Why I’m Subscribing to the Limbaugh Letter
Earlier today as I was going through my accumulated mail, I set aside a letter I would normally discard. You see, I received an invitation to subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter. While I frequently enjoy Rush’s show, I’m not really a fan so didn’t really see need to receive his thoughts monthly in my mail box.
But, considering the latest left-wing smear against this conservative talk show host, I decided to subscribe to show my support (not that he really needs it) for this man who has never minced words in taking on the left, criticizing liberals who might otherwise go unchallenged in the mainstream media.
While Media Matters claims that Limbaugh “selectively edited” the “phony soldiers” transcript, that left-wing website fails to mention its own selectivity, not including any reference to Rush’s comments specifying what he meant by such soldiers. Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters finds that Media Matters cherry-picked and misrepresented Limbaugh’s statements. Not only that, he noted (as did I in my up-update to Bruce’s post) that the conservative talk show host was “basically reiterating what ABC’s Brian Ross and Charles Gibson reported last Monday evening just two days before Rush made his statements” (H/t Instapundit).
So, if Media Matters is going to go after Rush, well, then I’m just going to show my support by doing something I would not otherwise have done, supporting this conservative by subscribing to his newsletter. I encourage GayPatriot readers to do the same.
88 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m thinking about getting a Rush 24/7 subscription as a thumb eye of the moonbats.
If I do, I’ll probably fax a copy of the receipt to Dingy Harry’s office.
Comment by Robert — October 2, 2007 @ 7:54 pm - October 2, 2007
Done! I’ve been meaning to sign up for a while….
Dan… you convinced me to do it now!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 2, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - October 2, 2007
I only have one thing to ask, how the hell can you be a Gay Republican? These are the people who deny you the right to marry the person you love, call your sexual orientation an abomination, claim you can be “cured”, won’t allow you to have children, deny you the same benefits as hetero couples, bash you every chance they get, and would gladly roll you and beat the living shit out of you.
I’m totally at a loss. To me being a Right wing Gay is like being a Nazi Jew or a KKK Black.
[Why don't you try reading our blog to understand our ideas instead of trotting out tired cliches which have no basis in reality? --Dan]
Can you clear that up for me?
Thanks.
d.
Comment by deuddersun — October 2, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - October 2, 2007
Rush answers Harry. The transcript is a fun read. Two bits caught my eye:
Translation: Lots of troops love Rush, Reid and the Left are crudely trying to discredit Rush to the troops, and it will fail.
And this:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - October 2, 2007
And he “finds” this without once referring to the actual transcript of Limbaugh’s show. Gee, why would he be so afraid of quoting the actual complete transcript of the show (not the deceptively edited one that Rush provides), I wonder? The transcript is crystal clear: the caller decries people who argue for an end to the occupation and the soldiers they get to agree with them, not “real soldiers” but the ones “that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” At that point, Rush helpfully provides the fateful description of “phony soldiers.” The caller repeats the “phony soldiers” comment and goes on: “If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq.” No mention of Macbeth until much later in the transcript.
And the idea that the discussion with the particular caller had anything to do with what some other talking heads on a different network were prattling about days earlier is really grasping at straws.
Go ahead and shell out your money to support poor Rush – maybe he’ll be able to take another sex tour of the Caribbean! As for me, I’ll be supporting the campaign to have him removed from Armed Forces radio.
BTW, Rush has just attacked another brave soldier opposed the war and the “phony soldier” characterization as the media equivalent of a suicide bomber. Keep digging that hole Rush!
Comment by Ian S — October 2, 2007 @ 8:23 pm - October 2, 2007
deuddersun, another lowercase commenter, why am I not surprised. So here’s my question to you, I assume you are a Democrat.
How can you call yourself one. These are the people who passed DADT, voted for DOMA. Here is John Edwards who is all proud of his 25 year old daughter that she is in favor of gay marriage, hopes his younger kids will be as well. But he himself can’t bring himself to support it.
Not a single Democratic candidate aside from Kuchinich has come out in favor of gay marriage.
And please point out to me exactly where in the Republican platform it says that gays are an abomination, that they must be forced to be cured.
Where have the Republicans come out and condoned beating the living day lights out of gays?
Yes of course there are zealots in this country that feel that way, but they do not represent the Republican party, even if some of them vote Republican, (Unlike Phelps who votes democrat, and we know how much he loves gays). So please, open your mind up a little bit, allow people to think for themselves and not be forced into group think, just because you are so filled with hatred.
Comment by Leah — October 2, 2007 @ 8:26 pm - October 2, 2007
As a non-partisan patriot, I agree with the writer 100%. Before the touchy-feely wars post Korea, “soldiers” who behaved as described would have been shot, either legally or by friendly fire.
It is war. There is no room for anything but patriotism.
Neither the left nor the right seem remember Hillary dishing the president on his 9/11 speech. Where are the lip-readers’ transcripts? She showed just by her unspoken actions that she is a traitor.
DIg it or don’t, we are in this war. As for me, my great grandmother was raped and killed and probably raped some more by muslims because Christians are and have always been “fair game”.
Comment by Non-partisan Miamian — October 2, 2007 @ 8:31 pm - October 2, 2007
#4 quoting Rush:
Before that, Rush should just go head to head with the guy who challenged him first. Poor Limbaugh is apparently too much of a chickenhawk to respond.
Comment by Ian S — October 2, 2007 @ 8:31 pm - October 2, 2007
The left wing Nazis have been trying to remove Rush from the airways for many years. They tried going head to head with liberal talk show hosts, they all failed, by last count over 12 of em. They tried legislation. Failed because of a silly thing called the Constitution. Now it is mud slinging. How interesting. The liberals, the progressives, the “free thinkers”. How sad. What losers. hehe The troops know who is on their side. Over 80% of brave soldiers vote Republican election after election. How that gauls the leftists. The troops are for Bush 43, they are for Rush, they are for conservatives. Leftists are chicken doves. Fake patriots. Phoney Americans.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 2, 2007 @ 9:25 pm - October 2, 2007
#3 I am a gay Republican, actually more accurately a gay conservative. And I’ve no gripe with the groups you rail against because I don’t sit around waiting to be offended by anyone. I go about my life not waiting for anyone to tell me what I can and can’t do. So far I’ve been very successful and have almost everything I’ve ever wanted. I’ve worked hard and have had every success America affords all of it’s citizens. God Bless America.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 2, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - October 2, 2007
You know, I was thinking about this “scandal” and the O’Reilly “scandal” in the context of morality. A lot of people like to lecture that they don’t need to have any sort of moral code “imposed” on them. But look what happens when morality is replaced by expediency… you become completely free to lie about people just to smear them.
Comment by V the K — October 2, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - October 2, 2007
I have a great article on my blog today at Punditorial.com on this issue and why it only takes a little bit of common sense to understand the silliniess of this and why it is so obvious that this isn’t even an issue!
Comment by Kevin Wroblewski — October 2, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - October 2, 2007
Gene, I read the troops vote 65-70% GOP (not 80), but your point is well taken.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2007 @ 10:47 pm - October 2, 2007
For those that are considering subscriptions, signing up for their 24/7 program may be a bargin with all it extras and perks!
Comment by Dave_62 — October 2, 2007 @ 11:32 pm - October 2, 2007
What are you afraid of? Have you arrogantly decided (as all liberals are wont to do) that you know better than our soldiers what they want to listen to?
I wouldn’t have some a-hole actively participating in a lie on my show either. And we all know Harry Reid is too much of a p*ssy to accept, so there you are.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 2, 2007 @ 11:48 pm - October 2, 2007
BTW, how many liberal shows have an “Adopt A Soldier” program?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 2, 2007 @ 11:58 pm - October 2, 2007
#14:
My taxes pay for that bullsh!t to be broadcast to the troops and I say NO F’ING MORE!
Comment by Ian S — October 3, 2007 @ 12:12 am - October 3, 2007
#15:
That program just lines Rush’s pockets.
Comment by Ian S — October 3, 2007 @ 12:18 am - October 3, 2007
LOL. He laughs all the way to the bank. He’s an entertainer!!! And you are all shelling out cash to him.
Comment by sean — October 3, 2007 @ 2:02 am - October 3, 2007
Dont be silly. Like any of us believe you pay taxes.
But thank you for exhibiting one of the hallmark characteristics of leftists from Hitler, to Mussolini, to Stalin to Chavez to Hillary to you. Control the message! Decide what people can and cant listen to. Pump people full of your lies and then shut down anyone who would dissent.
Such a typical little stalinist. Ian, Minister of Truth.
The troops listen to Rush Limbaugh because they were asked what they want to listen to and he was their number one choice. They want to listen to all three hours but democrats in congress wont let them. (The same democrats who are busy doing everything they can to have the troops votes thrown out every election.)
Youre big on challenges, heres one for you, why dont you tell the troops to their faces that you pay taxes and you dont want them listening to Rush!
Comment by American Elephant — October 3, 2007 @ 2:54 am - October 3, 2007
Thank God! After the parade of foolish Liberal proposals that lasted ALL DAY (Biden’s non-binding Iraq “regions” measure; Reid’s petty attacks on Rush; and Pelosi’s comments about the war surtax proposal), I finally feel like I’m not taking crazy pills.
Head of company that airs Rush Limbaugh program says he will ‘not condemn our talent’ for voicing opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298999,00.html
Comment by Sean A — October 3, 2007 @ 4:31 am - October 3, 2007
So do theirs, AS*HOLE!
How about pulling liberal radio from AFR? NPR gets far more play on AFN than Rush. I don’t want my money going to that defeatist bullshit.
And gives our soldiers something that they want to listen to. The point is that it’s a gift from people who WANT to pay for it to soldiers who WANT to listen to it. Look at it this way, it’s a transferrance of wealth from those who can afford it to those who probably can’t.
Rushlimbaugh.org? Spare me. I used to think you were a hell of a lot better than that, Ian. Now you’ll dredge the bottom of the septic tank to reach for any straw. I once had an e-mail exchange with that POS. I was winning the debate (whatever it was) and his ONLY comeback was that Rush didn’t serve during Vietnam. He has a preset limit of argument and then he reverts back to liberal lying points.
In other words, he’s a fcuking idiot and so are you for relying on that for a link. My God, were you deprived oxygen when you were born? Were you raised in a closet? Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Do your parents still hate you or did you kill them long ago?
Seriously, Ian. WTF is your malfunction?
Stick that in your a$$ and smoke it, Ian.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2007 @ 5:41 am - October 3, 2007
Gee, I’m just not feeling the love here, ya know. Ok. I guess you answered my question. It basically boils down to an ignorant kool-aid drinker is an ignorant kool-aid drinker, regardless of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Ian, you’re welcome at my place anytime.
d. (lowercase all the way)
Comment by deuddersun — October 3, 2007 @ 8:00 am - October 3, 2007
Oh yeah, that “Left wing Nazi” line really got me. I just can’t stop laughing!
d.
Comment by deuddersun — October 3, 2007 @ 8:01 am - October 3, 2007
Ian. WTF is your malfunction?
1. A complete inability to think for himself
2. An entrenched investment in his own victimhood status.
3. An inability to argue above the level of schoolyard name-calling or (‘I know you are but what am I?’ rejoinders.
4. Utter moral bankruptcy that makes it impossible to distinguish fact from spin, truth from lie, or right from wrong.
In other words, liberalism.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 8:57 am - October 3, 2007
I also agree with the person who said Media Matters should be could “Medea Mutters,” since its primary purpose is to be a mouthpiece for Hillary.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 10:00 am - October 3, 2007
I think that’s a superb example of *not* supporting the troops, Ian.
Deciding what the troops can and can’t listen to, I mean.
Poor babies need someone to make sure that they aren’t forced to listen to that mean Rush Limbaugh who insults them so badly? That’s what Reid was saying, right? That he wanted Rush removed from Armed Forces Radio because Rush was hostile to the troops.
Does anyone actually *believe* that?
No.
Reid doesn’t believe that. Ian doesn’t believe that. No one making noise believes that Rush is hostile to the military. They just hate him and this is an excuse.
deudersun, no one was even remotely rude to you despite the fact that you spouted such *original* observations. Clearly, however, you aren’t even curious about why other people would come to different conclusions than you have done. It is dishonest, not to anyone here but to yourself, to pretend to wonder why those people over there are so strange and then refuse to consider a different point of view.
Comment by Synova — October 3, 2007 @ 11:02 am - October 3, 2007
#23:
Thank you, I’ll drop by. I think the reason the pushback against Limbaugh’s attack is touching a raw nerve is that so many who comment here actually believe that speaking out against the occupation is treachery. So, when soldiers do it, they can’t be “real” soldiers but must be “phony” as just Rush and the caller agreed. They search high and low for the rare nutcase like Macbeth and then tar any military opponent of the Iraq mess as being like him. To admit to themselves that a significant number of “real” soldiers are opposing their grand Iraq adventure might cause their heads to explode.
Comment by Ian S — October 3, 2007 @ 11:59 am - October 3, 2007
#27:
Oh, that’s done all the time. I mean, if you took a vote among the troops, it wouldn’t surprise me if they voted in favor of having porn beamed in so if they did would you support doing that?
Comment by Ian S — October 3, 2007 @ 12:04 pm - October 3, 2007
Byron York Eviscerates the talking points Ian has been mindlessly parroting.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - October 3, 2007
EVen *IF* Rush’s comment had been directed the way Medea Mutters and the lefty nutters insist it was, isn’t the reaction of the Sorocrats ridiculously overblown? Their behavior is like someone showing up at an emergency room with a mosquito bite and demanding an MRI.
What a bunch of drama queens.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 1:04 pm - October 3, 2007
Go read the conservative blogs, Ian S, you’ll see that conservatives acknowledge that not all troops support the war.
And Jesse Macbeth is hardly the first phony soldier to emerge spouting left-wing talking points.
The issue here is not that the criticism of Rush touches a raw nerve on the right, but that the left is so eager to misrepresent Rush (and other voices on the right) in order to discredit him.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 3, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - October 3, 2007
Dan, I gotta hand it to you and some of the other conservatives here, your defense of AllThingsRush has been an amazing display of loyalty. Right, right… I know that rallying the troops to send $$$ to Rush and support his “work” is all about standing up against the smear campaign of the liberals, but when exactly did Rush stop being an entertainer with mic and turn into this icon of Conservativism and moderator of that which is truly PureAmerica?
He’s a radio talk-show entertainer. He isn’t RR. He isn’t Russell Kirk. It isn’t the Natl Review. He’s never had to advance an original idea or policy. He isn’t a very good attack dog for the Right… he’s just an entertainer adept at taking today’s headlines and turning them into chatter fodder. He isn’t even a big idea guy… he’s Joe6Pack who wears $1,000 shirts and $4,000 loafers without socks and has made a ton of money off the visceral identifitcation of many bluecollar, angry, disenfranchised males whose wives won’t let them smoke cigars at home. His everyday goal is to appear relevant to those angry, frustrated males and cash in on their anger, fears, and resentment. Like LouDobbs. Like O’Reilly. Like DrLaura before them.
Rush couldn’t possibly be on the air and saturate the media as much as he does without having said something stupid at some point. Let’s chalk this one up to one of those stupid things and stop shilling for the guy.
Loyalty has never been a strong trait in conservatism; don’t confuse the GP readers now with loyalty tests on the RushMoneyTrain.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - October 3, 2007
I don’t see it as standing up *for* Rush Limbaugh as much as I see it as standing *against* an unfair smear campaign launched by a Hillary/Soros surrogate in retaliation for the “Betray-Us” rebuke.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - October 3, 2007
Definiton of Irony: TNR Attacking Rush Limbaugh on the ‘Phony Soldiers’ Controversy.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - October 3, 2007
Ok, I’ll admit I have no idea why anyone Gay would support the Right. It seems absurd to me. I guess I just don’t get it and that’s ok because I really don’t have to. As a Liberal, I believe folks can live their lives pretty much anyway they want to. I’m sure there are many who can’t understand how a former Marine like me doesn’t support Bush and his war of Corporate profits. So let’s put sexual orientation aside.
But let me ask you this, where was the outrage when the Right attacked John Murtha, Max Cleland, John Kerry and yes, (one of their own), John McCain?
When the Right goes on the attack it’s considered smart politics, but when the Left reciprocates, well… we’re just a bunch of Liberal moonbats after all.
I appreciate you posting my comments here and I invite anyone who cares to to hear my side of the Rush story at my place. 3rd post down. I won’t censor anyone or edit anything. Shit gets pretty brutal over there and I’m the lead agitator, but if we can get past the name calling, we may be able to connect on some level. I just heard that Bush, (your president), vetoed the bipartisan bill to extend healthcare to poor and lower middle-class children. It is things like this that make my blood boil. As a Liberal I have long been a supporter of the working family, and yes, that includes Gay families too.
Anyway, thanks for posting my comments. Catch you round the blogosphere.
d. (lowercase all the way)
Comment by deuddersun — October 3, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - October 3, 2007
Oh yeah. As to where I got the idea that Republicans don’t like Gays, well, I guess it started here:
2004 Republican Party Platform:
A Safer World and a More Hopeful America
Protecting Marriage
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human
experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences
throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The
Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the
American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by
85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to
recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
President Bush said, “We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by
legislating from the bench and try to remake America by court order.” The Republican
House of Representatives has responded to this challenge by passing H.R. 3313, a bill to
withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act. We urge
Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law, so that activist federal judges
cannot force 49 other states to approve and recognize Massachusetts’ attempt to redefine
marriage.
Add to that Coulter, Haggard, The Family Council (or some such horseshit), well, you can kinda see where I might have been “mis-led”.
d. (lowercase all the way)
Comment by deuddersun — October 3, 2007 @ 4:08 pm - October 3, 2007
Indeed. It clearly touches a raw nerve on the ***left***. (Which is why we’re here, swatting off unhinged, malevolent claims of the Left.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - October 3, 2007
Ah, but you see, deudderson, we’re very aware that leftist and Democrat gays like yourself don’t really care about such things.
For example, HRC leader Hilary Rosen and her DNC crony Andrew Tobias, one of the leaders of Stonewall Democrats, endorse and support FMA supporters.
Or the lovely example of HRC, Stonewall Democrats, NGLTF, etc. endorsing as “pro-gay’ and “gay-supportive” and pumping tens of millions of dollars in endorsements and cash towards this.
And what was it that DNC leader Howard Dean said about the party platform when it came to his appearance on The 700 Club?
He added, “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.
Now, could you clear up why you support the FMA, support state constitutional amendments, and support platform language and other things that you scream are “discriminatory” — when Democrats do it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - October 3, 2007
#33 – And so we return to MM’s bizarre claims of GP people imposing or promoting conservative “loyalty tests”. (sigh) Well, Ian should enjoy it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 4:26 pm - October 3, 2007
Something I want to say about some commentators’ cognitive dissonance with Gay Republicans, or gays who support Rush.
What if you’re gay, but you think capitalism is far superior to socialism?
What if you’re gay, but you want to win in Iraq?
What if you’re gay and you think the identity politics of the left are far more damaging to you than some Conservatives’ homophobia?
What if you’re gay and you think that Global Warming is 1/10 fact, 8/10 scam and 1/10 post modern religion?
What if you’re gay and you don’t think what you do with your genitalia is the most important issue in your political life?
What if you’re gay and you don’t want to emulate Europe in every decision, thank you very much?
What if you’re gay and you’re tired of being told you have to vote Democrat because they tell you what you want to hear and then don’t actually do much of anything for you? (Hello Don’t Ask Don’t Tell)
What if you’re gay and you think yes, in fact sometimes war IS the answer?
What if you’re gay and your evangelical Christian friends still talk to you but your Democrat friends treat you like a pariah for voting for Bush?
What if you’re gay and you think its no one’s god damn business who you vote for?
We now return you to your anti war anti military leftist trolls telling us we should hate Rush for not supporting the troops.
Comment by Etain P — October 3, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - October 3, 2007
#30 V: York puts the affair in good perspective. It’s simple, really. The Sorocrats want payback for their own giant loss in the “Betray Us” ad scandal. They want it for 2 reasons:
1) Payback as such; and
2) Proving to themselves – and outsiders, if any would be fooled – that they are patriotic.
If Rush keeps fighting, of course, it won’t work. It will only result in more people like GPW who go, “Whoa, not that I liked the guy before that much, but I do now.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 5:06 pm - October 3, 2007
ILC; The reason it won’t stick to Rush is because he has a long and solid history of supporting the U.S. Military, unlike Moron-dot-org and Sorocrats.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - October 3, 2007
This post is classic rightist zaniness!
For example when alternative information came about Macbeth, the Iraqi veterans against the war disavowed him because they thought he was wrong.
Now, when Rush is so clearly in the wrong, the right rushes to Rush (ha ha), wants to give him even more money and says no WAY are you wrong.
The wagons are in full circle and rightists are shooting arrows all around in the hope to protect their substance abusing, draft evading, martyr.
Comment by gil — October 3, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - October 3, 2007
42 –
No you are wrong.
Rush has a strong history of supporting groups who support his narrative.
As this episode shows, if troops disagree with his point of view, they are “phony”
Comment by gil — October 3, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - October 3, 2007
I think gil has just taken over from keogh as resident silly person.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 5:48 pm - October 3, 2007
Gil, clearly in the wrong?
Rush mentioned Macbeth just minutes after uttering the “phony soldiers” comment to make clear he was referring to such individuals.
Do you want to provide some substance to your accusations or just continue to throw out angry insults with basis in selective coverage of this issue by a left-wing website?
And do you want to back up your comment (#45) with actual references to Rush’s words that he described all troops who disagreed with his position as phony? You–and others on the left–have decided that’s what Rush meant not based on what he said but by what you want him to have said. He provided ample clarification of the term in the very show where he first uttered it. Media Matters chose not to include that in its clip. And you choose to ignore it.
At the same time, that group accuses Rush of being selective! Amazing! Simply amazing!
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 3, 2007 @ 6:20 pm - October 3, 2007
#48 GPW: You just recited most of the reasons I think gil is a silly person.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - October 3, 2007
R: Honey, let’s get married in June. The month.
SS (for Soros & Shills): You want to be with June!!!! I have the transcript!! You pig!!!!!!!
R: I said the month. You selected my words.
SS: You’re selecting your words!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Selective pig!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The entire world, except SS: Rolls their eyes.
And this… seriously offered as an accusation:
In other words: Rush has a strong history of supporting people and views he believes in, such as his own. And gil… you *don’t*? That would explain alot.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 6:38 pm - October 3, 2007
Deranged Left Wing Blogger Thinks Rush Is Finished.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 8:06 pm - October 3, 2007
Sign the petition to support Rush, the troops and America….
http://www.standwithrush.com/thanks.asp
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 3, 2007 @ 9:06 pm - October 3, 2007
By the way…how is the effort going to impeach the President by the Democrat Congress? Haven’t heard much about it lately. If all these criminals are lurking about what is the very effective and efficient Democrat Congress doing about it? Talk about ineptitude. Is the only thing the MoveOn Pelosi Reid Congress good at….character assasination? Now that the leading Democrat Presidential contenders are committed to keeping troops in Iraq til 2013, are there any other Bush 43 initiatives they’d like to get on board with? How bout Social Security reform attempted by this President in his first term. Or Energy policy allowing drilling on 50 acres of land on the Alaskan tundra. Remember a year ago the Democrats promised lower gasoline prices. Were they lying? How about an oldie but a goodie, the Reagan Defense Shield showing outstanding results of late. That the Democrats have been against for what…..25 years. There was speculation today that if the Defense Shield continues it’s excellent results, tin pot dictators will quit missle and nuclear development because it will be a waste of money. Given our ability soon to just blow em out of the sky. Left up to the the liberals the past 25 years, we wouldn’t have this excellent protection for our children. Liberals, can they have a worse record for being wrong?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 3, 2007 @ 9:19 pm - October 3, 2007
First of all, I would ask you where was the liberal outrage when the left attacked Bush’s service?
Next, let me add that veterans are not immune from criticism if it’s deserved ESPECIALLY if they enter into the public political arena. An example is the liars over at VoteVets. That they served their country, I thank them. That they gave up part of their lives for us, I likewise thank them. However, when they come home and start lying to people to push a certain agenda, sorry, but they’re fair game just as anybody else is.
There were questions about Kerry & Murtha’s service and those questions came from other veterans. Based on your question, I would think that you would be outraged by their actions, but apparently not.
Next, nobody attacked Max Cleland. He and/or his campaign decided to spin the Chambliss ad and rely on victimhood and pity for votes.
Next, nobody attacked McCain’s service that I recall. I’m guessing you’re talking about the S.C. kerfuffle. While liberals wail (pretending they give a damn about a Republican/veteran) about him being smeared by Bush, the casually, if not intentionally, leave out the fact that he was painting Bush as an “anti-Catholic bigot”.
Also, nobody knows who it was that attacked McCain as his manager pointed out in a 2004 Boston Globe piece. However, the liberals ASSume that it was Bush and/or Rove. Naturally, it couldn’t possibly have been liberals who did it. They wouldn’t dare do something like that (cough, bullshit, cough). It’s interesting to me that the liberals are the ones who piss and moan the loudest about it though.
Long story short, save your feigned indignation for somebody who cares.
Comment by TGC — October 3, 2007 @ 9:43 pm - October 3, 2007
Here ya go, one more shot before I go to bed: From the Vet in the VoteVets TV ad:
a response from Brian McGough on being called a ’suicide bomber’:
So, Rush Limbaugh called me a “suicide bomber.” More slander from the high and mighty sitting in his chair nursing the boils on his ass. I can assure you that I am no suicide bomber and that I can think for myself.
Rush, your phony soldier comments pissed me off. The audacity of someone like you who never had the courage to stand and fight for what you believe in makes my head spin. That is what made me stand up and state my convictions in front of a camera. I wanted to point out that you are wrong. I am not a phony soldier. I believe that we are not doing the right thing for national security by staying in Iraq. We are putting too much strain on our military by extending tours and not giving people enough time at home to rest. We have taken our eye off of the real Al-Qaeda and let them regroup to their pre-9/11 strength. We have not developed a political system in Iraq that would enable the country to stand on its own.
I stood in the sand, snow, dirt, mud and dust of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I spent over a week on a side of a mountain in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. I received The Bronze Star medal for my actions during that battle. I crossed the border into Iraq with the first wave of the 101st Airborne. I sustained an open head injury on the streets of Mosul after a vehicle borne IED exploded next to the vehicle I was riding in. I have seen the aftermath of a real suicide bomber. I had loved ones who died in the 9/11 attacks. I have friends and colleagues who returned from the war in body bags.
How dare you call someone like me a phony soldier and a suicide bomber? In the commercial I just taped, I told you unless you had the guts to say something to my face, stop telling lies about my service. Well you haven’t had the guts to say it to my face, but I am waiting and the offer is still on the table.
Don’t hold yer breath, Brian. Limpbaugh ain’t got the balls to say it to your face. If he was to get doped up enough to do it, he’d never even feel it when you beat him bloody. I’d love to see it, though.
From http://alterx.blogspot.com/
Good night all.
d.
Comment by deuddersun — October 3, 2007 @ 10:42 pm - October 3, 2007
I always find it amusing how those like Brian McGough get pissed off at Rush Limbaugh for allegedly smearing soldiers with falsehoods……but not at people like Scott Beauchamp for actually and really doing it.
And also, deudderson, if we want to see cowardice, we have an excellent example….you tucking tail and running after I demonstrated that you and your fellow gay Democrats have no problem supporting the FMA, state constitutional amendments, and platform language you scream is “antigay”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2007 @ 10:56 pm - October 3, 2007
And I would simply point that out….the Brian McGoughs of the world scream about Rush and what they claim he said…..but have nothing to say about the Jimmy Masseys, the Micah Wrights, the Jessie MacBeths, the people like Nicholas “Million Mogadishus” De Genova, and the numerous other Democrats that portray US soldiers as vicious, murderous, moronic thugs who exist only to kill and who rape women and children.
Wonder why? Why doesn’t VoteVets speak out against these phony soldiers who make up lies and smear American troops?
Because they support the phony soldiers.
McGough would do well to remember that Benedict Arnold was also a medal recipient who had been wounded in combat. But because of his selfishness and ego, he betrayed both his comrades and his country for cash — as McGough and the rest of the Soros puppets are doing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - October 3, 2007
Rush called some guy a suicide bomber?
Huh?
Anyhow… you said you’re a vet, Deuddersun? I’m a vet.
I’ve never heard anyone attack McCain’s service, even when people were really mad at him. Does he get a pass on all other things because of being a POW?
The “problem” with Kerry was that I watched Swiftboat Vets on video refuse, utterly, to say he was anything other than *brave* while interviewers were trying to get them to say it, while objecting to his portrayal of a year or two service and four months in Nam as *qualification* to be President. And angrier than anything about what he’d done after the war. He threw away “his” medals. An honorable person would have thrown them away and meant it, but he wanted the anti-war creds and the war-hero pro-military creds. And he wanted everyone to pretend Winter Soldier and meetings in Paris didn’t exist.
How *exactly* is the fact that he served supposed to protect him from criticism? Can you really not even *imagine* that someone might be angry about his portrayal of the military in Vietnam? Many Vietnam vets are deeply angry to this day at the way they were treated. Yet we’re supposed to believe that the anger at Kerry for his actions is just a political put-on?
And Murtha? He can pull his wanger out to measure any time someone questions anything he says but the truth is, a great many Marines and former Marines view him as one of the very few EX Marines. You don’t have to agree. But it’s pretty despicable of him to answer, when challenged by someone about his slander, “Did you serve? Then shut up.” As if it gives him a pass.
I don’t know how anyone who is or has been in the military can listen to Murtha without getting angry or insulted. Particularly anyone with even a smidgen of officer training (same with Kerry on that one) and even a smidgen of understanding about command and the proper ways to go about disagreeing is going to wonder what went wrong with them. Murtha, for instance, as a Congressman, even without his committee appointments, is exactly where he needs to be in order to ensure accountability in the Military. Did he do things properly? Did he *support* his service and assure us all that the truth would be got to? No. He acted like a civilian and a powerless civilian at that. He made public statements to the press that our soldiers were all walking time-bombs because of the stress. He made public statements, not that he’d get to the bottom of it, but that there were cover-ups to the highest levels. He made statements of “fact” and played to the anti-military constituency that is convinced that soldiers are barely people. It would have been so very simple for him to support the reputation of the Marine Corp while not for one moment down-playing the possibility that the reports from Haditha were true. He *chose* not to.
I don’t care what he did a long time ago. I care what spews from his filthy mouth today.
And he hasn’t even bothered to keep track of the investigation or charges related to Haditha!
I guess he didn’t really care that much. It would have been work to do things properly. Much easier to make fabulistic statements and get National News face time.
And *now* he’s claiming that he can slander anyone so long as he’s doing it as part of his *job* as Congressman.
Ex-Marine. It’s his job. To lie. About Marines.
Comment by Synova — October 4, 2007 @ 1:20 am - October 4, 2007
ILC obfuscates “And so we return to MM’s bizarre claims of GP people imposing or promoting conservative “loyalty tests”. (sigh) Well, Ian should enjoy it.”
Gheez, you still haven’t nailed down the basic skill of comprehension have you, ILC? Nothing “bizarre” here except your unerring penchant to render ANY contrary opinion to yours as worthy only of dismissal. You demonstrate more than a fair share of Rush’s trademark smugness with that dittohead “sigh”.
The loyalty test to support AllThingsRush comes from Dan asking GP readers to subscribe to Rush… in defense of a wannabe icon of conservatism rather than an entertainer who may have erred in saying something stupid. At least this time Rush isn’t using his drug addiction as an excuse for being stupid.
I know I’m not the first to suggest it to you ILC, but get a grip and gain some comprehension skills. And the gratituious smear of suggesting that my comments will be appreciated only by a strongly disliked and often discredited Ian is just petty, ILC. Petty. But it’s pure JoeMcCarthy and HE was (is?) an icon to conservatives.
Like similar flaps over AnnCoulter and MichaelMoore and AlFranken and MoveOn, this flap over Rush will only advance Rush’s #1 goal: More money, more media attention. I just think conservatives could be a little more discreet in picking who they defend… just like liberals and the FarLeft. Loyalty for a noble purpose is a virtue; blind loyalty is a vice.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2007 @ 10:15 am - October 4, 2007
And so we return to MM making personal, absurd rants when someone rejects one of his bizarre claims. (sigh) Well, Ian should enjoy it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - October 4, 2007
(Countdown to allegations of racism in 4… 3… 2…)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 12:23 pm - October 4, 2007
If the Sorocrat Drama Queens of the U.S. Senate weren’t making this disingenuous smear campaign their “Hissy Fit of the Week,” it wouldn’t be necessary to stand up for Rush. But since the Sorocrats definitely have censorship of opposition media on their minds, it is important to stand up to them.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - October 4, 2007
Oh, and purely in point of fact, GPW said:
MM then turned that into:
And further to that,
I state facts for those with eyes to see.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - October 4, 2007
Russ Feingold Compared to Nora Desmond. The “Sorocrat as Drama Queen” Meme marches on.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2007 @ 2:59 pm - October 4, 2007
You really are an asshole ILC.
It’s good to see you back Matt. I’ve missed reading your comments.
Comment by David — October 4, 2007 @ 3:12 pm - October 4, 2007
“Asshole” is in the eye of the beholder, David.
I stand by the facts I cited. MM’s accusation that GPW (Dan) was wanting to impose or promote a Rush “loyalty test” were a truly bizarre misinterpretation.
And by the way – most of MM’s claims or implications about me in his big personal attack, were equally false. But – thanks for taking sides; it tells me something about you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 4:08 pm - October 4, 2007
Let’s note specifically, David, that you resort to name calling – instead of defending MM on the facts of the matter.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 4:14 pm - October 4, 2007
Duly noted ILC. BTW, are you always such a schoolmarm?
Comment by David — October 4, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - October 4, 2007
David: and a propos of that in turn, you may wish to refresh your memory as to when and why MM left.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 4:26 pm - October 4, 2007
No. Sometimes he’s a nurse, or a French maid, it really depends on what the customer wants.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2007 @ 4:26 pm - October 4, 2007
I.e., a propos of the subject of name-calling.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - October 4, 2007
V, exactly
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - October 4, 2007
“Slutty nurse” is my favorite, I must admit, whenever I’m called to receive a check made out to “Science”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 4:34 pm - October 4, 2007
#68 We were in Europe in June and July so I read none of that exhange, but FWIW, while I am in general agreement with the opinions held here, I can easily see how you (and a couple of others here) could easily drive a person to namecalling and such.
BTW, I am David in New Orleans so as not to be confused with the other Daves and Davids here.
Comment by David — October 4, 2007 @ 4:47 pm - October 4, 2007
In other words, David, “blame the victim”.
Look – It’s really very simple. MM made a bizarre accusation on GPW. I mean, out there. I basically said, hey! jeez! Personal slanders and name-calling then ensued… From him and you.
Now live with your own conscience. Don’t blame others for your behavior.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 5:04 pm - October 4, 2007
Good grief ILC, grow up!
As for Rush, Matt is right. He is an entertainer. People, for the most part, listen to him to be entertained. It is show business.
Comment by David — October 4, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - October 4, 2007
#58:
Sniff. Now you’ve really hurt my feelings.
Comment by Ian S — October 4, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - October 4, 2007
#75 – Keep those insults coming, David. The next one is sure to justify your previous ones.
As for this:
I don’t dispute that in the slightest. In fact, I don’t like Rush, nor listen to him more than an hour per *month*.
I do like GPW, whom I have met 3 times now and consider something of a friend. I was, and am, disputing MM’s claims about GPW:
OK, David? Clear now? You do get it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 5:27 pm - October 4, 2007
Wow, you really don’t have anything better to do, do you? LOL
Comment by David — October 4, 2007 @ 5:31 pm - October 4, 2007
In particular:
1) GPW is the last person who should be called a “shill” for anybody.
2) GPW is the last person who should be accused of trying to impose Rush loyalty tests on GP readers. (I’m no conservative, being moderate-to-radically-liberal on different social issues… and I’ve never found anything but welcome here.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - October 4, 2007
As I said: Keep those insults coming, David. Your next one is sure to justify all your previous ones.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - October 4, 2007
Translation: You have no idea what I was referring to at #40 and #60, do you David?
Purely FYI / as a courtesy: In that exchange, the blog owners not only had to delete MM repeatedly for name-calling, they even had to threaten to ban him.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 6:20 pm - October 4, 2007
Hey, thanks David for your comments here and those GP readers/commenters who have sent supportive email notes to me in the last few hours. ILC can dig those holes as deep as he wants and it is impossible to fill ‘em.
ILC, like I said at #58: “… get a grip and gain some comprehension skills.” It’s refreshingly assuring to see that your spots haven’t changed in the interim… you still readily hop up on that soapbox, grab the megaphone and plead your imaginary “case” to the audience.
OK, Dan “encouraged” –not suggested as I erroneously wrote– GP readers to support Rush’s moneytrain as testament to GP readers’ solidarity with ol’ Rush-boi in this time of crisis. That’s not a loyalty test for conservatives —as in, rally round the Flag boys, circle the wagons, they’re out to get one of us??? Gheez!
Right, no loyalty test for conservative GP readers there. Oh no. It’s spelled c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n, ILC. Please spend some time practicing what you preach for others, ok?
And Ian, sorry for the indirect or direct slight by me. No offense intended –I was pointing out one of ILC’s little smear games ala JoeMcCarthy… namely, guilt by association in #40.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2007 @ 8:42 pm - October 4, 2007
A revolution!
Quite correct. (Your latter clause, I mean.)
But let’s review, MM. Thus far, according to you:
- I haven’t “nailed down the basic skill of comprehension”. (Despite the fact that you read GPW’s comment wrongly, as you now concede.)
- I have an “unerring penchant to render ANY contrary opinion to yours as worthy only of dismissal.” (True for uncivil, irrational opponents; not for civil and rational ones, as demonstrated in many GP threads.)
- I “demonstrate more than a fair share of Rush’s trademark smugness with that dittohead ’sigh’.” (Despite the fact that I rarely listen to Rush and had to Google ‘dittohead’ to be certain what you meant.)
- I now embody “Joe McCarthy”. (Despite the fact that you are known for name-calling and lengthy personal attacks, to the point of the GP blog owners having had to formally reprimand you.)
That’s a pretty impressive scorecard, MM… all in your favor. And what brought it on me? #40: The simple fact that I noted that your attack on / misinterpretation of GPW’s post as a conservative “loyalty test” was nothing less than bizarre.
Smear games, indeed.
MM: Your lobbyist side is showing, and no, it’s not your best side.
Keep those insults coming!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 9:30 pm - October 4, 2007
P.S. To make a long story short: I stand by my defense of GPW.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - October 4, 2007
ILC, it’s a shame to have to engage you any longer on this topic. Loyalty test #2: “I stand by my defense of GPW” –you toss out silly nonsense faster than a MichaelMoore film editor at UCLA.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 5, 2007 @ 7:49 am - October 5, 2007
#85 – And so we return to MM’s bizarre claims of GP people imposing or promoting conservative “loyalty tests”. (sigh) Well, Ian should enjoy it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2007 @ 10:06 am - October 5, 2007
ILC, it’s a shame to have to engage you any longer on this topic. Loyalty test #2: “I stand by my defense of GPW” –you toss out silly nonsense faster than a MichaelMoore film editor at UCLA.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 5, 2007 @ 10:14 am - October 5, 2007
P.S. MM, I will credit your assertion slightly – Functionally speaking, there is always one metaphorical “loyalty test” in play with me: Loyalty to truth and facts. And, though you have mostly flunked in your counter-attacks on me, I have also seen worse. Say, from Ian.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2007 @ 10:25 am - October 5, 2007