IAP Political Forum

I have been thinking about Rush Limbaugh and the "phony soldiers" controversy lately then I was recently challenged to explain it. So... its time to educate all you ditto heads.

To start let me inform any one who doesn't know... I am a long time listener of Rush Limbaugh. So I know very well what he says and have done the research to know that he is often full of crap. And I was actually listening when he made the "phony soldiers" comment. So I know what he and the caller were talking about and it wasn't just about one fake soldier.

First off I need to provide a link to the Media Matters page concerning this whole incident so every one can listen for themselves.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top)

I would have provided a link to Rush's edited version but you have to pay for it. And I am sure that any one who would be willing to pay for that has already heard Rush's clip. Besides... Rush's version has a minute or so cut out so it sounds like he immediately starts talking about Mcbeth when he actually didn't.

Now if you listen to the recording you will hear that the caller was clearly talking about soldiers that were speaking out against the war to the media and not one specific fake soldier. Now Rush did have the one fake soldier on his mind when he made the "phony" comment but he knew perfectly well what the caller was talking about.

The thing that every one needs to understand about Rush is that he lies all the time and usually gets away with it. But he has to be at least a little cautious when he does lie because some lies might actually piss off some of his listeners. Or he might say something really offensive that might get some reporting by the MSM. Rush has found a way around this problem. And many pundits on the right have learned from Rush and use similar tactics on a regular basis.

Now... I think it will be a little easier to explain this trick of Rush's by going slightly off topic but it will all make sense when I am done.

What this trick of his is is the ability to get his listeners to believe something he wants them to believe without him actually having to lie about it.
A perfect example of this is concerning taxes paid by Americans. Rush wants every one to think that the rich in this country are paying more than their fair share and that the poor don't pay enough. It is a real common misconception held by many conservatives including some who frequent this forum. Baldar is a perfect example. He used to have this incorrect belief before I pointed out the obvious truth of the matter. Now Rush(and others) have accomplished this by only talking about federal income taxes and never talking about any of the other taxes people pay in this country. If all you consider is federal income tax then it does appear as though the rich are getting soaked. So every time Rush talks taxes its never about any of the regressive taxes. Its only the most progressive tax that he will talk about. And he does mention that he is only citing federal income tax figures but its only once in a quick sentence that if you are not listening carefully too you could easily miss. So even though Rush doesn't have to out right lie about taxes the result is that most of Rush's listeners believe that the poor don't pay taxes and that the rich pay more than their fair share.

Now Rush is trying to do something similar concerning the troops who come back from Iraq and speak out against the war. He wants to discredit these soldiers but can't just come out and directly insult these vets without a huge backlash. So he is trying to put this notion into his listeners heads without having to directly trash any of our troops himself. This time he is doing it by constantly talking about this one fake soldier who was lying about atrocities committed by our troops. Now by constantly repeating these entirely true facts he was getting his listeners to associate these lies with any soldier that is speaking out against the war. And this was working as evidenced by the caller.

Now... what prompted the "phony soldiers" comment was the caller. He was saying almost exactly what Rush wants him to think but wasn't quite getting it right. The caller was saying that soldiers who speak out against the war were not real soldiers and that soldiers who support the war are the real soldiers. This wasn't good enough for Rush so thats when he interjected the "phony soldiers" comment. And the caller repeated it just like Rush knew he would.

So... now every one here knows what Rush wants people to think about dissenting Iraqi war vets but doesn't have the balls to state himself.

IT LIVES!!!

Seriously... can we drop this? Please?

Just cause Hannity can't get let it out of his teeth (he mentioned it today) doesn't mean we have to stoop to his level.

People still talk about Gore's "exaggerations" during the 2000 election as if they were real and not a figment of the "liberal media"'s imagination (as explained in great detail here: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710?currentPage=7 (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710?currentPage=7)

So I'm all for people trying to keep the record straight. The right wing has been working overtime to re-write the history of their precious 4F Rush. They have to protect him from being criticized for dissing soldiers serving on the front lines in Iraq but who dare to disagree with him (even though they never miss a chance to excoriate a Democrat for not showing enough "support for the troops.")

Re-writing history is something Republicans have to do constantly, since true history with regards to their record is so bleak.

There is a difference between Rush and Gore. Rush is a loud mouth with no political power. Gore could have been an elected official with MASS political power.......

No legit person on the right takes the guy seriously. You guys sound like a broken record. You're just as bad as whats his face, Reid, for making this an issue. Maybe they should spend another week in congress complaining about Rush, asking for an apology.

Buzz, I'm just curious. Did you come out and condemn Moveon? Because if you didn't, your post obviously makes you a partisan hack.

Buzz is a partisan Democratic hack as is jpn of Seattle. Dogface and SuperChicken are partisan Republican hacks. That is their privilege. For myself, I detest both parties.

OswaldTheOsprey

Oswald is a Libertarian political hack.

Welcome to hack world.  8)

Oh please...  Rush is only the most listened to radio talk show host in the US. He has 13 to 15 million listeners of which most are complete idiots who believe everything he says. And much of what he says is often repeated and spread all over the place by the right. Rush is probably the most influential conservative pundit in the US.

And as far as I am concerned most of the rest of conservative talk radio pundits are just as dishonest and misleading as Rush. Its no wonder you conservatives are always so misinformed.


Hell no... because what Moveon did is not the same as what Rush is doing. Moveon was just questioning (https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html) one generals facts based on what numerous other independent sources were saying concerning the war in Iraq. Rush is attempting to discredit all dissenting war vets in a dishonest and misleading way.

Now if you can show me where Moveon was getting their facts wrong than I may change my mind. I doubt that will happen any time soon as I have never seen any evidence what so ever to suggest that they were lying about anything.


Well... sure I am partisan... but I consider a hack to be someone who consistently gets their facts wrong. I would say you Oswald, are as big a hack as Dog, Chicken, and Totino because you all frequently get your facts wrong. And I don't see anyone proving me and jpn wrong all that often.

Make that a Social Fascist political hack. The Libertarians don't want me nor I them.
I'll try my best to hack it! :laugh: ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

You are confusing facts with opinions. Rather sanctimoniously, I might add.

OswaldTheOsprey

Really? Must take a hack to know a hack huh?

Funny though, I never voted for GWB. I even once voted for Clinton. Was he a republican? I am a libertarian...a conservative one, but never the less a libertarian.

I think drugs should be legal, abortion is none of my business, think the country should have a strong NATIONAL defense, believe in free health care for the very young and old, hardline on education and everyone has the right to it, what someone does with their body, as long as they don't violate someone else's rights, is not the govt business, even though I was raised as an christian and I believe in christian valves, it has no place in govt even though this country was formed on chrisatian beliefs.

I just hate liberalism and what it stands for. Or at least what liberalism is called these days.

Really...show me where I have gotten my facts wrong.....you may disagree on my opinion of the facts, but I never post something unless I believe it to be true.

On the other hand, jpn is wrong about GW and gets his face rubbed in it all the time.

I hate liberalism (as now constituted) and conservatism (as now constituted). I am an isolationist, a non-marxist socialist (Social Fascist), a believer in restoring pride in our Motherland and looking out for this country instead of the rest of the world and opposed to both cultural marxism and Trotskyite neoconservatism. My religious belief is moderate Christianity (Presbyterian). Make of it what you will.

OswaldTheOsprey

No he is not.

Thank you.

This is the one I appreciate the most. 

Yup, just as I thought: Partisan Hack. But that isn't news.

Hasn't happened yet.  8)

So you're a conservative Libertarian who voted for Clinton. Hmmm...

You're a conservative Libertarian who believes health care should be provided to the young and the old for free. Hmmm...

You're a conservative Libertarian who believes in the guaranteed right to an education. Hmmm...

Man, I thought you were going to end with a funny punchline... Got my hopes up :(.

Okay, I'm totally confused. There's an interesting link at the thread entitled "Pretty cool...give a try"  It might narrow down for us and for you where you are politically.

Or not.

See what you come up with. I've posted my results in that thread.

I predict your top choice is Duncan Hunter, simply because he's my lowest score at 7%.

Ya know what?... Your exactly right Oswald. I am confusing facts for opinions because you rarely ever present any facts. Most of your 1500+ posts are nothing but your or someone else's opinion.

Do you remember when you expressed your belief that there is a left wing slime machine? I asked for some examples of this and all you could come up with was actually an example of right wing slime.

As far as I am concerned you are a hack Oswald because many of your opinions don't have the facts to back them up.


Well... you are wrong about jpn and GW. You are frequently wrong about many of your facts or, like Oswald, your beliefs are not backed up by the facts.


C'mon Totino... don't just call me a hack. Be a man and show me where I am wrong. Tell us how MoveOn misrepresented the facts or lied about anything. You obviously can't defend Rush.

Can't any of you right wingers defend the most influential conservative pundit in the US?

You are a typical goddamned arrogant Democrat. You refuse to accept facts that don't fit your Frankfurt School cultural marxist worldview. Also for your information Einstein, I am not a right-winger. I am a Social Fascist and an Americanist. There is precious little media we have. Like all establishment hacks and toadies, you despise those of us who think for ourselves. That goes for sanctimonious and smug cultural marxists like yourself and bellicose war hawking Trotskyite neocons on the other-including Limbaugh.

OswaldTheOsprey

I can't defend Rush? Why would I defend Rush? His quote is up completely up to interpretation and has no reason to be in congressional discussions.

I've been nothing but bipartisan in my dealngs with the issue. Why can't you do the same? Ahh yeah, because you're a partisan HACK.

How has the General betrayed us? The reality is they unrightfilly and wronguflly attacked a man who has given his life to this country.

Oh my... now I am damned by God! Good thing for me that is just more of your wacky opinion. Thanks for proving my point.

And I never called you a right winger.


You ask why you should defend Rush and then you try to defend Rush.  :laugh:


Granted... you did admit that Rush is a load mouth but most of the other comments you made about Rush were not bipartisan especially when you suggest Rush has no influence when in fact he is probably the most influential pundit on the right. And do you realize that constantly calling me a hack doesn't prove a thing?


The general dishonestly used cherry picked information to present a more rosy picture of the situation in Iraq than what actually existed. Whether you would consisder that a betrayal or not is a matter of opinion but don't forget that MoveOn was just asking a question and not making a statement of fact. Now... what specifically did MoveOn say that was wrong?

No. You prove my point with you smug and sanctimonious condescention. That is what we Americanists get from you Democrats while we get bluster and belligerence from Republicans. To hell with both.

OswaldTheOsprey

Me calling you a partisan hack is stating the facts. I didn't defend Rush. Again, I'm stating facts. His quote is up to interpretation, and I find it funny people would call his quote anti-military, soldier, etc. That's a laughable claim. I don't listen to the guy because I find him annoying. But again, you probably don't care. You'll go on and on about how I love Rush, etc.

You can't even back up moveon. I bet moveon can't even back moveon. PROVE their point. Where is the betrayal? Come on buddy. You go on and on about he was dishonest. PROVE it. Stop coming back here with your sorry sad responses. PROVE it.

Well Oswald... I'm sorry if I am smug, sanctimonious, and condescending.... O.K... that is not true. I don't give a shit.

If all you can add to a thread is name calling, insults and absolutely no facts what so ever then don't get all pissy if I don't respond with perfect civility.


No, its your opinion.


I am beginning to think debating you is pointless.To say that Rush's BS is "up to interpretation" has got to be one of the biggest cop outs ever. Why don't you give us your interpretation and then back it up with some logic and/or facts?

Nobody said Rush is anti-military  or anti-soldier. He is just trying to discredit any dissenting soldiers who go in front of the media and speak out against the war. Just like Bush and his administration have done repeatedly when they don't like what some one is saying.

And I never said you love Rush.


Now I know for certain that debating you is pointless. You obviously know almost nothing about what the MoveOn ad said other than the garbage you get from who knows where. I have provided links to the ad and explained it twice now and it is obvious you haven't even bothered to look at either. I know this because if you had you would know that they provide 18 different independent sources of information to back up what they say. And I am not going to repeat myself for a third time just for you. Now if you want to refute MoveOn or their sources than be my guest. Besides... this thread is about Rush and your the one who brought up MoveOn. YOU NEED TO PROVE IT. 

Don't worry I know not expect civility from you.

OswaldTheOsprey