Reply With Quote
what are you babbling about now?
Canada's liberal government collapses...
Wow Dan... how did you miss that headline...
Hum.. not on your liberal mind control broadcast channels?
Schroder gone.. now this guy....
Ahhaaahhahh
what are you babbling about now?
Clearly this is an indictment on legal marijuana, free health care and no capital punishment.
I guess that settles those debates.
rush is not a liberal
Rush is an idiot.
A succesful millionaire idiot, who could beat you in an argument. Not that it'd be an accomplishment or anything.
HE may be guilty of over simplification of issues, but i dare you to prove how he lies.
What's wrong with that. THeir leaders have written books about such topics and have hailed the pro eugenic book "Population Time bOmb" as a remarkable work.
Therein lies the appeal.
actually you do a disservice to idiots all around the world when you compare them to hush bimbo..
Or give you some quotes from your favorite libs, showing how stupid they
are.
my thoughts on hush bimbo and his lack of objective knowledge ..as stated about Socrates and his thirst fro the truth..
Socrates maintained that he was puzzled by this acclaim until he discovered that, while others professed knowledge without realizing their ignorance, he at least was aware of his own ignorance.
in other words hush saying he is 98% correct says more about his ignorance than his knowledge..
Ah, another listener who wouldn't listen to that man, except he knows his
rating on being correct in all his statements. Hmmmmmm.....
Or give you some quotes from your favorite libs, showing how stupid they
are.
my latest episode of hush not being real honest..
he recently read an article concerning the GOP Ohio Congress woman who recently made news about her comments ,from a Marine, concerning John Murtha... Hush proudly proclaimed that this Marine told her to say this and he, the marine , was dead on... Hush went on his liberals are miserable tirade..
I read the same article he used as evidence of his being 'right again'.. well the liar failed to read the following paragraphs that quoted the Marine ,who supposedly made the comments to be passed on, saying he never made those comments that were repeated and attributed to him.. now this is blatant intellectual dishonesty.. taking a portion of a story to prove his point yet leaves out the 2nd part of the story that does not suit his purpose..
Conservatives are just as stupid as liberals.
I think it is safe to say that hush Bimbo shadow boxes soundbites..anyone ever notice that he never has guests on that contradict him? By the way I am not adverse to hearing other people's opinions especially different from my own..unlike our conservative bretheren who limit their news sources to one TV station, talk radio and right wing websites..
Your link to this story, please. I happen to be listening to the HR when
the Congresswoman made the statement on the floor of the house.
the story he read and used as a reference was by Howard Fineman in Newsweek magazine. This article also stated that Murtha met with the House Democratic leadership before he made his statements public. This article quotes the Marine who evidently never made the statements attributed to him.. I went to the Newsweek website but I cannot find his archives..
I foundthe story but I am not paying for the archived article..
November 28, 2005, Newsweek, U.S. Edition
Bush at the Tipping Point
As friends describe it, Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania had been searching his soul for months, seeking guidance on what to do in Congress about Iraq. "I think he was going through what we Catholics call a 'long night of the soul'," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. In 1974, Democrat Murtha had become the first Vietnam veteran elected to the House. A decorated Marine from the mountainous "Deer Hunter" country east of
Click Here for Complete Article (1736 words)
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 11-30-2005 at 09:48 AM.
Yeah, I found an article saying what you said.
================================================== ========
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511220016
Much wasn't made of the denial anywhere, only what the Congresswoman said. Funny tho, that all involved are politians. I wonder if the Rep from Ohio, wanted the Congressman from Ohio to tell Murtha that in person and not
publicly? No matter. It was said and I liked what was said on the floor of
the house. It expressed my feelings. Shame Bubp doesn't want to take
credit for it. And by the way, Rush is not the only one that has ever
omitted a portion of an article to make a point. I don't really approve and
didn't know what article he was quoting from.
I agree there are many people in the public discourse arena who selectively use references to prove a point. However Hush Bimbo's kool aid drinkers never bother to verify if what he is saying is half way correct. This follows tha path of how the extreme right in govt seem to mirror the hush Bimbo crowd..very scary..
Ah yes, the old mind numb robots. Well if you bother to listen sometime to
all his program he quotes as many "main" stream newspapers, also, many
quotes actually said by many people. But not to burst you bubble, but I
do read many publications and web sites. But I follow a rule that my Grandfather used to tell me: Don't believe anything you read and half of what you see. Of course take that with a grain of salt, no in the literal sense. But I just wished we could get some real reporting from the news.
One reason I like C-span, no flitering.
Rush Limbaugh's Lies
A couple of years ago I read Rush Limbaugh’s first book "The Way Things Ought To Be". I saw so many errors, inaccuracies, deceptions and just plain BS that I decided to list a few of them.
I know there are many other web sites that list lies that Rush has told, and some have probably detailed some of these same deceptions, so forgive me if I am repeating anything that you have read elsewhere before.
1.) In Chapter 15 led "Sorry but the Earth is not Fragile" Rush says that "The Sierra Club wants to limit the number of kids you can have to two" and that "They are into power and controlling peoples lives."
I've been a member of the Sierra club for several years and I was very surprised to learn this information about limiting the number of children you can have. Every month I read the Sierra magazine from cover to cover and I have never seen any article or editorial that endorsed the idea of limiting the number of children people can have. As always, Rush never cited any sources for this information nor did he give any examples to prove his point. This also surprised me since so many Rush fans have told me that Rush is always right and always proves his point and gives the sources of his information. I think Rush knows that the Sierra Club has talked about the problems of over-population and how it threatens both humans and the environment. So from that premise he conjured up this lie about limiting the number of children you are allowed to have.
2.) Also in chapter 15, Rush states that Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released more than a thousand times the amount of ozone depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by all the corporations in history. He goes on to conclude that since the Earth's ozone layer survives all these eruptions over billions of years that we could not possibly destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
The problem with this theory is that his entire premise is wrong. NASA has been studying the upper atmospheric chemicals that lead to ozone depletion. They have taken samples of the air in the upper atmosphere and concluded that the ozone depleting chemicals found in the upper atmosphere are NOT the same as those that come from volcanoes. They are the CFCs produced commercially by man. Volcanoes don't produce CFCs. The Chlorine that volcanoes produce is water soluable. That means it is literally rained out of the atmosphere and doesn't pose much of a threat to the ozone layer.
3.) Later in his book Rush says "I'm right about the homeless. And I'll be proven right about the ozone hole and global warming."
Wrong again, Rush. As recently as December 20th, 1994 an associated press article stated "Scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center say they have the first conclusive evidence that the Earth's protective ozone layer is being eroded by man-made chemical products and not by natural events such as volcanic eruptions."
4.) Later in chapter 15, Rush states that environmentalists are actually socialist/marxists.
But once again he failed to back up his claim with any facts or examples. Actually, this is a good sign. It means that Rush can't find any ulterior motives or anything legitimate to criticize environmentalists about so he has to make things up. This time he resorted to the old lie that anyone who disagrees with him is a communist.
5.) Also in Chapter 15, Rush criticizes environmentalists by saying:
"We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written. The wackos will tell you that's impossible. Haven't they ever heard of fires started by lightning that no one could put out? Today, we put out a lot of fires that used to burn areas the size of Connecticut."
Rush also goes on to say "Today, Private companies are planting millions of trees on their own land and carefully harvesting them."
Either Rush has not done his homework or he is deliberately misleading people. There are several errors with his theory:
First, the forest service and National Parks department often do not put out many fires anymore. They have recognized the fact that fires were a natural part of the growth cycle in some areas. Therefore they are often allowed to burn unless homes are threatened.
Second, the forests that are destroyed by fire grow back much faster than those that are destroyed by clearcutting, the process most logging companies use. And remember, forests that are cut down to make room for shopping malls and parking lots never grow back.
Third, a forest in it's natural state consists of many diverse kinds of trees and wildlife, but when companies plant trees to replace the forests they destroyed, they usually plant just a single specific type of tree. One that is particularly good for lumber use. Therefore, the forest itself is never really allowed to grow back. There is a huge difference between a forest and a tree farm.
Finally, according to the book "The Bum's Rush - Phrases and Fallacies of Rush Limbaugh", the World Almanac and the U.S. Statistical Abstracts, forests covered 850 million acres in the late 1700s. By 1992, forests covered 730 million acres. So Rush is only off by a hundred and twenty million acres or so, which is quite accurate for him.
6.) Here is another quote from chapter 15. Rush has this to say about environmentalists: "Rather than elevate the third world, they want to move us closer to Third World conditions. That's somehow cleaner and purer. They want to roll us back, maybe not to the Stone Age, but at least to the horse and buggy era."
Naturally, Rush never explains what it is that environmentalists are doing that is going to send us back to the horse and buggy era. I can't see how requiring stricter auto-emissions standards moves us back to the horse and buggy era. Environmentalists want to maintain strict pollution control standards, and health and safety requirements, as well as higher automobile fuel efficiency standards. These things improve the quality of everyone's lives without any great sacrifices.
Click here for more Rush lies
Return to my Home Page
http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/rushlie.html
7.) After reading Rush's book, I am convinced he has some serious emotional problems. I'm not talking about his obvious delusions of grandeur. He appears to be suffering from some kind of persecution complex or else he is just plain hallucinating.
For example, whenever he sees or hears a news report detailing any problem with our society, he thinks the news people are trying to "blame" the TV viewer.
Here are a couple of examples from Rush's book. From chapter 5: "I have about had it being told that the plight of the homeless is my fault. I'm sick and tired of turning on my TV and being told that the AIDS crisis is my fault too, because I don't care enough."
In Chapter 21, Rush talked about a female reporter who did a story about a homeless man on Thanksgiving day. Here is what Rush said:
"The implied message of her report was that while the television audience might be prosperous and warm at home, they dare not enjoy it as long as there were people living in conditions of such squalor."
"That burned me up. The homeless man on my TV screen wasn't in that condition because of anything I had done or because I didn't care. I hadn't done anything to cause his homelessness. The fact that I had a home and a turkey wasn't the reason he was in a shelter, any more than cleaning my dinner plate as a child would feed the starving Chinese."
So Rush makes it clear that when a reporter relates a story about some unfortunate person, they are trying to "blame" the viewers at home. He apparently thinks that we should never hear stories on the news about homelessness, AIDS, poverty or any other problem that society currently faces.
I've seen these same kinds of news reports that Rush talks about and I have never felt that the media was trying to "blame" me or anyone for the these crises. They are merely making us aware of the problem and we can decide for ourselves what, if anything, we should do about them.
I believe Rush dreamed up this "blaming" angle to try to propagate the myth of the "liberal" media. He can't find any real example of a liberal bias so he has to invent them.
8.) Here is another example of Rush selectively omitting facts from a story:
In Chapter 16 of "The Way Things Ought To Be" Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the "Dukakis furlough program" and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.
What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis' biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it. But you would never hear Rush mention this. He doesn't want you to hear the whole truth.
9.) In chapter 24, Rush said this about the media, "How about the myth of heterosexual AIDS? Despite endless predictions of an epidemic, it has not happened, yet each year we are hit by The Media with alarming new predictions."
Well once again the facts show Rush is wrong. All statistics show that the percentage of heterosexual victims of AIDS is growing. And in most of the countries where AIDS is in epidemic proportion (Haiti, as well as several African nations) the vast majority of victims are heterosexual.
Rush, like most conservatives, wants us to believe that AIDS is primarily a sexual disease because the conservatives have always held that AIDS is God's punishment for being gay. When some child or hemophiliac gets AIDS, the conservatives are sympathetic, but as far as they're concerned, sexuals deserve what they get.
10.) In chapter 20, Rush said this about the media:
"Our liberal media kept telling us that Gorbachev was unpopular in Russia because he was too good - he was trying to change the communist system and the Russian people didn't like that."
Once again, Rush is so eager to convince us of the "liberal bias" in the media that he has to fabricate this story to support his claims. In fact, the media said no such thing. When the news media showed the protesting in Russia during Gorbachev's era, they interviewed people on the streets and the people said over and over that they hated communism and that it had to go. The Soviet people were protesting in massive numbers for the first time because Gorbachev gave them the freedom to protest and for the first time in their lives they could say out loud that they hated communism.
Rush Limbaugh's Lies (continued)
Rush Limbaugh Speaks Ex Cathedra about Neocons
At the basis of Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric is divisive statements. It is reflected in MOST of what he says. Limbaugh likes to use distortion and completely baseless assertions to give the impression that one side is somehow irrational and immoral. In this case, Rush is attempting to portray democrats as racist and mistating the objection sensible people have to the "ideals" and behaviors of "necons".
1/11 : BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Folks, I'm tired of this word "neocon." Let's get it out on the table. When you hear the word "neocon" used by anybody, it just means Jews, Republican Jews. That's what neocon means. You're going to have people argue with me about it, it may be a larger definition to some people, but the people who use that term pejoratively are talking about not Democrat, not liberal Jews, Republican Jews. Wolfowitz, Kristol, Richard Perle, these are the people that are blamed for getting us all into this, and it's all about... Well, you can take it from there. I don't need to add any more to it.
END TRANSCRIPT
The word "neocon" refers to conservatives who depart from the traditional view of conservatism which holds that we are better off not interfering in general or acting as the world policeman. Neocons are idelogues, not pragmatists. The term necon has nothing to do with the ethnic background of anyone.
The problem that sensible people have with neocons is that they used distortion and lies to get us into a war against a country that did not have WMD's, operational ties to Al-Queda or a military capable of launching a serious invasion of any of its neighbors. Thanks to the efforts of the neocons, we are engaged in an occupation of a country that posed little threat, over 1360 American troops have died, our standing and credibility in the world has been dramatically diminished and we the tax payers are being billed for over 1 billion per week.
Neoncons did things such as establish the Office of Special Plans which packaged assertions from Ahmed Chalabi, who was known to uncredible by the State Department and the CIA, as real vetted intelligence,. The necons took to the air to convince the US that Iraq posed an urgent threat, even though there was no evidence. The neocons were the architects of the Iraq invasion. They planned it poorly. Their "plan" relied on a best case scenario and had no backup. This is the very legitimate gripe people have with the necons. Ethnicity has not one thing to do with it. Rush is also wrong about where the blame should be aportioned. That lies squarely on the shoulders of the president.
Rush could not provide even a single instance where anyone refered to any neocon in a racially pejorative way. In order for what Rush is saying to be true, it would have to be that neocons are all Jewish, or at least the majority. The group "neocons" includes people such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Woolsey, Ann Coulter, Douglass Feith and more. These are not Jewish people.
Without a shred of logic or factual basis, Rush Limbaugh distorts language in an effort to denigrate an entire group of people as racist for their use a commonly accepted slang term, one often used by republicans. It is amazing how Rush's listeners allow him to continue to insult their intelligence as he so often does.
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/re.../2005jan11.htm
I was listening to Rush today and he is really starting to whine more and more. I got confused and wondered when the Democrats got back into power? I must have missed something. Seems strange to whine so much when it's YOUR people running the country. Maybe he's just one of those people that can never be happy. Anyway, it struck me that for the last couple of years it seems that being Stupid is better than being Smart. They even have a bad word for it. Intelligencia!
Wow, I would love to be known as an Intelligencia. How do you get on that list? When did being a dumb ass make you someone worth listening to in this country? I wonder if Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton were Intelligencia? According to Rush, I would say not because that would mean that they meant this country great harm. So, if you're an idiot then Rush likes you. Do I have this right? If you are smart and may know something about what you are talking about then you, of course, are an idiot and evil. Makes sense to me and the scary thing is that I think it makes perfect sense to most of Rush's listeners. Confused? I am.
Now, if you are a smart Conservative, and I know there are many, are you part of the Intelligencia and if not, why? Goodness this gets complicated. If I were a smart conservative I would want to be in the Intelligencia group and not the Dumb Ass group. But maybe that's just me. So what have we learned today? Being smart is BAD but being Dumb is Conservative..... I guess. Wow, what a lesson Rush has taught us. Makes me wish I did not spend all that money on shool. So are you a Conservative?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
