Breaking News
Iran Charges 3 American Hikers With Espionage
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Nice bit of completely dishonest work by you guys at Media Matters.
Limbaugh was clearly referring to fake soldiers like Jesse McBeth, he said so right after taking that call.
You guys must be really desperate after taking a hit on that Betray Us ad, to stoop to such obvious demagoguery here.
Keep it up, you guys are now branding yourselves as being about as honest as the old Pravda and Izvestia you model yourselves on.
You sound just like the mindless drone emailers who hate mail us. Are you guys operating off the same brain?
Ah, so you aren’t refuting my claim that you guys are paid liars.
Quite telling. You know you are caught in a big stinking lie, and so all you can do is call me ‘mindless’.
Just pathetic.
You gotta remember, Ken, that Oliver is an honest blogger.
Once he’s bought, he stays bought.
Media Matters had two big things this week — Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. And Oliver has faithfully parroted both smears to his lickspittles here.
Facts and context are irrelevant; the touchstone is “fake, but accurate.” As long as they know, in their heart of hearts, that someone is BAD, it’s all fair game to go after them. Because they DESERVE it.
J.
“Limbaugh was clearly referring to fake soldiers like Jesse McBeth, he said so right after taking that call.”
So Jesse McBeth is two people? He used the plural and there was no qualifications here. He didn’t say some of the soldiers who speak out against the war are phony.
You are trying to use semantics to defend the indefensible.
When idiots assert obvious nonsense like me being a paid liar, or JayTea’s obsession with me falsely being a paid blogger, why in God’s name should I refute it? It’s nonsense, and you guys are the types to still believe in Santa even after you see your parents wrapping presents – so why bother? Believe your fairy tales and your misguided assertions and the grownups will move on to the business of getting the country back on track, accurately quoting the Gods of the right much to their chagrin, and generally living our lives without the sin of being conservative liars.
Good day.
By the way, he used Murtha as an example of a phony soldier, so you can cut the crap about him being taken out of context.
Now kindly admit you were wrong or fuck off.
Oh please. In the call just before the phony soldier call, Limbaugh questioned the truth of a republican who was opposed to the war in Iraq. Indeed, he actually told the guy that he couldn’t really be a republican if he opposed the war. In the next call, he’s referring to soldiers who oppose the war as “phony soldiers.” Limbaugh’s an ass.
Ah, so you aren’t refuting my claim that you guys are paid liars.
I saw no claim there. Just more projection.
And he switched from plural to singular because 2 of the 3 soldiers he was slandering were killed in combat the next day.
Seriously, there ain’t enough context in the universe to put these assholes in.
Why don’t you guys trying actually reading the frickin’ transcript, instead of just regurgitating your not-very-clever talking points pre-digested for you at Media Matters?
Yeah, Limbaugh was talking about phony soldiers in plural, because the left has served up plenty of them. Limbaugh then went on to discuss one particularly egregious example: scumbag Jesse Macbeth.
Why is that so hard for you guys to figure out?
You guys DO have reading comprehension skills, don’t you?
Facts and context are irrelevant; the touchstone is “fake, but accurate.” As long as they know, in their heart of hearts, that someone is BAD, it’s all fair game to go after them. Because they DESERVE it.
Yeah, the right would know about “fake but accurate”.
Why don’t you guys trying actually reading the frickin’ transcript, instead of just regurgitating your not-very-clever talking points pre-digested for you at Media Matters?
Of course, you would NEVER link this magic “transcript” you speak of. *whispers*Is…is the transcript here right now?
“Why don’t you guys trying actually reading the frickin’ transcript,”
Did it ever occur to you that we have?
“Yeah, Limbaugh was talking about phony soldiers in plural, because the left has served up plenty of them. Limbaugh then went on to discuss one particularly egregious example: scumbag Jesse Macbeth.”
And when he said you can’t be a real Republican if you don’t support the war he meant…
Face it, he meant just what we said he meant because that’s what he said.
All this semantic bullshit doesn’t change that.
“They never talk to real soldiers”
Right there. Practically the first line in the ad above. NEVER. This means they aren’t talking about a couple of rare cases, this means no soldier they’ve talked to is a, ‘real soldier.’
Finding one or two actual frauds doesn’t change the fact they they were calling ALL soldiers that don’t support the war, “phony soldiers.”
No amount of yelling, “Out of context!” will change that.
Thanks for your concern CS about who is and who is not a ‘real republican’.
It is touching, really.
And no, it is quite obvious that you have not in fact read the transcript.
“Thanks for your concern CS about who is and who is not a ‘real republican’.”
Thanks for totally ignoring my point. The parallels between real Republican and real solider are clear, and they prove your semantics are wrong.
End of story.
“semantics” ???? plural means more than one…could be two….could be two hundred, etc. Sounds as if someone has attended the Clinton school of language manipulation. Just how does one define a simple verb?