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" - Page 2

post #41 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
post #42 of 106
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
"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.

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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

"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 #43 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.

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

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.

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.
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 #45 of 106
Thread Starter 
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.
"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 #46 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

Quote:
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

"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 #47 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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 (joined IVAW in 01/06 outed by IVAW in 05/06),
2) Scott Thomas a real soldier who still stands by his version of events,
3) John Kerry a real and decorated soldier, and
4) Jack Murtha a real and decorated soldier.

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

My links are offered as opinions of real soldiers;

List of veterans against the Iraq War

IVAW
IVAW members speak

Trum-pitty and Dimbulb and Chimpy sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G!
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 #48 of 106
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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?

Quote:
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.
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 #50 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

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
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 #51 of 106
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

"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 #52 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

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

"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 #53 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
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 #54 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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?
"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 #55 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
"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 #56 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 106
Thread Starter 
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.
"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 #58 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
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 #59 of 106
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.(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

"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 #60 of 106
Phonies

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...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #61 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Phonies

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

Oh, and that's OBVIOUSLY what Rush was referring to. .
post #62 of 106
[CENTER]
WHITE NOISE






Quote:
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.

[/CENTER]
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 #63 of 106




post #64 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.(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.
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 #65 of 106
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!!
post #66 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #67 of 106
Ehem...

This is what was cut out after the triple dots.

Quote:
“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

"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 #68 of 106
... well, at least it got MoveOn off the front page. Mission Accomplished.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #69 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Ehem...

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)!
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 #70 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
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 #71 of 106




post #72 of 106
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
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 #73 of 106
Your commentary has become increasingly worthless as of late.
post #74 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Your commentary has become increasingly worthless as of late.

Wow. Just... wow.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #75 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Ehem...

This is what was cut out after the triple dots.



Nick

Please! The facts ruin the outrage.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #76 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.

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 #77 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

Nick

Yo' comments so bad, when they sit around the house, they sit AROUND the house.
post #78 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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
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 #79 of 106
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.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #80 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

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

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

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

That's an intelligent sentence. Try stringing together more than one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Limbaugh: Democrat Soldiers are "fake soldiers"