or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Limbaugh: Democrat Soldiers are "fake soldiers"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Limbaugh: Democrat Soldiers are "fake soldiers"

post #1 of 106
Thread Starter 
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.

Quote:
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.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #2 of 106
Since you didn't link to anything here's Mediamatters story...


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


This says it all:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
post #3 of 106
Thread Starter 
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.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #4 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #6 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 106
post #8 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

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.

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!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #9 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

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?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #10 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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...



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!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #11 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #12 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #13 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

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!

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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;

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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"
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #15 of 106
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?
post #16 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #17 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

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.

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 106
Update:

Rush Limbaigh

Quote:
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 was sentenced on the 21st of this month so he certainly was a current event.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 106
Here it is, in your face trumptman...

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Real Deal

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:



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!



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.



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!



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!



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:



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
post #20 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Update:

Rush Limbaigh



A search shows that Jesse MacBeth 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 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);

Quote:
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 (BTW, note the lying title, my running commentary is in (italics)).

Quote:
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 ) 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 )). 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 ). 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 )

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 )

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!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #21 of 106
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #23 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.
post #24 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.
post #25 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #26 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


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...



The ones who like his show and call in are the ones who Believe™ in any case...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #27 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #28 of 106
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? You can't justify that remark based on what follows it either. Even if you limit his remarks to those soldiers who signed up during the war and who therefore knew without a doubt they would have to serve in Iraq, the inference is still that only those among that group who want to be in Iraq are real soldiers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

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

Blindness, cures, cheerleaders, mind-numb robots, and then just regular robots.

Is the metaphor chip going haywire this morning?
post #29 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.
post #30 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #31 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post




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.
post #32 of 106
It's a good thing Limbaugh has clarified:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

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"?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #33 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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

Quote:
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?

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.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #35 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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

Nick

Obviously he isn't literally saying Jack Murtha is a phony soldier. But it's there by association.

Jesse MacBeth. Scott Thomas. Jack Murtha.
post #36 of 106
Scott Thomas and Jack Murtha were both soldiers.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #37 of 106
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 said, (Marines)"killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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."

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

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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 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.

Quote:
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 frontalthough I'm less inclined to do so for BO because he's such a bully and an assholewhich is why I wrote what I wrote about what he seems to be tryign to say.

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

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.

Quote:
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.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #39 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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..."

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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..."

......

Quote:
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?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Limbaugh: Democrat Soldiers are "fake soldiers"