How do we know he’s really the Pope? Sure he wears big hats and lives in the Vatican – so do thousands of other flamboyant Italians.
And even if he IS the Pope, can he prove he’s no longer a Nazi?
YA’know that would be a killer idea for a commercial.
Let’s not start that again. I understand the reason behind the “claims” about Beck, but I still think it’s underhanded. And here we have proof that Limbaugh screwed up (inarguably so; there should be no way to spin this as a matter of opinion). Bringing up alleged crimes just distracts from the smoking gun we have, so to speak.
It’s true that threads in which everyone agrees don’t have much staying power, and I don’t want to see this get handwaved away. But that’s kind of a sleazy way just to keep a thread going.
I’m not actually sure what “Dan Rather moment” refers to. Could someone please explain?
Thanks.
Dan Rather made a report regarding the AWOL status of Bush during the Vietnam war era, Dan Rather decided then to include and show on screen papers that mentioned who and how Bush got such a preferential treatment regarding him not showing up for so many months of his required national guard duties.
Those papers were fake.
It is true that Bush should had been sent to Vietnam for not showing for duty, he was on several occasions AWOL. But really, being awol during Vietnam was not a big crime as it is currently with the current volunteer army. What the tale was missing was an explanation and the memos on how Bush had gotten away with it.
So the papers were expected, and CBS and Dan Rather took the bait.
I fear you misunderstand the “GlennBeck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990” meme. In no way, shape, or form, is it an allegations of criminal action on the part of Beck or Limbaugh. Instead, it’s a comment on how people like Beck and Limbaugh completely reject reality in favor of false accusations and outright lies and couched as speculation and sold to mouthbreathing idiots who spew it to whomever will listen. As such, I found it highly relevant to this latest example of Rush doing just that.
Plus, it’s kinda funny.
I agree that everyone should know that Rush is a lying sack of shit. Of course, if they didn’t know that by now, I highly doubt they’ll finally wake up after this, but you’re right it should be shouted from the rooftops. But, again, I think you misunderstand the rationale behind the “Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990” meme. I’m not saying he did or he didn’t, but why is he suing to stop people from talking about it? 
Ah, okay. I knew about the falsified memos, but I didn’t realize it was Dan Rather who publicized them. I don’t think I’ve watched broadcast news more than four or five times in my life and all of those “famous” broadcasters aren’t famous to me.
Thanks, guys.
Well, part of it is that the man has assembled a whole schtick that essentially prevents him from saying “oh, rats, I f*&^%d up, there’s nothing here”.
But yeah, “c’mon, you know that must be how it is” is too damn lame, one should expect better from someone in Limbaugh’s (and of course Rather’s) league – Rush may be “an entertainer, not a newsman” but dammit, either way you gotta respect your audience!
In any case, greatly amused to see egg on his face.
It won’t be a true Dan Rather moment unless we spend the next five years giving each other handjobs over it and using it to excuse every instance of lefty media wrongdoing.
If this allegation were correct, why is so much note being taken of this error in fact-checking? In other words, if he is such a prolific liar why isn’t this a yawn?
I could be wrong, as I haven’t watched or listened to Rush, other than the occasional snippet somewhere, since the early nineties. But he wasn’t a liar then and I doubt that he is now. He’s under too much scrutiny and everything he says on the air is a matter of public record. Judging by the way I and other conservatives around here routinely get called liars simply for stating unpopular sentiments, I suspect that most of Limbaugh’s “lies” are little more that inflammatory statements that his liberal listeners dislike.
Rush is very, very good at avoiding making blatant, factually checkable lies, instead relying on misrepresentations, misstatements, subtle twisting of facts, and the old “I’m only an entertainer” excuse. This latest episode, however, is one where, once again, he blatantly lied. But, despite that, he STILL has apologists treating it, as you so kindly point out, an error in “fact checking”. He has always, and will always, have people more than willing to excuse the misinformation he spreads.
Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh may have held a young girl immobile by kneeling on her shoulders—periodically burning her nostril hairs with the stub of a cigar just to hear her screams—so Glenn Beck could violate her while inhaling nitrous oxide and caressing his own cheek with a swatch of blue velvet, and you don’t consider that criminal? Sir, I beg to differ.
It was on 60 minutes, not the CBS Nightly News. Just FYI.
I’m pretty sure I understand the point. I just think that if this tactic is sleazy when it comes from Beck, that it’s sleazy to do it to Beck.
In the 90’s, I had a car with a radio that couldn’t change stations. The only thing I could listen to when going to lunch was Rush Limbaugh. I decided his arguments (and three I still remember) were intellectually sloppy and that his conclusions were unsupported, but there was little factual reporting that could actually be checked. This time, he is clearly wrong.
I was trying to figure out how conservatives would spin this to try to minimize it, (“This is the left ganging up on us”, “Dan Rather did it, too”, “he’s just an entertainer”), but this was unexpected. Are you actually claiming that this mistake increases his credibility the rest of the time?
Rush is part of a class (that spans left and right, but is currently selling better on the right) of professional spinners and BSers and self-servingly selective users of sources, who DO often intentionally twist, hyperbolize, misstate, nuance, cherrypick, omit important things, go inflammatory and use dubious sources. But like Robot Arm says, he used to be far heavier on the opinion than on the fact, and when he did deal with facts and was wrong he’d normally get called on it AFTER he’s concluded his broadcast and could slickly move on and do the “I never said THAT, I only repeated that someone else said it; myself I’ve always said THIS” play; he was historically very good at doing his thing in such a manner that it took nontrivial effort to refute him, giving him the chance to spin a defense.
However there seems to have been some drift and he seems to be going too much for the easy shots lately. This last incident is notable in that the material was such he should not have fallen for it AND for blowing up on him mid-broadcast, with his subsequent failure to extricate himself in a manner according to what one would expect of someone with so much experience being quite offputting. And would lead to questioning how sharp he remains…
It also won’t be a true Dan Rather moment unless he admits the error and he and his producers lose their jobs.
He won’t admit the error – my understanding is that he’s admitted that the source was ficticious, but says that “It’s what Obama believes anyway.”
The major problem with politics today is that facts and truth are completely irrelevant, even on shows pretending to be “news.” I find this whole affair totally disgusting, but typical of Mr Limbaugh, FOX news, etc.
That was done long ago so now you think Rush should lose his?
[You might make note, Hamlet, that RA and most of the other posters to this thread are rightfully referring to this incident as a “mistake,” which is what it is and not a lie.]
Now to answer your question, RA, no I don’t think this mistake increases his credibility the rest of the time. But Rush Limbaugh says a hell of a lot of stuff! He is on the air three hours a day, five days a week, and makes literally thousands of claims and statements each week. People around here act like lies come out of his mouth one after the other and that lying is all he does. My comment was meant to show that if he is in fact lying, he must not be doing much of it if something like this, which isn’t even a lie but a mistake, draws so much condemnation. The implication was that this would be a very minor incident if he was truly the prolific and proven liar that people around here seem to think he is. I’ve even thought from time to time about challenging this notion by going to his website, picking out claims he makes on it, and posting them here to see if they’ll stand the light of day or whether they could be proven to be lies. My belief is that 90% of them would. Same with Ann Coulter. Yes, she says some outrageous things, but I’d still bet that 90% or more of what she says is either factually correct or a politically motivated observation that doesn’t lend itself to conclusive proof one way or the other and therefore can’t be disproved.
ETA: I think you’re whooshing yourself, gonzo. I believe RA meant to insinuate that Limbaugh and his producers should lose their jobs like Rather, et. al did.