But just barely. – Duros62

Interesting that anyone who criticizes the President is a racist, but anyone who criticizes Michelle Malkin is not.

I am never sure if it is because of the loathing that Liberals feel toward Asian-Americans for not embracing victim status, or because she makes the case that you can be a successful intelligent woman and not be a feminist. Or both.

I’m going to give you one further example from my background as an anthropologist just so that you

Anthropologist? I thought he was a plant doctor.

A few things.

1. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
2. According to my driver’s license, I’m not Harry Reid. So what’s your point?
3. So giving to charity means you can erase things you said?
4. Why should Harry Reid have to play by Limbaugh’s rules?

Should we have a look at some of the thing your good friend, Michael Savage has said over the years?

I’m going to give you one further example from my background as an anthropologist just so that you — I’m trying to put context on this because you can go crazy if you don’t have the context on this, because I’m going to lead up to something of what we must do to these primitives. Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don’t think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. Just before — I’m going to give you a little precursor to where I’m going. Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I’d like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I’m not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200405140003

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of context?

That’s just a sampling. Need I go on?

Nice bedfellows you have there, Britney.

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back!

Whoops, that’s classic–as your pet name for your hero goes–”El Rushbo.” My bad. Was that out of context too? If so, what was the context?

And “El Rushbo”? Really? How old are you, 12?

OR that she is implying help from the White House in employing said tactics.

But just barely.

I think Indeed was looking for a valid example, Dennis.

Also, the Michael Savage quote where they only showed half a sentence as their headline for the blog story, that your cohorts here defended.

Gawd. Dennis is just making a monty python retrospective out of himself, isn’t he? He’s put down the soft cushions and brought in the COMFY CHAIR. Shorter Dennis.

Meaning one person? Who is it?

Any key examples of MM’s transgressions you’d care to share? No? OK, then.

He GAVE one, Indeed. You’re either being an obtuse douchebag or you’re too lazy to look through the thread in order not to look like an obtuse douchebag. I’m not sure which is worse.

Also, the Michael Savage quote where they only showed half a sentence as their headline for the blog story, that your cohorts here defended.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906180017

Awesome! You should be proud your guy is the de facto Supreme Leader of the Republican Party. He’s a KKKlassy guy!

Any key examples of MM’s transgressions you’d care to share? No? OK, then.

Um, by whom?

Shorter dennis

And, once again, the immediate reaction from one on the right isn’t to find such behavior bothersome. No, it’s “Look, over there!” and “But your guys do it, too!”

The aspirations of the right: We’re only as bad as the other side.

El Rushbo took the lemons the Dems threw at him and made a ton of sweet, delicious lemonade.

End of story.

Maybe some day people will run Limbaugh- Harry Reid phony soldier reenactments and you can play a bit part, but until then, best to just move on and live to fight another day.

Micro-nuance. Hah. I got yer micro-nuance right here!

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

Common-sense reading of that: Limbaugh is equating the caller’s “these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media” with “the phony soldiers”, and agreeing with the caller that those soldiers are not “real soldiers”. He is pretty much saying “soldiers who speak out to the media against the war are not “real soldiers” but “phony soldiers”.

Now, you seem to be saying that what Limbaugh says later makes us re-think that commonsense reading, but does it? A couple of minutes later, after the initial call was over (and the transcript on Rush’s site is, ironically, abridged to make the intervening time seem less), here is what he says:

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth.

Again, fake soldierS, celebrities: plural, more than one. Rush, in defending his obscene self says “I was talking about ONE SOLDIER,” as much as admitting that there were no others he knew about besides Macbeth. By fudging singular and plural he smears all soldiers speaking against the war by associating them with MacBeth, implying that they are in some way like Macbeth and that there is more than the one established fraud among them, a allegation for which he obviously has no evidence.

Maybe that’s not what Rush intended to do, but that is the commonsense meaning of his words. If he did not intend to engage in that smear, then he should have been a man and apologized. Instead, he chose to go on the offensive against those who called him on it. Class act, as always. And to have the same crowd defending this who are still claiming that Kerry intentionally insulted the troops in his botched joke, or that Obama owes an apology to all policemen everywhere, is the epitome of rich.

In any case, to compare this “out of context” case to Malkin’s flagrant and manifest out-of-context quoting is not just false equivalence, its the Platonic ideal of false equivalence.

And really, do you wingnuts ever stop long enough to think things like “maybe I should agree that what Malkin’s doing here is reprehensible before I point out that some left-winger at some time did something similar?”

Because Britney said so!

Malkin provided no ellipsis, no context, no link.

OMG, fafaroo, you adamantly defended Oliver and Media Matters when they did that.

I won’t ask if you have no shame, I know already.

Yes, Dennis, it’s a huge leap of logic to assume that when someone uses the plural, several times, and uses the phrase “one of which is” he is actually speaking about one person and not a group of people, only one of which he specifically names.
–fafaroo

fafaroo, you guys lost that battle on all fronts. Continuing to fight it after the principals have signed surrender papers is pointless. Sorry, time to move on.