Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 10/02
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Oct. 2, 2007 at 1:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
363 Comments
Here’s a very smart idea to cut energy use, and greenhouse gases.
‘NEW MATH FOR UTILITIES: SELL LESS, MAKE MOREFive states have adopted ‘decoupling’ plans, offering electric-power companies incentives to conserve energy.’
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1002/p02s01-wogi.html
“In Idaho’s Snake River Valley, where potato farmers depend on electric pumps to water their crops, the state’s largest power company hopes to stand tradition on its head and profit by selling farmers less, not more, electricity.
To do that, Idaho Power is vastly expanding its energy-efficiency programs for 395,000 residential customers, small businesses, and farmers. Usually the more customers save, the less utilities make.
But under an innovative deal with state regulators in March, Idaho Power gets paid for its plants and equipment and boosts profits by winning incentive payments for reducing electric demand.”
More at link.
Thanks Hank, it mean quite a bit coming from you, I was praying for your boy too. There is comfort in knowing no matter how I feel about Iraq and the reasons we are there. That I am not alone in this, everyday another parent watches their child leave and hopes that they get to welcome them home with a hug and not with tears of despair and loss. If that is my fate than there too I will not be alone, I would go in his place if I could. But then Hank, I am sure I would not be alone in that either.
Hillary came up with a good idea that ought to be looked at which is to give every child a $5000 bond when they are born. Assuming that it would frown over 18 years, it would be a nice hunk of money at age 18 but you would only get it if you stay in school and get a high school diploma or GED. This would be a nice incentive for kids to finish high school. I might add to it a smaller bond of around $1000 for the parents of the baby which they would also get upon high school graduation for a job “well done”.
Hillary came up with a good idea that ought to be looked at which is to give every child a $5000 bond when they are born. Assuming that it would have grown over 18 years, it would be a nice hunk of money at age 18 but you would only get it if you stay in school and get a high school diploma or GED. This would be a nice incentive for kids to finish high school. I might add to it a smaller bond of around $1000 for the parents of the baby which they would also get upon high school graduation for a job “well done”.
Will there really be a schism in the Republican Party? Anderson Cooper did a piece last night about how religious conservatives are ready to pick up their marbles and go home if Rudy gets the Republican nomination. They’re talking about a third party.
I wonder what they’d call a third party. What would be left of the GOP would be shreiking “Traitor!”
An ultra-conservative third party would assure Democratic dominance for at least the next 20 years. Let’s all get out there and support Rudy!
Even Fred isn’t good enough for the religious crazies:
Former Sen. Fred Thompson downplayed his troubles trying to reach out to religious conservatives on Monday, saying they share the same goal of protecting the traditional definition of marriage even if they prefer different approaches.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5712140,00.html
“Hillary came up with a good idea that ought to be looked at which is to give every child a $5000 bond when they are born.”
Another multi-billion dollar entitlement program, to follow healthcare.
This is nothing more than campaign rhetoric to get her elected. Of course everyone wants FREE money! But no one stops to think about where the money is coming from. I want a new bass boat. Will Hillary buy me one?
Lot’s of problems:
1. I don’t need the free money. My children were well covered by personal savings. Interesting, people can do this without government holding their hand.Don’t give me crap about being rich to do this. We started with $50 savings bonds in 1979 when I qualified for the EIC. But the bottom line is EVERY child does not need this money.
2. Who qualifies if you exclude those who have money? Is it the poor? Another poor program? At what income does the means test come in? Further, most people start off at the bottom, with lower salaries – and then earn more as they gains years/experience. So I’m poor and qualified when I was 20 with young wife/babies. But I’m filthy RICH by the time kids are 18. I still got the FREE money.
3. Every baby born? What if they drop out of school? What if theycommit a crime? Join the circus? What if they decide not to go to college until they are forty? When do they loose the FREE money that is in their name (:-))?
4. Is the money earned taxable?
5. At age 18, if they do go to college – does this money make the child ineligible for any of the Pell Grants or other programs which currently provide financial assistance to low income children?
6. I guess the children born of illegal immigrants, who are automatically citizens when born here also get FREE money too?
7. Will it be inflation adjusted? That will further drain the general fund.
This is a terrible idea. Instead of teaching children to EXPECT a handout or FREE money from our government – we should be instilling in them the idea that MONEY is something you have to WORK for.
If you want to go to college – you have WORK for it. Or perhaps your PARENTS will have to WORK and SAVE for it. Instead of buying myself a bass boat, I invested for my childrens future.So along comes the guy who does not save 25 bucks a pay period and he wants something for nothing.
United Socialist States of America.
“Hillary came up with a good idea”Posted by: Kev | October 02, 2007 at 05:50 AM
OK that was an oxymoron.
A) How would this be funded?B) Would illegal aliens also be entitled to this?a. If so, wouldn’t this be a HUGE incentive to cross illegally
Good idea? Yeah, I’m thinking NOT.
around $1000 for the parents of the baby which they would also get upon high school graduation for a job “well done”.
Posted by: Kev
Using my money of course to promote your pure socialist agenda. What right do you have to do this?
But if you must do this, let’s give them a “bond” for NOT giving birth to unwanted babies. Not getting pregnant.
Your present social programs encourage poor people to have a dozen babies. Heck, that’s $60,000 in “bonds” at 5K a piece.
Why not take your idea a little further: Let’s give a 1K “bond” to every 18 year old who doesn’t use drugs?
How about 1K “bond” for not getting a DUI?
Let’s add another 1K “bond” for registering for the draft?
I’d like to see another 1K, for being energy conscience?
Maybe 1K for registering to vote democrat?
But if you get that one, I want 1K for being able to catch bass and crappie.
Where does all your “feel good” social programs end?
Where does all your “feel good” social programs end?Posted by: Pat Herron
Bad news, never. There will always be someone wanting something for nothing.
And there will always be someone wanting to buy their vote.
What a great editorial today by Steve Kraske. He just NAILS governor leadership.
Does she think we are all so stupid we dont see her “dancing a jig across the prairie”? Apparantly.
Perhaps someone should have told her before she ran.. TWICE.. that governors are called upon to make hard decisions? That triangulation doesnt always work?
We are watching…
OMG I was gathering the information I want to give my son so he could make an informed decision. And came across this:http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/democrats_favor_war_just_not_i.asp
“Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.”
The above is from the weekly standard a decidedly Neo-Conservative publication. Dated
August 1st,2007. It was about Obama saying he would go after Bin Laden even in Pakistan and the writer was lambasting him for going after the wrong target and wanting to surrender the real war in Iraq. It sounded so familiar, then it occurred to me, “Oh my favorite Pirate, Captain Charles “ Ahh there be the booty” Krauthhammer!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901987.html
““Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.”.
from his Washington post piece of March 30, 2007, gee can you say plagiarism? Oh well it is such a great argument as to why we should not be going after the ones that attacked us! After all where is the fun and profit in that? I am sure Capt. Booty lust will not mind!I offered a friend from Canada where Krauthhammer is from that they could have him back! LOL they said no, it took long enough just to get the U.S. to take him off their hands.
You know I just found another example how the Neo-Cons are different from us die hard, rather bale the water out of this sinking boat call the GOP then jump ship. It seems the Neo-Cons actually blame President Ragan for the terrorism problem! That if he had not pull out of Lebanon after the bombing. And “cut and run” then Bin Laden would not have been embolden! That’s pretty bold talk for a bunch of Chicken war hawk, Socialists!
Hillary Clinton’s bond idea is a wonderful idea. This nation is going to HAVE to do something to come together. As it stands, I sure wouldn’t advise him to go up and fight for this heap.
from his Washington post piece of March 30, 2007, gee can you say plagiarism?
Posted by: writerdog
You lost me. I do not think I understand the “plagiarism”.
The Standard article linked over to the Post article to show the source.
My son that is.
Honestly, I doubt that Hillary ever had my vote. However, with her 5000 dollars to every child born, she lost all hope, as has the Democrat party is she is the nominee. She only confirmed what I believed all along. SHe is either a complete socialist, or she will pander to anybody to get the vote.
Interesting what you find when you go looking.
“Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause.”
“U.S. soldiers who die in Iraq knew they would. Most of them couldn’t get a decent job in the private sector anyway, so what does it matter? Someone has to die in a war, why not the poor?”
Ann Coulter – Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03
“Ann Coulter – Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03″
Wow! It’s jsut amazing who Republicans pick to worship.
Not to pile on, but imagine if John Kerry said anything close to that.
I guess Coulter gets a free pass ‘cuz everyone KNOWS she’s nuts. “Hey, I was only JOKING–hehehehehehahhaha!!!”
Well, Annie is insane. But how about THIS from Rush Limbaugh. Seems he LOVES the troops. Well, the ones that agree with him anyway.
Limbaugh insults anti-war soldiers
So the question on Rush Limbaugh and his “phony soldiers” crack is “Will we see anywhere near the fuss and bother over Limbaugh’s remark that we just witnessed over the MoveOn ‘Petraeus/Betray US’ ad?”
Yeah, me neither. I don’t trust the Democrats to raise anywhere near the stink that the Republicans recently raised over MoveOn.
Here’s the quote, but keep in mind that Limbaugh has frequently complained that people don’t read the whole context of his remarks, so if one wishes to write him to complain:
[Here's the essential context for the actual quote]
CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?
LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of — who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?
CALLER 1: I’m just — I’m not talking about the senators. I’m talking about the general public — like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but –
LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can’t handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I’m not also hitting Republicans? I don’t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I’ve listened to you for a long time, and you’re right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don’t think it’s winnable. And I’m not a Democrat, but I just — sometimes you’ve got to cut the losses.
—————–
[And The Quote]
LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
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. [emphasis from Media Matters]
Republicans support the troops… except when they dont….
WASHINGTON – American laboratories handling the world’s deadliest germs and toxins have experienced more than 100 accidents and missing shipments since 2003, and the number is increasing steadily as more labs across the country are approved to do the work.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_go_co/mishandling_germs
So Stephen King’s The Stand might not have been so far-fetched after all, huh?
“The Stand” – what a great book. Left me a bit concerned for weeks whenever anyone around me would cough.
You lost me. I do not think I understand the “plagiarism”.
OK perhaps plagiarism was not the best word, it just tickled me that here was someone arguing that Obama was wanting to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan if need be and would give up the fight in Iraq in favor of it. And he used the same argument that Krauthhammer used when he was arguing that the Democrat make a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan . But that they are favoring the wrong war because all we get by winning in Afghanistan would be the defeat of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden whom were the ones that attack us.But by winning in Iraq we get oil, and it would show a profit in many ways.
It just sounds like “Ok I am going to kick you ass but only if there is money invoked otherwise it would not be worth my time if you had only killed my mother!”.
JR-
I heard about this on another thread. Seems this is being pushed by Media Matters, and they don;t seem to have the whole quote, or have it context.
Here’s the link. You decide. I don;t listen to limbaugh, so I could care one way or the other. But let’s keep it straight.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html
J R,
The phony soldier refers to that guy who pretended to be an Army Ranger in Afghanistan and was kicked out of the Army after 40 days of service.
Much like the phony soldiers in Vietnam Veterans Against the War which Kerry belong to. Many of those turned out to be pure frauds.
I heard the Limbaugh broadcast live. It was very clear that Rush and his caller were referring to any military veteran who opposed bush’s actions and policy in Iraq as “phony soldiers”.
J R and littlejohnn,
It’s as JR says: Limbaugh edited out the offending portion of his remarks in which he slandered American soldiers who oppose the Iraq War as ‘phony soldiers.’
Rush can try the Big Lie and try to reinvent history. It’s what he does, so he’ll probably muddy the waters enough to slide on by.
But make no mistake: Rush was caught saying what Media Matters and others have reported that he said. If his response is to try, yet again, “who are you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes,” the answer should be clear:
Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, liar.
You can listen to it again J R, it’s on the Limbaugh Website as was posted here yesterday on the We Blog.
The only people that believe that comment would have to be very naive not realizing the motives of Media Matters.
I choose not to be naive.
So isn’t it great that they’re finally using the RICO laws to get control of the gangs?
Again “kansas” I heard it live. It was quite clear that Rush intended to slam anyone not on board with bush.
So isn’t it great that they’re finally using the RICO laws to get control of the gangs?
Posted by: The Phantom | October 02, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Phantom, personally, I’d like to see them use Blackwater to deal with gangs. You know, those guys who shoot first and ask questions later?
Good for you J R and I’m surprised you would listen to Limbaugh with that much attention span. I for sure can’t as I don’t particularly like the man.
However, I don’t wear my politics with my handkerchief and change it with each blowing of the wind.
I choose not to be naive.
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 10:37 AMKansas, I think Rush’s comments will always be a matter of perspective. Just depends on which side of center you’re on.
“phony soldiers”
The killer here is the plural of soldier. Had he been speaking of an individual, why did he reference soldiers instead of soldier?
Busted. No way around that one. The message is clear even from Rush’s own website.
They may have to use RICO on Blackwater!
Good catch sol. And if you look, it was clearly Limbaugh and not the caller who coined the phrase
phony soldierS.
BINGO!!!
You mean like the six soldier(s) being prosecuted in Washington State for lying in order to get VA benefits and use their fake status for political benefit?
That kind of soldier(s)?
I didn’t hear it either, but Ol’ Rush must really be important since he merits the time and attention of the Senate of the United States of America.
Is he running for office of something?
I’d sure hate to have Media Matters taping my every word in hopes that they could take something out of context and exploit it. It seems to be new trend. Media Matters, a tax exempt organization incidentally, makes it up and puts it out there, and their friends in the MSM run with it. No matter how stupid or relatively insignficant overall.
So this is politics in today’s America.
The real intent of Congress debating Rush Limbaugh is to shut him down. (Has Congress passed the budgets due 10/1/07 yet?)
To be fair and balanced, let’s shut-down both Moveon.org AND Rush.
Then, we can debate who get’s shutdown next.
Who cares about the 1st Amendment anyway?
Republicans were outraged over the ad from moveon. They even made a case of it on the floor of the Senate. Will they be similarly outraged by the slurs from Rush Limbaugh? Here is Senator Reid’s call to Rush syndicator asking that Rush apologize for insulting American servicemen.
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Ethics
Senate Democratic Leaders Demand Apology For Limbaugh’s ‘Outrageous,’ ‘Unconscionable’ Remarks
ThinkProgress has obtained a letter being circulated on Capitol Hill today by the Senate Democratic Leadership that calls on Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays to repudiate its employee Rush Limbaugh’s “phony troops” remark. Clear Channel is Limbaugh’s parent company, and it owns or operates at least 1,165 radio stations in the United States.
The letter, signed by Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Patty Murray (D-WA), states that Limbaugh’s comments were “outrageous” and “unconscionable”:
Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.
Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress asked whether lawmakers who voted to attack a MoveOn newspaper ad would now condemn Limbaugh. The Senate leadership is challenging all their colleagues to demonstrate whether they can show principled condemnation by signing onto the letter. It specifically calls on Clear Channel to issue an apology and demands Limbaugh do the same:
Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a “phony soldier.” We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.
Read the full letter here. Call your Senators and ask them to sign on.
UPDATE: More smears against the military by Limbaugh. Huff Post notes that he called Iraq war vet Paul Hackett a “staff puke,” claiming he went to Iraq “to pad resume,” and attacked him as “a liberal hiding behind a military uniform.”
http://thinkprogress.org/reid-limbaugh-letter /
September 28, 2007
Mr. Mark P. MaysCEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc.200 East Basse RoadSan Antonio, TX 78209
Dear Mr. Mays,
At the time we sign this letter, 3,801 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 27,936 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.
Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.
Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.
The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members.
Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.
Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a “phony soldier.” We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.
Sincerely,
_____________________Senator Harry ReidMajority Leader
_____________________Senator Richard DurbinAssistant Majority Leader
Ann Coulter’s comments on soldiers really never got a lot of airplay either, and she basically said soldiers were people to stupid to have real jobs in the private sector.
Coulter’s the evil conservative twin to Hillary Clinton.
Both are loud mouthed witches that deserve no support from either side of the aisle.
(Not identical twins, obviously)
I see “egg” and “on face” coming in very close proximity for the “phony soldier” critics in Congress. :)
Best make sure you keep a tight line on your opinions there “kansas” You don’t want to end up being a phony soldier.
I always keep a taut line when needed J R and i also give the line slack when needed. I do know how to fish in water or in a sea of political rhetoric. :)
JR
You are either woefully uniformed or your a cheap fuking liar.
Which is it?
Lotsa suckers and bottom feeders out there Kansas.
Any luck yet?
Max, just some fighting “betas” and a few pirahnna. :)
After the controversial appearance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University last week, an Iranian university yesterday invited President Bush to travel to Iran and speak on campus about a range of issues, including the Holocaust, terrorism, human rights and U.S. foreign policy, the Fars News Agency reported yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101462.html?hpid=sec-world
Has Bush got the guts?
“More smears against the military by Limbaugh. Huff Post notes that he called Iraq war vet Paul Hackett a “staff puke,” claiming he went to Iraq “to pad resume,” and attacked him as “a liberal hiding behind a military uniform.””
And the republicans are still bitching about moveon.org? I would suggest they clear their own house prior to slamming anybody.
Hey I didn’t make Rush call any serviceman who disagrees with him a phony soldier Heckler. Why blow up at me? Save your anger AND your foul mouth and go police your pundit.
They aren’t bad if you smoke em on a shingle first.
You know, sh*t on a shingle.
And the republicans are still bitching about moveon.org? I would suggest they clear their own house prior to slamming anybody.
Posted by: stumper | October 02, 2007 at 11:30 AM
The difference is that Rush is not in the back pocket of any politician. Tons of cash flows from moveon.org.
JR,Just consider the source. Heckler has been nothing but a rabble rouser with nothing to add to any conversation. A bush clone with a computer.
JR
Give me a link to the transcript showing the slur of soldiers by Limbaugh. It should be easy. Give us a link to it.
If you can….
But you can’t because he didnt. But you swallow Media Matters propoganda without so much as chewing.
How bout a link there big boy.
JR
You are either woefully uniformed or your a cheap fuking liar.
Which is it?
Posted by: Heckler | October 02, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Well good morning, Heck. Did you kiss your wife and kids with that mouth this morning?
Stumper
OK, put up or shut up. Link to Limbaughs slur of soldiers. As I told JR, it should be easy.
If you can.
It’s right upthread there Heckler.
I can see you are really emotional about this. I know it’s hard for you to accept that your media god is just a shill. Sorry.
XXX
Maybe you can help JR out. He’s gonna need it.
Dems. better get with it and demand that the Republicans ‘distance themselves’ from the remark, as the Republicans kept repeatedly demanding.
Here’s another reason to support Net Neutrality:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/att-say-bad-things-about-us-and-well-cancel-your-internets/
Speak ill of your overlords and they cut you off.
That was easy.September 28, 2007Dems seize on Limbaugh’s ‘phony soldiers’ commentDemocrats are seizing on recent comments from Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — In the wake of the high-profile uproar from Republicans over a MoveOn.org ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus, Democrats are seizing on recent comments from popular conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh who said on a recent broadcast on Iraq that some veterans who criticize the war in the media are “phony soldiers.”
Democrats are pointing to comments Limbaugh made Wednesday when he and a caller were discussing critics of the Iraq war:
“What’s really funny is, they [Iraq war critics] never talk to real soldiers,” the caller said. “They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.”
“The phony soldiers,” Limbaugh then said.
In a statement issued Thursday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called Limbaugh’s comments a “personal attack on our men and women in uniform” and “reprehensible.”
“It minimizes the sacrifice our troops in Iraq and their families are making and has no place in the public discourse,” he added. “Rush Limbaugh owes our military and their families an apology for his hurtful comments that minimize their service to our country.”
Also Thursday, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the Vietnam War, called the comments a “disgusting attack.”
“In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air-conditioned studio peddling hate,” Kerry said in a statement. “He is an embarrassment to his party, and I expect the Republicans who flock to his microphone will now condemn this indefensible statement.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania, an Iraq War veteran, said, “Someone should tell chicken-hawk Rush Limbaugh that the only phonies are those who choose not to serve and then criticize those who do.”
And on the House floor Thursday, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-New Jersey, said Republicans should hold MoveOn.org and Limbaugh to the “same standard.”
“I wonder if Republicans who showed so much outrage towards MoveOn.org yesterday will hold Rush Limbaugh to the same standard, and I wouldn’t hold your breath,” he said.
On Wednesday, the House voted 341-79 to condemn the liberal group’s recent newspaper ad dubbing Petraeus “General Betray Us?”
UPDATE: Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a candidate for president, is the latest Democrat to weigh in on the comments Friday, issuing a statement saying, “It’s ironic, if not remotely surprising, that Rush Limbaugh – who makes his living shooting his mouth off – would impugn the patriotism and service of American troops simply because they have voiced their opposition to this failed policy. It’s clear that he has no idea what the brave men and women of our armed forces are ostensibly fighting for.”
Not really, The Phantom, we know a “snow job” when we see it.
And this latest on Rush Limbaugh is a dirty “snow job.”
It was Bill OReilly the week before.
The pattern by Media Matters is quite obvious and only the blind or naive believe in drive-by politically motivated character assassinations.
“The difference is that Rush is not in the back pocket of any politician.”
Posted by max.
Hahahahahahahahahaha . . . damn, max, you do have a sense of humor.
I don’t know why Heckler or any of us for that matter is surprised. Soldiers who don’t fit the mold have been under smear for years now.
John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry etc etc.
JR
What was the slur? It appears you yourself pointed out that he was talking about frauds like Jesse Macbeth.
Here ya go, heckler. Your own totally unbiased news source!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html
House Appropriations Chairman to Introduce War Tax Bill to Pay for Iraq
WASHINGTON — A top Democratic congressman, saying Democrats “have had it with being maneuvered and jerked around” on the war in Iraq, offered a new approach Tuesday to change the course of funding for the ongoing war: A war tax.
Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he will not allow a bill to come for debate to provide emergency supplemental funds for the war and suggested Americans should be compelled to pay for it through a “surtax.”
“The president isn’t going to get a supplemental this year. I am not going to report a supplemental out” if it simply is a request for funds and not a change in direction for troops in Iraq,” Obey said.”
It appears that the Democrats are trying really hard to get voted out of office. :)
“and only the blind or naive believe in drive-by politically motivated character assassinations.”
Posted by whatever.
You mean like rush Limbaugh and ann Coulter?
I’d call “phony soldiers” a slur Heckler. How about you? Those soldiers IN Iraq that posted editorials in the New York Times. There were 7 of them. Three died a few days later. Are THEY phony soldiers? Heckler?
JR
John Kerry lied before Congress and met with the enemy while on reserve status. He’s a piece of crap. Just accept it.
“It appears that the Democrats are trying really hard to get voted out of office. :)”
Whats the matter, whatever, you afraid to support the war through a war tax? Or are you only a supporter when it has no direct effect on you? Kinda like the rest of the republican “war party.”
Ann Coulter – ugh
Rush Limbaugh – I never listen to, I just know that Media Matters is a Hillary Clinton based focus group and is gearing up the negative campaign rhetoric.
The Dems are still mad from the last two elections when the talk radio show hosts took the Democratic Party to task and blew them out of the water.
Such a plentiful supply of sour grapes in the Democratic Party HQ to eat.
Or as Howard Dean would say:
“EEEEEEEYAAAAAAAHHHH!”
:)
Kerry is just one of the names I gave.
Tell ya what Heckler. You get to make the rules since Rush isn’t here. How about Paul Hackett? Is HE a phony soldier Heckler?
Hey we should remember. Rush is the same guy who made sport of Michael J Fox and his illness. Rush is a slime.
Sorry ’bout that Heck.
“The difference is that Rush is not in the back pocket of any politician. Tons of cash flows from moveon.org.”
Heh, are you joking, Max?
“On the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed to “feel liberated” by Democratic victories in the House and Senate on November 7 because he is “no longer going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried.” Limbaugh added that the Republican Congress has produced “some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves — and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611090005
Remember that? And if you don’t like the source, feel free to google it yourself.
JR
Show me where Rush called Paul Hackett a phony soldier.
Rush also got a private audience with bush.
Hannity, Booortz, Levin, Ingraham, they got the group treatment.
Has bush invited say….Mike Moore to the White House?
Back pocket arguement is a bad place to go here.
“The Dems are still mad from the last two elections when the talk radio show hosts took the Democratic Party to task and blew them out of the water.”
Uhm. . . Kansas, what country were you in last November? ;-)
Probably nuthin XXX, but here’s an update on a new Hillary Fundraiser:
Judge confronted with Hillary ’smoking-gun’ videoClinton-appointee previously insisted in court senator not involved in alleged crimes
——————————————————————————–Posted: October 2, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Hillary Clinton greets Peter Paul with a kiss upon arrival at 2000 Hollywood gala
A federal judge who stated in court Sen. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the planning and preparation for a scandal-plagued Hollywood fundraiser, received by hand-delivery yesterday a transcript of a videotape that allegedly captures the New York Democrat committing felonies related to the event.
The transcript, along with a letter demanding a hearing, was hand-delivered to Federal Judge A. Howard Matz by Douglas Cogan, a regular contributor to FreeRepublic.com who has followed the case closely and helped produce a documentary.
As WND reported, the tape – held by the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York from 2001 to 2007 – documents a July 2000 phone call that purportedly shows Clinton taking an active role in the production of the fundraiser.
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who has filed a $17 million fraud lawsuit against Sen. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, contends the senator’s participation in soliciting performers and planning for the August 2000 Hollywood fundraiser would make his more than $1.2 million in contributions to the event a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than to a joint fundraising committee. That would violate federal statutes that limit “hard money” contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57931
See the video and more at:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56305
Ouch Heckler ya got me on a technical.
He called Paul Hackett a staff puke and said he only went to Iraq to pad his resume.
Though…. That sorta sounds like calling him a phony.
From the WSJ point of view:
For Clinton, 2000 Fund-Raising Controversy LingersEx-Supporter Paul
Stays on the Attack
With Suit, ClaimsBy JOHN R. EMSHWILLERSeptember 14, 2007; Page A7
LOS ANGELES — As Sen. Hillary Clinton grapples with the burgeoning scandal surrounding disgraced fund-raiser Norman Hsu, she can’t quite shake a fund-raising controversy from her 2000 Senate campaign.
Mrs. Clinton’s entanglement with a thrice-convicted felon named Peter Paul is proof of how long campaign-finance problems can haunt a public official. Mr. Paul became a problem for Mrs. Clinton when his criminal past became public shortly after he helped organize and finance a gala Hollywood fund-raiser for her in August 2000.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
I should have said, “last two Presidential Elections.” It was well known that the Democratic Party cried foul about talk radio.
It’s why there was a big push for the Fairness Doctrine to be brought back.
That is, until the Democrats realized that the Fairness Doctrine would allow ideologies of all kind to have equal time on ANY TV or radio show. :)
JR
It’s another phony scandal based on a lie, and the media dutifully help push it along, and to hell with fact.
But ya don’t hear much in the media about the business Max highlighted in his 12:01 post.
But you will.
“That is, until the Democrats realized that the Fairness Doctrine would allow ideologies of all kind to have equal time on ANY TV or radio show. :)”
I’m of two minds about the Fairness Doctrine, but I like that part.
Except maybe for Ed Markey, I didn’t see any “big push” for it, but whatever. They lost.
Maybe Heckler and Rush can cut their yellow magnets in half since they only love SOME of the troops.
Support the troops…as long as they agree with me.
Shame
Kansas,
Rush’s own website references ONE person, yet he used the term “soldiers”. Had he referenced at least one other person, then you win. He didn’t. You lose.
Had he referenced at least one other person, then you win. He didn’t. You lose.
Posted by: SolDevVB | October 02, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Sorry, didn’t realize there was a scoreboard here at the WE Blog. What’s the time limit per quarter? :)
Pat writes:”My children were well covered by personal savings.”
That’s a lie. Only one major illness stood between you and utter financial devestation.
The only person who can pay out of pocket for treatment for something like pancreatic cancer is Dick Cheney.
Wow. From Doug’s link upthread:
“AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes. . . . . . .
*c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.*”
This, of course, is the same corporation that got caught censorsing criticisms of Bush from live broadcasts of Pearl Jam, and possibly other performers.
Jeez! You BET I support net neutrality!!
So with tongue firmly-in-cheek, I’d like state that Cox Communications is a GREEDY, EVIL, CORRUPT, FASC
In his …rush….(I couldn’t help myself) to defend his hero, our friend Heckler places himself in the way of thinking that a soldier is allowed to have only certain opinions.
That is a dark place to go. I hope you find your way out Heckler.
Seymour Hersh’s article on the Bush administration’s plans for Iran.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
Sorry, didn’t realize there was a scoreboard here at the WE Blog. What’s the time limit per quarter? :)
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Take all the time you want. You’re gonna need it.
That general language in AT&T’s service contract is fairly standard Industry wide. You better read yours for your cell phone, your phone, your satellite service, your cable service and/or Internet provider.
It prevents illegal activity, unscrupulous conduct and acts like child predators from abusing electronic and communication services.
Part of Harry Reid’s statement against Limpball’s slander–
“Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line – and while we respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored.
“During his show last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This rant was unremarkable and indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years – until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq ‘phony soldiers.’ This comment was so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone. And yet, he followed it up with denials and an attack on Congressman Jack Murtha, a 37-year active member of the Marine Corps.
“We have been debating the Iraq war here in the Senate and throughout the country for not months, but years. There are good, patriotic Americans who favor the war – and good, patriotic Americans who oppose President Bush’s handling of it. Neither party holds a patent on patriotism. I know all my Republican colleagues would agree with that.
“Yet Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in civil war. Ye he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who are on the front lines.
“And what’s worse – Limbaugh’s show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, which means that thousands of troops overseas and veterans here at home were forced to hear this attack on their patriotism. Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our Armed Forces an apology.
“That general language in AT&T’s service contract is fairly standard Industry wide.”
Agreed. Yet another reason to support net neutrality.
Please do the following pen and ink correction to the “Guide Book of Political Phases”.
When commenting on U S Soldiers:
Allowable:Greneral Betray Us
Not Allowable:Phony Soldiers
New phases will be added weekly, or sooner.
Neither is acceptable. Protected under the first amendment but pretty dirty none the less.
Neither is acceptable. Posted by: SolDevVB
While I may agree with you, the same people who just defended the General phase are now calling for Rush’s head.
And this latest on Rush Limbaugh is a dirty “snow job.”
It was Bill OReilly the week before.
The pattern by Media Matters is quite obvious and only the blind or naive believe in drive-by politically motivated character assassinations.
Posted by: Kansas
But, Kansas, you fail to recognize the fact that if Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would stop making their assinine comments then no media outlet could do anything to make it look different than what it is.
Your two media boys need to shut their fat mouths or else they are up to any and all criticism they get.
Say did Rush get a discount on posting his statement in the NY Times?
No Scotty
But Rush DOES get the full power of the mighty Clear Channel broadcasting. They’ll have to answer for his vile utterances.
mighty Clear Channel broadcasting. They’ll have to answer for his vile utterances.
Posted by: J R |
Last I heard, that was a for profit organization, that is not covered under any tax exempt status for political donations.Radio show, station, and such are all private business.
Just trying to see if any laws were broken here.
Your two media boys need to shut their fat mouths or else they are up to any and all criticism they get.
Posted by: maidmarion | October 02, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Regardless of what you wrote before maidmarion, I found your comment “media boys need to keep their mouth shut” quite humorous and disturbing at the same time.
Free speech or Agreed Speech maidmarion? Which one are you promoting?
“Bong hits for Jesus” anyone? :)
Here we go again. Democrat proposes a new tax to support the war, but again, not everyone will feel the pain equally. Hey I’m all FOR THIS TAX – BUT ONLY IF IT IS A NATIONAL SALES TAX AND WE ALL PAY THE SAME.
“Obey said the annual cost for the war — $145 billion — could be paid by a tax that would range from 2 percent for low and middle income folks to 12-15 percent for higher income households.”
Again, another method of robbing the rich in our country and giving it to the poor.
Another little bit of Rush’s jamming his foot down his considerable gullet.
He said all the troops in Iraq CHOSE to be there.
Now? I can’t be SURE. But I THINK there are probably any number of national guard troops who had no idea they would be going to Iraq. To imply that every single soldier is a willing and eager agent in war is to invite the possibility of no end to that war.
OK — Media Matters haas the full text transcript, INCLUDING the part that Rush left out of his posting on his own web site… AND they have the full audio clip, including the 1 mn. 35 sec. of clip that Limbaugh edited out of his posting on his own website… First he insults soldiers… THEN he willfully covers it up to make himself look clean as a whistle!!
What a PHONY!!!
I love the way we Democratics (well George Soros and Media Matters to give correct credit) can make stuff up that doesn’t amount to snail slime and still we get everyone talking about it! Are we good or what? Context HA! Truth HA! Don’t matter. As long as we get our punches in. It’s good to be a Democratic.
If Rush said “all troops” he screwed up. We all had free will when we enlisted. But the decision to go to Iraq is a set of orders that “all” inclusive did not sign up for, but must follow.
However, I will say we “all” knew the possibilities of “going to war” when we got on board.
Well. ain’t America grand? Here we have a black “man” who robs a dozen banks and guilty white suckers build him a dmaned house! Heck, I am surprised that capn, polmammy, chas and the rest of you mushy headed , guilt libs are not out building the carr brothers a damned mansion. Bend over and grab your ankles, suckers, that’s all you are good for.
9/29/07-TylerMan Arrested In Bank Robbery Set To Get Habitat For Humanity HomeArrest In Bank Case May Lead To More 10/01/07
Man Arrested In Bank Robbery Set To Get Habitat For Humanity Home 9/29/07
Check All | Clear All
He’s believed to have been involved in at least a dozen East Texas bank robberies, but Saturday, we found out he’s also involved in a getting a new home from a local nonprofit. Saturday, we were going to cover a story about a Tyler family getting a new home from Habitat For Humanity, but instead we discovered the father of that family is Derrick Hodges, 33.
Hodges was arrested Friday by Henderson Police for allegedly robbing a bank there back in November, and police say they believe he’s involved in a string of bank robberies all over East Texas. Habitat For Humanity says despite recent revelations, he’s still set to get the house. For the past two and half years police departments all over East Texas have been investigating bank robberies happening in their area, all with the same method of operations.
“The two that we had here in Henderson, the method they used, the description of the suspects, the way they do everything was very similar to other robberies in Tyler, Marshall, Carthage, Crockett, all in that area,” said Henderson Police Lieutenant Craig Sweeney. Now Henderson Police say they have one of the suspected robbers behind bars. A convicted felon, records show Derrick Hodges has committed crimes like burglary and auto theft.
“It ought to make people going into these banks feel a whole lot safer on certain days, that they’re able to conduct business in peace,” said Sweeney. What about neighbors living next to the Hodges in a brand new home being built for the family by Habitat For Humanity?
“There’s no reason at this time why things won’t continue as they’re going,” said Interim Executive Director Rand Huzenlaub. So, the work goes on for a family of five with three children.
“Let’s just say she’s earned this home,” said Huzenlaub. “She has earned this home.” A public search on the Smith County Judicial Web site shows Hodges is no stranger to law enforcement, arrested seven times in Smith County alone, so KLTV 7 wanted to know why Habitat for Humanity did not check these records before approving Hodges’ application…..
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7146969&nav=menu117_3
Habitat should not be doing such things… My guess is that somebody in Habitat will be FIRED very soon, if it hasnt already happened….
i don’t know Chas, that seems a bit harsh…
So you are saying we should punish a mother and her three children who OBVIOUSLY need help if they qualified for a Habitat for Humanity house because the dad is a screw-up? Maybe he shouldn’t be getting a house, but aren’t you missing a big part of the story here as well? What about the 4 other people involved who were NOT listed as suspects along with Mr. Hodges???????
AND they have the full audio clip, including the 1 mn. 35 sec. of clip that Limbaugh edited out of his posting on his own website…
Posted by: Chas.
And what did he say during that 1 min and 35 sec? Anything of interest? Or did he just distort the timing?
Rush has always been behind the troops.
WAY behind them.
I wouldn’t want the s o b behind me. Cross him and he sticks you in the back.
Limbaugh removed 1 minute and 35 seconds from his transcript, after his “phony soldiers” (PLURAL) comment, to move it CLOSER to his comments re Jessee MacBeth, and TIE them together.
“Limbaugh selectively edited “phony soldiers” clip, claimed it was “the entire transcript” ‘http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
Media Matters has the deleted part of transcript posted, and the audio.
NOTE in the beginning of audio clip that Limbaugh changes “phony soldierS” (plural) to “phony soldier” (singular).
The “[begin audio clip]” at MM is at about 6 minutes 40 seconds.
* Littlejohn doen’t listen to Limbaugh, but trusts, and pushes the shortened, edited clip.
* Outlander claims that Media Matters took it “out of context and exploit[ed] it”
* Kansas never listens to Limbaugh, but trusts the shorter clip at hissite — and ironically, Kansas claims that anyone who doesn’t is “blind or naive” .
Posted upthread,——”I heard about this on another thread. Seems this is being pushed by Media Matters, and they don;t seem to have the whole quote, or have it context.
Here’s the link. You decide. I don;t listen to limbaugh, so I could care one way or the other. But let’s keep it straight.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.htmlPosted by: littlejohn | October 02, 2007 at 10:21 AM
“I’d sure hate to have Media Matters taping my every word in hopes that they could take something out of context and exploit it. It seems to be new trend. Media Matters, a tax exempt organization incidentally, makes it up and puts it out there, and their friends in the MSM run with it. No matter how stupid or relatively insignficant overall.
So this is politics in today’s America.”Posted by: outlander | October 02, 2007 at 11:13 AM
“You can listen to it again J R, it’s on the Limbaugh Website as was posted here yesterday on the We Blog.
The only people that believe that comment would have to be very naive not realizing the motives of Media Matters.
I choose not to be naive.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 10:37 AM
“Not really, The Phantom, we know a “snow job” when we see it.
And this latest on Rush Limbaugh is a dirty “snow job.”
It was Bill OReilly the week before.”
The pattern by Media Matters is quite obvious and only the blind or naive believe in drive-by politically motivated character assassinations.
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 11:43 AM
“Rush Limbaugh – I never listen to, I just know that Media Matters is a Hillary Clinton based focus group and is gearing up the negative campaign rhetoric.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 11:51 AM
So how about a direct link to this deleted audio and stop editorializing it.
hud,
Here’s what Limbaugh said during the edited portion of the tape, which makes clear that he was talking about anti-war DEMOCRATS, rather than Jesse MacBeth.
“LIMBAUGH: — the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re, we’re there. What — who cares if, if — we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about — talkin’ about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people — but that, that’s moot, right? What, what’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
Game, set, match: Rush Limbaugh tries to reverse-engineer his own words, and has to lie to do it.
Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, liar.
To make it totally clear: “phony soldiers” refers to “anti-war Democrats” and not to Jesse MacBeth.
Disgraceful
Not ONLY did Limbaugh slur the troops.
NOW he is betraying his fans and hangers on. He edits the transcript inviting people to defend him. They end up twisting in the wind.
Again,
Shame
Cosmos-
i went to your link. Unfortunately, I cannot get audio right now, so I will reserve complete judgement until later. However, the “full” transcript, as posted by MM, shows the portion that was edited by Limbaugh (their words, not mine or Limbaughs). It had to do with wmds, not “phony soldiers”.
Like I said, I don;t listen to Limbaugh. he’s had some good points in the past, and some bad ones. I haven;t listened to him since I have been in the building, maybe 5 years?
If he said what MM purports, he should be blasted. Exposed and blasted. Then let’s move on. Exactly what I said about the General Betray us thing. It wasn;t newsworthy for as long as it was news. They escercised their free speech. Condemn it if you wish, and move on.
CF2K
Please to correct you.
Anti-war soldiers…
CF-Your posted material left out one thing, the statement to which he was responding. It had nothing to do with the phony soldier thing.
Kansas,
Limbaugh’s edited version is at beginning, deleted part after around 6:40.
http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-transcriptedit-20070928.mp3
There was no audio of the actual event on Media Matters.
The audio was Limbaugh’s reaction to Media Matters.
It’s quite obvious to me what Media Matter’s is doing here.
They are mixing an audio of a response from Limbaugh on what Media Matters said about him with a non-existent audio that Media Matters claims to have.
I have yet to hear this edited audio anywhere.
As I said before, give me a direct link to this “edited out audio,” not the response to a critique by Media Matters audio.
The deception by Media Matters is quite obvious.
Posted by: cosmos | October 02, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Cosmos, the posting of a vast amount of space.
littlejohn,
OK. Here’s the whole thing:
“LIMBAUGH: I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
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 –
CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you –
[begin Limbaugh edit]
LIMBAUGH: — know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. And, and my other comment was — and the reason I was calling for — was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn’t, didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.
I’ve done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of — since [inaudible] not know what they’re using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They’re using mustard artillery rounds. The VX artillery rounds in their IEDs.
Because they didn’t know what they were using, they didn’t do it right, and so it just kind of — it, it didn’t really hurt anybody but there are — those munitions are over there, it’s just — it’s a huge desert. If they’ve buried it somewhere, we’re never gonna find it.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that’s a moot point for me right now –
MIKE: Rush –
LIMBAUGH: — the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re, we’re there. What — who cares if, if — we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about — talkin’ about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people — but that, that’s moot, right? What, what’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them.
[end Limbaugh edit]
LIMBAUGH: It’s just, it’s frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority.
Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta — let me see — got something — 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 Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a “corporal,” I say in quotes — 23 years old.
[reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)]
What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart. It wasn’t his being affiliated with post traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, though. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage in their view off the battlefield.
Without regard to consequences, he told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq: American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account translated into Arabic and spread widely across the internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way:
‘We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.’
Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, a poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court, and you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs’ claim and his Army discharge record.
He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly — 44-days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn’t an Army Ranger. Never was. He isn’t a corporal. Never was. He never won the Purple Heart and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.”
You probably haven’t even heard about this, and if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template of the drive-by media and the Democrat [sic] Party as to who a genuine war hero is.
Don’t look for any retractions, by the way, not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth of the left is fiction, is what serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities ’cause they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the U.S. military.
In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: That was the transcript from yesterday’s program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story. Fiction, out of context, did so knowingly.
What is amazing, is that after all of the examples of how this organization is simply a Democrat Party-Hillary Clinton front group, how they constantly do this, how they take things out of context and embarrass themselves, and get things wrong, they still have credible, so-called journalists and others, members of Congress, Democrat Party, who treat what they say as gospel.
Not one member of the media, not one member of Congress has called our office to ask, “Did you really say this, and what did you mean by it?” The reason this doesn’t work, ladies and gentlemen, is that I have a 19-and-a-half-year record on this program of being one of the most devoted supporters of U.S. military personnel in uniform that there is.
And the effort here is simply to discredit people that they consider effective and powerful on the right, ginning up, leading up into the ‘08 elections. They cannot beat us in the arena of ideas. They cannot challenge what we say and refute it and come out on top, so this is the anatomy of a smear, and I’ll show you how it works when we come after the break. We have a bunch of sound bites here from Jim Webb, Jan Schakowsky, Frank Pallone, Democrats and senators, plus the Kerry statement that I read to you. All that coming up right after this.”"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
Upshot: “phony soldiers” is a reference to “anti-war Democrats,” a reference which Limbaugh expunged in order to lie that he was REALLY applying the label “phony soldier” to Jesse MacBeth.
If it were only to MacBeth, why the plural form “soldiers” and not the singular form “solider?” More to the point, why the attempt to rewrite history and to expunge what he himself said–that “anti-war Democrats” are “phony soldiers?”
Game. Set. Match.
“… shows the portion that was edited by Limbaugh (their words, not mine or Limbaughs). It had to do with wmds, not “phony soldiers”.”
Posted by littlejohn.
No, it also had comments re soldiers who signed up “the last four years”.
“[begin Limbaugh edit]
LIMBAUGH: — know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. “
Boy for someone nobody claims to listen to, Rush is sure getting a lot of attention today.
And that was the point, destraction from Democrat failures in Congress.
Any of the 10/1/07 budgets passed yet? Or are they all still debating Rush?
This should be required reading for everyone. It’s the cover story from the current issue of “The American Conservative” magazine.
It’s called “Sycophant Savior” and outlines — and stark conservative terms — just how much of a tool General Petraeus really is.
Neocons and Bushies will hate it.
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html
or this:
http://tinyurl.com/yqdolc
The edited transcript had nothing to do with the Phony Soldiers story as ran by Media Matters. “Should I believe them, or my own lying eyes?”
Look, I don;t care if you don;t like Limbaugh. I don;t care if you think that Limbaugh is the definition of a turd, or hypocrite. I don;t care if youo don;t like his politics. I don;t listen to limbuahg, I don;t subscribe to his newsletter, I don;t listen to Hannity.
I do believe that Media Matters overstated what happened. I don;t care. I pointed out what i see is their misconception, or deception–describe it how you will.
The key in this is the edit.
Rush either KNOWS he is in trouble or is afraid he might be. If he had let the transcript stand unaltered, he could fight this. But he tried to undig the hole. In altering the transcript and presenting a fake as fact, he has betrayed his fans. Glad I’m not one.
littlejohn,
Um, yes, it had EVERYTHING to do with it. Limbaugh called anti-war Democrats serving in Iraq “phony soldiers.” He’s caught on tape doing so, and he’s now edited the tape to backpedal and avoid taking responsibility for his words.
Rush Limbaugh is THE voice of the Republican Party. Pretend all you like that he isn’t, but he is. What he says, matters. And what he’s saying is that Democrats are “phony soliders,” and then he’s lying about it.
A bit about Mr. Bacevich.
“He has been “a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure.”[1] In March of 2007, he described George W. Bush’s endorsement of such “preventive wars” as “immoral, illicit, and imprudent.”[1][2] His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May of 2007.[1]“
“As I said before, give me a direct link to this “edited out audio,” not the response to a critique by Media Matters audio.
The deception by Media Matters is quite obvious.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 01:49 PM
The original Limbaugh section with the “edited out audio” starts after 6 minutes and 40 seconds.
Are you claiming that section is a forgery? Proof?
President Bush and Limbaugh are not running for election.
Limbaugh gets private meetings with President Shrub… I wonder how that effects that law about the White House funds not paying for anything that the NRC does??
Hey! Fleete made a good point!
The GOP contenders for President need to be asked their position on this.
“littlejohn,
Um, yes, it had EVERYTHING to do with it. Limbaugh called anti-war Democrats serving in Iraq “phony soldiers.” ”
Bs. You can state your failed analysis of the connection all you want. it is obvious that the connection is not there. The “anti-war Democrats” he speaks of nowhere as military men. MM blew it. face it.
Long Term Poster-
Excellent link. Seems like the editorial stated that he was not just a great tool for Bush, but for the Democarats in congress as well. Playing politics, instead of being a general.
And the editorial was right. he should have said ‘get in, or get out”
One wonders…
Will Fox news plant Bill Plant at the back of the room at bush’s next presser and have him ask bush what he thinks of Rush’s comment?
I listened to the entire video twice and heard nothing that supports Media Matters claim about Limbaugh.
Both people interviewed and both named Mike, coincidently, both said before Limbaugh spoke the terms, “fake soldiers” and “soldiers that come up out of the blue.”
Each time when the “Mike(s)” spoke on the issue, Limbaugh responded with the term “phony soldiers” or “The Phony Soldiers.”
Both times, it was in response to what the callers had referred to as fake soldiers or “soldiers that come up out of the blue.”
Sorry, but there is nothing there and no amount of spinning can make this something that it isn’t.
I listened to it twice just to make sure.
They ain’t got nothing.
If Limbaugh took them to court, Media Matters would lose their case and their claim would be nullified.
I’m very, very sure Media Matters wouldn’t want to court on this matter because they know very good and well they tried to demonstrate something out of context.
They “ain’t got nothing.”
This is the thread where Rush doesnt edit the 1:35 minutes of his original broadcast… Good thing somebody was recording it…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=i_related
IF you scroll down in the article on the left side, you can read along with the audio clip, and you will SEE where the EDIT happens… with your own eyes, as you listen with your own ears!!
They’re knitting mittens in Hell right now. “littlejohn” and I agree about something.
Others, who claim to be “conservative” should read “The American Conservative” current cover story “Syncophant Savior.”
It’ll open your eyes. It’ll give you a clue as to how neo-cons have corrupted the whole concept of “conservatism.” Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz have driven this nation into a ditch and are hoping Gen. Petraeus will take the heat because he happens to be the guy at the wheel of the bus.
When a liberal such as I and a self-proclaimed “conservative” such as “littlejohn” agree, there’s a hope that party partisanship might, just might, come together with the future of this great country as our highest priority, not the fortunes of George WMD Bush.
Chuckle… Life must be good in America when the left has nothing better to do than bring up something bogus about a talk show host. And then, the Senate majority leader of the United States of America addresses it! Strange days indeed.
It will be a non-story by the end of the week.
“self-proclaimed “conservative” such as “littlejohn”"
??? this guy is wavering between hillary and rudi.
“…the left has nothing better to do…”
If you can’t do what you promised to do to get elected, why not?
Chas, et al
You do know what out of context means?
I’m going to put in a phrase here from one of the Capn’s post. It is deliberately out of context to prove a point.
“There are good, patriotic Americans who favor the war I know all my Republican colleagues would agree with that.” http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-1-1.html#comment-84828708
Sorry Capn, but your post was just handy. :)
Just those words out of contact appears to make the Capn to be favorable to the Republican party and perhaps even a supporter of the war.
Be careful for quotes taken out of context folks.
words out of contact =words out of context”
sheesh, whatever I got, hope it ain’t catching! :)
Kansas… The Audio Clip is NOT out of context… especially when you listen to it, and READ the part that Rush left out!!
And your quote from CapN… doesnt look anything like he is a Republican supporter, or a Republican…. It is very clear what that quote says…
Gotta go… be back later!!
self-proclaimed “conservative” such as “littlejohn”"
??? this guy is wavering between hillary and rudi.
Posted by: fleettwood | October 02, 2007 at 02:24 PM
They are just opposite sides of the same coin.
I took the test, though the questions were not deep enough to get good answers. The reults, though i am not sure I agree:
Agree with mcCain and Ron Paul (score of 25), Huckabee and Gulliani (21)Hillary and Obama (20)THe rest go on down. Fred thompson (17)
“…the left has nothing better to do…”
If you can’t do what you promised to do to get elected, why not?
Posted by: fleettwood | October 02, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Makes you wonder if they’re creating a distraction so they steal the silverware.
Somebody check on Harry.
Chas, if I was an attorney and if I took Media Matters to court and they would lose on what I saw what was posted on their Web site.
No question in my mind about that.
The following is a quote from Hayy Reid. As it happens, Mr. Reid has never served in the military, either.
“Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in a civil war. He never saw a person in combat. Yet, that he thinks his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines,” Reid said.”
“so they steal the silverware.”
Somebody should check on Sandy Berger.
“self-proclaimed “conservative” such as “littlejohn”"
??? this guy is wavering between hillary and rudi.”
And choice #3 is??
And I think that’s rather the point.
I don’t know why some are hanging with a guy who is content to let them swing alone.
If there’s no foul, why alter the transcript??
Some are talking about context. Well, when you remove a significant amount of CONTENT, you can change the context.
And that is what Limbaugh TRIED to do.
“I listened to the entire video twice and heard nothing that supports Media Matters claim about Limbaugh.
Both people interviewed and both named Mike, coincidently, both said before Limbaugh spoke the terms, “fake soldiers” and “soldiers that come up out of the blue.” ”
Posted by Kansas.
1) It was “phony soldierS”, not “fake soldiers”.
2) Kansas seems unable to understand WHY it’s not a “coincidence” that both are named “Mike”.
It’s Mike in BOTH interviews, BECAUSE it’s the SAME interview.
Limbaugh deleted 1 minute, 35 seconds from it, to more directly connect “phony soldiers” to the later Jesse MacBeth section.
It’s easy to think like a Republican… just don’t think.
“And choice #3 is??
And I think that’s rather the point.”
Are you kidding? Do you think our choices are only clinton and rudy?Maybe something will happen in the next 13 months before the election.
“It’s easy to think like a Republican… just don’t think.”
Your post just killed another polar bear. Ya happy?
I want them all asked. All the GOP candidates need to be asked if they will condemn this slander on our troops and this attempt to hide it.
deleted audio – then play the deleted audio
Evidently, Media Matters got the transcript from somewhere. Where is this deleted audio that Media Matters recorded?
I want to hear this missing section if they recorded the original segment.
I listened to the one on media matters and the Limbaugh Website, they are both the same.
WHERE
ISTHE
DELETED
AUDIOTHAT
MEDIA
MATTERSCLAIMS
TO
HAVERECORDED?
“Maybe something will happen in the next 13 months before the election.”
Hmmm. . .I agree. I expect LJ, LTPFTL, and many others here would agree, too.
Did ya know, they’re opening up an ice-skating park in Hell?
Here you go Rage, directions to Hell.
“Directions: Patterson Lake Road, SW of Pinckney. US 23 to Exit 54. Follow M-36 through Hamburg and Pinckney. When you reach downtown Pinckney, look on your left for the sign to Hell. Follow the signs, you can’t miss it. The town is roughly 1/2 hour from Ann Arbor, 45 minutes from Flint, just over an hour from Detroit, and 1 1/2 hours from Toledo.”
Hell, Michigan that is and they probably have ice skating in the winter time there. :)
Kansas,
AGAIN!!! It’s in the section after 6 minutes 40 seconds.
Compare it to Limbaugh “entire” transcript in the first section of audio.
Did ya know, they’re opening up an ice-skating park in Hell?
Posted by: Rage | October 02, 2007 at 02:49 PM
HAHAHA! Good One!
Again, I compared it to Limbaugh Website Audio, they are no different.
“Hell, Michigan that is and they probably have ice skating in the winter time there. :)”
Heh, I’ve heard of it! My mom was a yooper.
I’ve been a Rush fan for years and this just hurts. It makes me angry he covered it up. It’s really not so bad what he said but he went CYA.
Hell, Michigan
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 02:53 PM
Nuff said. Google our current political/budgetary woes. Hell isn’t just a city in Michigan anymore. It IS Michigan.
If you can’t bring them home, give them more money.The dems really, really tried this time.We were against this war, before we were for it.
“Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
test
Failure
Yeah Sol, one can’t fake a typepad account here, because the name is reserved by IP. :)
Really?
Kansas,
Are you claiming that the Limbaugh site audio matches Media Matter’s audio from 6:40 to 8:50?
Or MM’s from around 0:30 to 1:04 ?
Compare the MM audio running from around 0:30 thru 1:04 to the section 6:40 thru 8:50.
0:30 and 6:40 both = “it’s not possible, intellectually”
1:04 and 8:50 both = “thank you, Mike”
Note the difference in running times.
KANSAS — Are you dense?? I posted the link to the Media Matters web page with the Limbaugh audio clip… AND it has the printed transcript with it… The BOLD part of the transcript is what Rulsh edited out!!
And I guess its a good think you arent a lawyer… Cause I heard it LIVE…. And what Rush claimed to be the actual tape, was missing the 1 min 35 secs. that Media Matters has posted!!
Go take another look….
Try posting with that nic, not yours, you can’t. :)
You posted a link, not the nic. heh
Your point being? From the blog here, they are identical.
This is NOT KANSAS. Can any one tell the difference?
signed,
SolDevVB
LMFAO. OK… one more time…
This is NOT KANSAS. Can any one tell the difference?
signed,
SolDevVB
It’s because Media Matters took the clip out of the Audio and out of context and placed it elsewhere.
I just read where two MSNBC reporters agreed with me on the matter.
They must be wrong too huh?
End
Got a link to the MSNBC reporters?
Okay Sol, but the point is, it’s not my IP. :)
It’s just a link.
See what I’m saying?
Who gives a rip what your IP is?
got my IP?
Re: Media Matters and Limbaugh (phony soldiers)
The link is to a Newsbusters. You have to subscribe to Scarborough, MSNBC to get the same transcript of the talk show.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/02/scarborough-media-matters-went-after-rush-phony-story-about-phony-
Who gives a rip what your IP is?
got my IP?
Posted by: SolDevVB | October 02, 2007 at 03:30 PM
No, but the owner of the blog does, each time you post. :)
OK KANSAS — try this one…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=i_related
No, but the owner of the blog does, each time you post. :)
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Should my pants be pee soaked now?
Yeah, that’s not an MSNBC link.
That’s some right-wing shill link, Kansas.
Sorry, you lose, again.
But thanks for playing and take this kick in the ass for you consolation prize . . .
Really mature Sol, forewarned is forearmed.
Capn,
Okay, then get the transcript to the Scarborough show (which you will have to pay for) and read it.
They both say the same thing.
Whatever, guys. Sol, I give you the match on points.
Thanks,*********.tc.ph.cox.net
Rage
To the victor… Now I get everyone’s IP addy. Be scared. Be very scared….
Here you go Capn. This is from Media Matters on the same Scarborough transcript, but more of it there.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020009?f=h_latest
Scarborough doesn’t count either.
You need a real media site, Kansas, you know that.
Not some bullsh*t right-wing rant show . . .
BTW, the Media Matters link shows that the BS the right-wing is spinning is pure crap.
Wow. Great link, Kansas.
“It’s because Media Matters took the clip out of the Audio and out of context and placed it elsewhere.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Thank you Kansas, for proving how immature, insecure, and delusional you are. You cannot support your opinions with facts and realities.
Media Matter’s claim IS accurate — Limbaugh deleted part of his transcript, and then falsely claimed it was the “ENTIRE” transcript.
Okay Capn, you win because you choose to ignore or omit – the Democratic Party way.
One thing I’ve noticed, is that I’m supposed to be polite when I post on this blog.
If I get rough with the Libs, they start whining and complain about trolling and switching nics and other accusations.
So which method do you want me to use?
I can be exactly like the Capn, rude, profane and accusatory.
Will you Libs start whining again?
Kansas,
Just post your credible proof that Media Matters is wrong.
Prove that Limbaugh did NOT delete part of his transcript, and then falsely claim it was the “ENTIRE” transcript.
No thanks.
I think I will go medieval once again.
I will enjoy hearing Libs whine when I play their same game on them.
Everybody knows Limbaugh supports the military and the war effort. All the rest is crap and gotcha.
Kansas,Before you start your latest attempt to post and play nice, would you please clarify your status here. Did the Eds 1) temporarily ban you with an invitation to come back, or 2) did they ban you and you came back circumventing their banning measures (which are admittedly pretty weak).
You only have to say “1″ or “2″ – easy enough, correct. My bet, he won’t answer.
I do have proof as to which way it went down, so don’t try any weasel tactics (apologies to you weasels out there).
I might remind you the way to start anew, is to come clean on your past stuff.
Rush supports only those in the military who agree with him. The same is true of some posters here. I call that selective patriotism myself.
Kansas,
Since you cannot defend your opinion(s), your best option is to slink away and hide.
“So which method do you want me to use?”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Use which ever one you want. Which one works best? The one that gets shouts and insults, or the one that engenders discussion and thought? He who throws the best insult isn’t always the one who wins respect.
I was temporarily banned for reasons not explained to me.
I asked Phillip Brownlee if I could post again and he allowed it.
Under the same IP, I might add.
Use which ever one you want. Which one works best? The one that gets shouts and insults, or the one that engenders discussion and thought? He who throws the best insult isn’t always the one who wins respect.
Posted by: XXX | October 02, 2007 at 04:08 PM
I’ll go do other stuff XXX.
Then come back and post politely.
After thinking about it, the more polite I am, the more my adversaries hate it – just as the Bible says.
Excellent point.
Steven Davis,
Possibly relevant to your questions to Kansas at,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-1-1.html#comment-84862222
“I can’t log in here on typekey cosmos, because it uses an IP number as an identifier and that particular IP number was banned from the WE Blogs with no reason given.”
Posted by: Republican | July 18, 2007 at 05:15 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/open-thread-717.html#comment-76363540
Then downthread,”Thank you Mr. Brownlee. :)”
Posted by: Kansas | July 18, 2007 at 06:38 PM
They should ban him again.
They should ban him again.
Posted by: J R | October 02, 2007 at 04:22 PM
First Amendment anyone?
Well the multi nics. How he won’t even acknowledge reality like here with the Rush thing. He doesn’t add anything. Not productive anyway .
Everyone here who has never EVER used another nic or changed nics, please raise their hand.
Crickets chirping
My point is, everybody has a right to post here. It’s like that famous guy said about disagreeing with what you say but being ready to die to defend your right to say it. One thing I have to give credit to the conservatives on this blog for. I don’t ever recall a conservative calling for anybody to be banned. Wish I could say that about Libs.
Yeah but he abuses it.
XXX,
I’ve only used “cosmos” on this blog.A few times, a software glitch replaced it with an empty ‘ ‘.
Come to think of it, he was threatening to get ME kicked off just the other night. It wasn’t the first time either.
I was hotlick for a while. I changed and told everyone.
While I think that everyone has posted something they are not proud of, there are people who have a more difficult time using this resource responsibly. I don’t think the Eagle has to provide a soap box for every nut in the U.S. of A. in some kind of obligation to the first amendment.
“I asked Phillip Brownlee if I could post again and he allowed it.”
“Under the same IP, I might add.”
The above is distinctly different from the information I have. I will email it to you at the address you provided the other day. Getting you to tell the truth should not be this difficult, but because it is, that is the primary reason I have no trust in anything you say or do.
Oh, you don’t need to answer my email. I have no interest what-so-ever in who you are. I know all I need to know about you. I will send it on a throw-away account and I am not paranoid like you are.
“One thing I’ve noticed, is that I’m supposed to be polite when I post on this blog.
If I get rough with the Libs, they start whining and complain about trolling and switching nics and other accusations.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Was Kansas being “polite” when he says that I, and others are “very naive”, and “blind or naive”?
And did Kansas really NOT understand that Limbaugh had edited his audio?
Or… was Kansas being RUDE, by denying the facts, and wasting our time?—–
“The only people that believe that comment would have to be very naive not realizing the motives of Media Matters.”
I choose not to be naive.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 10:37 AM
“The pattern by Media Matters is quite obvious and only the blind or naive believe in drive-by politically motivated character assassinations.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 11:43 AM
“The deception by Media Matters is quite obvious.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Re the SAME interviews,
“Both people interviewed and both named Mike, coincidently, both said before Limbaugh spoke the terms, “fake soldiers” and “soldiers that come up out of the blue.” “Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 02:18 PM
“I listened to the one on media matters and the Limbaugh Website, they are both the same.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 02:48 PM
“Again, I compared it to Limbaugh Website Audio, they are no different.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 02:54 PM
“It’s because Media Matters took the clip out of the Audio and out of context and placed it elsewhere.”Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Plus newsbusters.org, Joe Scarborough, etc…
Come to think of it, he was threatening to get ME kicked off just the other night. It wasn’t the first time either.
Posted by: J R | October 02, 2007 at 04:50 PM
IIRC, he threatened to “turn you in”. If I’m mistaken, show me. I don’t recall him calling for anyone to be banned.
I’ll be happy to bring a bonedig of him here for you and everyone else.
Posted by: J R | September 29, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Be my guest and you can be assured you will lose your Blog privileges for disruptive and objectionable behavior.
Posted by: Kansas | September 29, 2007 at 10:57 PM
See?
Posted by: cosmos | October 02, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Cosmos, don’t get me wrong here, but I can do a bone dig and find some pretty insulting stuff posted by just about everybody, including myself. What you post here is pretty mild. And I don’t see anything that directly attacks a poster.
Good dig JR, I stand corrected. That’s one conservative that’s called for banning. Shall we see how many Lib bloggers have called for banning?
Oh and its bonedig not bone dig. My word. I coined it. : )
It was either that or “summon the ghost”
I LOVE being able to do it better now!
Okay, I admit it.
I’m sitting in my mother’s basement posting all day and night except when the government-financed home-care nurse arrives to change my diapers.
Hardball re airs at 6. They got 2 segments on Rush.
Can’t wait to see how Olberman plays it.
I gotta fix dinner and find my kid.
JR, that’s MSNBC?
Yup X
Hey I gotta write to you later. One of the emails you gave me didn’t work. Haven’t tried the other yet.
All:
I’ve not weighed in on the Rush thing; I’ve heard both sides. Before I reach any conclusions, given that I did not hear the broadcast, is there a concensus between the hostile forces out there as to an unedited, complete transcript of the entire thing? If you can point me to that, I’ll read it and then, and only then, will I draw any conclusions.
I don’t care who made the transcript; there are no unbiased sources here. But surely you can agree as to what the actual words were, even if you disagree as to what he meant??!!
And I don’t see anything that directly attacks a poster.
Posted by: XXX | October 02, 2007 at 05:03 PM
It seems to me that Kansas’ attacks are both direct, and general (”only the blind or naive”).
“Not really, The Phantom, we know a “snow job” when we see it.
And this latest on Rush Limbaugh is a dirty “snow job.”
It was Bill OReilly the week before.
The pattern by Media Matters is quite obvious and only the blind or naive believe in drive-by politically motivated character assassinations.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 11:43 AM
GMC
This is an evolving story that almost wasn’t. Rush almost got it buried. I’m sure there will eventually be both transcripts side by side. But that sort of isn’t the point. Limbaugh clearly felt he was over the line or he would not have edited the transcript in th first place.
This is what Media Matters claims is the edit.
“[begin Limbaugh edit]
LIMBAUGH: — know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. And, and my other comment was — and the reason I was calling for — was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn’t, didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.
I’ve done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of — since [inaudible] not know what they’re using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They’re using mustard artillery rounds. The VX artillery rounds in their IEDs.
Because they didn’t know what they were using, they didn’t do it right, and so it just kind of — it, it didn’t really hurt anybody but there are — those munitions are over there, it’s just — it’s a huge desert. If they’ve buried it somewhere, we’re never gonna find it.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that’s a moot point for me right now –
MIKE: Rush –
LIMBAUGH: — the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re, we’re there. What — who cares if, if — we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about — talkin’ about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people — but that, that’s moot, right? What, what’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them.
[end Limbaugh edit]”
Now, look it. Look at it again. Look at it for the third time and a fourth.
What Media Matters is claiming is that because Limbaugh edited out this portion, he is somehow guilty of some thing and trying to hide something.
The phony soldiers comment had to do with the list of soldiers that were recently prosecuted in the North west U.S. by prosecutors, one of them was specifically referred to.
What Media Matters has done is to say that Rush Limbaugh called ALL U.S. Military phony soldiers and then CLAIM because he left that portion out of the audio, he was lying about it.
Re-read the edited portion. It proves what?
Remember, Media Matters made the CLAIM that Rush Limbaugh was addressing that ALL U.S. Military were phony.
That claim is false and Media Matters is using distortion of the facts with out of context reference to make this event more than it is.
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but what Media Matters did, is called by Attorneys as “misrepresentation of the facts.”
Really, well why did the second caller specifically say he was referring to the first caller, and Rush didn’t even mention the jesse story till LATER.
The original claim by Media Matters is that Rush Limbaugh was calling all U.S. Military “phony soldiers.”
This has been proven to be absolutely false.
Oh and the fact that Rush was telling this guy he wasn’t a republican over and over again.
Only the ones who don’t support the war. Those are who he was referring to.
This is the origin of the “phony soldiers” which was referred to by Rush Limbaugh.
It is a Department of Justice document.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html
Oh and please do note the title of the DOJ press release.
September 21, 2007NORTHWEST CRACKDOWN ON FAKE VETERANS IN “OPERATION STOLEN VALOR”Phony Vets Scam more than $1.4 Million and Damage Image of Honorable Veterans
“Phony Vets”
The MSNBC where professional journalists bust Media Matters for making the “phony soldiers” claim out of context.
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/09/2007-10-02MSNBCMJ.wmv
Here’s what Rush released on his own website as the transcript of the entire call.
From Rush’s OWN website:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092607/content/01125113.guest.html
RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there’s actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?
RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.
CALLER: I’m not talking about the senators. I’m talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose –
RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can’t handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I’m not also hitting Republicans? I don’t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you’re right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don’t think it’s winnable. I’m not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you’re wrong.
RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I’m not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.
CALLER: I’m not saying that, I’m not saying anything like that.
RUSH: Of course you are.
CALLER: No, I’m not!
RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.
CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let’s get out of there and let’s be done with it. We won it.
RUSH: I’m never going to be able to retire. It’s not going to work. You are depressing me.
CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.
RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can’t believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you’ve heard me say what I’m going to say to you. War is never “plottable” on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it’s going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.
CALLER: That’s true.
RUSH: Thank you. So what’s happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can’t cave in defeat and run out of there and say, “Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam.” We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we’re just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.
CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we’re going to have to be there to take care of it?
RUSH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.
CALLER: I am.
RUSH: You can’t be Republican.
CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.
RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.
CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?
RUSH: As long as it takes.
CALLER: How long?
RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?
RUSH: No, Bill — (Laughing) or Mike. I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.
CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And I do listen to you, but –
RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.
CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?
RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.
RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier 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.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
CALLER: A lot of people.
RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I’ve done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they’re using in their IEDs. They’re using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn’t know what they were using, they didn’t do it right, and so it didn’t really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It’s a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we’re never going to find it.
RUSH: Well, that’s a moot point for me right now.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that’s moot. What’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
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. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”
Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don’t look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
END TRANSCRIPT
I can confirm that there were indeed two callers named Mike. I heard the show live. If he is claiming or posting on his web site that there is only one caller, he is lying.
Now you read this part again right here, front to back….they were talking about soldiers who do not support the war and there is NO FLIPPING WAY AROUND THAT.
“CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.
RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier 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.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
Evidently, the conservative Blogger Michelle Malkin reported this story on 1 January 2007. Rush Limbaugh made a comment on it nine months later.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/01/01/what-ever-happened-to-jesse-macbeth/
Somewhere between then and now, the Libs twisted what Limbaugh had actually said and it ended up in the halls of Congress as fact, with some wanting to make formal declarations against Limbaugh.
Some of those comments by the duped Congressmen can be read here.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_reid_phony/2007/10/01/37251.html
Olberman reports that the audio and transcript were altered beofore the whole sorry mess could be heard…..on ARMED FORCES RADIO.
Shameless
Thanks for the post PMom. What your post shows that there was a deliberate attempt by taking a conversation out of context and misrepresent this to United States Congressman.
Willful misrepresentation, by itself, is a felony and punishable under the law.
Media Matters should be very afraid.
NO Kansas, what it proves is that Limpballs and the 2nd caller Mike were referring to the 1st caller Mike and other anti-war soldiers.
That’s why all the ‘proud to serve’ and “phoney soldiers’ talk is there.
“soldier” does not = “soldierS”.An edited transcript does not = the “ENTIRE transcript”.Deleting 1:35 increases the connection to MacBeth.
Part of intro to edited transcript (from MM)——-LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that “phony soldier” [* SINGULAR *] comment, Jesse MacBeth.
…Here is — it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds — the ENTIRE transcript, in context,”—-
Original, plus part of deleted transcript. (from MM)——-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. [* PLURAL* ]
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 –
CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you –
[begin Limbaugh edit]
LIMBAUGH: — know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.
———
Summary of “Caller 2″ and Limbaugh’s comments:
Soldiers who want to be over in Iraq are “real soldiers”.
Soldiers who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” — even if they died over there.
Yes, thank you!
Rush on his next radio show complained about being sabotaged by the left and HIS OWN EDITED part was only the piece that Cosmos showed. He deliberately didn’t replay the part where he was talking about the other soldier who had just called in.
gee whiz, the cons got really quiet all the sudden.
It’s just Media Matters playing gotcha with talk show hosts. Again. I sense a pattern.
It’s obvious that Media Matters figures that if you talk on air for 3 hours a day, they can record it, find something that the host misspoke on, or take something out of context, and feed it to the MSM.
I’m amazed that there isn’t more material out there. There may be. But you gotta take it for what it is. A couple of words among many thousands spoken reflecting support and admiration for all for the military. Perhaps Rush needs to get that out to counter this dishonest gotcha crap.
I find it hard to believe that anyone really takes this seriously.
And O”Reilly and Rush havent’ been doing it for years? What’s wrong, the left starts fighting back and suddenly we’re wrong? That’s just like a Republican.
Now you can’t sit here and deny what Rush truly was talking about and the fact that he tried to hide it.
The missing video and audio?”Rush Limbaugh “Phony Soldiers Statement 25 Sept 2007″
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Il0TJflq0Rush Limbaugh’s ORIGINAL comments regarding the “phony soldier” (Jesse Macbeth). This was the original posting (his “Morning Update” which airs on radio
====================Video: Jessie MacBeth Anti-War FRAUD
Posted: April 04,2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7Yk8eMh8EHow the Leftist Liberals use lies to promote their agenda (Kerry, MacBeth)
Notice how the future Senator John F. Kerry was caught lying on tape in front of Congress.
Listen to the liar Jessie MacBeth on video at the above video
And I am surprised and very disappointed in you Outlander. I honesltly thought you were better than this.
Evidently Libs are easily convinced and believes ANYTHING that a Liberal Website posts as the truth.
What a bunch of rubes.
cosmos arguably uses as proof the use of the letter “s” on “soldier(s)” as some sort of proof.
Proof that statements can be taken out of context and then lied about to U.S. Congressman. Absolutely!
Ask those same Congressman, let’s say in about a month, how they feel being lied to by the Liberal constituents.
That was NOT the original. Flippin liars.
That was NOT the original. Flippin liars.
Posted by: political_mom | October 02, 2007 at 07:23 PM
Yeah PMom, don’t believe your lying ears and eyes what Rush Limbaugh said about “phony soldiers.”
Definitely don’t do that!
Well JR, I’m not surprised that you would support this kind sleazy Media Matters crap. Making mountains out of dog piles.
Non-story by the end of the week.
Did I mention that Media Matters is a tax exempt organization? And didn’t you favor taking away a church’s tax exempt status for politcal activities?
Outlander,
Are you really claiming that Limbaugh just “misspoke”?
We didn’t he tell Caller 2 that soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq are “real soldiers”, even if they oppose the war?
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. [* PLURAL* ]
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 — …
“We didn’t” should = “WHY didn’t”
Don’t forget Tom Harkin. Of all the people to criticize Limbaugh on something like this.
Now see this is funny, when you see that I posted the actual transcript, now you’re claiming Rush’s original was something totally different than what it really was.
Must suck to have to backpedal so fast Kansas. But it proves to me one thing….that not even you can justify what he said, so now you have to lie for him. You know it, and I know it. Why don’t you just admit he was an asshole and get it over with?
cosmos, (breaks vow of silence)
Do me a favor.
If you truly believe the tripe you are putting here, put it all in an understandable format, submit it on an affidavit that is certified by the Court Clerk of your choice and sent that affidavit to any Congressman of your choice.
Tell the Congressman, this is the absolute truth and it is not parsed and this is what Limbaugh absolutely meant.
Sign that affidavit cosmos.
We will all wait here as you will soon be arrested for presented false statements and factually misrepresented facts and therefore you will be arrested by U.S. Marshall’s or FBI.
Take the challenge cosmos if you really believe what you are writing.
Or chicken out.
No PMom.
The video you saw is where the term “Phony Soldier” came from and what Limbaugh was referencing on that particular day.
Limbaugh, believe it or not has loyal listeners and the callers knew about this broadcast and knew exactly what Limbaugh was referring to when Limbaugh said “phony soldiers.”
The only people who don’t believe it are the Libs that parse words out of context and try to make nothing into something.
As an illustration from our very own blog, Capn America just the other day posted something about “the outlanders” supporting genocide or some such of his usual BS. What he was talking about is not important. What is important is the term he used. “outlanders”. Well there is only one here.
What Capn meant was “outlander and anyone else that thinks like he does”. Kind of like phony soldier MacBeth and anyone like him. “Phony soldiers”
But regardless, I know that given his past statements there is no way that he meant it as is portrayed. And the libs know it too. At least the halfway intelligent ones.
The missing video and audio?”Rush Limbaugh “Phony Soldiers Statement 25 Sept 2007″
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Il0TJflq0Rush Limbaugh’s ORIGINAL comments regarding the “phony soldier” (Jesse Macbeth). This was the original posting (his “Morning Update” which airs on radio
====================Video: Jessie MacBeth Anti-War FRAUD
Posted: April 04,2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7Yk8eMh8EHow the Leftist Liberals use lies to promote their agenda (Kerry, MacBeth)
Notice how the future Senator John F. Kerry was caught lying on tape in front of Congress.
Listen to the liar Jessie MacBeth on video at the above video
Evidently, the conservative Blogger Michelle Malkin reported this story on 1 January 2007. Rush Limbaugh made a comment on it nine months later.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/01/01/what-ever-happened-to-jesse-macbeth/
Somewhere between then and now, the Libs twisted what Limbaugh had actually said and it ended up in the halls of Congress as fact, with some wanting to make formal declarations against Limbaugh.
Some of those comments by the duped Congressmen can be read here.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_reid_phony/2
A little known fact that the neos fail to let people know about rush limbaugh, just do a bit a research, shouldn’t take long on the net, he EVADED the viet nam draft due to a “tailbone” ailment. Yet makes his living sitting in a chair spouting who knows what comes across his drug induced brain.
Kansas,
I’m free to “parse” statements according to the rules of English grammar.
And why should I waste my time doing an affidavit, when you earlier suggested legal action may taken against MM?
I’ll instead let you, or Rush initiate legal action.
“Willful misrepresentation, by itself, is a felony and punishable under the law.
Media Matters should be very afraid.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 07:05 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-1-1.html#comment-84879636
“Did I mention that Media Matters is a tax exempt organization? And didn’t you favor taking away a church’s tax exempt status for politcal activities? ”
Posted by: outlander | October 02, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Did you also mention that the right-wing Heritage Foundation, the libertarian Cato Institute, and others are also 501(c)(3)?
So cosmos, you can parse words out of context here, because you can get away lying to bloggers here. Is that about it?
You don’t have the moral courage to do what I suggest and submit your belief on this matter.
I see cosmos.
Well, at least everyone knows where stand on this matter.
Parsing comments out of context for the purposes of character assassination is lying cosmos.
From what you posted P_mom, it appeared that they were talking about this Macbeth soldier.
There was no talk at all about the MacBeth Soldier till later…he was talking about the anti war soldier who had called before.
How do you see it any differently SD?
My point is, everybody has a right to post here. It’s like that famous guy said about disagreeing with what you say but being ready to die to defend your right to say it. One thing I have to give credit to the conservatives on this blog for. I don’t ever recall a conservative calling for anybody to be banned. Wish I could say that about Libs.
Posted by: XXX | October 02, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Great point XXX, and thanks. I’m not sure why the US Constitution shouldn’t be valued in the same way by Libs and Conservatives. (In this instance, the 1st Amendment)
The more posts of yours I read XXX, I wonder if you are not a closet Con!
GMC, Vaughn, or CF (yes CF I recognize your expertise even though I disagree with some of your views!) and others, may weigh in here, but I see 2 main philosophical differences in viewing the Constitution.
1. It’s a living document, subject to twisting and bending over time, and it may not necessarily require a Supreme Court decision or Constitutional Amendment to change it. Congressional legislation or Executive order is sufficient to effect change as long as the end justifies the means.
2. It’s a document set with principles of freedom that are NOT timebound. Sure technology has changed, but the nature of man has not changed. Our desire for freedom is constant over time, and our propensity to become corrupt and manipulative over others has not changed. Any changes should be carefully thought through and Supreme Court decisions or Constitutional amendments are required before any major change can happen.
For some reason, it seems Liberals lean to the first view and Conservatives lean to the other.
Both believe in change needed over time, but disagree as to the process to follow to effect the change, in my opinion.
A question I had unanswered in college years ago was: How do you effect change in a large organization? After many years, my conclusion is that it takes a team moving in the same direction, led by a leader with vision and powers of persuasion to take the team in the right direction.
As in a large company, I think the same holds true for the country as a whole.
And we haven’t been a team for a long time, and have not had a strong leader with a vision for a long time either.
You may be correct. It seems ambiguous enough that it got kind of difficult to follow.
And in the end, what will it change if Limbaugh is shown to have been an ass in this instance. Will I change my mind on him and his ilk? No, would be the answer to that.
This is a little off topic, but I noted in those Limbaugh transcripts how much the right wing callers sounded like the right wing folks here. It is no wonder that false accusations of nic switching is made when all of those folks sound so much alike – doesn’t excuse such false accusations, just makes them seem more understandable to me, any way.
“Parsing comments out of context for the purposes of character assassination is lying cosmos.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 07:59 PM
“Context” is the parts just before and after a passage, that determine its meaning
1) Prove that I parsed the “comments out of context”.
2) Prove that Limbaugh’s intro of “phony soldier” (singular) was not inaccurate.
3) Prove that Limbaugh’s intro of “ENTIRE transcript” was not inaccurate.
4) Prove that Limbaugh and ‘Caller 2′ ONLY meant MacBeth in this conversation (or parts just before and after).
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. [* PLURAL* ]
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 — …
5) Prove that they did not imply that soldiers opposed to the Iraq war, even the ones fighting and dying there, are “phony soldiers”.
“…but I noted in those Limbaugh transcripts how much the right wing callers sounded like the right wing folks here.” Posted by: Steven Davis | October 02, 2007 at 08:24 PM
This may sound foreign to some posters, but it’s called telling the truth. That’s the reason it sounds similar.
It is no wonder that false accusations of nic switching is made when all of those folks sound so much alike – doesn’t excuse such false accusations, just makes them seem more understandable to me, any way.
Posted by: Steven Davis | October 02, 2007 at 08:24 PM
Could it be there really are more conservatives on this blog then you think?
Why is that so difficult to believe?
In addition to differing views on the Constitution, I think the biggest difference between Liberals and Conservatives is their view on the role of government as opposed to the role of the individual.
And that may be the overriding difference causing the different view on the Constitution.
I’m not talking Democrats and Republicans, I’m saying the Liberals and Conservatives have different views. (What the political parties stand for anymore, I don’t really know.)
Liberals want a more controlling and providing role for government, with individuals cared for by the Government. Government is here to help us. (Maybe not purely, but a more Socialist view)
Conservatives want a less controlling role for government, with individuals responsible for themselves, and the Government is to serve a very limited role. Government is here to stay out of our way. (Not purely, but a more Capitalist view)
Just my 2 bits.
I see cosmos is still lying.
“Kansas,
I’m free to “parse” statements according to the rules of English grammar.”Posted by: cosmos | October 02, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 08:34 PM
I see that Kansas is still making false personal attacks, and wasting time and space — instead of having a mature, factual debate.
I’m free to “parse” statements according to the rules of English grammar.”Posted by: cosmos | October 02, 2007 at 07:54 PM
cosmos is calling his own statements false,personal attacks.
Now that is interesting.
As to the Lib/Con thing again (talking to myself) perhaps there necessarily needs to be the two opposing views in order to maintain a balance between the views.
Capitalists can’t be allowed to let people starve in the streets, and greed cannot be allowed to deprive others of the opportunity to work hard and earn their own way.
Socialists can’t be allowed to totally reallocate wealth taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don’t, less the incentive for working hard and being productive is eliminated.
Both need to remember though, that there are LIMITED resources, as Hotdog1 (I think) says there is no money tree. We should not have government spending beyond its means any more so then individuals should spend beyond their means.
So, we need to find a balance between the views and realize there are limited resources (based on our productive capacity) available.
Kansas/Cosmos, both heating the blog up tonight?
Was getting chilly here anyway.
“Could it be there really are more conservatives on this blog then you think?
“Why is that so difficult to believe?”
Typing slowly for you Max. They all sound alike, have no individual differences, and are essentially clones — that is what is difficult to believe.
From my point of view Steven, you Libs sound alike too.
Well Outlander I guess I really should not be surprised. I don’t recall you taking this….man…to task after his vile attacks on Michael J Fox either.
Thing is? It makes me worry. You’ve a young son and so do I. I begin to think that people like you and me are so diametrically opposed that ultimately we cannot continue to share the same country. I see this man and most of what he does as unfathomably evil. You see him at his worst and find no fault at all. I can’t imagine that I can teach my son to do anything other than hate and fear and forever fight such as you.
I fear truly for the future of our nation.
Max,
Kansas can’t even distinguish between what I posted, and what he posts.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=AhH8YedUPI9EVCetf.ZyeetQ_b4F
JR: You seriously need to lighten up.
I men it outlander. It just seems there is no working with….I’ll say it…you people. I don’t think I can even come to understand you.
Somedays we take ourselves way to seriouly. I think we all need to “lighten up”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apT9d22CmS4
I understand the Dems have dropped their resolution against this man. Well, there are better things to spend time on. The Republicans don’t seem to feel as restricted. They plan a resolution….get this…in SUPPORT of this anal orifice.
I begin to think that people like you and me are so diametrically opposed that ultimately we cannot continue to share the same country.
I fear truly for the future of our nation.
Posted by: J R | October 02, 2007 at 09:06 PM
I fear for the future of our nation too, if there are those like you JR who cannot tolerate those who have a different opinion, being in the same country with you.
I’m sorry. I could understand if people were just silent. But to advocate for this guy after this? You….you just have to have a fundamental difference from anything
I comprehend as right.
Yea I’ll stay out of this one! haha
Maybe you are wrong JR. You were wrong once I know, about Kansas.
You either like Rush or not.
But I would never advocate silencing him or anyone else, taking away their 1st Amendment rights.
Nor would I have them expelled from the country simply for expressing an opposing view.
“From my point of view Steven, you Libs sound alike too.”
Posted by: Max
For someone who has their brain turned off – I am not surprised.
As the Talking Heads said -”Lights on, but nobody’s home.”
“Kansas” in one form or another and I go way back Max.
Hey Steven, I need to get you my new email. But not here in the open. Any ideas? Messenger maybe?
Well JR, I’m not teaching my son to hate anyone except those that would hurt the weak, or hit a girl. He calls them bad guys. Ha! He is going to learn that he has to deal with people that don’t see all things like he does and that he has to look for common ground. I’ll introduce you sometime if you’d like. He’s a good kid as I know your Nathan is.
I only do partisan politics here. I like to debate and do the point- counter point thing. But if you met me in person (I guess you have, but I mean outside the blog setting), you would not be able to tell my politics. I don’t talk about them.
One of my best friends is an uber- liberal who has a pretty well known web site. We usually talk about something else, like sports and family etc…
So JR, please don’t teach your son to hate and fear. We got enough of that.
“Maybe you are wrong JR. You were wrong once I know, about Kansas.”
Posted by: Max | October 02, 2007 at 09:29 PM
You mean about this?
“As per our agreement, I asked Mr. Brownlee to check to see if Kansas’s IP has been used to post any other nics on this thread.
He sent a response back a few minutes ago.
No. “http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-100.html#comment-84729826
Kansas could easily have 2 (or more) ISP’s — one for Kansas, the other(s) for other nics.
I could also be the actual monitor for this blog for McClatchy, but I’m not.
I could be a plant by the Wichita Eagle to spur on blog conversation, but I’m not.
I could live in Germany, be a German Citizen and post on this blog, but I’m not.
Lot of things I could be or could do, but I’m not and I don’t.
I need to do a little looking around back there cosmos. I was out of touch all summer.
Outlander
Those are kind and encouraging words. From where they come from.See? My take is that there are those (maybe not you) but of your politics who DO hurt the weak. Your side has all the money and so a balance of the power. I see the gulf only growing. It is easy to say “let’s not fight” if you are already winning. If it means anything to you, I am forever looking at some way to bridge the divide and find common ground. I thought this was such a case. Maybe some time will come another.
Hate is often recognized as a powerful tool and used to motivate others, especially when there are no rational means to convince others to follow your path.
Thus, the personal attacks.
Hate is used to create a common enemy (eg. Kansas on every topic on this blog, or Rush on this topic today) who believes things we do not agree with.
Those who use Hate to motivate recognize the power of the emotional appeal, especially with one of the strongest emotions – Hate.
Hate is used to create Fear, another strong emotion, and to promote a defensive reaction from your opponent. A premature defensive reaction from an opponent is often emotional, irrational and not thought thru, thus further dimenishing the stature of the enemy.
Those who use Hate then often are able to convince others that their ideas are correct, since Fear and Hate have blinded the frail from reason.
An effective approach Steven, and JR, sometimes. It will work on the weak anyway.
Carry on…..
From another Blog:
Pessimism and negativity of the left
Reading letters over the past few years, I have come to see what a negative and pessimistic world the liberal, secular, anti-war, anti-Bush writers of these gloom-filled missives are.
Being a basically optimistic and upbeat person, I view things with a realistic and reasoned set-point. I believe in the possibilities of accomplishing the difficult challenges that face this country. The left/liberal, un-American, anti-war groups who frequent this paper stand out in various topics, but especially in a constant barrage of negativity.
Here is what you can always, and I do mean always, count on: They look at the worst side of a situation. They will always see defeat rather than victory. They always lack a vision of positive outcomes.
The constant complaining, griping and bitching fills every letter. They never offer alternative ideas of their own and they never take any personal risk but dismiss those who risk all.
They [write] angry [letters] full of self-hate, self-doubt and self-loathing because they lack moral courage. … They [seem to] despise us who believe and trust in a personal God while putting their faith in a secular, sick, cultlike worship of liberalism.
God bless America.
Ben Bennett
Oceansidehttp://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/31/opinion/letters/1_30_0718_44_36.txt
You’re new I think Max. I think you must have come along while I was away.
I spoke of reaching out. I’ll do that now. Let my first interaction with you be at least what I see as a friendly one.
Do not align yourself with “kansas” and don’t get in the buisiness of defending him. I hope you will trust me on this.
Another foreign blog post, that could describe those on this blog too:
August 04, 2007My Enemies ListAs social media grows and matures, Enemy Lists will come to be seen as important — nay, even MORE important than Friend Lists! Many social media force you to make friends list with people you don’t particularly like, just so they can see your content and send you stuff. I think we need good, robust enemies list so that while reading and consuming social media, we can see what motivates people to make the kind of comments they do. Indeed, I’m suggesting three tiers of enemies so that we can locate and analyze people’s speech about others in a context where they may be indulging in vengeance or campaigns of harassment.
When you see people’s very short enemies’ list — you suddenly begin to put into context what seems like a chorus of haters and vilifiers — you realize it only takes a few to poison a well, and feign that their numbers are legion.
1st Tier Enemies — Not only do they post the most vituperative commentary about you, they viciously stalk you around the Internet, posting everywhere you post to try to smear your reputation, finding you where you live — even in real life! They ferret out RL data and use it to vilify you; they post outright falsehoods. These types of enemies loathe your very being and want you gone from the Internet — they aren’t just kvetching about one beef. Beware!
2nd Tier Enemies — They have a private grudge, a vengeance over some imagined or even real slight, and they post on your blog or on their own blogs against you, or ban you from their blogs, but they don’t really cross the street to harass you. They won’t be calling you in RL, thank God! And they are unlikely to keep researching you to try to come up with “dirt”.
3rd Tier Enemies — These types privately slam you and condemn you and keep you off the lists of the best parties, but they may even feign friendship or even fail to ban you from land or blogs. They may dis you — then pretend to apologize. They can often have the most deadly influence, but until you catch them in the act, don’t put them in 1st Tier — they may be able to be converted to friends!
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/08/my-enemies-list.html
Abortionist quack George Tiller’s shyster Lee Thompson likens the grand jury process to vigilante justice by groups with a political agenda [=justice for illegallybutchered viable babies and scarred mothers, in spite of widespread corruption].
Deputy Sedgwick County District Attorney Ann Swegle argues that prosecutors have the power to advise and guide the grand jury [=leading jurors by the nose incircles again].The Tiller grand jury convenes October 30.Look for your jury summons mailing by Friday, God willing.- – -
Michigan abortionist quack P. Sethavarangura, accused of illegal abortions, lost his medical license on Thursday after a local television station conducted a sting operation showing him putting women’s health at risk, offering cheap, dirty abortions without the required waiting period and in violation of parentalinvolvement laws.WDIV TV Local Channel 4 in Detroit also reported that the state of Michigan accused Sethavarangura ofnegligence, incompetence, and lack of moral character, and might even go so far as to impose jail time for repeated, flagrant violations of state laws.Mr. Sethavarangura said that he would be missed by poor women who could not afford clean, safe, legalabortions [and therefore want to be exploited, infected, and scarred by dangerous quacks?].
I’ve seen you now and again Parkay.
Please tell me that you are in favor of the repeal of welfare reform and enactment of national health care. Otherwise, your opposition to abortion has no consistency.
Thanks for the warning JR. But, please don’t use your good intentions to discredit Kansas any further then you have already tried.
I agree most of the time with the conservative views of Kansas, though he is hard-hitting and prone to attack like a bulldog at times. (Remember JR, you came back here to save the world. Even Rush isn’t quite that bold and sarcastic!) Given the circumstances of Kansas being surrounded though, can you blame him?
Part of Kansas and many of us here, likes the fight.
The fight itself can be entertaining at times, but it does detract from any subject matter that may from time to time enter this blog. And that’s what sends many away from here, and I don’t care so much if I miss a few days myself.
The discourse, the ideas shared, the knowledge to be gained is why I still stick around.
You’re bright JR, don’t agree with you much, but you’ve got a head on your shoulders.
And if we could all(me too)keep from getting our collective dander up so much, it would be more fun, and more ideas could be shared.
We will never all agree with eachother, but at least maybe, just maybe, we might better understanding each other’s views.
OK everybody LAST TIME I am posting this — This has the FULL Audio that ran originally o RUSH…. Scroll down the page, and there is a printed Transcript of what is said… with the part EDITED OUT in BOLD PRINT later on Rush’s subsequent endeavor to cover it up… He tried to call the first caller Bill once, and then said he couldnt keep them straight… LOL
OK KANSAS — try this one…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=i_related
Posted by: Chas. | October 02, 2007 at 03:35 PM
“‘Kansas’ in one form or another and I go way back Max.
“Hey Steven, I need to get you my new email. But not here in the open. Any ideas? Messenger maybe?”
Posted by: J R
I recently sent Mike an email. I am not sure we are on good terms over recent shifts. If you can suggest a better intermediary, I’d be willing to listen. Thanks. Glad you’re back.
I admire your fortitude Chas, but I don’t think any of the Rush supporter are going to take you up on your offer.
It was only advice Max.
Maybe I should have said (affecting Mr T)
Drink your drugs. Don’t do milk!
I see a disturbing trend that views “kansas” as some sort of hero. He isn’t.
Forgetting his stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality in the Rush matter, he was better today. You will find that I am eminently forgiving. That’s not arrogance. I just know what I know.Only “kansas” can make me destroy him.
Chas, I think that horse is dead.
Rush is such a big topic I know, even debated in the US Senate all day.
If Rush was in public office, it might make a differece.
Who really cares though?
On another topic Chas, not to pick on you (really not this time) have you read any of the Left Behind series?
I read the Late Great Planet Earth back in the 70’s, then a couple of the Left Behind series, and prophecy does seem to point to the present times. Whatta ya think?
Now that one I can agree with you on Parkay. Doing abortions outside of a medical facility are just like back alley abortions. The risks are far far higher. This man is nothing more than an opportunist and he should lose his license.
Such a shame that some women are so desperate even in legalized abortion times, to seek out a back alley abortionist.
Steven? If you have the email I sent you in my absence, use that. Failing that I will contact you from there.
By the way? I could not say so, but I was aware of your efforts to help me get back here. Thanks.
J.R.,
A throw-away address for me is:
cognitivedissidents1@gmail.com .
Yeah Max, the left is so bad, that’s why the ultra hateful Coulter and Savage, and Limpballs, and O’Reilly and Hannity are the mouthpieces for the neocons.
GOtcha Steven
Email to follow
Email did not work Steven. I’ll get back to you.
Yeah Max, the left is so bad, that’s why the ultra hateful Coulter and Savage, and Limpballs, and O’Reilly and Hannity are the mouthpieces for the neocons.
Posted by: political_mom | October 02, 2007 at 10:37 PM
I didn’t elect any of those people to represent me PMom. They are all private individuals working for private organizations or companies.
I happen to not like listening, watching or reading to any of them.
After today, I’ve had enough Limbaugh to last me a lifetime.
I like talking to you PMom, because you’re feisty and stand up for which you believe by action and word. That’s what makes America great you know.
But, as you know, I don’t have to agree with you, I just have to acknowledge your right to do whatever it is you want to do or say as you see fit. :)
And vice versa as it goes…
reading to = reading
J R,
I will send Mike an email containing my home email address. I think he will send it on to you. Thanks.
Left Behind series is a bunch of crap… I wouldnt recommend it to anybody…. bunch of wingnut religious sci fi
Coulter has said some rather MEAN things about the Troops too… I dont see any of the right wing wanting to SUE her for her comments!!
Early day againt tomorrow….
Good night; Good luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
Are the budgets due 10/1/07 passed yet? No, there are more pressing matters for the Democratic Congress:
Legislation to Protect Gays, Bisexuals Against Workplace Discrimination Stalls on Transgender IssueTuesday, October 02, 2007
E-Mail Print Digg This! del.icio.us
WASHINGTON — Legislation to criminalize workplace discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals — but not cross-dressers or people who have had sex-change surgery — has stalled in the House after an impassioned outcry against excluding anyone from the bill.
“We are one community, and we demand protections for all of us, and nothing else will suffice,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
But House Democrats said while they have the votes to pass a bill banning workplace discrimination against gays, lesbian and bisexuals, they don’t have the votes if so-called transgendered people are included.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299025,00.html
I agree with that Max. The transgendered need protection too.
What’s your problem with that?
The Bill of Rights protects all of us. Why does anyone need special protection?
Thank you Kansas.
About the back alley abortions, what concerns me is they’re putting all these restrictions on abortions and forcing women into the back alleys again.
This is why we need women to make their own choices regarding their bodies legally.
I appeal to the Eagle editors.
Give us a dedicated Rush thread.
It should include links to the full audio from Rush’s broadcast AND his later edited version.
Let us see him as he was and as he wants to be seen. We shall see if he still finds support here.
No it doesn’t, that’s why discrimination is happening.
We wouldn’t need these bills if people would just do the right thing to begin with.
Worn fingers new keyboard. That last is of course J R.
The Limbaugh “horse” has been beaten dead J R.
No one would have any interest in it.
347 hits on mostly this subject says otherwise “kansas”.
I ask the editors also for a dedicated thread to Long time lurkers post as to General Petraeus.
And I will keep asking for both until we get them.
Might as well add global warming too.
Steve, JR, I still have the same junk address. Cc: me if you could. Thanks.
“Tiller grand jury convenes Oct. 30Associated Press
A grand jury investigating whether abortion provider George Tiller broke state law on late-term abortions will convene Oct. 30, Sedgwick County officials announced today.
The district court will send summonses this week to qualified citizens for grand jury duty, according to a county news release.
The action comes a day after a district judge declined to dismiss the grand jury case as requested by Tiller’s attorneys. A federal judge last month also refused to block the seating of a Kansas grand jury.http://kansas.com/news/updates/story/190508.html
Conservatives want a less controlling role for government, with individuals responsible for themselves, and the Government is to serve a very limited role. Government is here to stay out of our way. (Not purely, but a more Capitalist view)
Yes, I am a conservative in that sense, its called classic liberalism and is the GOP’s old platform. Which is basically the Libertarians current platform. While the neo-con presidency expanded the powers of government more than any other president is anything but conservative.
referring to Max’s past post, like 60 posts ago. lol
It’s hard to believe that Kansas is as obtuse as he is making himself out to be over the Rush comment.It has to be intentional.
“The Limbaugh “horse” has been beaten dead J R.
No one would have any interest in it.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Kansas has AVOIDED my 5 questions earlier, at 8:31 PM.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-1-1.html#comment-84893718
And Kansas seems to have proved my points at 4:56 PM — all Kansas has is insults, and time-wasting denial and/or confusions.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-1-1.html#comment-84868100
BTW Kansas… Malkin, who you used in 2 of yours posts upthread, is considered to be similar to Ann Coulter.
I have asked Randy Scholfield for a dedicated thread in this matter. I asked for audio of the original broadcast and the retouched version.
Will it ever end ?Three people – two North Carolina State University students and a 16-year-old – have been killed by an illegal alien, who allegedly was driving drunk, and already had a record of crime in the United States.
Authorities say Pastor Rios Sanchez, 55, is expected back in a North Carolina court on Nov. 15 on charges he killed Helen Meghan Hughes, 22, of Summerville, S.C., Jennifer Carter, 18, of Jacksonville, N.C., and Hughes’ stepbrother, 16-year-old Ben Leonard.
The two women were students at North Carolina State and all three were returning to Raleigh recently when a car crossed the center line about five miles from Sanford and collided head on with Hughes’ station wagon. Two died instantly and Leonard died after being taken to Central Carolina Hospital, Highway Patrol Trooper K.T. Hill said of the Oct. 27 crash.
It’s just the latest in a series of incidents on which WND has reported over recent months about illegal aliens in the United States doing the crime, but not the time. Nor are they deported sometimes as many cases would suggest they deserve.
Good luck getting that JR… I already posted both of those audio clips way earlier… But when you have people so set in their minds, that they wont even hear what is being said, or read what is printed, there is no changing that kind of thinking…
But good luck with Scholfield anyway!! Nite!!
One week after he slammed his Nissan Sentra into a car waiting at a stoplight, killing a U.S. Marine and his female passenger, Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano, whose blood alcohol level was measured at .32 – four times the legal level in Maryland for intoxication – has been identified as an illegal immigrant by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office in Baltimore.
Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews
Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, 21, of Columbia and his date, Jennifer Bower, 24, of Montgomery Village were killed Thanksgiving night, shortly after 10:00 p.m. when Bower’s Toyota Corolla was hit from behind by Morales-Soriano, 25, of Mexico. Mathews and Bower were on their second date and were planning to take part in the June wedding of friends who had introduced them to each other.
Mathews had served 8 months in Iraq and completed another tour of duty in the Pacific. He was stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., and had come home to Maryland for the holidays. He was scheduled to leave the Corps in June 2007.
Mathews’ fellow Marines are upset over his death.
“It’s more anger than anything,” Cpl. Garrett Farris, 21, of Texas, told the Baltimore Examiner. “A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it’s supposed to be our safe place.”
Cpl. Daniel Robinson, 22, of Texas, Mathews’ squad leader, recalled the Marine’s unflinching performance under fire when their unit walked into an insurgent sniper ambush in Ramadi, Iraq, last year.
“He was beside me the whole time,” said Robinson. “He was giving his team commands. He was a perfectionist Marine, and it really showed. We didn’t have one casualty or one killed in action in the ambush.”
Jose, did you mean September 27 crash, or is this story nearly a year old now??
WASHINGTON – While the military “quagmire” in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
(Story continues below)
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn’t track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
“While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators,” states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration.” “That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the ‘good’ in we get the ‘bad’ along with them. The question is, how much ‘bad’ is acceptable and at what price?”
If these illegals had been arrested as many as 8 times, why are they not either in prison, or deported??? Something there doesnt quie add up right…
Oh well, just junk posters this hour of the nite… And the sock puppet ballet continutes….
nosey/jose,
You are barking up the wrong tree by posting stories of minority crime here. These leftists view the carnage as a small price to pay for their insane, and elusive goal of a harmonious multiracial fantasyland. Just hope that they and THEIR FAMILIES get to benefit from the same variety of DIVERSITY!
“Left Behind series is a bunch of crap… I wouldnt recommend it to anybody…. bunch of wingnut religious sci fi.”
I agree. But when I first read it, I thought ‘why didn’t I think of this fiction angle – I could have been rich’.