Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

On Jan 30, 9:00*pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That isn't the way it happened. Rush cited ONE incident where a critic
of the Iraq War that said he was a combat veteran of the War had never
served. If I remember correctly that "Phony" veteran had been
discharged before he even made it one week in boot camp. The FACTS are
out there IF you really want to know.

DL

"TwoGuns" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 9:00 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That isn't the way it happened. Rush cited ONE incident where a critic
of the Iraq War that said he was a combat veteran of the War had never
served. If I remember correctly that "Phony" veteran had been
discharged before he even made it one week in boot camp. The FACTS are
out there IF you really want to know.

DL

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell for
his remarks:

==============================

The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to
be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio version
in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh's show. In it, a wounded veteran
chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a
suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped ''lies to his belt,
sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he
can walk into,'' according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters.
The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last
Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views
raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller's approval: ''The
phony soldiers.''

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the
alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was
talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran.
''I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,'' he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh's first reference to
the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to
phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back
off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the
company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh's remarks
be repudiated.

==============================

Limbaugh was talking about "phony soldiers" in reference to antiwar soldiers
in general. He didn't even hear from the "discredited man" until after he
had made his statement.

I wonder how many dittoheads know the truth about it to this day? Not many,
I suppose.

--

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:16:54 -0800 (PST), TwoGuns
wrote:

On Jan 30, 9:00*pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That isn't the way it happened. Rush cited ONE incident where a critic
of the Iraq War that said he was a combat veteran of the War had never
served. If I remember correctly that "Phony" veteran had been
discharged before he even made it one week in boot camp. The FACTS are
out there IF you really want to know.

DL

But the Marxist /Wbbly Ron DOESNT want to know. He only wants to spew
the Union/Leftist Dialectic. Truth simply doesnt enter into whatever
blither of diarettic spew he is gushing out at the moment.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He was specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Wes

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:52:11 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He was specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

My questions: Why have FIFTY U.S. senators gotten into a dispute with
Rush over something he may have said? Don't they have more pressing
and important things to do while fulfilling their duties of office?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that he
was being abused by the leftist media.

Poor Rush. The sanctemoneous liar has to withstand having his own, UNEDITED
tapes and transcripts tossed back at him. Here's the original of each:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Imagine that. You whip up your audience by trashing the media and then those
sorry *******s come back and stick the truth right in your face. Have they
no sense of honor?


Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Nope, but it would be a scandal if he had them selected by party
affiliation. That's not only a scandal, it's illegal. Do you think the
criminals in Bush's Justice Department who did it will ever go to jail? They
might. The investigation looks like it's going forward.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:52:11 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

My questions: Why have FIFTY U.S. senators gotten into a dispute with
Rush over something he may have said? Don't they have more pressing
and important things to do while fulfilling their duties of office?

They didn't get into a dispute. They just signed a letter.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

My questions: Why have FIFTY U.S. senators gotten into a dispute with
Rush over something he may have said? Don't they have more pressing
and important things to do while fulfilling their duties of office?

Don't you know whipping up the masses while you don't provide solutions to problems is the
method of all tyrants?

Wes

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:15:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"TwoGuns" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 9:00 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That isn't the way it happened. Rush cited ONE incident where a critic
of the Iraq War that said he was a combat veteran of the War had never
served. If I remember correctly that "Phony" veteran had been
discharged before he even made it one week in boot camp. The FACTS are
out there IF you really want to know.

DL

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell for
his remarks:

==============================

The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to
be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio version
in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh's show. In it, a wounded veteran
chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a
suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped ''lies to his belt,
sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he
can walk into,'' according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters.
The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last
Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views
raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller's approval: ''The
phony soldiers.''

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the
alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was
talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran.
''I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,'' he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh's first reference to
the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to
phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back
off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the
company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh's remarks
be repudiated.

==============================

Limbaugh was talking about "phony soldiers" in reference to antiwar soldiers
in general. He didn't even hear from the "discredited man" until after he
had made his statement.

I wonder how many dittoheads know the truth about it to this day? Not many,
I suppose.


Well, unfortunately for you ed, that is the truth. I heard the
comment LIVE and that is what happened. The all encompassing "phony
soldier" crap came from the DNC and drive-by media who either had not
listened to the comment or weren't interested in what was really said.
Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

Jim

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:32:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that he
was being abused by the leftist media.

Poor Rush. The sanctemoneous liar has to withstand having his own, UNEDITED
tapes and transcripts tossed back at him. Here's the original of each:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Imagine that. You whip up your audience by trashing the media and then those
sorry *******s come back and stick the truth right in your face. Have they
no sense of honor?


Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Nope, but it would be a scandal if he had them selected by party
affiliation. That's not only a scandal, it's illegal. Do you think the
criminals in Bush's Justice Department who did it will ever go to jail? They
might. The investigation looks like it's going forward.


Ed Huntress - spreader of lies and purveyor of bull****!

Jim

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:15:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"TwoGuns" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 9:00 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That isn't the way it happened. Rush cited ONE incident where a critic
of the Iraq War that said he was a combat veteran of the War had never
served. If I remember correctly that "Phony" veteran had been
discharged before he even made it one week in boot camp. The FACTS are
out there IF you really want to know.

DL

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

==============================

The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to
be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio
version
in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh's show. In it, a wounded veteran
chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a
suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped ''lies to his belt,
sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he
can walk into,'' according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters.
The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last
Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar
views
raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller's approval:
''The
phony soldiers.''

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the
alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he
was
talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded
veteran.
''I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,'' he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh's first reference
to
the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to
phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back
off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the
company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh's remarks
be repudiated.

==============================

Limbaugh was talking about "phony soldiers" in reference to antiwar
soldiers
in general. He didn't even hear from the "discredited man" until after he
had made his statement.

I wonder how many dittoheads know the truth about it to this day? Not
many,
I suppose.


Well, unfortunately for you ed, that is the truth. I heard the
comment LIVE and that is what happened. The all encompassing "phony
soldier" crap came from the DNC and drive-by media who either had not
listened to the comment or weren't interested in what was really said.
Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

Unfortunately for you, Jim, your memory is no better than Wes's. g

We don't have to argue about this. Here is the full audio from that show.
Listen to it at least from 3 minutes into it. Limbaugh's offending remark
appears at 4:17:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

As you'll note, he was talking about the "phony soldiers" who want to pull
out of Iraq -- of which the first "Mike" was his example. There's no getting
around it.

Days later, Limbaugh tried to wiggle around it. No sale.

--
Ed Huntress

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:32:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He
was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that
he
was being abused by the leftist media.

Poor Rush. The sanctemoneous liar has to withstand having his own,
UNEDITED
tapes and transcripts tossed back at him. Here's the original of each:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Imagine that. You whip up your audience by trashing the media and then
those
sorry *******s come back and stick the truth right in your face. Have they
no sense of honor?


Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Nope, but it would be a scandal if he had them selected by party
affiliation. That's not only a scandal, it's illegal. Do you think the
criminals in Bush's Justice Department who did it will ever go to jail?
They
might. The investigation looks like it's going forward.


Ed Huntress - spreader of lies and purveyor of bull****!

Jim

Too bad for you, Jim. You don't know what you're talking about.

Did you listen to that Limbaugh tape yet? My guess is that I won't hear an
apology from a dittohead...

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that he
was being abused by the leftist media.


He was refering to the those in the anti war movement that claimed to be solders and were
not. I know what he ment when I heard it the first time and again today when I heard it
for the umpteenth time. I sat though your mediamatters (lib front groups) mp3 just now.
Have they no respect for copyright?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that
he
was being abused by the leftist media.


He was refering to the those in the anti war movement that claimed to be
solders and were
not. I know what he ment when I heard it the first time and again today
when I heard it
for the umpteenth time. I sat though your mediamatters (lib front groups)
mp3 just now.
Have they no respect for copyright?

They aren't violating any copyright. That's a fair-use clip from a long
show.

So, you just "sat through" the mp3, and you still think he was talking about
people who claimed to be soldiers and were not? Then, Wes, you're hearing
what you want to hear. Because it's not in what you heard. It's just
flat-out not there. It must be in your head.

If you think otherwise, tell me at what point he says that. Again, his
comment comes at 4:17 into the recording, right after he talked to the first
"Mike," a former soldier who wanted to bring the troops home, and when he
was talking to the second Mike:

(starting just after 4:00):

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They
can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why
should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for
the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an
answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

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.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --


The phony guy who Rush talked about, Jesse MacBeth, didn't come up until
about 2 minutes after this exchange, when Limbaugh read it from an AP story.

So you didn't hear what you're saying you heard, Wes. It's just not there.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The phony guy who Rush talked about, Jesse MacBeth, didn't come up until
about 2 minutes after this exchange, when Limbaugh read it from an AP story.

So you didn't hear what you're saying you heard, Wes. It's just not there.


Ed, you are picking fly**** out of pepper on this. So two minutes later Rush connected
the dots, big woo. Likely he was thinking about Jesse when he commented two minutes
earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Rush does do show prep. His weaving something into the discussion with a call in that he
was about to address has been taken out of context by the left. Like when Trent Lott was
being nice to an old Senator and got crucified for it.

I just wish the left would hold themselves to the standard they hold conservatives to. Not
paying taxes for example.

Wes





--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The phony guy who Rush talked about, Jesse MacBeth, didn't come up until
about 2 minutes after this exchange, when Limbaugh read it from an AP
story.

So you didn't hear what you're saying you heard, Wes. It's just not there.


Ed, you are picking fly**** out of pepper on this. So two minutes later
Rush connected
the dots, big woo. Likely he was thinking about Jesse when he commented
two minutes
earlier.

Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

Well, the context of the discussion was the "phony" soldiers that Mike 2
brought up, and which he and Limbaugh agreed were not real soldiers because
they didn't think we should be in Iraq. The rest of it is...a case of you
knowing now what Limbaugh was going to bring up a couple of minutes later,
and you reading his mind in retrospect.

No sale. No reason or logic will support that. Only the ideologues and
Limbaugh's apologists have claimed that he was talking to Mike 2 about
something that Limbaugh himself didn't even bring up until two minutes
later. Even his dittoheads had to know, at the time he said it, that he was
talking about anti-war soldiers. That's what the *subject* was, fer
chrissake.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_li...rs_controversy


Rush does do show prep. His weaving something into the discussion with a
call in that he
was about to address has been taken out of context by the left.

It wasn't out of context. It was precisely IN context. How could it have
been "in context" before the context even came up? You're not being rational
here, Wes.

Like when Trent Lott was
being nice to an old Senator and got crucified for it.

Ha-ha! Yes, it was just being nice to suggest that things were better when
they were all open racists and they kept the darkies from voting. g


I just wish the left would hold themselves to the standard they hold
conservatives to.

I doubt if they'll ever sink that low, Wes. The left can be assholes, but
otherwise they're pretty benign. Unfortunately, I can't say that about the
recent crop of right-wingers who wanted to strip three or four provisions
from the Constitution, that thing that GWB thinks is "just a piece of
paper."

Not paying taxes for example.

As I said, they can be assholes. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The phony guy who Rush talked about, Jesse MacBeth, didn't come up until
about 2 minutes after this exchange, when Limbaugh read it from an AP
story.

So you didn't hear what you're saying you heard, Wes. It's just not there.


Ed, you are picking fly**** out of pepper on this. So two minutes later
Rush connected
the dots, big woo. Likely he was thinking about Jesse when he commented
two minutes
earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Rush does do show prep. His weaving something into the discussion with a
call in that he
was about to address has been taken out of context by the left. Like when
Trent Lott was
being nice to an old Senator and got crucified for it.

I don't think Rush was calling soldiers opposed to the war "phony soldiers".
However, the link you posted about MacBeth only shows that this disturbed
character got no MSM coverage until the AP story broke about his lack of
bona fides. So Rush's example doesn't support his premise, although I
imagine a fair number of dittoheads were left with the impression that the
media were all over this phony soldier.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

There is reading minds, something that a long history of listening to Rush, gives me some
ability to do so.

You are still picking fly**** out of pepper, iow, nitpicking.



Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:37:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:32:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He
was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that
he
was being abused by the leftist media.

Poor Rush. The sanctemoneous liar has to withstand having his own,
UNEDITED
tapes and transcripts tossed back at him. Here's the original of each:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Imagine that. You whip up your audience by trashing the media and then
those
sorry *******s come back and stick the truth right in your face. Have they
no sense of honor?


Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Nope, but it would be a scandal if he had them selected by party
affiliation. That's not only a scandal, it's illegal. Do you think the
criminals in Bush's Justice Department who did it will ever go to jail?
They
might. The investigation looks like it's going forward.


Ed Huntress - spreader of lies and purveyor of bull****!

Jim

Too bad for you, Jim. You don't know what you're talking about.

Did you listen to that Limbaugh tape yet? My guess is that I won't hear an
apology from a dittohead...


First, I'm not a dittohead. I only listen to him on occassion and
there are quite a few things that I disagree with him on. Secondly, I
don't havae to listen to the tape, I heard the ORIGINAL (what part of
that don't you understand?) comment live and I DO know what I'm
talking about. Thirdly, what the **** does it matter what he said two
or so years ago? The fact is that the person he was speaking about
was, in fact, discharged from BOOT CAMP, yet presented himself to the
drive-by media, hungry for any anti-war tidbit, as a war veteran. He
was exposed and that was what Limbaugh was talking about.

Jim

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:34:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:15:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"TwoGuns" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 9:00 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That isn't the way it happened. Rush cited ONE incident where a critic
of the Iraq War that said he was a combat veteran of the War had never
served. If I remember correctly that "Phony" veteran had been
discharged before he even made it one week in boot camp. The FACTS are
out there IF you really want to know.

DL

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught hell
for
his remarks:

==============================

The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to
be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio
version
in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh's show. In it, a wounded veteran
chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a
suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped ''lies to his belt,
sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he
can walk into,'' according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters.
The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last
Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar
views
raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller's approval:
''The
phony soldiers.''

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the
alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he
was
talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded
veteran.
''I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,'' he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh's first reference
to
the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to
phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back
off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the
company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh's remarks
be repudiated.

==============================

Limbaugh was talking about "phony soldiers" in reference to antiwar
soldiers
in general. He didn't even hear from the "discredited man" until after he
had made his statement.

I wonder how many dittoheads know the truth about it to this day? Not
many,
I suppose.


Well, unfortunately for you ed, that is the truth. I heard the
comment LIVE and that is what happened. The all encompassing "phony
soldier" crap came from the DNC and drive-by media who either had not
listened to the comment or weren't interested in what was really said.
Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

Unfortunately for you, Jim, your memory is no better than Wes's. g

We don't have to argue about this. Here is the full audio from that show.
Listen to it at least from 3 minutes into it. Limbaugh's offending remark
appears at 4:17:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

As you'll note, he was talking about the "phony soldiers" who want to pull
out of Iraq -- of which the first "Mike" was his example. There's no getting
around it.

Days later, Limbaugh tried to wiggle around it. No sale.



You're right, there's no sense in arguing about it. You can't educate
left wing idiots so I'll stop trying. I don't care if he called every
****ing one of the whiners "phony soldiers", because that's what they
are. They sign up to play at soldiering, wear the uniform and collect
the paychecks and benefits but when the **** hits the fan they start
whining about "unjust wars" and "we shouldn't be there", etc. If they
don't want to be involved in a war, get the **** out, but stop
whining. They think war and the military is a great thing until it
inconveniences them, then it's bad. Yes, I was in the military
(21years) and yes, I was in combat, and no, I didn't whine about it. I
knew that when I signed on the dotted line I could be called to serve
and I did so with honor and pride. Just keep believing your Dummycrap
nonsense. Maybe one of these days you'll walk into a light pole and
it'll knock your head out of your ass.

Jim

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:37:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:32:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught
hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He
was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that
he
was being abused by the leftist media.

Poor Rush. The sanctemoneous liar has to withstand having his own,
UNEDITED
tapes and transcripts tossed back at him. Here's the original of each:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Imagine that. You whip up your audience by trashing the media and then
those
sorry *******s come back and stick the truth right in your face. Have
they
no sense of honor?


Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid
of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Nope, but it would be a scandal if he had them selected by party
affiliation. That's not only a scandal, it's illegal. Do you think the
criminals in Bush's Justice Department who did it will ever go to jail?
They
might. The investigation looks like it's going forward.


Ed Huntress - spreader of lies and purveyor of bull****!

Jim

Too bad for you, Jim. You don't know what you're talking about.

Did you listen to that Limbaugh tape yet? My guess is that I won't hear an
apology from a dittohead...


First, I'm not a dittohead. I only listen to him on occassion and
there are quite a few things that I disagree with him on. Secondly, I
don't havae to listen to the tape, I heard the ORIGINAL (what part of
that don't you understand?) comment live and I DO know what I'm
talking about. Thirdly, what the **** does it matter what he said two
or so years ago? The fact is that the person he was speaking about
was, in fact, discharged from BOOT CAMP, yet presented himself to the
drive-by media, hungry for any anti-war tidbit, as a war veteran. He
was exposed and that was what Limbaugh was talking about.

Jim

He presented himself but they weren't so hungry for his tidbits. Nobody even
knew who he was until he was exposed.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:

My questions: Why have FIFTY U.S. senators gotten into a dispute with
Rush over something he may have said? Don't they have more pressing
and important things to do while fulfilling their duties of office?

Don't you know whipping up the masses while you don't provide solutions to
problems is the
method of all tyrants?

Wes

I don't know if that's true but I do know that is exactly what Limbaugh's
job is. Whipping up his followers and providing no solutions to any problems
except to elect as many republicans to office as possible is what he does.
But since he's now the head of the republican party, for all intents and
purposes, why wouldn't fifty senators be paying attention to what the leader
of the party has to say? What is embarrassing is that such a fat, ignorant,
bald, drug addicted, slob is the most important guy the right wing has in
authority right now. Boy, talk about being down and out. When a guy like
Limbaugh is leading a party you know it's about as low as it can possibly
get.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

There is reading minds, something that a long history of listening to
Rush, gives me some
ability to do so.

You are still picking fly**** out of pepper, iow, nitpicking.

OK Wes but this was the topic for the show:

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the
U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the
situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in
the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our
occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath
Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence.
When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are
likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages.
As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need
security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released
Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their
self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is
to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis
take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which
we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as
they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to
highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without
recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this
mission through.

On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of
their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New
York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."



Anyway, "eye wittness" reports of what a talk show hosts listeners think was
said are about as reliable as eye witness reports of sudden, violent crimes.
They aren't.

JC

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

There is reading minds, something that a long history of listening to
Rush, gives me some
ability to do so.

I try hard not to read minds although I am interested in watching how they
manufacture their products, like this one.


You are still picking fly**** out of pepper, iow, nitpicking.

Then why are you bothering with this?

This little Limbaugh story is a good example of how and what he
communicates, IMO. Factoids, true or not, are just the beads on the string.
He doesn't care whether they're true or not; it's less troublesome for him
to use verifiable factoids, so that's what he usually does, but it really
doesn't matter in the end.

What matters is the narrative he can weave from them. It's the story. The
factoids are just like the carrier wave in an AM radio signal; the
profluence, as a famous writing instructor used to call it, that keeps the
story moving along. But his message is the continuing story. The narrative
is the modulation and the real message.

This time he put his foot in it in a small way with the factoids. It was
like Don Imus with his "nappy-headed hoes" wisecrack. It wasn't about the
factoids or their truth; they're just the carrier wave for his narrative, in
which people and events become raw material for his story. Imus went over
the top, admitted and apologized for it, and then he got creamed.

Limbaugh's True Believers were not going to let that happen to him, so they
went into full counter-attack mode to defend him. That's a part of the
narrative, too. And it sort of worked, because here we are, and you actually
came away from it believing his excuses.

And that's not because you really can read his mind or that you have insight
into his intentions. It's because you've gotten caught up in the story and
you've thus become part of it. You've ignored the context of his discussion
with the caller, reached ahead to something that came up minutes later in
the show and that was unrelated to what Mike 2 was saying, and "read
Limbaugh's mind" that he really was talking about something that hadn't even
been talked about to that point and which he never, in any way, tried to
relate to his "phony soldiers" remark made earlier to Mike.

Ditto, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

There is reading minds, something that a long history of listening to
Rush, gives me some
ability to do so.

I try hard not to read minds although I am interested in watching how they
manufacture their products, like this one.


You are still picking fly**** out of pepper, iow, nitpicking.

Then why are you bothering with this?

This little Limbaugh story is a good example of how and what he
communicates, IMO. Factoids, true or not, are just the beads on the
string. He doesn't care whether they're true or not; it's less troublesome
for him to use verifiable factoids, so that's what he usually does, but it
really doesn't matter in the end.

What matters is the narrative he can weave from them. It's the story. The
factoids are just like the carrier wave in an AM radio signal; the
profluence, as a famous writing instructor used to call it, that keeps the
story moving along. But his message is the continuing story. The narrative
is the modulation and the real message.

This time he put his foot in it in a small way with the factoids. It was
like Don Imus with his "nappy-headed hoes" wisecrack. It wasn't about the
factoids or their truth; they're just the carrier wave for his narrative,
in which people and events become raw material for his story. Imus went
over the top, admitted and apologized for it, and then he got creamed.

Limbaugh's True Believers were not going to let that happen to him, so
they went into full counter-attack mode to defend him. That's a part of
the narrative, too. And it sort of worked, because here we are, and you
actually came away from it believing his excuses.

And that's not because you really can read his mind or that you have
insight into his intentions. It's because you've gotten caught up in the
story and you've thus become part of it. You've ignored the context of his
discussion with the caller, reached ahead to something that came up
minutes later in the show and that was unrelated to what Mike 2 was
saying, and "read Limbaugh's mind" that he really was talking about
something that hadn't even been talked about to that point and which he
never, in any way, tried to relate to his "phony soldiers" remark made
earlier to Mike.

Ditto, eh?

--
Ed Huntress
It was obviously his intent to invalidate anti-war views. But directly
attacking the soldiers would not be a good tactic, so he planned on doing a
segue into the Macbeth phony soldier story, rather than attacking actual
soldiers head-on. This would leave the ditto-heads nodding their heads about
media bias and all anti-war soldiers being phony. As you said, he put his
foot in it in a small way by coming out with the phony soldier remark before
introducing the Macbeth story. The narrative was predetermined, facts and
logical conclusions derived in a linear fashion are not relevant to
propaganda.

On Jan 31, 6:04*pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

There is reading minds, something that a long history of listening to Rush, gives me some
ability to do so. *

You are still picking fly**** out of pepper, iow, nitpicking.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

Wes...listening to Rush long term is dangerous to one's mental health.

Listening to him on occassion on the other hand is good for a great
laugh.

Wishing "Obama to fail" before the man was even in office tells anyone
with a brain Rush is a domestic terrorist.

And I as a patriotic American have to wonder about anyone's patriotism
who supports this man.

TMT

TMT

On Jan 30, 9:00*pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

And note while the suicide rate for soldiers is at a all time high
Rush continues to attack these brave men and women.

And where the hell is he when Walter Reed was happening?

And when Bush was cutting vet benefits?

Rush is no patriot.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 6:04 pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Aha. So we're reading minds now, instead of talking about the actual
context.

There is reading minds, something that a long history of listening to
Rush, gives me some
ability to do so.

You are still picking fly**** out of pepper, iow, nitpicking.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes...listening to Rush long term is dangerous to one's mental health.

Listening to him on occassion on the other hand is good for a great
laugh.

Wishing "Obama to fail" before the man was even in office tells anyone
with a brain Rush is a domestic terrorist.

And I as a patriotic American have to wonder about anyone's patriotism
who supports this man.

TMT

That's all a wrong, er I mean left point of view. From the right, Obama and
those that voted for him are domestic terrorists. To hope domestic
terrorist Obama fails to harm the USA is patriotic.

Before getting any troops home, Obama signed to spend taxpayer dollars on
abortions. Before taxpayer money could be sent to those who provide
abortions, the money just couldn't be used directly in the abortion process,
but that was too moral so Obama had to change it.

How would Osama Bin Laden and terrorists Vote:

(X) Kill American Babies in their mothers womb

(X) Force the taxpayers to fund the Killing of their children.

(X) Pull the troops out of Iraq

(X) Stop fighting against terrorists

(X) Gun Control

(X) Obama for President

( ) McCain for President

(X) Consider those with opposing views as terrorists

While you try to spin it, the fact remains that a Liberal Democrat has more
in common with a terrorist. Obama and Osama has similar names and would
also vote similar on issues in America.

RogerN

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 9:00 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Limbaugh

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed
forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq
and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It
rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

And note while the suicide rate for soldiers is at a all time high
Rush continues to attack these brave men and women.

And where the hell is he when Walter Reed was happening?

And when Bush was cutting vet benefits?

Rush is no patriot.

That's right, he's really nothing more than a loudmouth demagogue. But the
people who listen to him and are his ditto heads are worse. They're American
Nazis.

Hawke

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:37:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:32:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

More Limbaugh horse****, which he tried to pass off after he caught
hell
for
his remarks:

I was traveling during those days. I heard Rush in full context. He
was
specific
concerning imposters playing veterans.

Yes, AFTER he called the anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." Rush later
edited his audio tape to cut that part out, and told the dittoheads that
he
was being abused by the leftist media.

Poor Rush. The sanctemoneous liar has to withstand having his own,
UNEDITED
tapes and transcripts tossed back at him. Here's the original of each:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Imagine that. You whip up your audience by trashing the media and then
those
sorry *******s come back and stick the truth right in your face. Have
they
no sense of honor?


Now, has Obama fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his
administration? I have
not been able to tell. Now if he has not and at some point gets rid
of
say, oh, ~ 7 of
them during the next few years will it be a scandal?

Nope, but it would be a scandal if he had them selected by party
affiliation. That's not only a scandal, it's illegal. Do you think the
criminals in Bush's Justice Department who did it will ever go to jail?
They
might. The investigation looks like it's going forward.


Ed Huntress - spreader of lies and purveyor of bull****!

Jim

Too bad for you, Jim. You don't know what you're talking about.

Did you listen to that Limbaugh tape yet? My guess is that I won't hear an
apology from a dittohead...


First, I'm not a dittohead. I only listen to him on occassion and
there are quite a few things that I disagree with him on. Secondly, I
don't havae to listen to the tape, I heard the ORIGINAL (what part of
that don't you understand?) comment live and I DO know what I'm
talking about. Thirdly, what the **** does it matter what he said two
or so years ago? The fact is that the person he was speaking about
was, in fact, discharged from BOOT CAMP, yet presented himself to the
drive-by media, hungry for any anti-war tidbit, as a war veteran. He
was exposed and that was what Limbaugh was talking about.

No, he wasn't. He was talking to Mike2 about soldiers who are opposed to the
war in Iraq, and who they both said that the media love to pick out. He
didn't bring up the guy you're talking about until minutes later, when Mike2
was long off the line.

I don't know how you think you got the sequence right, trying to remember it
after two years. I just listened to the recording of the exchange several
times a few days ago. There's no question what Limbaugh was discussing when
he talked about the "phony soldiers." If you would listen and refresh your
memory, it would be clear to you.

As for why it matters, it appears to matter to you. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress