Rush Limbaugh has a Dan rather moment.

[The_Understander]

@Starving_Artist

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.

Great point, SA. I don’t know how Rush and his ilk get a pass from the corporate media so easily on these points. You know, you used to get on my nerves, but you’ve been on point lately!

[Bosstone]

@Robot_Arm

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.

What goes around comes around. Karma, if you will.

More seriously, I think it’s pretty obvious to everyone that the meme isn’t true. It’s satire, intended to highlight the sleaziness of the tactic. Tasteless, to be sure, but then A Modest Proposal wasn’t exactly bunnies and rainbows either.

[Starving_Artist]

@Enfant Terrible

Great point, SA. I don’t know how Rush and his ilk get a pass from the corporate media so easily on these points. You know, you used to get on my nerves, but you’ve been on point lately!

Assuming you’re not being facetious and whooshing me, thanks.

[GIGObuster]

@Starving_Artist

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.

Al Franken demonstrated that was not so, in her book treason:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-10franken-qa.html

If you want to look at her answers to my book, just please read my book first. Her book Treason came out about ten days before I had to put my book to bed, so I didn’t get a chance to really analyze it in the same way I got to analyze Slander - but I put it on my bookshelf.

And about a week after I finished the book, I was going out to dinner early with my wife, and we’re going out the back way through my office, and my assistant was still there. My wife said, “I forgot to put lipstick on.” So she goes to put some lipstick on. I turn to Andy, and I see Treason, sitting right there. I go, “Andy, I’ll bet you I can find a lie in this book before she gets her lipstick on.” So I just open it up to a random page, and - I remember it was 265 - I see “New York Times.” So any time I see “New York Times,” it’s a lie.

She’s talking about Tom Friedman, the columnist, and she says he blamed 20 years of relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on - I quote - “religious fundamentalists of any stripe.” Now, if you know Tom Friedman, that doesn’t quite make sense. So I go, “Andy, okay that’s it, that’s it. We got it. Look up ‘Tom Friedman,’ ‘New York Times,’ ‘religious fundamentalists of any stripe’ on Nexis.” I go to the back of the thing - she does these endnotes - I find it. It’s December 26, 2001. Boom! Finds that. Kicks it out.

And this is the sentence from which she draws the quote in which she says Thomas Friedman blamed 20 years of relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on - I quote - “religious fundamentalists of any stripe.”

Here’s the sentence (it’s called “Naked Air”; he’s suggesting that everyone fly nude): “If everybody flew naked, not only would you not have to worry about the passenger next to you carrying box cutters or exploding shoes, but no religious fundamentalists of any stripe would ever be caught dead flying nude.”

What kind of person does that, really? This is serious. How low does your self-esteem have to be in order to say, “The only way I can make a living is to do this”? How loathsome is that? I don’t understand it. And it’s one after another of these people who do these things. This is a lie. This is a lie and she knows it. Her lies are carefully carved out. O’Reilly just lies off the hip; he doesn’t know what he’s saying.

Video here:

Al Franken Challenges Ann Coulter on Slanting the Truth

[GIGObuster]

@Starving_Artist

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?

Back when I was forced to listen to the blowhard, I could count several misrepresentations from just one show.

But it clear to me that this snafu from Rush includes also an spectacular public show of racism. And this is almost coming right after Rush defended himself about the weak racism accusations that torpedoed his attempt to obtain an American football team.

[Frostillicus]

Here’s the best part, Limbaugh was made aware during the course of the broadcast that the thesis was fake, but still defended it by saying “I know Obama thinks it.”

OMG. Rush Limbaugh has super powers!

[lissener]

@Starving_Artist

[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.

So . . . this is your method of coming to the truth on this? You don’t stop to look anything up, or whatever, you just decide “logically” that he MUST be a fountain of truth, because THIS particular non-truth has made such waves? Again, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that their is a verifiable, actual world outside of your skull, and to process absolutely everything in the most mind bogglingly solipsistic fashion I have ever witnessed.

My google fu is weak tonight, but somewhere out there is an organization–probably more than one–that vets Limbaugh’s statements (as well as the statements of other political figures) for accuracy. Hasn’t it been demonstrated categorically that Limbaugh is at the top of some such list? He’s either actually demonstrably wrong most of the time, or is more demonstrably wrong than any other such figure.

Who knows why this particular story rose a bit above the noise, SA? Slow news day? Particularly egregious? Or maybe it hasn’t; I might not have heard about it myself if it hadn’t been posted here. Who knows? But to take that as some kind of alternate-universe validation of everything else he’s ever said is a new black hole of illogic from you, SA. That’s just fucking retarded.

[lissener]

@Starving_Artist

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?

In any case, a more logical inference might be that, it’s not a yawn because while every sane person in this country knows he’s a habitual liar, he’s gotten away with it for so long that it HAS become a yawn. It’s his schtick. So when an item like this DOES receive some play, THAT is what the anomaly is, and those of us who’ve become jaded about Rush see an opportunity to go SEE? SEE? THAT’S what he does! Otherwise, “Rush told another lie” is hardly newsworthy anymore.

In any case that was MY reaction: “Awesome! Limbaugh’s finally gotten his ass burned by his bullshit!”

[Robot_Arm]

@Starving_Artist

[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.]

I didn’t mean to imply nearly so much with the word “mistake” as you seem to think. Responsible journalists (and responsible commentators) verify their facts before they report them. Intentional or not, “lie” or not, he did not meet the standard for someone who takes on the mantle of informing the public.

But nobody’s perfect. Responsible people at any level admit their failures (is that a better word), and try to correct them. Let’s see Rush step up to the plate for that, now.

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.

Which is it? In the first sentence you agree with me, and then a whole paragraph attempting to establish just how credible he is. “He must not be doing much of it.” And you don’t even listen to him.

[Starving_Artist]

@lissener

So . . . this is your method of coming to the truth on this? You don’t stop to look anything up, or whatever, you just decide “logically” that he MUST be a fountain of truth, because THIS particular non-truth has made such waves? Again, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that their is a verifiable, actual world outside of your skull, and to process absolutely everything in the most mind bogglingly solipsistic fashion I have ever witnessed.

Oh, horseshit.:rolleyes: I didn’t decide anything “logically” It’s perfectly obvious. And I never came close to alleging he’s a “fountain of truth;” acknowledgeing in fact that as much as 10% of what he says might be a lie. How is that proclaiming him a fountain of truth? Is this your idea of honesty? There was more dishonesty in this post of yours than there was in Limbaugh’s failure to vet Obama’s thesis. At least he didn’t twist words that were right there in front of him.

@Robot Arm

I didn’t mean to imply nearly so much with the word “mistake” as you seem to think. Responsible journalists (and responsible commentators) verify their facts before they report them. Intentional or not, “lie” or not, he did not meet the standard for someone who takes on the mantle of informing the public.

Now you’re backtracking on your use of the word “mistake.” A mistake is an error and a lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Limbaugh made an error. An irresponsible or careless mistake is still a mistake. The fact that it was careless or irresponsible has nothing to do with, as anyone can plainly see.

So, what about you? Did you just say this out of carelessness, or dishonesty? Looks like a careless attempt to be dishonest about the meaning of mistake if you ask me, so I guess it’s a twofer.

@Robot Arm

Which is it? In the first sentence you agree with me…

Have you been drinking? I did not agree with you. Remember when I said, “no I don’t think this mistake increases his credibility the rest of the time” ? That was in clear disagreement with your suggestion that I did.

@Robot Arm

…and then a whole paragraph attempting to establish just how credible he is. “He must not be doing much of it.”

Well, maybe and maybe not. I said he was probably 90% credible. Which is true. Probably even moreso. Now, does that make him credible? To a large degree, yes. Does it mean he’s always credible and never lies? Not necessarily.

@Robot Arm

And you don’t even listen to him.

I still hear and read things he says from time to time, and I check his website occasionally when someone hear makes some claim about what he’s saying and I want to check it out for myself.

[gonzomax]

FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. Here is FAIR with a list of Limbaugh’s lies. He sure can tell them.

[Homebrew]

@Starving_Artist

Oh, horseshit.:rolleyes: I didn’t decide anything “logically”.

So much is so very clear now.

[elucidator]

Not even that simple. Somebody like Mike Huckleberry tells lies, boldfaced lies, but hes got some wit about him and I catch the lies, acknowledge, and shrug. Rush tells the same lies and I want to use him for shark poison.

[Robot_Arm]

@Starving_Artist

Now you’re backtracking on your use of the word “mistake.” A mistake is an error and a lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Limbaugh made an error. An irresponsible or careless mistake is still a mistake. The fact that it was careless or irresponsible has nothing to do with, as anyone can plainly see.

Fine, it was a mistake. Journalists are supposed to be particularly vigilant for this kind of mistake. People in high-profile positions get fired for this kind of mistake. And anybody, anywhere, should admit when they make a mistake.

Have you been drinking? I did not agree with you. Remember when I said, “no I don’t think this mistake increases his credibility the rest of the time” ? That was in clear disagreement with your suggestion that I did.

Haven’t touched a drop all night. Or, in fact, in about a month.

Where did I suggest that you were using this as evidence of Limbaugh’s credibilty? I asked if you were making that claim because I found it so preposterious. That you said it doesn’t I took to be agreement.

Well, maybe and maybe not. I said he was probably 90% credible. Which is true. Probably even moreso. Now, does that make him credible? To a large degree, yes.

And yet, here comes the argument again. You don’t listen to him. The only evidence in this thread shows a blatant, demonstrable untruth from him. And here you are, defending his honesty and reliability. You even pull a percentage out of thin air.

Which is it; does his misattributing this piece to Obama, and his dismissal of the error, make him more credible, less, or make no difference?

[Starving_Artist]

@Robot_Arm

Fine, it was a mistake. Journalists are supposed to be particularly vigilant for this kind of mistake. People in high-profile positions get fired for this kind of mistake. And anybody, anywhere, should admit when they make a mistake.

I agree.

@Robot_Arm

Haven’t touched a drop all night. Or, in fact, in about a month.

Whew.

@Robot_Arm

Where did I suggest that you were using this as evidence of Limbaugh’s credibilty? I asked if you were making that claim because I found it so preposterious. That you said it doesn’t I took to be agreement.

Okay, fair enough. I misunderstood.

@Robot_Arm

And yet, here comes the argument again. You don’t listen to him. The only evidence in this thread shows a blatant, demonstrable untruth from him.

It shows a demonstrable “untruth” (clever use of a euphemism there since “untruth” usually means lie), yes; it doesn’t show that he deliberately used it knowing it was false. So it was a demonstrable mistake. What other kind of mistake is there?

@Robot_Arm

And here you are, defending his honesty and reliability. You even pull a percentage out of thin air.

I’m not defending him so much as I am contesting that those who claim he does nothing but lie are wrong. And they are. I bet I could go to his site right now (but I won’t cause it’s getting late and I got chit to do. ;)) and list any number of things that are correct and very little that is wrong. And I clearly said that the number was an approximation. It was made merely to illustrate a point, but I feel fairly certain that you know that already and are just grasping at straws.

@Robot_Arm

Which is it; does his misattributing this piece to Obama, and his dismissal of the error, make him more credible, less, or make no difference?

I honestly don’t think it makes one bit of a difference. He made a mistake. Big deal, it happens. He made another mistake when he hand-waved it away and I said as much in my first post to this thread. But I don’t think he’s any more or less honest or believable because of it. I didn’t think any more or less of Dan Rather’s honesty or believability when he did the same thing. My opinion of his character was already established and that episode did nothing to change it. I’m sure you feel the same way about Limbaugh, which is well and good. Again, I’m just contesting the meme that Limbaugh does nothing but lie, which simply isn’t so.

[elucidator]

@Starving_Artist

… Again, I’m just contesting the meme that Limbaugh does nothing but lie, which simply isn’t so.

I really hope that’s poorly worded, and you are not trying to reduce the argument to an absurdity, that so long as you can prove that Limbaugh ever told the truth, however inadvertently, then you win?

Which would earn you a richly deserved helping of scorn and derision. Again.

[Starving_Artist]

I’m trying to reduce the argument to the truth, which is that most of what Limbaugh says is undeniably true.

Scorn and derision from the ilk is both expected and an indicator that I’m scoring points.

Oh, it’s a badge of honor, too.

Cheers.

[Lobohan]

@Starving_Artist

I’m trying to reduce the argument to the truth, which is that most of what Limbaugh says is undeniably true.

Scorn and derision from the ilk is both expected and an indicator that I’m scoring points.

Oh, it’s a badge of honor, too.

Cheers.

You’re a known fucking liar by the way, so please don’t pretend you have anything but an accidental acquaintance with the truth.

Kthanxbi!

[elucidator]

That argument is so lame, it ought to have its own telethon.

[Sampiro]

I read that Obama specifically mentioned the legality of the police investigation of whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in his thesis.