Rush's inconsistancies for MGM

[Sled Puller]

All I know is, somebody made a thread just for me, and you guys MUCKED IT UP!





Steve,

I won't sit here and say Rush is a saint or perfect, but he is honest.

I started down through that list and it just stunk of the liberal press taking things and misquoteing them.

All the time I'm thinking,"Where did he get this?"



Sure enough, it was a liberal think tank! LMAO!



Nice try Steve, A for effort!!!





Gary,

I agree, WOW!

 

[Steve M]

Sure enough, it was a liberal think tank! LMAO!



Nice try Steve, A for effort!!!



"Thanks for the high mark. Of course it's a liberal think tank. I was looking up Rush's web site and stumbled on it. I read some inconsistancies that sounded familiar. I had heard the show when it aired and thought it was BS when he said it. I stumbled on a web sight that backs up what I thought at the time. "



Can I expect that your devotion to "seeing all sides" will mean you'll go out and find it and post it for us?



"Yes. The literature that I pasted here is both sides. It's a list of controversial statements he's made with a statement from the other side. Most true. Some just more drool from the far left. "



Or, as I suspect, you're really only interested in promoting arguements to slam conservatives, and ignore the truth?



"You can sustpect what you want. I slam both extremes. The truth is what I'm searching for. Are you suggesting that conservatives are incapible of telling a lie and liberals are incapible of telling the truth? I'll agree that it leans very much that way but there is an occassional reversal. Rush is just an example that it is possible to hear BS from the conservative side. "



But, again, if you can use bare statistics to slam Rush... Hey, even a lie will do, if you think the reader or listener won't check facts.



"I beleave you've nailed the lid down on exactly what Rush uses to slam anyone who has an opinion other that his own. Thanks for the enlightenment. "



In any one day, just examining the evening news and commentary, the NY Times, the LA Times and a couple other papers, one could easily compile a longer list of ACTUALLY PROVABLE errors which go totally uncommented on by almost all the media watchdog groups. . Why? They favor the political left. FAIR, for instance, has never found a single fault with liberal media... amazing, isn't it?



"That's why we have Rush and a couple of other conservative radio hosts who I listen to while on the road. I too like to hear both sides. I hardly watch the local news stations anymore due to their inacurate reporting. They seldom get simple facts straight. It's more of a show than news. An extension of Oprah for those who work and can't sit and watch her. "



"I did not have relations with this woman"

"I did not inhale"

What saint said that?



"" That was Clinton. I'm surprised you missed that. It was all over the news. He lied and weazled his way out of every corner he was trapped in with his own behavior. I still find it amusing that the whole world labeled him a womanizer with the exception of Janet Reno who calls him a lady's man. Says alot about her moral character that she would want to cloud the truth to make him appear more appealing to the public.

I'm not a fan of these people. A few of you want to label me a liberal because I simply want to see both sides. That's not being biassed. That's being narrow minded. Our judicial system is based on evidence from "both" sides being represented and a conlusion being based on the outcome of dissecting "all" of the evidence. Not just the prosecution or defence.

I don't have a gift of literature or speech. Mark, you do and I admire that. So does Rush and unfortunately so does Clinton. Clinton lies every time he opens his mouth. There's not a whole lot of research needed to point that out. With Rush, the only way I have of reading any argument of his blab is to stumble apon a website such as Fair while looking for a "Rush" website to recap his radio show of the day. To put blinders on so as not to even see the other side's view is not being well informed of all of the evidence. It's simply being narrow minded. Rush and conservatism still come out on top. But I want it to be after all the evidence is put on the table. Not just blind faith in Rush's words. ""

 

[Brandon]

ditto head

Rush is right on!!!!



some of you on tdr are like hens in a hen house, or worse than women.



Danelle



:--) :--) :--)

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Steve M

Sure enough, it was a liberal think tank! LMAO!



Nice try Steve, A for effort!!!



"Thanks for the high mark. Of course it's a liberal think tank. I was looking up Rush's web site and stumbled on it. I read some inconsistancies that sounded familiar. I had heard the show when it aired and thought it was BS when he said it. I stumbled on a web sight that backs up what I thought at the time. "



</b><i>



If you had to look it up to find it, you don't listen to the show.



<b></i>



Can I expect that your devotion to "seeing all sides" will mean you'll go out and find it and post it for us?



"Yes. The literature that I pasted here is both sides. It's a list of controversial statements he's made with a statement from the other side. Most true. Some just more drool from the far left. "



</b><i>



This isn't "both sides"... this is someone's published work, which is then attacked. And you left the attack in place - no rebuttal. In other words, left us with the argument that FAIR was the final truth, which it is not.



<b></i>



Or, as I suspect, you're really only interested in promoting arguements to slam conservatives, and ignore the truth?



"You can sustpect what you want. I slam both extremes. The truth is what I'm searching for. Are you suggesting that conservatives are incapible of telling a lie and liberals are incapible of telling the truth? I'll agree that it leans very much that way but there is an occassional reversal. Rush is just an example that it is possible to hear BS from the conservative side. "



</b><i>



Rush is not "extreme" anything. He's quite in the center of the conservative end of the spectrum. But, as I said, just being at the "end" of some spectrum does not make one "extreme" at all.



"Extreme" is an emotional word... It's meant to make the listener or reader recoil from it... Not by the truth of the position or the statement, but just from reaction from the word. This is called manipulating, not "convincing" or arguing. It's meant to make people have a reaction that's not based upon anything valid, just make them react on a gut level.



It's used to divide people, to make them afraid to stake out their own position arrived at by their own deliberations, to invalidate people's own thoughts, should they agree with one side or the other. I recall when a 2 or 3 percent tax cut was proposed, Democrats rushed out and with one voice screamed the whole idea was "extreme". Yet, they never propose actual spending cuts or actual across-the-board tax breaks, calling ANY such action "extreme". Perhaps the idea of government being entitled an ever-growing share of the people's substance is the truly "extreme" position. If someone were to propose a 50% tax rate cut, and a 50% spending cut in federal budgeting, it would be "extreme"... but I still think it would be a good idea.

 

[NETim]

Practical question

Could some of you guys that lean to left explain to me how it is that you can support the left and still expect to be driving diesel (or gas powered for that matter) vehicles in the long term?



To me it's like joining the NRA and then voting for Ted Kennedy. How's that work?



Tim

 

[rrausch]

During and right after the Northridge earthquake, the one which fatally damaged the Santa Monica Freeway overpass, I lived within a couple of miles from it. I passed by it often while it was under both destruction and construction, and I kept abreast of the L. A. Times reports of it.



Rush is right. Government got the hell out of the way. The Bridge Boss was a hard workin' white guy. Most of the crew was too. I didn't see any women and very few minorities on that job. Government let the Bridge Boss do his job and do it he did!

 

[Steve M]

Mark,

Yes, I listen to Rush's show. Yes, I've heard him give his website address. I have a multisearch page set as my home page and I used it to search for Rush Limbaugh. I'm not so narrow minded as to cover my eyes if I stumble apon some other views of Rush. Rush himself is not even opposed to someone questioning his views or quotes. Why are you so opposed to it? Is your view so fragile that anyone who questions your view or Rush's views must be a left wing liberal extremist?

Yes, both sides are there. The quotes are from Rush himself. The rebuttals are there from the liberals who run the page. There's not much to add to it. I never said Fair was the final truth, those are your words. I've heard some of those inconsistancies myself. I found it intertaining at most that I'm not the only one who's heard those inconsistancies and picked up on them. Don't right wing conservative Republicans recognize inconsistancies when they hear it? Or do they tune it out and only hear it if it comes from the left. Now that we've defined "extreme, maybe we could move on to "hypocracy".

Yes, Rush is extreme. Your definition of extreme defines what Rush's show is about. It's what makes him popular. A boring middle man wouldn't make it as a talk show personality. I listen to Rush because he is interesting and for the most part speeks the bitter truth. Howard Stern is on the other end of the spectrum. I don't even bother listening to him. I feel I lean to the right but occording to you, since I have the nerve to even question the credibility of a conservative radio talk show host, I must be a left wing liberal tree hugging welfare recipient. What the knee jerk reaction tells me is, the conservative agenda is so fragile and insecure that to even question a conservative is relative to an all out nuclear attack on conservatism.

Tim, thanks for setting the record straight. I'll conclude by your deduction that there are no left leaning environmentalist wackos driving diesel pickups. I feel better about that.

I wouldn't vote for a Kennedy if he were running against Barney Rubble. I'm not a member of the NRA either. Why to you need to be a member of a collective bargaining agent to own a gun. Wouldn't you do better to lobby for your rights on your own? That's kinda like joining the teamsters and voting for Reagan.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

SteveM, I'm glad to see that you question what you hear, I for one wish that more would do so! I do as well - whether it comes from a conservative or a liberal. I haven't seen you respond to my post up above as of yet though:

Clinton's affairs were 10 years ago? REALLY!? That would mean that he was in the oval office doing his thing with Monica BEFORE he was even elected into office?? Now THAT would be interesting! I believe that his illicit affairs with Monica were later than that. SteveM - just pointing out that it's easy to make a statement based on your bias and that someone somewhere can prove you wrong easily. You didn't make very many personal points in your posts here and I've just completely obliterated one of yours, how many points does Rush make EVERY day?

Where did you get the info that Clinton's affairs were 10 years ago? Weren't some of them when he was in office??



-Steve

 

[Steve M]

Sorry Steve,

Didn't mean to leave you hangin'. My statement about Clinton's affairs being 10yrs ago is a generalization. He was a womanizer when he was governor of Arkansas and before that too. He is I am sure a womanizer today. He was a womanizer when he was elected and he'll likely be a pervert when he's in the old folks home. What more can I say. He's at home now so maybe he'll leave the rest of us alone. But my point is, we're still judging him by his actions of the past. Recent or 20yrs ago, I'm not a very forgiving person. He's a liar and a very convincing con artist. He used his talent to persuade the American public to vote him into office twice. He was impeached for his lies to the American people over his extramarital affairs. He couldn't even hold back long enough to satisfy Monica Lewinsky. Didn't he skeet on her dress? I'd be so embarrassed I wouldn't be able to show my face just over that alone much less the big picture or his eight yrs and more. Yet he shows up on the tube like he's God's gift to women and mankind too.

There are people like him in every corner. From the Outlaws MC to the local church of any denomination. We need to question everyone in our lives. If there's nothing to hide, it'll be a heartwarming conversation. You might even marry that person. If there's anything to hide, there will be a defensive rebuttal.

 

[NETim]

leftists

Steve,



I simply would like to understand a bit more about leftist's views and how they reconcile their views with everyday life. I'm not implying that you're "left". I know that there are left leaners here and frankly I just don't understand how a diesel owner can in any way support the left.



My guess is they (leftists) rationalize it by telling themselves that "it won't happen to me" or "it can't happen here. " Again, I'm just trying to gain a little understanding. I'm not trying to fan the flames.



As far as the NRA goes, they're the only reason that I can still legally own a gun in the US. (Note I said "legally. ") $$$'s make the world go around and the NRA's clout and $$$'s get my point of view across. I write my Congressmen etc, but the NRA is darn good insurance policy.



The NRA is not the AFL/CIO. I would not be a member of anything so corrupt.



Tim

 

[Archive]

It has been said..........

If you aren't a tax and spend compassionate Liberal when you're 20 years old,... then you don't have a heart.



If you're still a tax and spend compassionate Liberal when you turn 40,... . well then you don't have a head.

 

[Steve M]

Tim,

I'll go along with you on the NRA. I'm not a member and I beleave the NRA is stretching the intent of the 2nd amendment. It's intent is so each state could have an organized militia to protect itself from a tyranical government. Not so that we could have everyone running around like gun slingers of the old west. However, with the crime rate being what it is and the dangers of being caught unarmed, I'll support the NRA at the polls. I'm not insinuating that the NRA is a corrupt organization. But out of necessity for the safety of myself and my family, I'll support their interpretation of the second.

I don't beleave for a minute that being left or liberal has anything to do with diesel trucks. If leaning left were to be in tune with the environment, then welfare neighborhoods would be clean and in harmony with nature. I see when I go past these hoods that the opposite is true. The front yards in most welfare recipients houses are an environmental nightmare. Perhaps the mindset to be an environmentalist is such that you'll also be left and liberal.

I think the mindset of a left leaner is that life is a group effort. This actually sounds good at first. Such as when you're 18. But if you then begin to accel due to your extra effort and those left behind start to whine that you owe them because out of pure luck you accelled and they didn't, then you would start leaning right and say no, it's every man for himself. Which also makes perfectly good sense. You prosper to the best of your ability and the left leaners continue with thier group effort. One should not interfere with the other. Taxing my paycheck to subsidize those left behind is interfering with my level of accomplishment. If my union bullys your company to the point of distroying your profits, then I'd be interfering with your level of accomplishment. If you move your business to Mexico to enjoy cheap labor and then I can't afford to buy your product. Then we both could wind up in a pinch. This is just theory but I beleave it to be a simple example of left verses right.

Just my thoughts and I appreciate your being willing to at least have an open debate.

 

[Champane Flight]

How did I miss this?

How did I miss this topic? I went from rightwing conservative to middle of the road in age. So? And I own a diesel, guns, love internal combustion, and have no idea where anyone would think that Rush is out for anything but ratings.

 

[Sled Puller]

"beleave the NRA is stretching the intent of the 2nd amendment. It's intent is so each state could have an organized militia to protect itself from a tyranical government. "





Your dead wrong there Steve.



WE THE PEOPLE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.



A Militia is just that, the people. Not the National guard, Not the Army, the armed citizens.

 

[The patriot]

Militia.....

Gene, I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like

"Every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45".

~AND~ were SUPPOSED TO be armed with the same type weapons as the days standing army AKA "assault weapons".

Eric

 

[Power Wagon]

All you have to do, to know EXACTLY WHO the militia are, is watch The Patriot - the one with Mel Gibson. The movie gets it right. Remember, he commanded a "militia". That meant, he commanded citizens. Not members of the armed forces who were official soldiers, just citizens, who volunteered to fight, bringing thier own weapons and such and fought the British.



Don't you recall the scorn the Brits had for the "militia"? With derision, they said they were "farmers and preachers and bakers" if I got the phrase right. The militia is anyone... it's the citizens. It's the people, pure and simple.



So, in effect, the 2nd amendment says:



That any free (not occupied by standing army and martial law imposed) country will need to stand on the strength and power of it's citizenry... Ergo, the right of citizens to keep and bear thier own arms must never be infringed... freedom depends on it.

 

[rrausch]

Some facts & a ruling from your Government.



Only 7/10 of 1% of criminals armed themselves from gun shows.



The number of felons using firearms between 1991-1997 rose by 70%



A three-judge panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has, in 80 pages of reasoned analysis, ruled in United States Vs Emerson that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the Individuals right to keep and bear firearms.

The Fifth Circuit stated in their ruling, "The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms ... regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia. "

 

[Steve M]

All sounds well and good and I still stand by my above post. The local thug with Mad-Dog running through his veins wants to carry his street sweeper on the seat of his big body Benz just for protection. How do you protect his rights under the second amendment and provide safety for yourself and family *before* he commits a crime and you're burrying your son? To say he can't carry an assault weapon but I can carry my revolver would be infringing on his rights as a citizen of the US as protected by the second amendment. It would also be discriminatory. So how do you keep some sort of order without infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms? There's alot of nuts in this world and my revolver isn't a match against a nutcase with an automatic assault weapon. So where do you draw the line and how? This senario is not what the second amendment was intended for.

 

[Champane Flight]

As

As citizens of the USA we can all be called to serve in a Militia. Can we not? Just as we can all be called to serve in the regular military... ...

 

[Sled Puller]

Well Steve, with you making the point that a revolver is no match for a machine gun, I guess we just toss it in the trash can and just cower in the corner and wait for it.



Ever hear of Carlos Hathcock? An old bolt action rifle is more than a match for dozens of machine guns.