Iraq vet responds to Rush’s ’suicide bomber’ analogy.
Iraq vet responds to Rush’s ’suicide bomber’ analogy.
Brian McGough, the Iraq war veteran who was compared by Rush Limbaugh to a suicide bomber, appeared on MSNBC’s Countdown tonight. Limbaugh implied McGough could not think for himself, claiming liberal groups “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.’” Sticking by his criticisms of Limbaugh, McGough said tonight that Rush’s comments were “disgusting.” “It makes me mad down to a place that I can’t even think to describe. It’s repugnant,” he said. At the conclusion of the interview, McGough offered this challenge to Limbaugh:
I’d really like to say and to reiterate what I’ve said before: Ask me or any other members of VoteVets.org to come on your program and talk to you and tell you how we feel. Don’t just talk bad about us, and when we say ‘hey, that’s not right,’ try to talk bad about us again. And think before you open your mouth.
Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’d really like to say and to reiterate what I’ve said before: Ask me or any other members of VoteVets.org to come on your program and talk to you and tell you how we feel.
That would require some balls and Rush would have to go buy a pair.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 pmRUSH LIMBAUGH IS A F*T A** COWARD WHO NEEDS TO SHUT UP. I’LL LISTEN TO HIM WHEN HE GET OFF HIS F*T A** AND DOES SOMETHING FOR HIS COUNTRY BESIDES TAKES PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, DOCTOR SHOPS, AND EATS.
RUSH YOU ARE A COWARD, JUST LIKE YOUR HERO (YOU KNOW WHO). THE ONE WHO JOINED THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD TO AVOID COMBAT IN VIET NAM.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 pmThis certainly shows that limbaugh was lying when he said that he could not think for himself.
Why, Journalism 101, Rush, remember? Journalism 101 Rush.
And, for the record, the left does not want hive brains and republican rubber stampers such as I say, Saper Aude.
God Speed to you Mr. McGough.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:48 pmRush has a toll-free (800) # that he can certainly try calling in just like the rest of us.
Comment by Rory
No, Rory, no. If Rush uses YOU and YOUR name, Journalism 101 is to try and contact you FIRST.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 pmThat would require some balls and Rush would have to go buy a pair.
Comment by chimpeach — October 3, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
He could talk to Bigfoot about Neuticlesâ„¢. Li’l Footie swears by ‘em!
“Almost as good as the real thing” – O. Bigfoot, satisfied customer…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 pmRush has a toll-free (800) # that he can certainly try calling in just like the rest of us.
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
you’re saying he’s just like the rest of us? i guess service (something rush never did) and honor (something rush doesn’t have) mean nothing to you. you really are a sick puppy. you need help.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 pmRush’s intent was labelling the media terrorists, not this guy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 pmRush’s intent was labelling the media terrorists, not this guy.
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — October 3, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
so let rush tell him so to his face. but that would take courage, another virtue rush lacks.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 pmNever in a million years would I link my phone or computer to Rush or FOX.
They are criminals. I may as well log onto a Mafia or Al Kayduh website.
I made the mistake of contacting RedState once. They responded with threats and intimidation.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pmRush has a toll-free (800) # that he can certainly try calling in just like the rest of us.
Comment by Rory
This making sh_t up before talking to this man is nothing but a cheap controversial trick.
And just let me tell you how the next Ann Coulter DARVO is going to try and play itself out.
Ann Coulter gets on TV, makes an absurd statement against women who fought for the right to vote, attacking womens rights, even though she is one, and then she will first deny what she said, and then she will make another inane attack, and then she will whine and cry that she is being attacked for making her opinion known, when in reality nothing of the sort happened.
This is not Journalism, it is propagandist punditry, not for the sake of politics, but for the sake of money and ratings thru the creation of controversy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm“… their hit pieces.”
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)
n.
1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
Proof of intent, please!
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 pmNo one (except allegedly MSNBC) tried to contact Rush for a comment before running their hit pieces.
Comment by Rory
They had his words on tape and in transcripts. Nice Try.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 pmRory, you are one neuron short of a synapse, aren’t you.
Sure, McGough can just call in. That way, Limpballs could treat him like every other caller who has an opposing (translation: correct) opinion. He could deride him, cut off his audio and continue to rant at him for five minutes as if he is still on the other end of the phone remaining voluntarily silent. It’s a right-wing rant-jockey trick that Limpballs has perfected.
McGough needs to be in the studio staring down the idiot and making himself heard and understood. That’s the way this should go down. But Limpballs is too much of a chickensh!t to ever let that happen.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 pmXisithrus
good point!
trolls?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 pmGiven the voting patterns of women (especially single women), I have to agree with her too.
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
But… but… Ann Coulter… is a SINGLE WOMAN (or so we’ve been led to believe…). Wouldn’t that make Ann’s judgement suspect too?
Oh, the irony!!! ;-D!!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmThis man should really call Rush out to a fight.
The big Mouthed Puss (Limbaugh that is) would wet his pants.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pmGiven the voting patterns of women (especially single women), I have to agree with her too. -Rory
What other people, single women even, vote for or not is not for YOU or ANN to decide WHO gets to vote.
Its a stage act meant to create controversy and nothing more.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pmGiven the voting patterns of women (especially single women), I have to agree with her too.
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
I think we should start with moms who neglect their children.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pmrush is a punk, no different than all the other conserv666atives.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pmAnn Coulter is not denying she made that statement.
You said you are a female Rory, are you saying you are not intelligent enough to make your own decisions, and that only a pundit, one that filled out her voter registration card WRONG, knows better than YOU?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 pmThere isn’t a word disgusting enough to describe Pig Limbaugh.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm“Thinking” is so pre-9/11.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 pmWasn’t Rush the same guy who was summarily dismissed from Monday Night Football for his racist comments? Once again, another GOP hack spewing garbage knowing full well his army of dullards will “understand” and come to his defense. The man screwed up and, like the failed administration he continues to prop up, he can’t admit he screwed up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 pmU.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
Rush basically called 72% of our troops Phony, why? Not because he cares, not because hes a patriot, but because he can keep his drug addled brain on the golf course and his pockets lined with $$$
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 pmRory,
Tell you what. Your idolatry of Rush as a patritoic american would not endear you to him in his make believe world. His reality is nowhere near yours. He lives in a palace just like Saddam. You live in the ghetto. He woudl just as soon you remain exatly where you are and he were he is.
He could care less about you other than the fact that your ears make him big bucks. You are a servant to him. It’s exactly how he treats anyone who doesn’t have millions of dollars like he does. You would definitely need to use the service entrance.
Your kind is not wanted anywhere near where he resides. You are riff raff. But keep listening. I’m sure he’ll be sure to throw you a a bone once in awhile.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 pmrory loses again.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 pmfirst Mr. McGough was short precise and to the point, like any military personal.
He doesn’t seem to need too muck of mike like Fush Limba needs all day long to repent his rant as many times he wants.
This man should really call Rush out to a fight.
The big Mouthed Puss (Limbaugh that is) would wet his pants.
Comment by Eargy Earp
I don’t think McGough needs to call Fush to fight him, just eye to eye contact would be enough….
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 pmU.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
Rush basically called 72% of our troops Phony, why? Not because he cares, not because hes a patriot, but because he can keep his drug addled brain on the golf course and his pockets lined with $$$
Comment by Xisithrus — October 3, 2007 @ 10:12
rory, care to try again…?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm“This man should really call Rush out to a fight”
conserv666atives don’t do their own fighting, thats what the poor are for.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 pmIn the end, the boot that will kick Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest in the nuts is the fact that Osama bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein killed Americans on US soil. All of the “phony soldier” nonsense in the world can’t spin or change that fact.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 pmWell done Brian, you’re an inspiration.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 pmWasn’t Rush the same guy who was summarily dismissed from Monday Night Football for his racist comments?
Comment by Above the Clouds — October 3, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
I’ve always felt that whole Donovan McNabb schtick was meant to make Rush look “controversial” and “dangerous”. I suspect Rush was going to get the heave ho purty quickly simply because he was totally out of his element around REAl athletes, and he was trying to save face.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmo one (except allegedly MSNBC) tried to contact Rush for a comment before running their hit pieces.
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
why bother? all he does is lie and smear good, patriotic Americans, who, unlike him, had the balls to enlist. Nobody owes him anything more than he has given. he didn’t bother to make any calls before his slander, did he? of course not.
rory the tool, rory the fool.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 pmThis man should really call Rush out to a fight.
The big Mouthed Puss (Limbaugh that is) would wet his pants.
Comment by Eargy Earp — October 3, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
A Soldier, even disabled, against Rush.
Rush would be on the floor instantly. Too quick, and a bit too much violence.
Being on the air, in the studio, face to face, watching Blubberbah sweat bullets the whole time will be enough for him to soil his pants. What is told to Blubberbah may do that as well.
Or he can publicly apologize on the air and admit he is a scumbucket.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 pmrory, care to try again…?
Comment by joe cantwell — October 3, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
rory the tool, rory the fool.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 3, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Come on guys… just leave this Rory guy alone.
He his simply a brain washed kid.
Rush won’t even let him pick up left over Cigar butt from his trash to this Rory guy.
Unfortunately as civil behavior said, rory doesn’t even realize that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 pmGiven the voting patterns of women (especially single women), I have to agree with her too.
Comment by Rory — October 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
And you claim to be a woman, and you agree womens voting rights should be taken away?
Yeah, right….
Busted…..
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:45 pm“And think before you open your mouth.”
That’s just not possible for Comedian Limbaugh.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 pmBrian McGough, the Iraq war veteran who was compared by Rush Limbaugh to a suicide bomber:
I’d really like to say and to reiterate what I’ve said before: “Ask me or any other members of VoteVets.org to come on your program and talk to you and tell you how we feel. Don’t just talk bad about us, and when we say ‘hey, that’s not right,’ try to talk bad about us again. And think before you open your mouth.”
That was great advice, but Rush would never follow ANY of it:
Advice 1. “Ask me or any other members of VoteVets.org to come on your program and talk to you and tell you how we feel.”
If Rush were ever confronted by a REAL soldier (like Brian McGough), he would mess himself, and he wears VERY expensive suits.
Advice 2. “Don’t just talk bad about us, and when we say ‘hey, that’s not right,’ try to talk bad about us again.”
You have just described Rush’s modus operandi WHENEVER he is confronted with those he has slandered and denigrated. He can’t seem to change it.
Advice 3. “And think before you open your mouth.”
THINK with Rush’s drug-addled brain? IMPOSSIBLE!
Brian McGough is a REAL soldier and a person who should be listened to by the American people.
Rush Limbaugh is a phony human being. ‘Nuff said.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 pmflush has the courage of his drug addiction.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 pmAll the proof you need that corporations are running this country is found in the way that the CEO of Clear Channel backed Rush up on this one. Since the listeners of Mr. Analcyst are hate-filled racists/sexists/etc., they see absolutely nothing wrong with a hate-filled message from their “boy.” We’re not talking rationality here–we’re talking hate in the purest form. Let’s stop wasting our breath on this waste of pond scum, and fix this country.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 pmIn his book “See, Told You So” Limbaugh says that only 17% of scientists believe the “dubious” theory of global warming.
Same book: “There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or any other time in history”.
He said “The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe”.
I have a 120-page book with about 4 Limbaugh whoppers per page. But they could make many volumes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 pmCome on guys… just leave this Rory guy alone.
He his simply a brain washed kid.
For the record I am not picking on Rory, who, btw, claims to be female.
I am interested in her views but not interested in pundit talking points as a form of debate. =)
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pmLimbaugh is nothing but an egotistical hypocrite.
Comment by Probus — October 3, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Probus, you are right about Rush’s being an “egotistical hypocrite,” but I contend he is much more, much of which is insidious and disturbing.
His personal attacks on people, many of whom have no way to defend themselves, make my skin crawl. The dittoheads, as you can see from the trolls on this thread, believe Rush’s every word, even when every word is a lie. That is not just hypocritical. It is dangerous.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 pmWell, I believe Brian said it all, as usual Truth has a Liberal Bias.
Ignore Jake (Rory) D. Fake
Buck Fush
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm#8 Rory
No one (except allegedly MSNBC) tried to contact Rush for a comment before running their hit pieces.
I’m sure they’ve got toll-free numbers that Rush could call, just like the rest of us.
Besides, why contact Rush and get his spin when you can just listen to the entire show or read the transcripts and know exactly what he said, rather than what he wants you to think he said after back-pedaling like the big fat wimp he is.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm#30 civil behavior [to "Rory"]:
Rory,
Tell you what. Your idolatry of Rush as a patritoic american would not endear you to him in his make believe world.
Rory sounds like enough of a ditz to marry the loser, for his fourth time… and to sign a pre-nup ’cause “it’s gonna work out, I know…”
She’d be wise to have him checked for STDs first … assuming she’d actually want that blob on toppa her, rather than just listening — as all the good DodoHeads do — to his Golden Tongue tell them what they want to hear 24X7….
Cheers,
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pmfrom today:
Imagine that! The Red Scourge is after Rush…
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pmguys, Rory is Jake the Fake, the 75 year old Korean vet, catholic babetist faker.
Notice no one would talk to Jake anymore, then Jake disappears and Rory shows up, posting exactly like Jake, same long days of BS, same MOD of operation. Do not believe for a second that the new story of being female. Jake is a known liar. I suggest not respawned to Jake (Rory now). You are falling for the same old crap from this Know Liar.
Ignore Rory (Jake)
Buck Fush
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 pmGod bless Mr. McGough – for his service and for his courage.
Somewhere, underneath all that flapping, jiggling blubber, Rush Limbaugh KNOWS that he is lying. He knows that he is lying to his listeners and lying to himself. He knows what he said, and he knows damn good and well *exactly* how he meant it. And only his dittohead lemming listeners are stupid enough to believe.
But, Rush…no matter how many times you tell the lie – IT WILL NEVER BECOME TRUTH.
One day his lies will rebound back onto him. His payment at the First Bank of Karma is waaaaaaaaaay overdue.
And I’m going to enjoy watching Karma collect her payment.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:00 amwow, a little drinkie poo and spelling correctly goes out the window, lots of typos in that last post, I won’t even try to correct them.
But really Rory is Jake, so just ignore it.
Buck Fush
October 4th, 2007 at 12:03 am“Hit pieces”…..?
Oh. So *that’s* what the reichwingers are calling the truth these days.
Gotcha. Talking Point #2,344,330. Right.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 amRush has a toll-free (800) # that he can certainly try calling in just like the rest of us.
Comment by Rory
The Right Wing Loon Rory actually thinks that anyone can get past Rush’s screeners. He is better protected from having to answer a hard question than even Bush is. And then there is always his trick, when a caller gets out of hand, where he cuts them off.
So Right Wing Loon Rory, what is Rush afraid of? Why won’t he have the man he slandered on his show by insinuating that he was brainwashed by the left and couldn’t think for himself be on his show?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:07 amBibobaggins – Rory is Jake.
Buck Fush
October 4th, 2007 at 12:09 amY’all stomped the shit out of Rory, and “she” ran away.
Sure acts like Jake.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:14 amAre you sure about that????
I do not believe there is enough evidence to say OBL actually did anything.
Comment by RemoveBush
The government certainly doesn’t have enough evidence to link Osama to 911. That’s why his wanted poster is for a crime that is not 911. When you get right down to it the only way we can link Osama to 911 is that the US accused him of doing it and he said “OK, I’m good with that”.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:15 amBibobaggins – Rory is Jake.
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy
That’s been my suspicion all along. He backed himself into such a tight corner with “anyone not on my ignore list” that he made himself irrelevant. So he reincarnates as “Rory” a woman. I wonder why he chose to come back as a woman?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:16 amBecause he secretly want to be one.
But really read the posts on all the threads. This is JAKE, what ever personality he wants to take on, the posts tell all.
Just that no one would respond to Jake anymore (cause of me with my ignore Jake campaign) that he changed names (like he hasn’t done that before).
And if you really study its posts, it is sure old Shakey Jakey the Liar.
Buck Fush
October 4th, 2007 at 12:20 amBrian McGough was quite inspiring. He sure didn’t sound like someone who had been brainwashed to me. Rush Limbaugh is not worthy of polishing this guy’s boots. Brian McGough has more honor and dignity in his right toe than Rush could ever care to have.
I have to admit, though, that it is fun watching Rush dig himself further and further into his hole.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:21 amJohn – you are should be ignored too, not even worth responding to stupidity.
Buck Fush
October 4th, 2007 at 12:22 amRush is a flag humper, just like every troll on this blog.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:29 amTry finding out EXACTLY what this is all about, ok, before you trolls comment on it!
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Go back to humping your flag, troll.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:38 amWHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RUSH LIMBAUGH????!! WHO THE HELL CARES!!!???
the democrats failed us. the republicans are still controlling the senate even though they’re the minority. This is insanity.
You people are joining the distraction!!! WHY on earth are you people giving this any thought at all. It’s so damn predictable. WHO CARES! You’re letting the right dictate the debate AGAIN!!! Stay focused people. get your heads out of the sand. STOP THE DAMN WAR NOT LIMBAUGH!
October 4th, 2007 at 12:41 am# 70 – “My guess is that Rush WILL invite Mc Gough on his show tomorrow. The question is…will he have the balls to show up. Harry “the Body†Reid sure as hell didn’t!”
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Are you willing to put your money where your “guess” is?
My bet is that you’re wishful “guessing” is gonna be dead wrong!
My reasons for my confident bet is contained in # 48 (unless the numbering is change because some “foaming at the mouth” troll’s incendiary posts have been pulled – then you can look for Comment by hterrya — October 3, 2007 @ 11:06 pm)
October 4th, 2007 at 12:41 amAs I said yesterday, liberals have found their perfect victim, someone who wins whether they fight or not, because he is a crippled veteran. It is lose-lose for Rush to handle this individual any other way than he already has.
Rush is brilliant to merely point out that liberals found their victim, and has rolled him towards Rush like a suicide bomber. It is obvious to all that this individual was sought out, lied to, riled up and set loose on Rush, and that is all Rush needs to say.
Now, Harken has already run his mouth, but isn’t willing to do so on Rush’s show, so what gives there? Rush can deny the libs their opportunity to lob a cripple like a grenade, but since Harken has already run his mouth, where is Harken to back up his statements real time in an open forum?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:42 amComment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Prove it.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:47 amBrian McGough should take a good hard look at Cindy Sheehan for the most recent used and abused anti-war left sacrificial lamb. If he likes how her life has been ruined since being sucked into the left’s spin machine, then he should proceed full throttle, but if he still has a life and a family, he should bail out while he still has something to lose.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:47 amLibs do waste so much time and so many opportunities trying to play tit for tat. Only children believe eye for an eye politics makes everything better.
I do wish a third party would emerge, but Hill’reh has made certain, as her husband did in 1992, that no other viable candidates exist while they seek office. It much easier to win a race, when you’ve tripped up all your opponents, but it doesn’t make you a good candidate. Bubba Clinton betrayed his party with Welfare Reform, NAFTA and GATT, so what do you suppose Hill’reh will sell out for a couple points of popularity? Iraq for one, NATO, IMF and on and on ….
October 4th, 2007 at 12:54 amSTOP THE DAMN WAR NOT LIMBAUGH!
Comment by old_hack — October 4, 2007 @ 12:41 am
It is difficult to stop the war, if the airwaves are still filled with the same kind of rhetoric that led to it in the first place.
The support for the occupation is still alive and well with lots of people in the US thanks to talking heads like Limbaugh.
Limbaugh needs to be exposed as the phony, hypocritical, lying twit that he is.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:58 amAs Bigfoot says:â€Please, by all means, keep pushing this nonsense. It only diminishes your cause, and strengthens the cause of traditional Americans.â€
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:53 am
We are traditional americans, and liars like you are the only ones diminished by your own hate.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:59 amWow, Bart. That one went clear over JK’s head. :-D
October 4th, 2007 at 1:01 am# 86 – “Did anyone know I did a tour of Vietnam for about 2 long months and got a few self inflicted scratches??? Boy, it was a jungle over there but I somehow survived to tell everyone of all my experiences!!”
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Let’s review your crimes, shameless troll: Posing under John Kerry’s name, slandering this REAL soldier using Swift Boat lies, and then deliberately attempting to distract those on this thread from the topic of the lies Limbaugh told about McGough. Very “Rush” of you, troll.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:01 amPlease, by all means, keep pushing this nonsense. It only diminishes your cause, and strengthens the cause of traditional Americans.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
if you want us to keep going after rush, the pimple-on-the-ass coward, who are we to say no?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:02 am# 86 – “Did anyone know I did a tour of Vietnam for about 2 long months and got a few self inflicted scratches??? Boy, it was a jungle over there but I somehow survived to tell everyone of all my experiences!!â€
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:41 am
but where was rush during viet nam…?
eh?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:05 am#107 – Did you seriously say “REAL SOLDIERâ€??? No, no, you couldn’t have. I must need glasses!
we know why you need glasses.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:07 amLatest Washington Post ABC Poll has Hill’reh at 53%, Obama at 20% and Edwards at 17%, so all this is just Hill’reh trying to silence and suppress criticism from her most staunch opponents, namely Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299146,00.html
October 4th, 2007 at 1:08 amDid anyone know I did a tour of Vietnam for about 2 long months and got a few self inflicted scratches??? Boy, it was a jungle over there but I somehow survived to tell everyone of all my experiences!!
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Let me help you refresh yer memory, “John” **cough… cough**
Kerry actually served in Vietnam from 11/17/68 to 3/26/69.
This is what ya got yer Silver Star fer…
Kerry’s commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, joked to Douglas Brinkley in 2003 that he didn’t know whether to court-martial Kerry for beaching the boat without orders or give him a medal for saving the crew. Elliott recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, and Zumwalt flew into An Thoi to personally award medals to Kerry and the rest of the sailors involved in the mission. The Navy’s account of Kerry’s actions is presented in the original medal citation signed by Zumwalt. The engagement was documented in an after-action report, a press release written on March 1, 1969, and a historical summary dated March 17, 1969
Say what ya want, but John spent more time in real combat than Bush, Cheney, and Rush combined. No, Rush mandandling a dozen Krispy Kremes doesn’t count as “combat”, except from the poor donuts’ view…
Kerry was awarded several medals during his second tour of Vietnam, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.
Defenders of John Kerry’s war record, including ALL BUT ONE of his surviving former crewmates, asserted that several organizers of SBVT had close ties to the Bush presidential campaign and that SBVT accusations were politically motivated and false.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:12 am#112
personal attacks? from a conservative?
no wonder you’re losing the “traditional americans”.
eh?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:14 amIt’s Stalinist, using the power of the state to intimidate citizens.â€
Imagine that! The Red Scourge is after Rush…
Comment by Mickey — October 3, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Aw, man, are they gonna waterboard El Rushbo? Please, put it on pay-per-view… and put the income towards paying down the mind-boggling debt “America’s CEO” **cough… cough** has run up over the last 7 yrs.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:15 amWell, not too embarrassed…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 4, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Ya cain’t afford to be embarrassed for Bartlebee.
Ya used it all up on yerself.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:17 amAll the media is recognizing Hill’reh’s Stalinist approach to seizing power, and has lined up arm in arm to stand against her. You are a vaccine, not a virus, and Reps have grown immune. This has to give that cackling harpie pause.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:18 amComment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 1:01 am
I meant as the Bush administration and its “conservative” sycophants have been shown to be: Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, Safavian, Scanlon, Bob Ney, Sen Craig, “Rev” Haggard, “Scooter” Libby, Gingrich, Cunningham, etc., etc. etc.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:19 amBJ Clinton
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 1:10 am
Ya seem ta be sufferin’ from envy here.
I suggest ya give Larry Craig a call.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:19 amComment by Gregor Samsa — October 4, 2007 @ 1:19 am
hey… that’s not fair! Not ALL of those guys are convicted felons…
Some of them are jes’ perverts.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:20 amWhy don’t you take a break and let one of your liberal buddies speak up for awhile…you are just making an idiot out of yourself and I am embarrased for you.
O. Bigmouth, I have a better idea: why don’t you not tell Bartlebee what to do, and the “liberal buddies” among us will speak for ourselves, so STFU on our behalf, thanks just the same.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:23 amComment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 4, 2007 @ 1:20 am
Convicted or not, they’re still a “conservative” lying, conniving, and hypocritical lot.
Which was my original point about Limbaugh ;-)
October 4th, 2007 at 1:24 amMy guess is someone over at the FBI is asking some of those same questions.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 4, 2007 @ 1:32 am
We can only hope…
Geez, did Footie leave? The other threads are dead. He must be playin’ by himself, or with himself, or sumpin’ like that…
October 4th, 2007 at 1:34 am# 121. – “Bartlebee, give it a rest. If all you can do is call people names or threaten suicide*…”
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 4, 2007 @ 1:15 am
* (bold type is my emphasis)
Zooey (Comment # 102, October 4, 2007 @ 1:01 am) Bart’s comment went over O Bigfoot-in-MOUTH’s head, too (unless, of course, they are one-and-the-same troll).
DUMB TROLLS!
October 4th, 2007 at 1:35 amfor a ‘cummunity’ circle jerk.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 4, 2007 @ 1:35 am
Small circle, huh?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:37 amGuess I need to jump to another blog for a bit if I want a real challenge…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 4, 2007 @ 1:26 am
don’t go away mad…
eh?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:41 amWell, folks, it is time to “hang it up for the night.” (old Texas saying)
As I leave, I think I’ll get back to the topic of this thread:
Thanks, Brian McGough, for confronting your tormentor with the courage we can all admire.
You will be remembered long after your tormentor is dead of a drug overdose or at the hands of the parents of a minor he molested.
G’nite, Bart, Joe, RoS, and Gregor.
And Zooey, my best to you, wherever you are! {:-)
October 4th, 2007 at 1:51 amTonight, it appears the only posts posing as challenges on TP are coming from the small minded.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 4, 2007 @ 2:03 am
Says the mindless Bush personality cult follower.
I think you are ill-prepared to judge anyone’s “small mindedness”, or capacity to debate, given that you drink this administration’s kool-aid with gusto.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:27 amComment by O. Bigfoot — October 4, 2007 @ 1:48 am
So many words, so little substance.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:28 am#158
you haven’t left, have you?
October 4th, 2007 at 3:04 amWhat I find amazing is the lack of criticism from Bush supporters.
They are never wrong. They do noble things and the others just do bad things. No deep analysis, no substance, no thoughtfulness. Just self-convincement.
Have you ever read or heard what serial killers, suiciders or other psychopaths tell about their crimes? The others are to be blamed. Not me, Im being forced to do this, I have been forced to do this damage because Im under attack and I have to fight back. Just remember the VA shooter: Cho.
Without self-criticsm there cant be no self-respect. With no self-respect there is no respect. And thats why we have people reaching new lows everytime, whether it is bombing a sovereign nation, using WP on civilians, using waterboarding, etc.
We are good. Others are bad and hate us. See? There is no room for discussion if somebody is not willing to listen.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:13 amSo many words, so little substance.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 4, 2007 @ 2:28 am
perfect description of the members of the 25% who are still stupid enough to buy the wholesale lies and smears of Rush and Bush.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:09 am>Therefore, if you want intelligent debate, I am all for it.
Have you figured out the difference between “accountant” and “accountability” yet Bigfwat?
I must bail out of threads before you dazzle us with your academic credentials agains..what were they again?
If you truly are intelligent, you’ve finally figured out that accountability and accounting arent the same thing. So now, finally knowing that, whats your current argument for why we shouldnt listen to what the Government Accountability Office has to say about the war?
> and then Rush commented on ONE
>soldier the next day in a MORNING UPDATE.
are you talking about Murtha, or are you denying Rush called Murtha a fake soldier?
> If all you can do is call people names or threaten suicide,
> you have run out of intellegent things to say.
hahahaah. you mean intellIgent things?.. wow… one of the few words that someone actually looks pretty stupid mispelling, and you picked it!
mission accomplished moran. (yes, that was intentional) I’d call that a simple typo except that I and E are pretty far apart on the keyboard
>Well, I’m one of those compassionate conservatives….what can I say?
Ah yes…..”compassionate” your ok with giving bush a blank check for the war , over one billion dollars a day, saying we shouldnt attach any strings, even after 8 billion dollars of Iraqi money we had to replace with our tax dollars went missing, along with a quarter million weapons, but your too stingy to help pay a few extra pennies on your taxes to help give children healthcare in this country. compassion indeed.
>Guess I need to jump to another blog for a bit if I want a real challenge…
Hopefully you wont stumble on one where people are making retarded arguments about how we shouldnt listen to what the Government Accoutability Office has to say about war because their just a bunch of accountants.
You’re ignorant white trash, plain and simple. You have the arrogance to come on here and tell us you’re right, we’re wrong, and that you’re the only one thats thinking clearly. All you can do is parrot bush’s talking points, your inability to think for yourself or to reconcile the excessive congnitive dissonance your conflicting beleifs create speaks volumes about you inability for deep thought.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:43 am> If all you can do is call people names or threaten suicide,
> you have run out of intellegent things to say.
Intellegent things to say eh Bigfoot? eheheheh
I think you’ve made my case for me, no further witnesses your honor.
Hey guys, I found a picture of Bigfoot:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg
October 4th, 2007 at 4:45 am>You said you are a female Rory,
Hahahaha. Buuusted. So whats the story Rory, are you a female just like your not Jake? hahahaha. Didnt I tell you that Jake would re-incarnate here as a woman next? I’m sure Rory is the elderly widow of a WW II vet, who used to smuggle howtizer shells to the french freedom fighters in her vagina.
Oh, and newsflash, this just in, Bush says oversight of Blackwater would have “intolerable” effects:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.contractors/index.html?iref=topnews
October 4th, 2007 at 4:53 amTroops in war always want to know when they’ll get to go home. It’s normal. Troops with common sense never want war and always, always, have a vested interest in the end of it. The end of a war lessens the probability of being killed. Who wouldn’t want that! Support for the troops means wanting to extricate them from this impossible, unnecessary war in Iraq. We, the people (check the polls) can decide that pulling soldiers out of a bad deal is the right thing to do. Soldiers themselves can want to get out and yet while this is what they want, go on patrol and do their work as loyal American warriors. Rational people everywhere want this obscenity to end. This is something that Limbaugh has a right to say but what he’s said has no connection to the truth or civility. His loose llips only expose his lack of knowledge about men and women in war and what they want. He is an alarmist and his language is intended to inflame.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:14 amLimbaugh claims he referred only to Jesse MacBeth, but smeared other veterans
Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his “phony soldiers” comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.
Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his “phony soldiers” comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his “phony soldiers” comment.
Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of “phony soldiers” to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally “talking about a genuine phony soldier,” Limbaugh went on to state: “And by the way, Jesse MacBeth’s not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?”
According to Murtha’s biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.
Limbaugh claims he was only speaking about one soldier, but used the plural
Misinformation: Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, that he was “talking about one soldier with that ‘phony soldier’ comment, Jesse MacBeth.”
Fact: As the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to “phony soldiers,” plural. Responding to a caller’s statement that supporters of withdrawal “like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media,” Limbaugh responded, “The phony soldiers” [emphasis added].
Limbaugh claims to be a victim of “selective” editing, then aired edited clip and posted edited transcript
Misinformation: Limbaugh further asserted that “Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point.” To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the “entire” segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: “Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.” After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: “That was the transcript from yesterday’s program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story.”
Fact: In fact, the clip he aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh’s original “phony soldiers” comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010
Fact: The transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh’s website, which Limbaugh described as being the “anatomy of a smear,” is also edited and does not make clear how much time elapsed between Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” remark and his discussion of MacBeth — or even that any time did elapse: Limbaugh’s transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020011?f=h_top
October 4th, 2007 at 7:42 am#167 – Riiiggghhhhtttttt. I guess Rush told you that it was over, and you followed along like the rest of the lemming sheople.
Now, why don’t you keep repeating your crap: “it’s over! you are losing! whine, gripe, moan!”
Right-whining at its best.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:49 amKeep repeating the same crap over and over it does not change the fact you are LOSING this debate.
Comment by Vendetta — October 4, 2007 @ 7:45 am
So it’s OK with you that Rush includes Murtha in his “phony soldier” list because of his supposed defamation of one Marine, an accusation that has yet to be proven in a court of law.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:02 amMurtha is a decorated war vet, and Rush is decorated with boils on his ass.
Remind us who the phony soldier is?
October 4th, 2007 at 8:04 am#169 – “So it’s OK with you that Rush includes Murtha in his “phony soldier†list because of his supposed defamation of one Marine” Comment by Bad Eye — October 4, 2007 @ 8:02 am
Bad Eye, For the right-whiners allegations only count when used against anyone else. When allegations are against right-whiners, they as “Where’s the proof?” and then ignore any/all proof that is provided.
Sort of like the saying “rules are for you, not for me!”
October 4th, 2007 at 8:07 amHave you ever noticed how when anyone on the right does something stupid, and shoots themselved in the foot, it’s over before it ever started?
Yet, miraculously, when it’s someone on the left (or even the center), the right croons “You’re going down! You screwed the pooch and you’re going down!”
Double-standards, anyone?
October 4th, 2007 at 8:22 amThe amusing thing is is the right tries to push the phony story that Rush put out with his edited transcript, saying he was only talking about one soldier who faked his service, but conveniently ignoring that Rush included Murtha as a phony soldier. Which shoots his defense all to hell.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:27 am>Given the voting patterns of women
just when you thought Jakette/Rory couldnt say anything more sexist…
>(especially single women)
…it does. SINGLE women? Why yes Rake, you know, those darn uppitidy broads will probably turn out all right, at least if they can find themselves a good man to set their head straight and make them think about the important things, like terrorists who are statitistically about as likely to end thier life as lightning is.
I mean, you know, those women that at least have the good sense to realize they need a man to validate thier existence and tell them what to think, are the ones more likely to vote sensibly, right? Heaven forbid we have too many of those old spinster single ladies who have gone through thier whole life not being smart enough to realize they need a man to tell them what to do and feel..
yeesh..those gosh darn uppity broads
October 4th, 2007 at 8:32 amComment by Democrat Soldier — October 4, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Indeed. I just wanted to see if V. would respond.
The bottom line is this: Cornyn saw an opportunity to once again throw around the accusation that the liberals are not troop supporters. (And don’t give me “Democrats voted for the amendment, too.” So what?) Nowhere in his amendment is MoveOn’s specific accusations repudiated with sound evidence. What we do get is a list of Petraeus’ credentials, as if that in itself exonerates him from any wrongdoing. Nowhere in the ad does MoveOn attack all members of the military, but that’s exactly what Cornyn insinuates. Nowhere in the ad does the word “treason” appear, but that didn’t stop the American Conservative Union, and others, from accusing MoveOn of labeling the general with that type of action. Conveniently, those on the Right cherry-pick one definition of “betray” that has nothing to do with the issues in the ad, while ignoring 5 other definitions that go directly to the heart of the MoveOn ad.
For three days on several threads I asked the trolls here to show why the issues raised in the ad were wrong and to explain how the issues corresponded to charges of treason. Not surprisingly, no one wanted to discuss.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:34 am>but conveniently ignoring that Rush included Murtha as a phony soldier.
right.. seeing them try to get around this is hilarious. See rory/jakette’s
October 4th, 2007 at 8:35 am“murtha runs, ergo murtha is a phony, like soldiers who arent real” explanation. Once he included someone who was an ACTUAL soldier, and ACTUAL veteran, and an actual mutiple MEDAL RECIPIENT, all this “he was only talking about soldiers whose entire existence was fabricated” nonsense goes out the window.. but guess what? that doesnt stop them from repeating it.
>Whats awesome is you guys and mr money bags Soros are losing this >battle in a big way now.
Yeah Rad..and your able to do this without any ridulously rich people on your side either! hooray for the little man joe blow that is the republicans.. well in any event we got the “blow” part right…
October 4th, 2007 at 8:40 am>Of course, they also claim that the war is lost
Iraq democratically decomes and islamic theocracy allied with Iran who sells all thier oil to russia and china. “Victory” or not?
Do you think the military might of the united states can force iraqis to choose leaders we approve of?
Is there ANYTHING you think the american military is incapeable of accomplishing?
Do you think we could fight every army in the world at once if we wanted to?
Godfather, stop bloviating. No one is feeding this veteran lies about Rush.
Do you deny rush included veterans like Murtha, who was a real soldier, in the category of “phoney soldiers”?
Yes or no?
October 4th, 2007 at 8:49 am>Iraq democratically decomes and islamic theocracy
meant to say “Iraq democratically become an islamic theocracy”
October 4th, 2007 at 8:50 amhttp://www.islamicmediacity.com/cms_files/news_images/1190391250.jpg
these are the kinds of Iraqi leaders that “victory” in IRaq will assist…
October 4th, 2007 at 8:53 amComment by Godfather2 — October 4, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Melanie Morgan, another right-wing talk show host, lied about Rush’s comments, too. Apparently she didn’t bother to read Rush’s edited transcript before opening her big mouth. Imagine that…a right-winger who doesn’t check the facts before commenting on an issue.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:56 amthere are at least, if not more, veterans and Gold Star Parents that oppose you and find your actions repellant and disgusting.
Comment by Godfather2 — October 4, 2007 @ 8:44 am
The discussion is about those thousands of veterans and grieving families who are opposed to the continuation of the conflict, and how they are villified by the right. I would dare you to find any progressives going after and trashing the same people who support the war. You won’t find it.
And don’t bring up Petraeus. He’s a General – criticism of him comes with the job. He doesn’t get a free pass. And no one has denigrated his service, they have denigrated his conduct as the man responsible for thousands of troops and his willingness to just go along with the Bush plan and be used as a political pawn. He has unique responsibilities to both the troops and the American people, not just the President.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:56 amGodfather, if you support the troops enough, maybe the democratically chosen leader of Iraq will have the time to have some “bathroom negotiations”,,,uhm I mean “backroom negotations” with the president of Iran… sorry, for a moment there I thought the leader of Iraq was a republican…
October 4th, 2007 at 8:57 amComment by Godfather2 — October 4, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Explain Rush’s inclusion of Murtha in his phony soldiers list. (yes, Rush used the word “soldiers,” not “soldier” as you assert…nice try, though)
October 4th, 2007 at 8:59 amMore Bush success.
Iraq orders $100,000.00 in weapons from Communist China!
Heckuva job.
-GSD
October 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am“Like the other left nut libs on this site…”
Whoa… now don’t let irrational stereotypes get in the way of an empty screed this early in the day, John!
“I wouldn’t even want to comment on this piece of useless fat!”
Hey… you’re serposed ta be defending’ El Rushbo here, not makin’ fun of his weight problems.
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 9:03 am
October 4th, 2007 at 9:08 amI meant to write one hundred million!
-GSD
October 4th, 2007 at 9:08 amImagine that! The Red Scourge is after Rush…
Comment by Mickey — October 3, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
RUSH: MOOOMMMMMMMM!!!! They’re PICKING on me!!!
October 4th, 2007 at 9:08 amBAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraq has ordered light military equipment from China worth $100 million because the United States is unable to meet Baghdad’s requirements, the Washington Post reported President Jalal Talabani as saying.
Ammo fer all the AK-47s we “lost” **cough… cough…* over there?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:09 am>Explain Rush’s inclusion of Murtha in his phony soldiers list.
Havent you heard Jake/Rory (Rake’s) brilliant explanation of this?
Once you retire from the miltary and begin life as a politician, you lose your status as a “real soldier”. This is why almost every republican politician these days hasnt wanted to serve in military, because they knew once they entered politics, they would lose thier status as soldiers, and in fact, be something very worse than a civilian, they’d be a fake soldier. Oh wait, theres a few… Hagel, Warner, Powell.. too bad they’ve woken up and turned against this war. I guess guess Hagel and Warner must be fake too.
I mean, Hagel, as Rush already pointed out, is THE original senator Betrayus.
Oh wait.. at least you’ll ALWAYS have senile John “i left my dentures on bush’s blowjob express bus” McCain
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
October 4th, 2007 at 9:09 amRush just shines the light on his lying ignorant ass. I love it.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:11 am>As for Murtha….I wouldn’t even want to comment on this piece
> of useless fat!
Right, because murtha RUINS your agrument that Rush was only referring to “imaginary” soldiers. Basically, Murtha doesnt meet some imaginary patriostism test you guys have cooked up in your head, so he’s “phony”too…but apparently, that opens the door to other REAL soldiers being labeled as “phony” too.
Or are you saying that the only soldier who is actually exists, and who was actually a soldier, that is “phony” is murtha and no others?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:13 amYou know whats scary, is that if you don’t agree with the riechtards, and you’ve served in the military, that military service will not only count for nothing, but it will be used against you.
For instance, republicans Hagel and Gordon Smith both turn against the war. Which one does drug addict rush dub “Senator Betrayus”? The military vet. Theres an example of a second REAL military vet Rush has slandered.
Trolls, any comment on Rush slandering Hagel?
I guess it hurts more when someone with street cred wakes up and stops going along with all the BS, huh?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:17 amComment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Even if the surge produces a higher number of U.S. casualties, the rightwing is prepared to declare it a success. Is this twisted, or what?
BRIT HUME: You would expect, wouldn’t you, that if you were going to be more aggressive in sending the troops into harms way, as you suggest, that the casualties would go up, and then that would not necessarily be an indicator of failure.
.
.
.
FRED BARNES: Numbers will go down, and it is politically important in Washington, particularly to Republicans, who take that as a measure of success there. The truth is combat deaths may go up as they continue the counterinsurgency. I am surprised they are this low. And if they go up — Brit, you touched on it just a minute ago — if they go up that is not necessarily a mark of lack of success. It could be a part of success.
(search “violence baghdad” on FoxNews.com for the source. I would post the link but TP usually rejects my posts when I do.)
October 4th, 2007 at 9:19 amAs for Murtha….I wouldn’t even want to comment on this piece of useless fat!
Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Translation: I have no proof he is a phony soldier.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:21 amAmmo fer all the AK-47s we “lost†**cough… cough…* over there?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
(Head for Wal-Mart today and stock up if you still want to go deer hunting this fall…)
October 4th, 2007 at 9:24 am(Head for Wal-Mart today and stock up if you still want to go deer hunting this fall…)
Comment by Nevar — October 4, 2007 @ 9:24 am
“Deer hunting”???
Geez, I always thought it was “BEER hunting”…
Why would anyone wnat to shoot Bambi, or his mom?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:27 am>Translation: I have no proof he is a phony soldier
Translation: I will have to admit that considers some soldiers who arent imaginary to be phony.
This is great.. I will have to put this in my lexicon of things right-tards will never acknowledge, along with “I agree with Bin LAden about taxes and abortion” and “the english translation of ‘allah’ is ‘god’”
And right-tards, I have a question.. you are defending Rush.. so I guess, what you’re saying , is that if Petrayus decide to run for elected office, it will be ok for us to call him “senator betrayus” just like your hero Rush called Hagel, another veteran, “senator betrays”
October 4th, 2007 at 9:28 amWell, there’s plenty of proof this morning of the right’s disregard and devaluing of American troops. Conservatives should be stripped of their right to vote, immediately. it’s the only way to save the world from their psycho folly.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:36 am#186 – Comment by John Kerry — October 4, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Wow! And here I thought all the Trail Lawyers were supposed to be liberal!
When Rush surreptitiously edited his audio AND his transcript, what do you think the reason was for these actions?
It’s beyond obvious that Rush is trying to spin his slander into something less than it was. Rush is a liar, extraordinaire, and you are mendacious in your attempts to support the spin of the slander.
Americans are not fooled by your continuing calumny.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:36 am>Even if the surge produces a higher number of U.S. casualties, the >rightwing is prepared to declare it a success.
Of course. Because theres absolutely nothing you can’t do if you use enough violence AND you’ve got allahs (uhm i mean gods.. sorry guys),
blessing right?
you want an 8 layer cake made?
call the army
you want to cure cancer?
call the marines
you want an end to famine?
call the navy?
you want to educate the world?
call the airforce
theres nothing the military cant accomplish. havent you heard.
hey trolls, one question.. how is the surge helping with that whole “political reconciliation” thing//?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:36 amComment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 9:09 am
I regret that I did not see Rory’s explanation.
And does it only apply to ground troops?
I have an uncle who was a Master Sergeant in the Air Force, who retired in 1975 and who was against the Iraq war (he passed away last December). Is he a phony, too?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:36 amWhy would anyone wnat to shoot Bambi, or his mom?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 4, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Because, unlike Iraqis, they can’t shoot back.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:37 am#201 – “Conservatives should be stripped of their right to vote, immediately. it’s the only way to save the world from their psycho folly.” Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 4, 2007 @ 9:36 am
I disagree. I would love for the conservatives to continue voting for failure after failure after failure. It will eventually relegate the failed neo-con right-whining movement to the trash bin of history, where it belongs.
The longer they continue to support failed politicians, failed policies, and failed “spin”, the more irrelevant they become and the more Americans realize the neo-con right-whiners are failures.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:39 amhey trolls, one question.. how is the surge helping with that whole “political reconciliation†thing//?
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Yeah! We were told to wait until September. Did Patreaus mention this in his report to Congress and we missed it?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:42 am>I regret that I did not see Rory’s explanation.
its back a few threads, on another limbaugh thread i think..maybe the other one about the veteran responding. Rory is jake, by the way, same language, same phrases, some argument style and detachtment from reality
Rory showed up right about the time Jake left. I just call it “Rake”
Now shes a poor, defenseless mother of 3 (who thinks women, especially women not smart enough to find a good man, make poor voting choices)
We’d have to be really mean heartless liberals to attack a poor old lady like her, right?
>And does it only apply to ground troops?
Christ, I dont know.. something about Murtha and Kerry’s beleif’s or post service actions or career choice making them traitors and therfore “phony” or something.. I have to admit, I really, truly have no clue about how these guys handle the massive amount of cognitive dissonance these guys must be able to tolerate (or perphaps ignore altogether) and still hold to their “beliefs”
October 4th, 2007 at 9:44 amThe longer they continue to support failed politicians, failed policies, and failed “spinâ€, the more irrelevant they become and the more Americans realize the neo-con right-whiners are failures.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 4, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Unfortunately, greed and bloodlust all too often trumps goodness and humanity, and as long as conservatives are given a place at the table, they will continue to find ways to murder thousands for their own enrichment. They shoud be reclassified as 3/5 of a citizen, without voting rights. it would all be deliciously ironic, since that is the way they have always chosen to treat people. Vendetta, rory, bigfoot, et al, are thoroughly undeserving of American citizenship and the protections of the constitution.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:45 am>We were told to wait until September. Did Patreaus mention this in his >report to Congress and we missed it?
at least there is SOME reconciliation going on in iraq…
http://www.islamicmediacity.com/cms_files/news_images/1190391250.jpg
October 4th, 2007 at 9:46 am>bigfoot
you guys seen a picture of Bigfoot?
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg
watch out, hes going to get mad you made fun of his “intellegence”.. hehehe
October 4th, 2007 at 9:49 amtrolls? thoughts? hagel a fake soldier too? or just a traitor? or both?
October 4th, 2007 at 10:10 amComment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Yeah, I’ve seen most of his/her posts. Like the one where “she” says she pays her fair share of taxes yet does not work.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:12 amComment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Oh that is a good one!
October 4th, 2007 at 10:13 amBecause, unlike Iraqis, they can’t shoot back.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 4, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Uhh… yeah… that does make sense. Kinda like Dickie “Five Deferments” Cheney slaughtering pen-raised birds by the dozen and calling it “hunting”.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:14 amComment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 10:10 am
They do seem to scatter when asked such pointed questions. O. Bigfoot himself admitted the other day, after repeated attempts to get him to discuss the issues in the MoveOn ad, that he ignores issues that do not interest him.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:16 am>They do seem to scatter when asked such pointed questions.
They do. Its hilarious. None of them can answer almost any question I ask..
October 4th, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by Vendetta — October 4, 2007 @ 10:24 am
You are so right.
Shame on Sen. Cornyn for suggesting that we do not have the right to question our leaders.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:29 amGen Clark called for gov sensorship of political opinion.
That is unpatriotic.
Comment by Vendetta — October 4, 2007 @ 10:24 am
And so like a phony soldier. Don’t you agree?
October 4th, 2007 at 10:31 am>Gen Clark called for gov sensorship of political opinion.
Desparate to get the last word in are you? Whats your comment about murtha and hagel being “phony soldiers”?
Is hagel only a traitor like rush says, or is he both a phony soldier and a traitor?
Oh, and by the way, the government is not “CENSORING” a business just because it chooses not to continue to associate itself with that business.
They would only be censoring it if they made it shut down their operations, or tried to block the public from hearing its contents. If you had any legal knowledge whatsoever, you’d know that there are many different reasons that the government has a different standard when dealing with the armed forces than it does with the regular public.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am>The gen called for censor
repeating facts doesnt seem to help with you types, but once again, a government choosing not to continue doing business with an organization is not equivalent to censorship. Rush limbaugh has no constitutional right to receive airtime on the governments dime, any more than air america does.
> Big difference.
censor. censure. yeah, big difference. censorship actually has more serious constitutional implications, but that wasnt what clark was calling for.
censor. censure. yeah, big difference.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:52 amaccountant, accountability, yeah big difference.
iraq, iran.. yeah. big difference.
>I have given my opinion on the murtha comment in previous threads.
repeat it again succinctly:
this murtha comment means rush IS talking about real soldiers when he says, “phony soldiers”, yes or no?
a simple yes or no will suffice.
> Are the military not citizens with rights?
yes, but one of those rights does not include to the right to have government assistance listening to any entertainment of your choosing.
by your argument, I should have the right to have the government make sure I get every cable channel. the argument is the same.
and in fact, its worth mentioning, the supreme court has consistently decided that members of the miltary have LESS rights than the average public citizen. you know how they cant say anything bad about thier commanders while in uniform? thats one thing.. there are many.. but i dont expect you to know that..
>What is the method of determining what is censored?
thats the FCC’s job. Again, this ISNT censorship. No one, including clark, is trying to stop him from saying what he wants, or from making business deals with any private company he wants to help him broadcast his message.
> And who makes those decisions?
people smarter and more educated than you.
>The general suggests congress make those decisions.
once again, just because the government chooses to stop doing business with a company or person DOESNT mean they are trying to stop any private companies or private persons from doing business with them.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amThe gen called for censor as opposed to the senators call for censure. Big difference.
Comment by Vendetta — October 4, 2007 @ 10:37 am
McCain wanted to throw MoveOn out of the country for daring to question a military leader. Not very free speech of him.
The Cornyn amendment generally said, “Look at the general’s credentials. How dare you question him.” If Cornyn wanted to defend the general’s testimony and the accuracy of the data he presented, by using, you know, facts that would have refuted MoveOn’s accusations, then he should have done just that. But no…it’s not as politically effective as, once again, suggesting that anyone who questions the war is and against the troops.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am>I have given my opinion on the murtha comment in previous threads.
what about hagel. did you answer than is some other thread too? rush called him “senator betrayus”, he coined the term in fact. do you think he’s another example of rush’s “phony soldiers” or just a “traitor”?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:02 amOoops…remove “and” from that last sentence.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:04 am>There is a difference
Dude… are you retarded? You’re the only one that said “big difference”… No one else was claiming they were the same or similar thing.
Congratulations, your sucessfully refuted your own point.
You’re starting to sound alot like Bigfoot. Are you guys related? YOu live in the same trailer park?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:15 amOk so poor Rush is being victimized because he is denigrating a wounded soldier but General Betray us, lied, contradicting a Pentagon’s report and Move On should be shut down.
Did we suddenly turn into Alice in Wonderland in America ?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:16 am>censor. censure. yeah, big difference.
just in case you can’t follow, when i said this, I was making fun of this statement of yours:
>My bad.
>The gen called for censor as opposed to the
>senators call for censure. Big difference.
I can only assume from the context and the “my bad” that this is sarcasm. Because you sound an awful lot like a certain Bigfoot, who was insisting that we shouldnt listen to the government accoutability office about iraq because they were just accoutants.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am>I could not say it any better.
I did NOT ask you how Hagel felt about Rush.
I asked you how Rush felt about Hagel. Nice pathethic attempt at a dodge though.
You seem to have a definitive grasp of what is going on in Rush’s mind, and so I asked you whether you beleive that Hagel would fall under Rush’s defintion of “phony soldier”, like Murtha did, or whether Rush would merely consider Hagel a traitor but not a phony.
You seem to be one of the “go to” guys when discussing Rush’s state of mind and what Rush means when he makes a statement, so I was just wondering if you could clear up this confusion about whether Hagel was a phony soldier or not….
October 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am>Last night on Tucker Carlson he did call for it.
what did he say, exactly? verbatim quote please.
>censor. censure. yeah, big difference.
just in case you can’t follow, when i said this, I was making fun of this statement of yours:
>My bad.
>The gen called for censor as opposed to the
>senators call for censure. Big difference.
I can only assume from the context and the “my bad†that this is sarcasm. Because you sound an awful lot like a certain Bigfoot, who was insisting that we shouldnt listen to the government accoutability office about iraq because they were just accoutants.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am>“MY BAD†was in regards to my spelling.
another area where you exhibit mental traits similar to bigfoot.
why the heck did you even feel the need to say there was a “big difference”
October 4th, 2007 at 11:33 ambetween censure and censor then? no one was claiming there wasnt? why would you feel the need to point that out? its obvious to anyone who isnt completely mentally retarded./..
>I think Rush was indicating Hagel had betrayed the party not the country.
and you know that how?
and so you’re saying you think Rush wouldnt consider Hagel a fake soldier, but only Murtha? Any other soldiers who are REAL, who REALLY served, that you think Limbaugh meant to lump in with Murtha when he said “fake soldier”?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am>I am searching for transcipt from tucker show.
cool.. in the off chance he did call for actual censorship, whoop-dee-doo.
its OFF topic.. we’re talking about Rush and who exactly he considers to be a phony soldier. So far we’ve seen Rush calling at least one REAL veteran a phony soldier, I’m just wondering if hes the ONLY REAL soldier Limbaugh would consider phony, or if theres others?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am>I thought your comment “yeah, big difference†was sarc
you said the exact same thing first moron. wow, howse that short term memory loss going for you? you’re the one that felt the inexplicable need to tell us they were two different things, when no one was claiming that.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amoh, and while you’re at it, lets for a moment, give your argument the benefit of the doubt, and go with the notion Clark did call for Rush to be CENSORED.. how exactly is clark different from the thousands of rightwing christians nutballs a year who blast form letter complaints to the FCC complaining about every single “un-chrisitan” thing they see on TV? Are you prepared to condemn as unpatriotic all those right wing nutjobs for demanding things on TV and radio be censored?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:43 am>I meant there was a big difference.
you can’t read, can you? I know thats what you claimed. I just wondered why you felt the need to say it, as no one was trying to claim they were equivalent.
> Chocolate MORON.
thanks! uuuuuu. im rubber and your glue. yeah, since you were just pointing out they were different, i guess you’d have to agree that someone who got the terms “accoutant” and “accountabilty” mixed up woudl have to be a pretty big idiot, huh? i’ll be sure to remind your brother in idiocy bigfoot about that when he gets done molesting his step-kids and gets back on the board..
> Transcript not available till 3pm ET
cool,. bring it up in another thread you see me on, im going to bed…..
October 4th, 2007 at 11:48 amnow that you have an acutal understanding of what censorship is, maybe you’ll be able to figure out if clark was calling for censorship, as opposed to what tp said he was calling for..
>Now the truth comes out about the lib attitude towards
> the rights of Americans and the constitution.
Right.. we think its ok that people complain about what other people complain about.
Crazy, I know…
I dont even think he said it thought, but I admit to not having an encyclopedic knowledge of what goes on in clarks mind like you claim to have of Rush’s mind..
October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amComment by Chocolate Jesus — October 4, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Those Christian nutballs, for example, successfully lobbied NBC affiliates to remove the show “The Book of Daniel” from the airwaves because they were offended by the themes in the show. The show was soon canceled by NBC.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am>YES understanding that standards of decency
>are not synonymous with their opinion of what is unchristian.
Yes what? You saying you do condemn all the bible beater for trying to get non obscene non profanity laden shows about lesbians pulled off the air, or you dont?
You saying you dont think these nutballs think that if its unchrisitan its indecent?
Make sense man,,, you’ve alread diverged far enough from the original topic in a desparate attempt to make a point..
October 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amgod you’re uselless.,,. im going to bed..find me on another thread and continue this…
October 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amWhy do so many of you keep explaining what Rush is trying to say or mean’t ? The words are out there , he means every nasty thing he says he has never had to be accountable why now ?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:58 amHe and Coulter are the Rightwings mouth.
I think what Rush really means is, you’re a phony soldier if you use your 1st amendment rights to speak out about your anti-war views. In other words, Rush reserves the right to himself and his ilk to use the airwaves or newsprint or any other public broadcasting forum.
As long as you keep your mouth shut, Rush won’t go after you. Isn’t that right?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pmGood grief you Rush lovers…..quit explaining what he mean’t . You think he is walking on water holding Bush’s hand…have at it.
Those of us who bothered to read the BEFORE edited transcript. We also know what he has said on prior occasions regarding any anti-war sentiments. So suddenly he has been misinterrupted, sure and I have some swampland I could sell you.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI think it’s disgraceful to see vets speaking out against their Commander in Chief. This is not being a respectful soldier. Please unless you plan on carrying out your duty, do not JOIN the armed forces.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:35 pmAs far as the Limbaugh comment, I have never seen anything like this in my life. The Left is taking a benign remark and running with it like rabid dogs. Wasting our time on the floor of the Senate with this is beyond belief. It’s obvious that this is an orchestrated event. No one can tell what was in the mind of Rush when the remark was made, but Rush himself. All’s I can do is go by his past remarks and deeds, and I do not know of a bigger supporter of our military than Rush. It’s unfortunate to see soldiers USED by the Left in this country, they have went out and found soldiers who have decided to speak out against their Commander and Chief (which is disgraceful in itself) and used them to carry their anti-war-at-all-cost water. How sad !
October 4th, 2007 at 7:49 pmThe soldiers do have the right to speak out, but it’s disgraceful that they would speak out against their Commander in Chief. Again, unless you plan on serving and honoring your country, please do not join the armed forces.
As far as Rush, if you listened to his show daily you would know that there is no bigger cheerleader for our military and the soldiers who serve. The Left is taking this one remark and using it to further their agenda. It was disgusting to see our elected officials make fools of themselves on the floor of Congress speaking out against Limbaugh.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:01 amTo lobby a station is not censorship.
Comment by Vendetta — October 4, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Oh yes it is. Television stations…broadcast and cable…air programming for the general audience to watch. For a select small group to successfully lobby a station to take a show off, simply because it offends them, while ignoring the right of the rest of the audience to view it, is indeed censorship.
As well, many of these so-called Christian groups think they are doing me a favor and saving my soul from evil by lobbying these stations. It is not up to them to make decisions for me. If you don’t like the show, then call or write the station and/or network and voice your opinion. But don’t demand that it be taken off. Just change the damn channel if you don’t want to watch it.
You sure as hell would see them howling if I got a group of people together and called one of the local stations and demanded they not broadcast services on Sunday morning from one of the local churches.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:42 amComment by Billster — October 5, 2007 @ 8:01 am
Ever read the Oath of Citizenship? I’ve copied part of it below.
Is it disgraceful for citizens to speak out against the President? If so, by saying it is disgraceful, aren’t you suggesting they not do it?
As for Rush being a cheerleader for the military, perhaps so, but only if the soldiers are pro-war.
Answer Probus’ question about Rush calling Murtha a phony soldier, and explain why this does not go against Rush’s explanation regarding his comments regarding the other “phony soldiers.”
Excerpt from the Oath of Citizenship:
…that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
October 5th, 2007 at 9:54 amIt was disgusting to see our elected officials make fools of themselves on the floor of Congress speaking out against Limbaugh.
Comment by Billster — October 5, 2007 @ 8:01 am
The same can be said regarding the amendment denouncing the MoveOn ad.
Maybe you would be so kind to explain how the issues raised in the ad directly result in, as the Rightwingers claim, charges of treason against Patraeus. I’ve been asking for days, on various threads, for the pro-amendment folks to explain this, and to discuss the issues raised in the ad, and nobody wants to bother. It is much easier to throw around the word “smear” because it doesn’t require much effort or thought. You may also want to take into consideration the other definitions of “betray,” as most people cherry-pick the one that references treason.
You can also explain how the issues raised in the ad are a smear against all members of the military, as Sen. Cornyn suggests in his amendment. Last I recall, the other members in the military, especially those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, didn’t go in front of Congress and mislead them on the “success” in Iraq.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:02 am“Defending” ? Bullshit ! They were not defending anyone, they could do that anytime. They simply smelled blood in the water and were/are trying to take Limbaugh down. Which by the way is backfiring, this whole thing has given Limbaugh a weeklong ratings bonanza, and has made little people like Reid look even smaller.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pmEveryone regardless of their political persuasion wants to support the troops. The difference is Democrats will do anything to bring them home before the job is completed, because they want to see this country embarrassed. Regardless of what conflict is at hand, Democrats will take to the streets in protest.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pmIt would always be the “wrong war” to Democrats.
Can’t you guys see that MediaMatters hit piece on O’Reilly fizzled like a cheap firecracker in a Seattle thunderstorm, so they needed to come up with a new story to keep people from seeing the egg on their face.
The Dems mouthpieces, Olberman, Airhead America, etc. tried keeping their talking points going, but all’s they gained was seeing Limbaugh’s ratings go through the roof.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:13 amI can’t think of anyone that has been more supportive of the U.S. military than Limbaugh, he has been one of their biggest cheerleaders for years.
The Left smells blood, and they are using this ridiculous nothing episode to attempt to silence their opposition.
It’s not working.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmWow…what kind of Neanderthal would even talk about American citizens not being “allowed” to vote because of their gender and because some don’t agree with their vote. It is really amazning that someone in America can still think like that. Ann Coulter…please, how can you give her any time. She is a jerk who wants to start trouble. That she can say that about anyone in America shows she is a moron. How about we stop “allowing” men who have any corporate position from voting. They already have undue influence on America. How about we stop “allowing” people who make more than a million a year to vote because they don’t really live like the rest of us anyway. HOw about….we act like grown ups and Americans and stop saying moronic things like we shouldn’t let single women vote. Man, how funny that you can even say it.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:46 pmPerhaps if they had allowed gays in the military back in Viet Nam days Rush wouldn’t have had the “butt” problem. When is this druggie going to be outed anyway?
October 7th, 2007 at 12:48 pm