VoteVets On Rush Limbaugh’s "Phony Soldiers" Attack
Tweet
>>Dem Rep To Introduce House Resolution Condemning Rush Limbaugh On Monday
17 Responses to “VoteVets On Rush Limbaugh’s "Phony Soldiers" Attack”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
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?