Your post is your cite?
Before it even happened?! Truly, he must be The One!
People mocking you and your opinions means you’re right ? Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
I’m not a Rush listener, but my wife is.
Based on the decidely unscientific method of hearing her reports of his comments, I’d say “90% accurate” is pretty generous. It may be correct if you bend over backwards to construe every comment in the most generous light possible, but if you’re looking at the ordinary meaning of accuracy, then I’d say he’s very comfortable with shading meaning, selectively reporting facts, and ignoring evidence that comes to light after he’s commented on an issue. His only saving grace is the oft-quoted “I’m an entertainer…” defense. I would give him a 65%, and even that is probably generous. For intellectual honesty, I’d say he’s a solid 30%.
And I’m a conservative.
And how she got into his thesis he’ll never know.
You’ve just taken a classic movie and made it wholly unwatchable for me. HAN–NY! RUSHIE WANTS TO PUUUKKEE!
Is it true that David Lynch based that character on Glenn Beck. That’s what I’ve heard. I’m not saying it’s true, but I haven’t heard Beck deny it.
I’m confused as to why you would describe this situation as a “Dan Rather moment.”
You’ve specifically stated in other threads that the story Dan Rather told was true, yet here you’re stating that Rush Limbaugh was lying. So I’m uncertain as to how the two can be analogous in your eyes.
Where did I say that Limbaugh was lying? I said he got taken in by a fake document, not that he was intentionally lying.
The Dan Rather story was true. The document was unauthenticated, but he had corroborating testimony that it was an accurate facsimile of an original and the information was accurate.
Limbaugh did what he gleefully excoriated Dan Rather for – he reported on an alleged document without verifying its authenticity. It was even worse in Limbaugh’s case, because while the information in Dan Rather’s story was substantiated even without the support of the memos, Rush’s story was completely made up out of whole cloth.
You stated that Limbaugh was made aware of the truth behind the documents yet still went on with his rant anyway. I’d be hard pressed to call that anything but lying.
The point I’m trying to make is that if the situations are analogous then by defending Rather for his actions you also have to be in defense of Rush for what he did.
But if the situations are not analogous (and I don’t believe they are nor do I think you believe they are either), then there’s no reason to compare the two…unless you’re trying to do so ironically, though you give no indication that that’s the case. Basically, by stating that Rush had a “Dan Rather moment” you give legitimacy to the situation surrounding Rather’s report back in 2004, though you disagree that there was any merit to the accusations.
I’m not following you. Both went to air with unverified documents. Rather’s was otherwise coroborrated while Limbaugh’s was not, but the essential comparison is that they both went to air with unverified documents.
I did not say Limbaugh intentionally lied. I did not say that he continued to defend the fake thesis as authentic after he was made aware on the air that it was fake. He just tried to lamely argue that it didn’t matter that it was fake because “I know it’s what Obama thinks.”
No, he didn’t. He said that Rush continued to defend it after being told it was a fake, since he (Rush) knew what Obama thinks.
You know what happens when you assume, don’t you?
That’s fine. I even said in one of my posts that I could be wrong since I haven’t listened to him in a long time. Still, there’s a lot of difference between shading, implying, selectivity, etc., and outright lying, which is what Limbaugh is invariably accused of doing around here. The rest is merely partisanship, which the left indulges in just as freely. An example would be the hysteria and false claims made about the health insurance industry. This from a Fox article today on health insurance profits:
[ul]Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better – drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.[/ul]
[ul]HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.[/ul]
[ul]The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.
UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.[/ul]
And yet according to this article we have the following from our Democratic leaders and organizations:
*“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers’ “obscene profits.” *
~ Nancy Pelosi (note the use of words such as “immoral” and “obscene”)
Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed."
~ Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen (yes, premiums have doubled due to rising costs; as illustrated above, profits have not “skyrocketed”)
“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.”
~ MoveOn.org ad
How is all of this any less honest than what Limbaugh does? Why are people around here not claiming that the likes of Pelosi, Van Hollen and MoveOn.org do nothing but lie to people to get them inflamed and motivated (and why aren’t the people becoming inflamed by these liberal lies and distortions referred to as dumbasses and knuckkle-draggers the way Limbaugh’s listeners are?).
One could call the likes of Pelosi, Van Hollen and MoveOn.org on their lies and distortions just as well as one could on Limbaugh, and in the case of Pelosi and Van Hollen, these are congresspeople – our nation’s leaders – and not merely radio personalities.
Limbaugh is simply one side of a very partisan coin – and a far less influential and powerful one as well.
Missed the edit window. I should have said “this same article” rather than “this article.” The Democrat comments come from the same article as the one listing insurance company profits and I thought the current wording might be confusing.
Does anyone not actually think the Constitution was hypocritical?
This is typical of what Fox News and the right in general do - Get a bunch of quotes from Democrats about health insurance profits and then completely change the subject to something completely unrelated - profit margins. Note that none of the quotes say anything about profit margins, yet the entire first half of the post focuses 100% on profit margins and some non-sequitor comparisons to unrelated industries. They’re just throwing sand in the faces of their easily distracted base.
It is exactly the same thing they did with ACORN - take some reports of voter registration fraud (where the victim was ACORN itself) and then try to convince their minions that massive voter fraud is occuring, when it is clearly not.
I’m not sure what you were shooting at, but I think you missed. the MoveOn and Pelosi comments didn’t have anything to do with profit margins, but Chris Van Hollen’s did (whoever the fuck that is).
No it didn’t.
I guess that since the NFL has outed Rush as a fucking racist, he feels no compunction about letting it all hang out. I breathlessly await his first on-air use of the “n” word.
By the way: Limbaugh has yet to answer the question: Have you ever been caught whilst fucking a sheep? It’s a simple “yes or no” question and America deserves to know.