"Limbaugh noted later on in his show that it seemed the excerpts were fake, though he said he didn't care, both because of a series of quotes falsely attributed to him recently and because, 'I know Obama thinks it.'"
Here are the other cement heads that fell for the hoax.
Pajamas Media
Town Hall
American Thinker
FOX News
Remember, these are conservative outlets where a lot of people on the Right get their "information," and believe it without ever using critical thinking. If Rush said it; it must be true.
How many times have I heard that poor Rush has to provide material for a 3-hour show, 5 days a week every week of the year. This give us more insight on how Gasbag does it: He runs with any anti-Obama rumor or lie that's out there, bellows it out over his EIB network, and his millions of dittoheads then nod in unison and approval, because like Gasbag, they "...know Obama thinks it."
Note how the Gasbag refers to President Obama as "...this little boy in college..." We don't have to reach very far back in American history to discover how racist whites referred to Black American men as "boy" in order to demean them, do we. We can thank Gasbag, again, for reminding us of this ugly part of our history.
46 comments:
"Note how the Gasbag refers to President Obama as "...this little boy in college..."
Limbaugh could well have avoided his dance with old racist terms by merely saying "little kid". But he chose not to.
It's almost always impossible for a bigot to hide his true nature.
Even a 'clever' bigot like Limbaugh.
Rush doesn't have to fill three hours of programming five days a week. There is deluded right wing fool where I work that listens to Rush. Rush speaks maybe 20 minutes then rehashes that same nonsense the rest of his allotted time. Plus the 40 minutes of commercials per hour and other crap on his show.
Typical of the right to try and elevate this functional moron into something other than the gasbag he is.
Yeah. Limbaugh is popular with a small segment of the US population that's invested in the idea of being victims.
Limbaugh rakes in the $$$$$ while broadcasting to the illiterates and the critical thinking challenged and laughs all the way to the bank.
We liberals get it. The conservatives don't.
LOL!
I have a question, around here Rush is on the airwaves from 11 am to 2pm...
Now, what I want to know is how and when do most people, who claim to be loyal listeners have the ability to listen and call in when they most likely are at work?
But...but isn't Limpbauh supposed to be a master of Satire? I've read that the libs don't understand that Limbaugh's race-baiting remarks are SATIRE! And libs misunderstand him.
Now how did this piece of SATIRE get past the master?
Hmmmmm.
it looks like Rush Limbaugh has proven himself to be too eager a nay-sayer
Shaw said:
"We can thank Gasbag, again, for reminding us of this ugly part of our history."
BY "GASBAG" DO YOU MEAN BARACK OBAMA?
For 10 months, Barack Obama relentlessly outlined his presidential platform. The most important component was change, closely followed by hope. But there were some actual policy proposals too—Obama promised a tighter budget, an end to tax cuts for the rich, universal healthcare, a change from “politics as usual,” and a quick end to the war in Iraq. What has he done so far?
NOTHING! Obama hasn't done anything he promised, even though he has the congress 100% behind him.. He has got us all hyped up on hope and the liberal Illuminati have us thinking he is going to be a hero but will he actually do anything.
It’s a key tenet of Keynesian economics that raising taxes during a recession is very harmful, so it’s a mystery where Congress thinks it will find the money to pay for all these bailouts. The deficit was high enough before the bailout (around a half trillion); now, some estimates put the 2009 deficit at over a trillion dollars. Clearly something is wrong here.
There is a lot of worrying in conservative circles about the liberal dominance of the Internet. It’s hard to argue that that is not the case—the Huffington Post is a major Internet player, and sites like the Daily Kos and MyDD get many more visitors than equivalent conservative sites. And the difference in tone between liberal and conservative sites are striking—conservative websites usually consist of commentary and analysis, while liberal sites take a more strategic, "screw you, we are in power" tone.
Back in the beginning of this failed policy, I, along with much of the conservative movement, supported Obama’s bailout bill. The reasoning behind it, which seemed strong at the time, was the lending market was so terrified of further bankruptcy that some government intervention was needed to stabilize the situation. It sounded logical, and most pundits—though relatively few Americans—agreed with it.
It’s a bit late to wonder what might have been, but it seems that the bailout bill might have been a big mistake. But that’s Obama’s mistake, he can’t blame Bush for that nor can he cop out and say that it was “Inherited” LOL
Thank you for this opportunity to vent.
DR,
You're wrong.
Mr. Obama has kept quite a few of his promises, is working on many more.
Here is a website that is keeping track of them:
PolitiFact
"It’s a bit late to wonder what might have been, but it seems that the bailout bill might have been a big mistake. But that’s Obama’s mistake, he can’t blame Bush for that nor can he cop out and say that it was “Inherited” LOL" --DR
The Bush administration with the help of Hank Paulson instituted the FIRST bailout, so YES, the Bush administration has responsibility in this as does the Obama administration.
"With a financial crisis looming in September, Hank Paulson went to Congress for $700 billion in bailout funds. He intended to use these to buy up toxic securities from a range of banks and hold them. Essentially, the idea was to create a "bad bank" owned by the governemnt. While this would have forced participating banks to declare large losses, it would have created certainty about their solvency by removing illiquid assets from their balance sheets. Paulson realized after receiving the first half of the monies that the policy wouldn't work with his plan - the assets had already proved unpriceable and the enormous, up-front costs were dramatically more than it had available.
He therefore decided that a better solution, albeit one that would be worked out bank-by-bank, would involve the government taking an equity stake in the major financial institutions and, where necessary, issuing insurance on the value of the illiquid assets, making up the difference if they all below an agreed floor price. Paulson reasoned that investors would know that the bank is secure, but that it would reduce the requirement for immediate capital.
The problem with the strategy that Paulson pursued is that the direct investment into financial institutions wasn't transparent and diluted equity holders. It also didn't do anything to stimulate lending, whereas a cleaner balance sheet might have provided existing banks with a fresh start. Moreover, the insurance issued against the existing portfolio, which has now been issued at AIG, Citibank and Bank of America, has the potential to put the government in significant risk for having liabilities well above those that are funded or budgeted, essentially forcing the government to order and supervise an orderly liquidation, as opposed to risking a disorderly one."
Source
Thanks for the link to politifact, Shaw, the anti-Obama element seems not to have discovered the campaign is over and running the country is the need of the moment, keep trying to steer it off the cliff.
Interesting. I seem to have actually heard Rush read this off and got that it wasn't a racist shot. But you'll believe any slant from the Media Mutilators, won't you?
Although I will say I almost fell for the hoax myself. The difference is that I Google shit before I run with it.
Patrick: Well, at least Limbaugh had the sense to retract it (in the same show, apparently).
Not as bad as Dan Rather taking the "Bush went AWOL" hoax and running with it long after it was proven false, even though it ended up destroying his career.
That dog still has his teeth in the wheels of the car he's chasing: his frivolous lawsuit against CBS over the matter is ongoing: a court only dismissed it a few days ago.
It's one thing to be pwned. It's another to pwn yourself again and again by insisting that the hoax is real.
Patrick,
Rush inserted race into the controversy by referring to the president as "boy."
As dmarks noted, he could have called him a "kid," and no one would have been shocked. But to use the term "boy" when speaking about an African-American is just plain racist. Limbaugh knows the power of words, and it wasn't a mistake on his part when he used "boy."
Limbaugh is a PoS, simply put.
There's no defending him in this instance AFAIC.
DMarks, what relevance do the Rather remarks have to this post?
Rather was wrong. So was Rush. And they have nothing to do with each other.
I find it interesting that there are people on the right who are teed off at those on the left who say the problems facing our country right now can be traced, at least partly, to the Bush Administration.
Their logic seems to lead down a path that says what Bush did was then, and this is now. And then when someone brings up an issue where their beloved party, or members of their side of the aisle do something like Rush did, they do just what you did.
Bring up an instance where someone on the left did something similar.
For heaven's sake people, if folks would just accept that both sides play these games and when it is pointed out, in this case that Rush flat out screwed up, accept the reality, our country might be better off.
Who cares, when we are talking about Rush what Dan Rather did?
Just askin...
This, in a nutshell, is GOP reasoning for everything. It doesn't matter what the facts are, they make their own "logic" and reality because they can. Real reality is just too confusing, complex and subtle, too real for their brickbat mentalities to assimilate, so they create a world that does assimilate. Safe in the womb of their own creation they live in oblivious comfort. Nice.
Dave: They are similar in that they were "pwned" by fake news stories. No need to police "comment correctness" here.
"And then when someone brings up an issue where their beloved party, or members of their side of the aisle do something like Rush did, they do just what you did."
If you are going to be a good comment-cop, you need to read the comments. Scroll up and see the first comment here. The first thing I did was condemn Rush for this, supporting the idea that "in this case that Rush flat out screwed up"
You did in fact condemn it Dmarks. But why did you feel the need to bring up Rather? It had nothing to do with this post.
If you can show me where it is related to the original post I would really appreciate it.
Otherwise, it seems like a back door way to shield Rush by playing the moral equivalency game.
That to me seems like troll behavior as defined by our favorite wiki site.
a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages
Isn't this what you did with the Rather comment? Wasn't the introduction of the Rather incident, off the Rush topic?
Dave: "If you can show me where it is related to the original post I would really appreciate it."
Major media figure "pwned" by fake news.
"Otherwise, it seems like a back door way to shield Rush by playing the moral equivalency game."
No. I see two aspects to Shaw's post. (1) Limbaugh being a racist. (2) Limbaugh being enough of a careless buffoon to be "pwned" by fake news.
I don't see the second as a moral issue at all. And it is only this aspect that I related Rather to. It's not off-topic at all. So the answer to your last question was "no", clumsy comment-cop. Perhaps fabricating nonexistent "topic compliance" issues is trollish , if anything.
So Rusky does not fact check? Wow, what a surprised.
Oh, and when contronted that he was punked, he defended himself by saying "we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway"
After so many years of mis-labeling and mis-characterizing others he gets smacked down by the NFL "Not For Limbaugh". Great job NFL.
Shaw: Rush inserted race into the controversy by referring to the president as "boy."
Bullshit. The exact wording was "this little boy." I heard him repeat it yesterday, followed immediately by referring to Obama as a "manchild." Manchild is definitely not a racial reference. And it goes to exactly what Rush was referring to when he uttered the word "boy."
Boy=male child, not boy=nigger.
Your (and Media Mongoloid's) attempt to find racism in EVERYTHING Rush says would be laughable if it wasn't bullshit.
Dmarks: Never heard of that one, not have I heard "manchild" used in any racial sense. Either way, it's reading more into what he's saying than what he's saying. And disingenuous attempts to argue facts and opinions by attacking the person.
Patrick: I'm perfectly willing to defend Limbaugh on the many insightful things he's said over the years. Or against charges of racism like in the Spike Lee quote found on this blog. But I will not defend him on stuff like this.
Had Rush Limbaugh said anything remotely insightful his entire career he wouldn't need defending.
I was wondering who would be first to come from the "Rush Limbaugh is 100% incorrect" side. A side as silly as the side who says he is correct all the time.
Anyway, you know as well as I do that people who say insightful things, including those both on the left and right, do need defending from false accusations.
No one said Limbaugh was '100% incorrect'. And not having listened to his program I probably missed the one afternoon he did offer an interesting insight.
Don't confuse 'insightful' with popular. Limbaugh is not particularly perceptive. However, he is shrewd enough to satisfy his bottom-feeding audience and he isn't stupid.
He is, however, and I give him this, monumentally obtuse, insensitive and indiscriminating.
OK, Arthur, 100% non-insightful is what you said. My paraphrase could have been better. But my point still stands.
Come to think of it, Limbaugh has been defended from false accusations from both sides here. We used to have a troll that came to this blog. He had 3 points about Rush he repeated all the time, equally. One of them was that Rush was a pedophile, and some on the Left pointed out that this was not the case.
(The troll's other points weren't much better. He made a big deal of Limbaugh's excessive weight, implying that the more weight Rush lost, the less objectionable his arguments would be.)
Of course 'my point still stands'. It always does. Drag in Spike lee and all of a sudden you've created yet another false equivalency to stand back and admire. Even handedness. 'Both sides do it'.
Nope.
That a few Limbaugh quotes were fudged doesn't at all mitigate the volume of toxic sludge he's discharged over the years.
Limbaugh is a bully, a racist, a sexist, misogynist preaching daily to an eager audience of millions.
He is, as he likely is fondly known down Santo Domingo way, numero uno. Sadly there are many working the same side of the street with various riffs on the big man's act.
And while they can't quite nudge him out of his top spot they share the same right-wing, reactionary views.
One's a radio guy who makes racist comments. The other's a movie guy who makes racist comments (witness his idiotic war against Tyler Perry for daring to make movies that defy Lee's narrow definition of "black" movies). Lee also made quite a buffoon of himself when he demanded that Clint Eastwood change history on his Iwo Jima movies and stuff them with token blacks.
The equivalency isn't false: toxic slude has come from both at times in their careers.
Even a 'clever' bigot like Limbaugh. Hey there Mr. A, miss me?
Hummm, let's see who the bigot is, you or Rush.
Definition from The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, last copyright year of 1991 of the word bigot: a person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
O crap! Me thinks it is both of you! ;-)
OK, I'm gonna give you the transcript of the show that SK is so upset about. I heard the whole program and this transcript is how I remember it. I wonder if some here will even read it or just continue in their bigoted ignorance of Rush.
It is so easy to take comments out of context and miss the satire. O well, it is what it is I suppose.
Click Here
Have you been somewhere Jim?
A keyboard, Google and the American Heritage Dictionary in the wrong hands can cause unintended levity.
Thanks fellas.
Always amusing chatting with the Limbaugh apologists.
Shaw: I question the site you are linking on Obama's promises. Let's look at one of Obama's most important promises.
"No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq"
That is listed as a promise kept on the site which is absolute nonsense. Obama is dragging out the Iraq War indefinitely and has done nothing to end it. Some of the other "kept promises" were minor and, in many cases, the actual policy didn't live up to the bold names.
Obama has betrayed the liberals who voted for him and worked for him. That's a fact we all need to face so we can start building strong opposition to the Obama Administration from the left.
Glad to put a smile on your face and a laugh in your mouth. At least for that moment you looked like a conservative Mr. A! ;-)
Well, in the case of #125, it is better to do the correct thing than to keep a bad promise to the letter. I won't be bashing him for this one.
dmarks said... Not as bad as Dan Rather taking the "Bush went AWOL" hoax and running with it long after it was proven false...
That wasn't a hoax. bush did go AWOL.
"That wasn't a hoax. bush did go AWOL."
No evidence of it (other than forged documents), no charges. It's all made up, and got traced back to a big nothing.
dmarks said... No evidence of it (other than forged documents), no charges. It's all made up, and got traced back to a big nothing.
Actually, I think it's a pretty well established fact.
From the Huffington Post: [Dan Rather] interviewed the 86-year old personal secretary of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer in Houston. [she] thought CBS's cache of Killian's memos were not originals, but fiercely stuck to her guns that everything in them, all the bad stuff about Bush, was accurate. Her evidence: she'd typed the damn things originally... (7/22/2009)
W-Derv: Isn't this the same Dan Rather that has a vested interest in proving the story? Convenient that he's the one that found all the "evidence."
[url=http://rastimores.net/][img]http://rastimores.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]kaspersky internet security 2009 key, [url=http://rastimores.net/]adobe creative suite 3 mac upgrade[/url]
[url=http://akreoplastoes.net/][/url] office 2003 network copy and paste hangs vista problems with adobe.owl.dll with adobe photoshop cs3
microsoft software management [url=http://akreoplastoes.net/]educational software resellers[/url] Creative Suite 4
[url=http://akreoplastoes.net/]discount vista software[/url] cheap oem software for
[url=http://akreoplastoes.net/]newbyte educational software[/url] purchase manager software
shop manager software [url=http://rastimores.net/]trial software downloads[/url][/b]
Post a Comment