!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/leavethegun/wirepull.jpg

This is Matt tugging on a buried wire connected to a massive IED underneath the road. In Baqubah they were so prevalent that the explosive ordnance disposal dudes couldn't take care of them all in the city, so we started finding them and blowing them up ourselves. Matt just finished his second tour, in which he was deployed a total of 27 months. This coward that followed wires to huge bombs in the road is getting out in a few months. And that's a good thing, as this military could use a lot less phony soldiers.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/leavethegun/grave.jpg

Here's Bill, digging up a grave containing a woman with her two daughters in a field in Baqubah. They were executed by gunshot and buried in the same hole. We took turns digging as the brave men of the Iraqi Army watched and joked. Bill also served 27 months in combat and like Matt, will be getting out of the Army in a couple months. Good riddance, phony!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/leavethegun/lastpatrol.jpg

I'm not above self-criticism. This is me on the last patrol we did in Old Baqubah on August 20. Like a coward I stayed in Iraq only fifteen months. We heard rumors that the 1920s might ambush us on our last patrol. Too bad they didn't, or they would've sent a lot of phonies home in body bags!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/leavethegun/ireland.jpg

This picture makes me sick to my stomach. I photographed a bunch of cut-and-runners boarding a plane during a pit stop in Ireland on our way back to the states on September 12. Hello, don't they know there's a war going on? These phonies left Iraq before the job was done! Seriously, we need soldiers who want to be in Iraq for as long as it takes.

And finally:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/leavethegun/chevy.jpg

This is Chevy in Baghdad. Brian Chevalier was going to reenlist but decided against it before he was killed on March 14 during our first mission in Baqubah. His phony life was celebrated in a phony memorial where everyone who knew him cried phony tears. A phony American flag draped over his phony coffin when his body came home. It was presented to his phony mother and phony daughter.

I would be in awe if I ever met a real life soldier, and not a phony one like Bill, Matt or Brian Chevalier. Thank you, Rush Limbaugh, for telling me the difference. I hope your ass is ok.

AH

[franksargent]

Update:

Rush Limbaigh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html)



A search shows that Jesse MacBeth (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html?source=mypi) was sentenced on the 21st of this month so he certainly was a current event.

Nick

Iraq veterans expose Jesse MacBeth to be a fraud (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/27/145957/376) dated Sat May 27, 2006 at 11:59:57 AM PDT, that's like 16 months ago that the IVAW "outed" this "phony soldier" (singular as in one and only one person);

Accordingly, IVAW does not in any way endorse Jesse MacBeth or any of his accounts involving military service. He -- and he alone -- is responsible for them. IVAW was not aware of the creation of the video program featuring MacBeth, and did not authorize use of our logo in the program.

Excerpts from (your link) The Anatomy of a Smear: "Phony Soldiers" Is a Phony Story (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html) (BTW, note the lying title, my running commentary is in (italics)).

BREWER: Some leading Democrats are attacking radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh because he called soldiers who opposed the Iraq war "phony." Limbaugh was criticizing the anti-war movement generally and made the comment to a caller.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people. (of course Dimbulb isn't intellectual, so go figure)

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. (BTW, the IVAW are real soldiers) They like to pull these soldiers (these soldiers is a plural statement) that come up out of the blue (I'm sure the caller meant so say IVAW, but he just picked a word "out of the blue" you know :rolleyes:) and spout to the media. (last sentence should read, "They like to pull this one phony soldier, that BTW was outed 16 months ago, and spout his lies about being a soldier, who the IVAW outed 16 months ago.)

RUSH: The phony soldiers. (should be, The one single phony soldier, who was outed 16 months ago by IVAW who themselves are real soldiers opposed to the Iraq war.)

BREWER: Democratic Senator John Kerry is demanding an apology from Limbaugh, whose comments he calls "disgusting and an embarrassment."

RUSH: That's really rich. John Kerry, whose own soldiers, his own personnel, fellow (BTW lying) soldiers in those Swift Boats, at least many of them who said he was lying (BTW actually telling the truth) about his supposed heroics, this is the same John Kerry who went out and insulted the intelligence of the troops (BTW it was Chimpy that he was insulting), thereby torpedoing his own 2008 presidential candidacy. His statement includes these words: "This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the chicken hawk wing of the far right is an insult to American troops." I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally (Actually Dimbulb was talking about the anti-war movement generally (see above :D)). I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to play for you. It's Michael J. Fox all over again (you bet, when a major league asshat spews lies, real solders must teach this asshat a lesson, repeatedly :D). Media Matters had the transcript. But they selectively choose what they want to make their point. It runs about three minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people. (ambiguous statement, these people is a plural statement, so Dimbulb can't be implying the single phony soldier who was outed 16 months ago, so he must be talking about real soldiers :D)

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers (the IVAW aren't real soldiers?). They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue (you mean from real soldiers in the IVAW?) and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers. (who are all these phony soldiers, Dimbulb didn't say soldier (singular) but soldiers (plural))

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier (like those of the IVAW?) and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country. (another lie from the caller, see IVAW website for actual opinions from real soldiers)

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq. (ignorance is bliss, isn't it Lush Dimbulb, care to back up your remark with some actual FACTS :lol:)

RUSH: It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. (and as long as I, Lush Dimbulb, am around, I will continue to perpetuate my sorry-tired-lying ways) I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much (so that we both can perpetuate our lies to our wingnut listeners).


ROTFLMAO! :p

[trumptman]

Is that really in my face Artman? Find me the media source that has covered that guy. I've addressed the mischaracterization. I've addressed why guys like him don't get heard.

So what is in my face? The fact he has a blog?

Let me quote my point again to make it crystal clear for you.

There are plenty of soldiers who are not coming "out of the blue" who can still have their motives, rationals, etc. examined, but the media doesn't talk to them. They will ignore those presently serving, no matter if they support the war or not, and will jump all over these guys who show up with all the claims. Think again about what that idiom means. It means that all the soldiers who are not suddenly wandering up to the media with claims that we are surprised, unprepared for and were unexpected are given no voice. The media is not interested in them.

Nick

[franksargent]

Is that really in my face Artman? Find me the media source that has covered that guy. I've addressed the mischaracterization. I've addressed why guys like him don't get heard.

So what is in my face? The fact he has a blog?

Let me quote my point again to make it crystal clear for you.

There are plenty of soldiers who are not coming "out of the blue" who can still have their motives, rationals, etc. examined, but the media doesn't talk to them. They will ignore those presently serving, no matter if they support the war or not, and will jump all over these guys who show up with all the claims. Think again about what that idiom means. It means that all the soldiers who are not suddenly wandering up to the media with claims that we are surprised, unprepared for and were unexpected are given no voice. The media is not interested in them.

Nick

... it's called propaganda! :rolleyes:

[@_@ Artman]

Is that really in my face Artman? Find me the media source that has covered that guy. I've addressed the mischaracterization. I've addressed why guys like him don't get heard.

So what is in my face? The fact he has a blog?

Let me quote my point again to make it crystal clear for you.

There are plenty of soldiers who are not coming "out of the blue" who can still have their motives, rationals, etc. examined, but the media doesn't talk to them. They will ignore those presently serving, no matter if they support the war or not, and will jump all over these guys who show up with all the claims. Think again about what that idiom means. It means that all the soldiers who are not suddenly wandering up to the media with claims that we are surprised, unprepared for and were unexpected are given no voice. The media is not interested in them.

Nick

Your defense of Rush Limbaugh has developed into a long useless thread of stupidity. Let go. Rush Limbaugh doesn't need you and you don't need him. If more people practiced this, he'd be selling pencils on a street corner.

That "blog" (a very good one if you read more of it) is created by a real soldier with real experiences. Something you and Rush have no clue of in this regard.

[spindler]

I've answered it. I've said that they were discussing ACTUAL phony soldiers. I know you might find it skeptical to apply the word with the actual definition, but there you go. It is okay to call actual phony soldier the term phony. The abstraction of that to anyone who disagrees with the war, is a mischaracterization.

Nick

You are a goddamned liar. First of all, right after Limbaugh says "phony soldiers", the next thing the guy says is "Real soldiers are willing to fight and die". What he is talking about is clear. Rush Limbaugh does not then say "Well sir, an anti-war soldier is still a real soldier regardless of their opinion."

And I knew you would not answer my question you worm. I asked you to tell me if YOU YOURSELF thought that a soldier who decided they were against the war afterwards was a phony soldier. You chose not to answer that. You will not answer that. All that you have to say is "Of course a soldier who winds up being against the war should be thanked and respected as any other soldier would. I may disagree with their opinion but the service they have given takes priority over what opinion someone has."

But you won't say that because you don't believe it is true. You also won't admit it because how awful it will make you look.. Like a liar you will pretend Limbaugh didn't say what he said. You will pretend to be honestly defending him, when you yourself believe that anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers.

If you don't believe it, then deny it. Don't skip past it this time.

[Flounder]

First of all, to simplify everything, why don't you tell us whether or not you agree that it is OK to call American soldiers who have served in Iraq but are now against the war "phony soldiers"? Please answer this question REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THIS IS WHAT RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID.

I have the feeling you won't answer this. You will either claim you are highly insulted and I don't deserve an answer, or you will go into some vague philosophical reason why you can't answer the question.

I've answered it. I've said that they were discussing ACTUAL phony soldiers. I know you might find it skeptical to apply the word with the actual definition, but there you go. It is okay to call actual phony soldier the term phony.

Wow, you did exactly what Spindler guessed you would. That's so awesome. :lol:

[iPoster]

From a fat-fuck who has never worn a uniform except for his hospital gown from a drug related stupor, Limbaugh should just STFU.

People still listen to what Limbaugh has to say, after all the racist remarks and other shtein he's spouted and the drugs, etc.?

News to me...

:rolleyes:

The ones who like his show and call in are the ones who Believe™ in any case...

[Fellowship]

Let go. Rush Limbaugh doesn't need you and you don't need him. If more people practiced this, he'd be selling pencils on a street corner.



This is what die hard party loyalists can't see. It is a blindness of sorts which needs a cure.

America is a land where cheerleaders and mind numb robots abound...

It is my hope that one day these robots awaken and do their own thinking instead of depending on some blowhard (choose your flavor) to decide what to think.

God help us.

Fellows

Ohhh and the only phony soldier I see in this case is Rush Limbaugh.

[spindler]

Here's the problem:

Even if Rush Limbaugh is only talking about bona fide phony soldiers when he refers to "phony soldiers," the only inference of "if you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq" is that soldiers who do not want to be in Iraq are not real soldiers. Granted, the caller said that and not Rush Limbaugh, but he didn't dispute it, did he?



Exactly, so we have TWO independent OBVIOUS reasons. First, there is no context that says Rush was referring to plants when he said phony soldiers. But right there the guy DIFFERENTIATES between "real" soldiers who are gung ho and the OTHER SET of soldiers who are not gung ho. And Rush doesn't disagree with him or say they are talking about two different things. Rush, like trumptman who won't simply deny it, believes that anti-war soldiers are "phony" soldiers.

[trumptman]

Your defense of Rush Limbaugh has developed into a long useless thread of stupidity. Let go. Rush Limbaugh doesn't need you and you don't need him. If more people practiced this, he'd be selling pencils on a street corner.

That "blog" (a very good one if you read more of it) is created by a real soldier with real experiences. Something you and Rush have no clue of in this regard.

I didn't start the thread. I don't have a website where I can generate a few million hits and and revenue associated with them by making up stuff. Media matters does.

It is sort of like how John Edwards was so "outraged" every time they did this to Ann Coulter. It became so clear that one was connected with the other (using her response to generate fund raising) that she simply ignored them.

You are a goddamned liar. First of all, right after Limbaugh says "phony soldiers", the next thing the guy says is "Real soldiers are willing to fight and die". What he is talking about is clear. Rush Limbaugh does not then say "Well sir, an anti-war soldier is still a real soldier regardless of their opinion."

Really does the guy say that? Quote it for me.

Here, I'll quote it for you.

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.

You can sacrifice without dying.

And I knew you would not answer my question you worm. I asked you to tell me if YOU YOURSELF thought that a soldier who decided they were against the war afterwards was a phony soldier. You chose not to answer that. You will not answer that. All that you have to say is "Of course a soldier who winds up being against the war should be thanked and respected as any other soldier would. I may disagree with their opinion but the service they have given takes priority over what opinion someone has."


I didn't read your question that way but I did answer pretty late/early. A soldier can decide the are against the war at any time and not be a phony soldier. They can decide in the midst of serving that they were a disillusioned youth just like the blog Artman posted and now they are a wise adult who will never support a war again. All those are absolutely fine and authentic. I also noted that they will probably get no play or concern from the media because they aren't alleging anything that fits their narrative.

In case it wasn't clear the first two times.

There are plenty of soldiers who are not coming "out of the blue" who can still have their motives, rationals, etc. examined, but the media doesn't talk to them. They will ignore those presently serving, no matter if they support the war or not, and will jump all over these guys who show up with all the claims. Think again about what that idiom means. It means that all the soldiers who are not suddenly wandering up to the media with claims that we are surprised, unprepared for and were unexpected are given no voice. The media is not interested in them.

You can be against the war, but that doesn't mean you are alleging it was a conspiracy, that you shot women and children for fun, etc. The guys who show up and do that get air time and are phony. The ones who are anti-war and write a decently eloquent blog are ignored.

But you won't say that because you don't believe it is true. You also won't admit it because how awful it will make you look.. Like a liar you will pretend Limbaugh didn't say what he said. You will pretend to be honestly defending him, when you yourself believe that anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers.

If you don't believe it, then deny it. Don't skip past it this time.

I believe I just answered it. This time there isn't this next to it.

Today 02:17 AM

Nick

[spindler]

I didn't read your question that way but I did answer pretty late/early. A soldier can decide the are against the war at any time and not be a phony soldier. They can decide in the midst of serving that they were a disillusioned youth just like the blog Artman posted and now they are a wise adult who will never support a war again. All those are absolutely fine and authentic.

Nick

OK. Thank you. I take back my two insults towards you and I appreciate the direct answer. I still completely disagree with your interpretation of what Rush Limbaugh said. But it would have been a whole other level if you thought anti-war soldiers were phony soldiers so I just wanted to get that clear before going on. Thanks for the answer.

[midwinter]

It's a good thing Limbaugh has clarified:


I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman [Jan] Schakowsky [D-IL], Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. 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?

Am I misreading this, or is Limbaugh including Murtha in his list of "phony soldiers"?

[trumptman]

It's a good thing Limbaugh has clarified:



Am I misreading this, or is Limbaugh including Murtha in his list of "phony soldiers"?

Why don't you diagram the sentence and show to us what you assign to the words "accepting the notion."

Nick

[midwinter]

Why don't you diagram the sentence and show to us what you assign to the words "accepting the notion."

Nick

How about you take a look at the bit where he said

And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp) 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?

The grammar suggests that Limbaugh is providing a list of phony soldiers, although I'll grant that the pronoun reference of "the only one" is pretty vague. Does he mean phony soldier? Does he mean person who made things up? Does he mean soldier who made things up?

Considering Limbaugh says, basically, "y'all all missed the point, 'I was talking about a genuine phony soldier'" (by which he means someone who pretends to have been a soldier [in Iraq], I assume), the grammar of the statement would suggest that "the only one" refers to "a genuine phony soldier," and the "how about" that follows implies that Murtha is a "genuine phony soldier."

I think what Limbaugh is trying to say is that the Dems, because they're idiots, tend to latch onto horror stories out of Iraq that seem authoritative only to find out that they're lies. But if he's saying that, he's sure making a mess of it by dragging Murtha, who won the Bronze Star and a couple of purple hearts, into it. But then, I say again, Democrats don't get real medals. Only Republicans get real medals.

[midwinter]

Scott Thomas and Jack Murtha were both soldiers.

[trumptman]

Did Murtha write about the atrocities he engaged in as a soldier at Hathida? Of course not. He accepted the notion of attrocities though when he accused (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/) said, (Marines)"killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

How about you take a look at the bit where he said



The grammar suggests that Limbaugh is providing a list of phony soldiers, although I'll grant that the pronoun reference of "the only one" is pretty vague. Does he mean phony soldier? Does he mean person who made things up? Does he mean soldier who made things up?

Considering Limbaugh says, basically, "y'all all missed the point, 'I was talking about a genuine phony soldier'" (by which he means someone who pretends to have been a soldier [in Iraq], I assume), the grammar of the statement would suggest that "the only one" refers to "a genuine phony soldier," and the "how about" that follows implies that Murtha is a "genuine phony soldier."

I think what Limbaugh is trying to say is that the Dems, because they're idiots, tend to latch onto horror stories out of Iraq that seem authoritative only to find out that they're lies. But if he's saying that, he's sure making a mess of it by dragging Murtha, who won the Bronze Star and a couple of purple hearts, into it. But then, I say again, Democrats don't get real medals. Only Republicans get real medals.

Well the guy is on the radio three hours a day in unscripted conversation with various callers. If the worse he can do is some vague pronoun association, that is fine by me and would be fine with me no matter what the political association.

I thought we were "tired of the politics of personal destruction.":lol:

I don't think it odd at all that once a Clinton is in a campaign, suddenly all the "gotchas" return.

Nick

[midwinter]

Did Murtha write about the atrocities he engaged in as a soldier at Hathida? Of course not. He accepted the notion of attrocities though when he accused (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/) said, (Marines)"killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Well, that's the point, innit? Why is Murtha in that list at all? Murtha didn't do anything except accept as true a report about atrocities that turned out to be not true.

Well the guy is on the radio three hours a day in unscripted conversation with various callers. If the worse he can do is some vague pronoun association, that is fine by me and would be fine with me no matter what the political association.

Sure. And I tend to cut Limbaugh slack on that front—although I'm less inclined to do so for BO because he's such a bully and an asshole—which is why I wrote what I wrote about what he seems to be tryign to say.

I thought we were "tired of the politics of personal destruction.":lol:

Funny you should mention that, since I almost wrote that I don't give two shits what Limbaugh says. This is another one of those shiny things that distracts the Democrats from doing what they were elected to do: end the war. And they'll screw it up anyway and wind up looking like assholes.

I don't think it odd at all that once a Clinton is in a campaign, suddenly all the "gotchas" return.

Yeah. I know. It seems like we hear this every time the GOP spends 8 years in a row eviscerating people that the Dems are now supposed to play fair. Frankly, I hope they don't play fair. When they play fair, they get their teeth kicked in. Because they suck.

[trumptman]

Well, that's the point, innit? Why is Murtha in that list at all? Murtha didn't do anything except accept as true a report about atrocities that turned out to be not true.

Suppose that Limbaugh were compiling a list of false atrocities levied against U.S. soldiers. How would he include the Murtha claim in that list (the others were levied by the false soldiers) without declaring him to be a false soldier and still have it read as a list.

That to me appears what is happening. It reads like a list. I'm open to entertaining a more accurate or grammatically proper rendering of that list so we can compare the two.

Sure. And I tend to cut Limbaugh slack on that front—although I'm less inclined to do so for BO because he's such a bully and an asshole—which is why I wrote what I wrote about what he seems to be tryign to say.

Well and we have to remember that at times these quotes are snippets. Apparently for example he went on more about the SPECIFIC phony soldier during the Media Matters quoted him, but of course they didn't quote that.

Funny you should mention that, since I almost wrote that I don't give two shits what Limbaugh says. This is another one of those shiny things that distracts the Democrats from doing what they were elected to do: end the war. And they'll screw it up anyway and wind up looking like assholes.


I don't know why, but I have had "Stranger Than Fiction" showing up on television which as a movie I really enjoyed, and that turn of phrase reminds me of the discussion in that movie regarding "Little did he know..."

Yeah. I know. It seems like we hear this every time the GOP spends 8 years in a row eviscerating people that the Dems are now supposed to play fair. Frankly, I hope they don't play fair. When they play fair, they get their teeth kicked in. Because they suck.

The Clinton's don't play fair at all. They are the most bare knuckled, knock down, drag them out types you can imagine. I am quite sure most of the dirt so far that has been heaped at Democrats, Edwards and Obama has come from the Clinton camp. That organization is a pure political machine.

Nick

[addabox]

Suppose that Limbaugh were compiling a list of false atrocities levied against U.S. soldiers. How would he include the Murtha claim in that list (the others were levied by the false soldiers) without declaring him to be a false soldier and still have it read as a list.

That to me appears what is happening. It reads like a list. I'm open to entertaining a more accurate or grammatically proper rendering of that list so we can compare the two.

Again, as Midwinter pointed out, Scott Thomas is not a "false soldier". You're doing that thing that you do, which is to try and normalize some dubious claim you're making by just briskly acting as if its settled while in a slightly different context.

One fake soldier, not the darling of the left by any means. You still haven't even begun to support the notion that this whole discussion hinges on: that the left routinely produces "fake soldiers" to lie about conditions in Iraq.

Unless there is an actual pattern, Limbaugh is just full of shit, in a typically duplicitous way.

You (and Limbaugh) don't want to actually think about what is being said here, or talk about it directly, because it's just another bit of winger mythology that is taken as a truism amongst themselves but falls apart upon exposure to sunlight.

Well and we have to remember that at times these quotes are snippets. Apparently for example he went on more about the SPECIFIC phony soldier during the Media Matters quoted him, but of course they didn't quote that.

"Apparently he did"? Shouldn't be too hard to know for sure, he runs his own transcripts.

And Media Matters didn't post "snippets", they ran the entire transcript of the two calls under discussion-- which is what they typically do.

You should probably actually look at Media Matters from time to time. I know that O'Reilly et al have made it out to be some kind of George Soros run Devil Machine, but what they do, in fact, is note instances of either outright false or unjustifiable claims and provide documentation to refute same.

Or, in the case of the Limbaugh remarks, they just run verbatim transcripts and let you see for yourself. It's pretty funny that a site that simply quotes people, at length, and in full, is therefore regarded as a savage propaganda smear organization.

In a previous post you remarked that another actor didn't "make up stuff" like Media Matters.

I think you should have to defend that, because it's yet another casual lie worked into the conversation that I'm sure you believe but which cannot be supported by even a cursory acquaintanceship with reality.


I don't know why, but I have had "Stranger Than Fiction" showing up on television which as a movie I really enjoyed, and that turn of phrase reminds me of the discussion in that movie regarding "Little did he know..."

......

The Clinton's don't play fair at all. They are the most bare knuckled, knock down, drag them out types you can imagine. I am quite sure most of the dirt so far that has been heaped at Democrats, Edwards and Obama has come from the Clinton camp. That organization is a pure political machine.

Nick

Yes, it's true. As the right spend tens of millions of dollars to bring down the Clinton presidency by any and every means available, coordinating their efforts across private and governmental agencies, maintaining clearing houses to keep the press titillated with a steady supply of "leaks" and just made up shit, we all were shocked at the bare knuckled, knock down, drag them out maneuvering of the Clintons.

Is it just that you think we're all slightly retarded, and can't remember anything before a few months ago, or do you actually believe the things you say?

[screener]

Yes, it's true. As the right spend tens of millions of dollars to bring down the Clinton presidency by any and every means available, coordinating their efforts across private and governmental agencies, maintaining clearing houses to keep the press titillated with a steady supply of "leaks" and just made up shit, we all were shocked at the bare knuckled, knock down, drag them out maneuvering of the Clintons.

Is it just that you think we're all slightly retarded, and can't remember anything before a few months ago, or do you actually believe the things you say?

You mean that whole right wing anti Clinton thing was a conspiracy?
Who woulda thought.

[trumptman]

Last warning, I already noted that the rhetoric and rant to statement ratio was too high to deal with the first time. I'll attempt to sort through the various person attacks cloaked as arguments.

Again, as Midwinter pointed out, Scott Thomas is not a "false soldier".

I called it a list of people alleging atrocities. I asked how you could include fake soldiers and people making accusations without them being considered a fake soldier. He noted a vague pronoun reference. I told him I was open to seeing it done grammatically correct, which often doesn't occur in regular spoken conversation, but still would be open to seeing it so we could compare the two.

You're doing that thing that you do, which is to try and normalize some dubious claim you're making by just briskly acting as if its settled while in a slightly different context.


Ranting ad-hom.

1:1

One fake soldier, not the darling of the left by any means. You still haven't even begun to support the notion that this whole discussion hinges on: that the left routinely produces "fake soldiers" to lie about conditions in Iraq.

What do you consider routine to be? My contention was that someone making absurd statements easily captures media attention and is reported on, while those who don't allege atrocities, and might or might not support the war are ignored. The media jumps on whatever fits their preconceived notions.

Unless there is an actual pattern, Limbaugh is just full of shit, in a typically duplicitous way.

Limbaugh noted and even clarified the one person to whom his phrase was referring. In this thread we have noted at least three instances of atrocities being alleged that were investigated and found to be false. As the saying about fooling people, institutions and whatnot goes, by now the media have been shown to be the fools, but they don't care because it promotes their agenda. They would rather scream that this particular person, memo, and story reflects the truth, even if it is a lie.

You (and Limbaugh) don't want to actually think about what is being said here, or talk about it directly, because it's just another bit of winger mythology that is taken as a truism amongst themselves but falls apart upon exposure to sunlight.

Well I'll give you half for the former statement and call the latter two ranting attacks.

1.5:3.5

"Apparently he did"? Shouldn't be too hard to know for sure, he runs his own transcripts.

And Media Matters didn't post "snippets", they ran the entire transcript of the two calls under discussion-- which is what they typically do.


Well, here is what his own transcript notes after the snippet. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092607/content/01125113.guest.html)

It shows additional comments by the caller and Limbaugh.

So I guess this is not typical then? Should I start on a rant here about how Media Matters is "full of shit, in a typically duplicitous way" because really... that adds so much to the discussion.

2.5:3.5

You should probably actually look at Media Matters from time to time. I know that O'Reilly et al have made it out to be some kind of George Soros run Devil Machine, but what they do, in fact, is note instances of either outright false or unjustifiable claims and provide documentation to refute same.

Or, in the case of the Limbaugh remarks, they just run verbatim transcripts and let you see for yourself. It's pretty funny that a site that simply quotes people, at length, and in full, is therefore regarded as a savage propaganda smear organization.

In a previous post you remarked that another actor didn't "make up stuff" like Media Matters.

I think you should have to defend that, because it's yet another casual lie worked into the conversation that I'm sure you believe but which cannot be supported by even a cursory acquaintanceship with reality.

I think I juts have defended that.

One suggestion (which I already do), one statement, and then of course one attack.

I'll be nice.

4.5:4.5

Yes, it's true. As the right spend tens of millions of dollars to bring down the Clinton presidency by any and every means available, coordinating their efforts across private and governmental agencies, maintaining clearing houses to keep the press titillated with a steady supply of "leaks" and just made up shit, we all were shocked at the bare knuckled, knock down, drag them out maneuvering of the Clintons.

Is it just that you think we're all slightly retarded, and can't remember anything before a few months ago, or do you actually believe the things you say?

I'll call that only two ranting attacks.

4.5:6.5

Gotta get that ratio up to say three real points to say, one attack or else it will be /ignore.

I've got plenty of room on the list.

Nick

[midwinter]

Suppose that Limbaugh were compiling a list of false atrocities levied against U.S. soldiers. How would he include the Murtha claim in that list (the others were levied by the false soldiers) without declaring him to be a false soldier and still have it read as a list.

Pretty simple:

"This is just another example of the roach-infested liberals latching on to phony soldiers. Jack Murtha did it when he ..."

See? Not that hard.

[addabox]

Last warning, I already noted that the rhetoric and rant to statement ratio was too high to deal with the first time. I'll attempt to sort through the various person attacks cloaked as arguments.



I called it a list of people alleging atrocities. I asked how you could include fake soldiers and people making accusations without them being considered a fake soldier. He noted a vague pronoun reference. I told him I was open to seeing it done grammatically correct, which often doesn't occur in regular spoken conversation, but still would be open to seeing it so we could compare the two.



Ranting ad-hom.

1:1



What do you consider routine to be? My contention was that someone making absurd statements easily captures media attention and is reported on, while those who don't allege atrocities, and might or might not support the war are ignored. The media jumps on whatever fits their preconceived notions.



Limbaugh noted and even clarified the one person to whom his phrase was referring. In this thread we have noted at least three instances of atrocities being alleged that were investigated and found to be false. As the saying about fooling people, institutions and whatnot goes, by now the media have been shown to be the fools, but they don't care because it promotes their agenda. They would rather scream that this particular person, memo, and story reflects the truth, even if it is a lie.



Well I'll give you half for the former statement and call the latter two ranting attacks.

1.5:3.5



Well, here is what his own transcript notes after the snippet. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092607/content/01125113.guest.html)

It shows additional comments by the caller and Limbaugh.

So I guess this is not typical then? Should I start on a rant here about how Media Matters is "full of shit, in a typically duplicitous way" because really... that adds so much to the discussion.

2.5:3.5



I think I juts have defended that.

One suggestion (which I already do), one statement, and then of course one attack.

I'll be nice.

4.5:4.5



I'll call that only two ranting attacks.

4.5:6.5

Gotta get that ratio up to say three real points to say, one attack or else it will be /ignore.

I've got plenty of room on the list.

Nick

We can all read, you know. Dismissing specific observations about the veracity of what you are saying as "ranting ad homs" is pretty weak.

You might consider that your habitual characterization of my every remark as "ranting" is more fairly characterized as "ad hominen" than anything I'm saying.

[Northgate]

Isn't it interesting how "nuance" becomes a Republican's best friend when defending a coward's remarks about soldiers.

It's certainly black and white when it's the other way around, though. Funny that.

[trumptman]

We can all read, you know. Dismissing specific observations about the veracity of what you are saying as "ranting ad homs" is pretty weak.

You might consider that your habitual characterization of my every remark as "ranting" is more fairly characterized as "ad hominen" than anything I'm saying.

Yeah, I mean considering I broke down your entire response and showed you the "specific observations" that I dismissed.

Is it just that you think we're all slightly retarded, and can't remember anything before a few months ago, or do you actually believe the things you say?

So this isn't a rant filled rhetorical quesion? You really believe it is a specific observation and you have a point to make by asking if I think you are slightly retarded?

Nick

[franksargent]

Yeah, I mean considering I broke down your entire response and showed you the "specific observations" that I dismissed.



So this isn't a rant filled rhetorical quesion? You really believe it is a specific observation and you have a point to make by asking if I think you are slightly retarded?

Nick

1) Call everyone else's counterpoints "rants."
2) A total of what, four "phony" soldiers, one was an actual "phony" soldier who lied about his actual service record and was exposed 16 months ago by the IVAW, the other three were real soldiers who have stood by their stories about their war records, and as of yet have not been disproved, unless you count asshats like Lush Dimbulb!

Dimbulb's so called four "phony" soldiers;

1) Jesse Macbeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth) (joined IVAW in 01/06 outed by IVAW in 05/06 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/27/145957/376)),
2) Scott Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp) a real soldier who still stands by his version of events,
3) John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry) a real and decorated soldier, and
4) Jack Murtha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_murtha) a real and decorated soldier.

This is Dimbulb's view of "phony soldiers" guilt by some far fetched myopic association! :lol:

My links are offered as opinions of real soldiers;

List of veterans against the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_veterans_against_the_Iraq_War)

IVAW (http://www.ivaw.org/)
IVAW members speak (http://www.ivaw.org/membersspeak)

Trum-pitty and Dimbulb and Chimpy sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G! :p

[SDW2001]

First, I take issue with the title. It's inaccurate. But beyond that, doesn't it seem that Limbaugh's comments were more directed at the media and lefty groups that use soldiers for their causes?

Clearly, Limbaugh was exaggerating (they never talk to "real" soldiers). As such his comment is inaccurate itself. But his larger point remains. From what I've seen and read, the majority of people over there tend to support the mission. Also, we don't hear as much about the people that sign up/volunteer to go back, even after being severely wounded. These are good points.

I'm not defending all of his comments. Calling someone a "staff puke" is not acceptable, for example. However, knowing Limbaugh's thinking, he's more taking issue with the media and the actual left wing sites and groups. Finally, Media Matters is the absolute king of left wing smear websites, and I wouldn't be inclined to accept any of their characterizations.

[addabox]

Yeah, I mean considering I broke down your entire response and showed you the "specific observations" that I dismissed.

So, calling things a "rant" lots of times by using line breaks makes a response more substantiative?

So this isn't a rant filled rhetorical quesion? You really believe it is a specific observation and you have a point to make by asking if I think you are slightly retarded?

Nick

Yes, asking if you think we are slightly retarded is the one place where I indulged in a little hyperbole.

However, my point stands: when you say that the Clintons are the most savagely political operators you have ever seen you insult our intelligence. So either you just believe what you say and haven't thought about it very hard, or you don't think the people reading what you are saying are very smart.

Either way, I think you need to look up the definition of "rant", if you think asking if you think we are retarded is "rant filled". You're using the word as a crude instrument of dismissal, and not very well, and it's a common technique with you.

Before you start up again on "ad homs", try to understand that everything I have said and am saying go to the quality of your argumentation, not your character.

[Fellowship]

Isn't it interesting how "nuance" becomes a Republican's best friend when defending a coward's remarks about soldiers.

It's certainly black and white when it's the other way around, though. Funny that.

Can't add anything to this...

Fellows

[trumptman]

You have some serious issue with binary (or perhaps bipolar) thinking. This is why most of your rants can and should be dismissed. I've not compared the Clintons to any other campaign in particular. I've simply noted how they operate. I also never used the word savage which is yours. Since you disagree with me, then I am... insulting your intelligence or think you retarded...yeah.. I can't even follow the line or reasoning anymore.

I can think the Clintons shrewd and bare-knuckled political operators and it doesn't mean others are not, that I don't admire some aspects of it, that I have given it some sort of historical ranking compared to other campaigns, or that I think whatever you care to assert about the intelligence of others. The fact that you toss all these things out there is why your posts are strange, ranting ad-homs that deserve to be dismissed or ignored.

There is no means of addressing the quality of my argumentation because your own binary thinking begins ranting against some sort of phantom assertions that must be true about Y or Z simply because I said X. Address what has been said, and save the other 50-66% of your reply for your own mental demons.

Nick

[trumptman]

Can't add anything to this...

Fellows

And you shouldn't.... Northgate and a few others justify all sorts of brutish and insane behavior in their posts by declaring that since you have said X then you most also believe Y and Z and thus you are a bad, evil, caricature that exists in their head and thus deserve the venom they toss out.

They apply the one drop rule to political party and then folks like yourself wonder why everything has to be stuck in a party prism. It isn't but folks like North, Adda and others declare that if you have one drop of Republican belief in you, then you must be a rich, white neocon who wants eternal war, oppression of all others, or whatever strange petards they care to toss out there. (Amerikkkan, you must think we are retarded, etc.)

Nick

[addabox]

First, I take issue with the title. It's inaccurate. But beyond that, doesn't it seem that Limbaugh's comments were more directed at the media and lefty groups that use soldiers for their causes?

Clearly, Limbaugh was exaggerating (they never talk to "real" soldiers). As such his comment is inaccurate itself. But his larger point remains. From what I've seen and read, the majority of people over there tend to support the mission. Also, we don't hear as much about the people that sign up/volunteer to go back, even after being severely wounded. These are good points.

I'm not defending all of his comments. Calling someone a "staff puke" is not acceptable, for example. However, knowing Limbaugh's thinking, he's more taking issue with the media and the actual left wing sites and groups. Finally, Media Matters is the absolute king of left wing smear websites, and I wouldn't be inclined to accept any of their characterizations.

Last time you started casually referring to Media Matters as a "smear site" I challenged you to give some examples of how that worked. I've already asked Trump the same in this thread.
I never get a response to that request, but the "Media Matters is a sleazy smear site" thing just gets repeated. Color me shocked.

Again, they pretty much limit themselves to verbatim transcripts, at length, and when those transcripts are in contradiction to the published record, they print the record, as well, so that we can judge the contradiction for ourselves.

Yes, they are partisan in their choice of who they give this treatment, but the "smearing" is generally coming from the people covered, not some kind of heavy handed editorial intrusion from Media Matters.

If Media Matters is "the absolute king of left wing smear sites" then it would have to be said that the left is amazingly scrupulous in documenting and supporting its observations of dissembling on the right, or in the "left wing media" that enables them.

It would also have to be said that, by that low key standard, the average right wing media outlet or personality would reasonably characterized as psychotic, spittle flecked and in the midst of a seizure.

It's pretty amazing that the same people who will defend "context" for someone like Limbaugh, whose characterizations of the left are almost entirely subjective evocations the poor character and vile tendencies that drive liberals to do the horrible things they do, would find the dry, almost mechanical style of Media Matters' "here's what they said, here's what is documented, you'll notice they don't agree" form of persuasion to be objectionable or somehow out of bounds.

[Northgate]

But his larger point remains.

So I'll take it by this new standard you've set that the larger point remains regarding MoveOn's ad criticising Patraeus?

[Northgate]

It's pretty amazing that the same people who will defend "context" for someone like Limbaugh, whose characterizations of the left are almost entirely subjective evocations the poor character and vile tendencies that drive liberals to do the horrible things they do, would find the dry, almost mechanical style of Media Matters' "here's what they said, here's what is documented, you'll notice they don't agree" form of persuasion to be objectionable or somehow out of bounds.

I've often wondered the same thing.

[SDW2001]

Last time you started casually referring to Media Matters as a "smear site" I challenged you to give some examples of how that worked. I've already asked Trump the same in this thread.
I never get a response to that request, but the "Media Matters is a sleazy smear site" thing just gets repeated. Color me shocked.

Again, they pretty much limit themselves to verbatim transcripts, at length, and when those transcripts are in contradiction to the published record, they print the record, as well, so that we can judge the contradiction for ourselves.

Yes, they are partisan in their choice of who they give this treatment, but the "smearing" is generally coming from the people covered, not some kind of heavy handed editorial intrusion from Media Matters.

If Media Matters is "the absolute king of left wing smear sites" then it would have to be said that the left is amazingly scrupulous in documenting and supporting its observations of dissembling on the right, or in the "left wing media" that enables them.

It would also have to be said that, by that low key standard, the average right wing media outlet or personality would reasonably characterized as psychotic, spittle flecked and in the midst of a seizure.

It's pretty amazing that the same people who will defend "context" for someone like Limbaugh, whose characterizations of the left are almost entirely subjective evocations the poor character and vile tendencies that drive liberals to do the horrible things they do, would find the dry, almost mechanical style of Media Matters' "here's what they said, here's what is documented, you'll notice they don't agree" form of persuasion to be objectionable or somehow out of bounds.

You absolutely must be kidding me. Media Matters focuses exclusively on conservatives. Everything they post is intended to slam conservatives in the media. Context is everything when referring to supposedly controversial statements. So is intent of the person posting. In other words, one can pretty much make anything look like a racist, anti-poor, warmonger civil liberties-destroying conservative rant.

Go look at their front page right now. You see two people...O'Reilly and Limbaugh in particularly mean looking poses. Oh, and there is Romney at the bottom too. Do you see anyone else, adda? Like, hmm...Hillary Clinton, perhaps?

Now I realize, Limbaugh in your view is doing the same thing to liberals. Fine. My point is if you condemn him, you must condemn the other.

[Northgate]

One website determined to call conservatives on their shit DOES NOT compare to the HOURS AND HOURS of DAILY talk radio across the entire nation that is entirely devoted to slamming liberals.

[addabox]

You absolutely must be kidding me. Media Matters focuses exclusively on conservatives. Everything they post is intended to slam conservatives in the media. Context is everything when referring to supposedly controversial statements. So is intent of the person posting. In other words, one can pretty much make anything look like a racist, anti-poor, warmonger civil liberties-destroying conservative rant.

Go look at their front page right now. You see two people...O'Reilly and Limbaugh in particularly mean looking poses. Oh, and there is Romney at the bottom too. Do you see anyone else, adda? Like, hmm...Hillary Clinton, perhaps?

Now I realize, Limbaugh in your view is doing the same thing to liberals. Fine. My point is if you condemn him, you must condemn the other.

As I've said, they focus on figures from the right, and to a lesser extent the media. Media Matters is certainly partisan.

But the way they do it, by contrasting the statements of those figures and media with the record, is not by any stretch a "smear", or remotely like what Limbaugh does. They always quote at length, they always provide citations and links for the contrary information they provide.

If a public figure says something like "I've never said x", and Media Matters then provides citations to the public record of that figure saying x, that is not a smear. If a public figure simply lies or misstates the facts, and Media Matters provides citations to those facts, that is not a smear. And that, largely, is what Media Matters does. I've never seen Media Matters carry on about how such statement are typical of the right, or how the liars on the right can't seem to open their mouths without lying, or how the low morals and ugly motivations of the right drive them to say outrageous things, or how the right is at it again, but then again, what could we expect. You know, like how Limbaugh talks about the left.

They just quote the source, note the discrepancy, if any, and provide citations. Barely any editorial content at all.

If the right were half as meticulous in documenting the nature of their grievances, I would consider it a huge improvement in the quality of our public discourse.

[trumptman]

Turns out ABCnews did a segment on "Phony Heros" noting the increasing problems with people claiming military credentials.

The date it ran... 9/24/07. (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227)(external window video player)

The date Limbaugh made mention of phony soldiers... three days later.

/sarc Discussing phony soldiers WASN'T a current event at that time. Sure the most recent and egregious example had been sentenced on 9/21/07, ABCnews ran a story the 9/24... and Limbaugh talked about it on 9/27... but don't let little facts like that get in the way of your thinking. I declare it with my critical thinking skills to be "bullshit" and thus I have effectively countered all possibility of Limbaugh being part of any national discussion on this.

Nick

[Jubelum]

Phonies (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3631779&contentIndex=1&page=1)

It's a nationwide DOJ investigation... and yes, phony soldiers DO exist.

It's sad that discourse has gotten to the point in this country where people lie about their service just to claim some moral high-ground on a radio show, and also sad when the host calls someone out when he has no actual knowledge of their status. Both sides are taking off the gloves, and the rancor just continues to heat up. Limbaugh should have his call screener verify people's status if he is concerned about getting seminar callers.

Seems like media figures are all making very dangerous assumptions these days- from Limbaugh to the Soros Fanbois over at MediaMatters... assumptions... kinda like this (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1148882&postcount=87)...

[tonton]

Phonies (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3631779&contentIndex=1&page=1)

It's a nationwide DOJ investigation... and yes, phony soldiers DO exist.

Oh, and that's OBVIOUSLY what Rush was referring to. :rolleyes:.

[franksargent]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/White-noise.png
WHITE NOISE
:p

http://user.pa.net/~ejjeff/rush.jpghttp://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a86/shifter98r2/gw_bush1.jpghttp://johnhawks.net/~hawks/graphics/geico_caveman_ad.jpg

http://www.monobrow.com/ssi/images/bottom-mission-top.gif

At Monobrow.com, we don't view having one eyebrow as a grotesque, freakish human deformity. On the contrary. We think you are special (and not the kind of special where you wear a helmet.) The kind of special where people look at the hairy, catipillar-like growth above your eyes and say, "Oh my God! What the hell is that thing?" You're not alone. Monobrow.com, celebrating the unity of your eyebrows.

[@_@ Artman]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/X/bush_badass.jpg

http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/bush_hero_flight_suit.jpg

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/may03/carlsonbig051203.jpg

[addabox]

Turns out ABCnews did a segment on "Phony Heros" noting the increasing problems with people claiming military credentials.

The date it ran... 9/24/07. (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227)(external window video player)

The date Limbaugh made mention of phony soldiers... three days later.

/sarc Discussing phony soldiers WASN'T a current event at that time. Sure the most recent and egregious example had been sentenced on 9/21/07, ABCnews ran a story the 9/24... and Limbaugh talked about it on 9/27... but don't let little facts like that get in the way of your thinking. I declare it with my critical thinking skills to be "bullshit" and thus I have effectively countered all possibility of Limbaugh being part of any national discussion on this.

Nick

That's a story about "increasing" (no absolute numbers, so no way to know how widespread this actually is) incidences of con-artists claiming military service, according to the story mostly to get free medical care.

They mention the one (and still, as far as I can see, only) guy who both claimed service and cast that fictional service in a negative light, but it's clear the real issue is simply an effort to cash in on false credentials.

If you want to talk about false soldiers being "brought forward", it looks like you'll need to look to the Marine Corps, whom the article mentions as having been fooled into using fake soldiers for things like honor guards.

At any rate, we've moved from "liberals bringing forward all these false soldiers" and "they only ever talk to fake soldiers" to "there are some con artists that use fake credentials to get services or respect".

If Limbaugh wanted to talk about that, he could have. He didn't. He talked about liberals and anti-war people apparently fabricating soldiers to bad mouth the conditions in Iraq, he agreed with a caller who explained that "real soldiers" uniformly supported the war, dismissed a caller who claimed to be a vet who opposed the war as obviously be a lair, and pretty much made it clear that soldiers claiming to oppose the war could safely be regarded as "fake", ala some kind of made up phenomena,

The defense of Limbaugh basically devolves into "he was right", as is so often the case with right wing talking points. He was right to talk about this epidemic of fake soldiers being offered up by the left, he was right to therefor infer that a vet saying he was against the war probably was one of these, he is right to broadly imply that being against the war and being a soldier are mutually exclusive.

Add this to the larger right wing campaign to paint veterans of any war that are against this war as somehow "fake", and you get the picture.

Disgusting.

[Gilsch]

Hey Ditto heads! Don't let them Librul pussies get away with their anti-Limbaugh propaganda! Today, and everyday crank up your radios and show them who you support!

Crank it up DittoHeads, CRANK IT UP!!

[SDW2001]

As I've said, they focus on figures from the right, and to a lesser extent the media. Media Matters is certainly partisan.

But the way they do it, by contrasting the statements of those figures and media with the record, is not by any stretch a "smear", or remotely like what Limbaugh does. They always quote at length, they always provide citations and links for the contrary information they provide.

If a public figure says something like "I've never said x", and Media Matters then provides citations to the public record of that figure saying x, that is not a smear. If a public figure simply lies or misstates the facts, and Media Matters provides citations to those facts, that is not a smear. And that, largely, is what Media Matters does. I've never seen Media Matters carry on about how such statement are typical of the right, or how the liars on the right can't seem to open their mouths without lying, or how the low morals and ugly motivations of the right drive them to say outrageous things, or how the right is at it again, but then again, what could we expect. You know, like how Limbaugh talks about the left.

They just quote the source, note the discrepancy, if any, and provide citations. Barely any editorial content at all.

If the right were half as meticulous in documenting the nature of their grievances, I would consider it a huge improvement in the quality of our public discourse.

So you're saying that Media Matters doesn't generalize, and Limbaugh does. As if that's better somehow?

The thing with Limbaugh is he's an entertainer. He does things to deliberately piss of liberals and Democrats because that's his shtick. He loves when liberals go berserk. You either agree with his characterizations or not, but he's entertaining. He's not passing himself off as a "non-profit media watch dog" which is exactly what MM claims it is. Limbaugh's cards on on the table. He despises liberals, at least within his talk radio persona. Media Matters makes it clear that's Progressive™, but it also takes itself far more seriously...and passes itself off as being fair, even if it has a point of view.

[trumptman]

Ehem... (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=)

This is what was cut out after the triple dots.

“I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta — 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 Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth…” Limbaugh read the entire commentary from the day before and wrapped up that segment of the program. From there, he moved on to a discussion of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Nick

[Jubelum]

... well, at least it got MoveOn off the front page. Mission Accomplished. 8-)

[franksargent]

Ehem... (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=)

This is what was cut out after the triple dots.



Nick

... listen to the original (unedited) radio broadcast of 9/26/07. Basically there is unrelated verbiage between the "phony" soldiers part of his original radio broadcast and the "fake" soldiers portion of his radio broadcast.

There can be NO misinterpretation of what he meant to imply in the first "phony" soldiers part of that broadcast, and his later discussion of "fake" soldiers with respect to fraudulent VA claims.

The facts of these matters speak for themselves, considering that this is the top radio talk show host (what 10M/week listeners (???)), and if you jump around his 3 hour show clicking randomly, that is what it appears to be to me, pure and simple random white noise (pun definitely intended)! :D

[addabox]

So you're saying that Media Matters doesn't generalize, and Limbaugh does. As if that's better somehow?

The thing with Limbaugh is he's an entertainer. He does things to deliberately piss of liberals and Democrats because that's his shtick. He loves when liberals go berserk. You either agree with his characterizations or not, but he's entertaining. He's not passing himself off as a "non-profit media watch dog" which is exactly what MM claims it is. Limbaugh's cards on on the table. He despises liberals, at least within his talk radio persona. Media Matters makes it clear that's Progressive™, but it also takes itself far more seriously...and passes itself off as being fair, even if it has a point of view.

So we've gone from Media Matters being a scurrilous den of lies to complaining that they "take themselves seriously" and that they try to "pass themselves off as being fair"?

Since they don't have anything like that on the masthead, I assume that you think that their format indicates an interest in taking things seriously and being fair, while simply disallowing the possibility that a partisan organization could do either.

Of course, since you think that Fox's "fair and balanced" is something more than black humor, it's perfectly understandable how you might have developed some cynicism around the concept.

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/yesno.gif

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/macpcio6.gif

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/explhead.gif

[Fellowship]

I am no Rush Limbaugh supporter but I have to say the Democrats are really screwing up with this.

I have absolutely no confidence in this government.

Rush Limbaugh was clearly taken out of context.... Wake up you STUPID democrats...

Wake the hell up and stop playing the public as fools...

If it is not the STUPID freaking Republicans taking the public for a ride it is the freaking ignorant, worthless STUPID Democrats...

Rant over..

Fellows

[Jubelum]

Your commentary has become increasingly worthless as of late.

:lol: Wow. Just... wow.

[southside grabowski]

Ehem... (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=)

This is what was cut out after the triple dots.



Nick

Please! The facts ruin the outrage.

[trumptman]

Your commentary has become increasingly worthless as of late.

Your commentary has become so bad that I'm actually going to charge you for making me read it.

Fellowships commentary may be worth $0.00, but you own me $0.14 for having to endure your comment.

I'll PM you the Paypal account so you can send me the money, or you could just to my blog and click on some ads.:lol:

Nick

[Fellowship]

Your commentary has become increasingly worthless as of late.


Would it have "worth" if I were to say Go Hillary! Go Obama! Go Wesley Clark!

If so I think you and I value "worth" differently.

Fellows

[SpamSandwich]

This little diversion sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats... and while valuable brain-space and public attention is wasted on this crap and the latest Britney news, the country is headed down the drain in an rapidly spinning spiral.

[Jubelum]

my interests

Which are opposition to tort reform and what else...?

and my values

Which are....? Rather than give you my impressions, I'll let you tell me...

[trumptman]

You cannot possibly think your anti-"team" shtick has any resonance at this point. The "team" analogy was as witless and shallow a criticism of partisan politics then, the first several hundred times you used it, as it is now. You're damn right "Go Democrats" when our laws not our voting preferences necessarily set up a two-party system. Where one of those parties represents my interests and my values, it becomes very important that that party wins a majority of seats in both houses of Congress. Don't like how that game is played? Then start trying to change our voting laws to allow more than two major parties.

A few points... first.. you owe me $.28.

Perhaps you do not like the anti-"team" shtick but the reality is that yourself and others are holding it up as well. You are making it sound as if Media Matters, an organization that describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda" is somehow to be trusted because it is above the "team" concept with regard to motivations.

I personally don't like it when people kill the messenger and I don't desire to do that to MM. However on the flip side, it is not appropriate for yourself or anyone to excuse their clearly suspect and wrong actions claiming there is lack of intent in them and thus it mitigates what clearly is wrong.

I noted that MM selectively quotes and when viewed in the context of the entire discussion, the true meaning of the people they have accused is clearly conveyed. In addition they do not make available the broader source from which they selectively quote when the internet clearly allows and encourages such behavior. We all understand that when you foot or endnote a paper, you can't turn in all your sources at the same time as that paper. However on the internet, you can link to the sources quite easily. Finally I stated that when selectively quoting they do not indicate breaks and the time that has passed between those breaks, instead making it appear to be a long and comprehensive quote when it is not.

Those problems cannot be dismissed due to "team" concerns. I'm not killing or dismissing MM because they are possibly not on my "team." I'm noting the messenger isn't telling us the whole message or is distorting the message.

Finally, does your team really represent your values? You condemn Neo-cons, but not the Pax Americana Dems who still enable, fund, and support the same philosophy. Your DNC president tossed up civil unions instead of gay marriage. All major candidates for office this year favor civil unions instead of marriage. Hillary accepts PAC money to enable her record fund raising.

Those are your values?

Nick

[Fellowship]

This little diversion sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats... and while valuable brain-space and public attention is wasted on this crap and the latest Britney news, the country is headed down the drain in an rapidly spinning spiral.

Not to mention the unsustainable budget models the nation