Dem Haters!
Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic Primary last night. It just so happens that Joe Lieberman is JEWISH. Did you know that? Amazing isn't it? So this must obviously be evidence of anti-semitism in the Democratic Party right? According to the insightful Rush Limbaugh that is most certainly the case.Here is the transcript from a segment of his show today: (listen to the audio clip @Media Matters)
LIMBAUGH: Can we go back? I'm gonna need Chris Matthews again. Grab number 10. Audio sound bite number 10. This from Chris Matthews last night on his -- well, it wasn't Hardball. It was his election coverage on PMSNBC [sic].
MATTHEWS [audio clip]: The body language of the two is so different. You have this very WASP-y fellow, [businessman Ned] Lamont. Very calm, very casual, very St. Paul's, almost, in the prep-school sense. [...] Lieberman, of course, is the schmaltzy, ethnic guy, the Uncle Tonoose, you know. The guy that's very kind of lachrymose in his, almost, postnasal-drip voice of his. [...] But he doesn't look happy.
LIMBAUGH: All right. Now, let's -- "schmaltzy, ethnic guy, the Uncle Tonoose." And as I said in the last hour, Uncle Tonoose was a character on the old Danny Thomas Show, and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that Uncle Tonoose was played by Hans Conried. Huge hook nose and so forth. Here's Matthews describing -- let's be honest about this, folks. Let's just put it out there. When you say somebody is a schmaltzy, ethnic guy, you're not talking about an Arab. You are talking about a Jew. You describe somebody as a schmaltzy, ethnic guy who has postnasal drip with his voice, lachrymose and so forth. Uncle Tonoose, in character, was a Lebanese Arab. Danny Thomas was a Christian Lebanese, and Uncle Tonoose therefore -- but isn't it interesting that you have Chris Matthews describing an Arab as a Jew. On the basis of appearance. Schmaltzy, ethnic guy, which -- you know, there are some people saying this, but they're dancing around it. But one of the little -- not-often-discussed aspects of the kook fringe base of the Democratic Party, and I'm just gonna put it out there, is its anti-Semitism. There is so much anti-Semitism today in the Democratic Party. It is -- I don't think it's an accident that [Rev. Al] Sharpton and the Rev. [Jesse] Jackson are up there standing behind Lamont [during his victory speech on August 8]. (this is apparently rush's evidence of democratic anti-semitism)
[...]
CALLER: Their party has been taken over by people that are anti-Israel, as in Cindy Sheehan and Soros, who happens to be a self-hating Jew.
LIMBAUGH: Right.
CALLER: They hate Israel, they hate Jews, they're terrorism deniers. And I just hope it's a wake-up call to the Jewish people that are out there. Is that still the best party for them?
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Doubt that that's going to happen. It's going to take a little bit more than this. The seat of this anti-Semitism right now is focused in kooks like Sheehan and the blogs and the MoveOn.org people and Soros.
AAAAHHHHHH! (that's me screaming from my overwhelming frustration) This is absolutely ridiculous. I was debating some cons on captainsquartersblog.com today again and got into it with this guy jerry who was totally, completely convinced that Dems were Jew haters. I've already typed a good argument/rant on this today on that blog so I'll just copy and paste parts of it. He called me a couple names, like a nazi, deaf and dumb so if I sound mean it was because he was meaner first! Haha I really need to grow up.
------------------------
For those few genuine leftists who are tempted to buy into anti-semitic arguments based on Israel's policies, the Bush administration's blanket support of same, or the embrace of Israel by American fundamentalists, please learn to draw the distinction between Israel's government and all Jews.
Please learn to draw the distinction between Israel's government and all Jews. Make sense? Or are you blinder, deafer and dumber than you would say I am?
Actually, I don't think you're listening to Bill O'Reilly or Hannity.... or that druggie limp-baugh. You're one of those Michael Savage-ites aren't ya??? The ones who would call Jewish people like Wolf Blitzer anti-semitic. Hell, anybody can be anti-semitic... it all depends on how twisted and perverted you interpret the statements of the people around you. If you're always looking for anti-semitism, you'll find it. Just like if you're always on the look for racism, you'll obviously find it.
Don't call me a Nazi with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I disagree with Joe over the war... that's all I said. If I was to attack him about anything concerning him personally, it would be that when he talks he's even duller than Al Gore! That's about all the beef I have with the guy. Now I'm a Nazi. Ok, whatever you say ; )
-----------------------------
I'm sick of these cons painting the democratic party and telling us WHO WE ARE. We aren't anti-semitic and we aren't naziis. If you're going to make statements like that, back it up with some reliable evidence! Chris Matthews, (who is definetly not a Democrat) saying something that vaguely hints at him actually being Jewish, that may or may not have been anti-semitic, is nowhere near proof of the party I support being "Jew-haters".
I hate you Rush. I don't usually hate people... but I hate you. You preach about how drug users are losers and horrible people (or used to) and you're addicted to oxycontin, one of the most potent opiate drugs you can get legally under a prescription (and you got illegally). It's heroine in a pill Rush... you can't get any lower than that. Then you get caught with Viagra that isn't prescribed to you after coming back from a trip with ALL GUYS to the Dominican Republican which just happens to be one of the most notorious nations for allowing sex tourism in their country with underage girls. I'm just saying... he COULD be a pedophile. Just like Chris Matthews COULD be an anti-semite. You're a hypocrit and people who actually listen to you are blind followers without any sense of critical thinking.
-- I said I wouldn't edit this, but I will add to it. I wrote a comment in the thread that needs repeating:
I know I shouldn't stoop to the man's level but sometimes I feel justified. Tonight, I felt justified because of the ridiculous accusations being made by every conservative pundit in america. The blowhorn is sounding. Elections are coming and these people are resuming their baseless, immoral attacks once again.
Is it any coincidence that on any given day, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, the list goes on and on... are ALL SAYING THE EXACT SAME THINGS?
This is calculated. This is genius.
I'm merely making the observation that Rush went to the dominican republic (famous for sex tourism) with a bottle of viagra that wasn't prescribed to him. Using his own reasoning, I made the same assumption that he would have, had this happened to a liberal talk show radio host.
I'm not proud of what I said, but I won't apologize. This man deserves all the ridicule in the world, simply for the fact that he dishes it out everyday on his radio show against people he simply doesn't agree with. He misleads his listeners and constantly distorts the facts. He's a scumbag. If I have to be a scumbag to provide some kind of justice on the part of the people he has ridiculed, than so be it.
posted by Matt @ 9:06 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
I don't think this sample is indicative of why Rush thinks dems are anti-semitic. Incidentally, I also think that leftism in general breeds anti-semitism; I think it runs rampant in Europe, and I think its still around here in one form or another.
Next, why is it that you choose such strong language? I thought the liberals were all about acceptance; how can you hate someone? Or is hatred something thats only allowed if you're hating those with four letter names that end with -ush?
Y'know, when Clinton got into some really messed up stuff (ie, sexual harrassment, alleged rape, admitted adultery) the entire left screamed "its his private life" at the top of their lungs. Why, then, is it acceptable to fire off ad hominem attacks at Rush personally when this is clearly irrelevant to whatever argument he is or isn't making?
I don't really know what to think about Rush, incidentally. I think he's a pretty savvy guy, though I havn't listened recently. To my knowledge, he became addicted to painkillers after a back injury, and then succumbed to the "anything for a fix" mentality of any addict. To me, that is the epitome of pathetic. If that is the case I don't condemn him; I pity him.
As to your hints of pedofilia and homosexuality...not only way off target and below the belt, but just tacky in general.
Thanks Matt. I was waiting for your common sense. I understand that hating someone is not indicative of a typical liberal. My post was tacky, mean, unnecessary and hypocritical... just like good ol' rush. I know I shouldn't stoop to the man's level but sometimes I feel justified. Tonight, I felt justified because of the ridiculous accusations being made by every conservative pundit in america. The blowhorn is sounding. Elections are coming and these people are resuming their baseless, immoral attacks once again.
Is it any coincidence that on any given day, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, the list goes on and on... are ALL SAYING THE EXACT SAME THINGS?
This is calculated. This is genius. If you can't see through it, that's too bad.
As for your comment about Clinton... Bill didn't preach every single day about how extra-marital sex was pathetic and an abomination. If he had, he would have been a hypocrit. If there's one thing in this world I hate more Rush, (and other -ush's) is hypocracy. I made a mockery of myself tonight and quite frankly it's a little bit embarassing. But I won't edit the post.
I didn't hint towards homosexuality on Rush's part. I merely made the observation that he went to the dominican republic (famous for sex tourism) with a bottle of viagra that wasn't prescribed to him. Using his own reasoning, I made the same assumption that he would have, had this happened to a liberal talk show radio host.
I'm not proud of what I said, but I won't apologize. This man deserves all the ridicule in the world, simply for the fact that he dishes it out everyday on his radio show against people he doesn't agree with. He misleads his listeners and constantly distorts the facts. He's a scumbag. If I have to be a scumbag to provide some kind of justice on the part of the people he has ridiculed, than so be it.
Why do YOU think democrats are inherently anti-semitic? Is it because Rush Limbaugh SAID they were anti-semitic or did you come to that conclusion yourself? This is insulting. Calling the people who I look to for leadership "jew-haters" when a lot of those people are jews themselves is ludicrous. I don't think I could get any more upset about a subject. This guy will say anything, do anything to undermine the credibility of liberals. Even when there is absolutely no evidence to support his claims. It really truly makes me sick to my stomach, I think I'm gonna vomit.
I think the large reason they're all saying similar things is because they're all reacting to the same news. If I go and scan the news wires, read the major news of the day, I'd probably be talking about similar issues as well. I don't think that commonality of message is unique to the Republican party either. A case in point being Markos Moulitsas “Screw Them” Zuniga's marching orders to his KOS Kidz and other bloggers.
I'm not sure how Rush is hypocritical. Are you accusing him of being anti-semitic? Or of preaching against drug abuse? I don't really understand either allegation. What, exactly, is he hypocritical about?
Again, I'm not sure why you say the things you say. You claim to be embarrassed by what you said, but you refuse to apologize for it. To me, thats lip service. You're not really embarrassed for thinking those things, you're just ashamed that you got caught. Thats not remorse at all.
I don't think Rush misleads his listeners and distorts facts. In fact, he puts transcripts of everything he says up on his website. Feel free to pick it apart, as I'd be interested in seeing these distortions.
Personally, my thoughts about leftist anti-semitism are rooted in both personal experience and historical perspective. The most brutal examples of anti-semitism come from areas where freedom was restricted. Its nothing more than typical discrimination, although towards Jews it tends to be particularly harsh. People do this sort of thing when looking for a scapegoat.
In my mind, the left equates to a gradual acceptance of socialism and a loss of personal freedoms. Leftists tend to want to rule at others' expense. They want to decide what others should and shouldn't do, based on some arbitrary assumption that they know better. This sort of mindset, to me, is a perfect breeding ground for discrimination on all levels.
From a personal level, I think the stance taken by leftists in Europe (Kofi Annan and his ilk) as well as liberals here in the states are decidedly anti-Israel. I think opposing Israel's right to defend herself as a sovereign nation is laughable; I see a disparity between some folk's response to Israel and there opinions on other countries. For example, no one condemns the French for their slaughter of civilians in their imperialistic occupance of Ivory Coast.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/37105
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3989765.stm
The cries from the UN are absent. The cries from the liberal left are absent.
But lo', Israel harms the hairs of one Lebanese head and they are in the wrong.
So, there's a double standard. I think thats established. The question then, is why? I can find no other reasons than these:
1.) The people against Israel are stupid or ignorant (often stubbornly so); they don't understand the conflict, they don't understand the stakes, they don't understand who attacked whom, they don't know that Israeli civilians are dying as well as Lebanese, etc.
2.) They want the terrorists to win for whatever reason (they hate America, they hate themselves, they think we have no place in the world, see reason 1).
3.) They hate Israel. The fact that Israel exists really just bugs them.
4.) They do not want Israel to fight back out of genuine feeling of horror at war, not understanding that doing so ensures Israel's utter destruction (see reason 1).
So...which one do these anti-Israeli responders match?
I think Rush has a point. Like racism, Republicans are the only ones who can be anti-semitic in the mind of liberals. Had he said what Chris Mathews said, or had a conservative pundit posted a blackface picture of Lieberman, there would've been a veritable frenzy over who could heat the tar up faster.
You say Rush will say or do anything to undermine the creidibility of his opponents. What, exactly, has he done? Surely not photoshopped images of his rivals (like blackfacing a political opponent or faking pictures for Reuters)? Or making up lies about his opponents (like claiming inside knowledge of upcoming indictments - "frogmarch!")?
No, I'm sorry. Those kind of politics really honestly to me seem to be skewed towards the left, not the right.
The similarity in talking points among conservatives doesn't mean that they talk ABOUT the same issues... it's that their opinions, the names that they use, the people they attack and blame are ALL IDENTICAL. They're copycats who recieve a memo everyday telling them exactly what to talk about. It strengthens their message and the louder and more often they repeat these talking points in harmony, the easier it is for them to brainwash their viewers and listeners.
Assumptions. That's all I've been seeing for the last three days. Assumptions, assumptions, and more ummm, assumptions. I haven't seen ONE SHRED of evidence that would even slightly imply that democrats are anti-semitic.
July 20th: Limbaugh claimed "you need abortions to get" embryonic stem cells, "we need to re-examine" notion of "scientist" because "science has been so wrong about so many things"
July 10th: On the July 7 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, nationally syndicated radio show host Rush Limbaugh baselessly asserted that "the NSA [National Security Agency] domestic spying program" -- President Bush's authorization of the NSA to intercept communications of U.S. residents without court warrants in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- alerted U.S. officials to a Lebanese plot to bomb New York City's mass transit system. In fact, neither the July 7 New York Daily News article, which broke the story and to which Limbaugh referred, nor any subsequent news report, has indicated that any of the communications made in connection with the purported plot involved a party inside the United States.
June 30th: On June 28, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel corrected its June 25 report claiming Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) suggested the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran," noting that Murtha was, in fact, citing a recent Pew Research Center poll covering the United States and 14 European, African, and Asian countries. Yet even after the Sun-Sentinel issued the correction, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News host Sean Hannity used the incorrect report to blast Murtha during their radio shows.
June 16th: Echoing retracted Bush administration characterization, Limbaugh labeled Gitmo suicides a "PR move"
June 8th: On the June 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh downplayed President Bush's low approval ratings by falsely claiming that former President Bill Clinton "was down in the 20s at one point." Moreover, noting that "Bush's approval numbers are up" to 36 percent in the most recent USA Today/Gallup poll, Limbaugh suggested that Clinton had "parallel poll results" to Bush during the equivalent point in his second term. In fact, Clinton's approval rating never dropped below 36 percent, and remained above 58 percent in the Gallup poll throughout 1998, the equivalent year in his presidency to 2006 for Bush.
June 6th: Limbaugh: Haditha incident will result in "a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left, and the drive-by media"
May 9th: Summary: Rush Limbaugh blamed "unchecked liberalism" for the failure to "save" New Orleans residents who perished -- or otherwise suffered -- during Hurricane Katrina. Limbaugh stated that New Orleans is "a microcosm -- a model of exactly what unchecked liberalism does. It creates destitution. It creates hopelessness. It creates a mess!"
May 8th: Rush Limbaugh denied any comparison between his own prescription drug problems and those of Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who says he was under the influence of painkillers when he crashed his car into a security barrier on Capitol Hill on May 4. In fact, Limbaugh admitted abusing painkillers and sought treatment only after reports of his problems surfaced based on allegations from his housekeeper.
April 27th: Rush Limbaugh remarked that a new videotape released by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the rumored leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, "is an excellent opportunity to remind all of you that it sounds just like the DNC [Democratic National Committee] is writing his scripts now." Limbaugh has previously accused the Democratic Party of sympathizing with Al Qaeda.
March 20th: Limbaugh attacked poll of U.S. troops funded by peace studies center: "a bunch of long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking, FM peace-types that have an agenda"
^-- this is why I hate this man. See how he can take an issue, any issue or event and twist and turn it EVERY SINGLE TIME to blame liberals... the ones who AREN'T in control of american policies on the federal level.
Examples of hypocracy:
People like Limbaugh should go to jail, says Limbaugh
What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.-- 10/5/95
When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks. -8/20/95
How many times has rush been caught with pills he did not attain legally? How many times has he gone to jail for it?
The contradiction uncovered by the revelation of Limbaugh's addiction is breathtaking: perched safely away from the mass policing and incarceration of millions of Americans, Limbaugh sneered at the ruinous consequences of the war on drugs, particularly for people of color. Fairness, he blustered, did not require reductions in the incarceration of people of color, but rather an increase in the incarceration of whites who, all too often, get away with illegal drug use.
When commenting on the death of musician Jerry Garcia (thank god for the grateful dead), Limbaugh said he was just "another dead drug addict". On his show he has said "there's nothing good about drug use". He said "drug use destroys societies" and it "destroys families". And when it comes to what should be done with the people that do drugs, Rush Limbaugh said "if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up". So it seems apparent that Limbaugh is very down on drug use and those that do it. In fact, in regards to drug use being a disease, he said that he didn't "buy into the disease part of it". He said people are "making a personal choice" to do drugs and they should be held responsible for it.
His hypocrisy wasn't the main point of my post anyways. I mentioned it, and I liked the "award for conservative hypocrisy" pic so I put it up.
Fascism is about as Right Wing as you can get. Remember that Holocaust in Germany and the disgusting anti-semitism during WWII? Since fascism is right on the political spectrum does that mean that I can call EVERYONE on that side of the isle anti-semitic???
The left is notorious for taking away personal freedoms.... ok. Let's see, conservatives are anti-choice, they're for wiretapping without warrants, they're for telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies and if they are caught with a particular substance they're thrown in jail with no form of rehabilitation.
One more time for clarification: YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THE ISRAELI MILITARY AND LEADERSHIP. The majority of the jewish population DOES NOT live in Israel, nor are the jewish people synonymous with the government who represents them there. Are you saying that to say I disagree with the military operations of the United States automatically makes me an "America-Hater"??
Disagreeing with the policies of a nation does not equate HATING or even disliking the people that that nation represents. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Yet these conservative pundits refuse to stop painting the whole left wing as "anti-semitic". I can't believe I'm even arguing this, it's right there in front of your face to see.
I've also had personal experience with anti-semitism... but it wasn't from a liberal. It was from a couple die-hard conservatives that I work with. Does that mean that I'm going to automatically assume that ALL right wingers are anti-semitic? Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... god I hate assumptions.
Limbaugh regularly feeds his audience a diet of falsehoods, misstatements, distortions, invective, and childish put-downs in service of the conservative movement. During his long reign over the airwaves, Limbaugh has called abortion rights activists "feminazis", told an African-American caller to "take that bone out of your nose," referred to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "blow[ing] some steam off, " and declared that "what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party." He touts his close connections to Republicans, claiming that he "[g]ot a big hug" from President George W. Bush during a 2004 White House visit.
In August 2005, Limbaugh asserted that Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who staged an anti-war protest outside President Bush's ranch in Texas, "is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents." Burkett is a retired Texas Air National Guard officer who provided CBS' 60 Minutes with unauthenticated documents regarding President Bush's National Guard record. After Media Matters for America documented this, he claimed that he was taken "out of context" by "little pimple-faced kids that are working at wannabe websites" -- even as the audio and text published by Media Matters proved otherwise. Limbaugh also claimed that Sheehan was "exploiting death."
March 17th: Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Rep. Dennis Kucinich's proposal for a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence would "[g]et rid of the Department of Defense." In fact, Kucinich's proposed Department of Peace would operate in addition to the Department of Defense to "develop policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict."
March 7th: Limbaugh on Hillary Clinton: "She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. ... Men will know what I mean by this"
Feb 15th: Rush Limbaugh invented a racial element to explain Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett's departure from the Ohio Democratic Senate primary race against Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), asserting, "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too." In fact, Brown is Caucasian -- a point on which Limbaugh was corrected later in the program.
Feb 3rd: "The last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill"
Feb 2nd: Rush Limbaugh called Friends of the Earth international climate campaigner Catherine Pearce a "B-I-itch" after watching her criticize President Bush's State of the Union proposals on CNN. Limbaugh added that people such as Pearce "ought to be having multiple orgasms" over Bush's alternative energy proposals.
Jan 25th: Rush Limbaugh characterized Osama bin Laden's recently released audiotape as an echo of Democratic criticisms of President Bush, saying that Democrats would "eat ... up" bin Laden's message. Limbaugh said: "Here comes bin Laden actually suggesting a truce," adding: "Well, the Democrats will eat that up because, while they can't trust George W. Bush, they can trust Osama bin Laden."
Jan 10th: For the second time in a week, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied the FBI a warrant to search the laptop computer of Zacarias Moussaoui. But in fact, the FBI never petitioned the court for a warrant after bureau attorneys determined they did not have sufficient evidence.
12/19/05: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that "[t]here is no evidence that we could destroy ecosystems." In fact, there is ample evidence that humans can -- and do -- devastate ecosystems.
12/09/05: Rush Limbaugh claimed that Sen. John Kerry and the Democratic Party are "trying to get Christmas ... out of the public consciousness."
12/05/05: Murtha is "the biggest morale booster that the enemy has in Iraq"
11/30/05: Limbaugh on kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: "I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this"
11/22/05: Limbaugh: Murtha "just the useful idiot of the moment"
10/11/05: Limbaugh baselessly claimed that New Orleans police beating lacked media coverage, blamed it on "Democrat-run town and state"
10/11/05: Limbaugh advanced claim that Plame's identity was "known by everybody"
10/04/05: Limbaugh awarded free website subscription to caller who said liberalism is "rebellion against God" and who described Democratic leaders as "pimps"
9/21/05: On his September 16 show, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeated his frequent but false claim that administrative costs account for 78 cents of every dollar of welfare spending. Media Matters for America was unable to determine the origin of Limbaugh's wildly inaccurate figure, but Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports reveal that actual costs are far lower, with combined federal and state administrative expenses for most of the welfare programs studied remaining below 20 percent of total expenditures.
9/20/05: Limbaugh falsely claimed that Blair "pulled Great Britain out of the Kyoto Protocol"
9/13/05: Limbaugh falsely claimed "there never was a surplus" under Clinton
Describing the claim that "the Bush administration squandered this giant surplus left by the Clinton administration" as a "Democrat [sic] mantra talking point," nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that "there never was a surplus" under President Clinton. In fact, from 1998 to 2001, the federal government ran total annual budget surpluses of between $69.2 billion and $236.2 billion, according to figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
8/30/05: Limbaugh baselessly blamed Seattle violence on "anti-war left"
Responding to a report that two U.S. service members who had recently returned from Iraq were badly beaten in Seattle, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh baselessly blamed the violent incident on the "anti-war left." In fact, there is no evidence that the attack was politically motivated.
Do I need any more reason to hate a man who spews hatred and lies on a nationally syndicated radio show that reaches millions of people everyday? I could keep going on forever. It's all on Media Matters, just search for Rush Limbaugh. They have over 550 controversial and ridiculous Limbaugh quotes that ARE NOT PRESENTED OUT OF CONTEXT. The full transcript is there for you to see. They don't pick half sentences and just show choice phrases... they actually give you the context of the conversation. So don't tell me Media Matters is a bunch of "little pimple-faced kids that are working at wannabe websites" as rush so eloquently put it. They mean business, and they're a legitimate source for conservative misinformation.
The amount of vitriol here is astounding. First of all, a lot of those quotes are really funny...
a few I laughed at:
"The last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill"
Murtha is "the biggest morale booster that the enemy has in Iraq"
Limbaugh on kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: "I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this"
Limbaugh: Murtha "just the useful idiot of the moment"
How come Maher gets to be funny and edgy, but when Rush does it its horrifying and terrible?
In my opinion, Murtha is about as worthless a public figure as possible.
As far as the whole budget thing...s'far as I know, Limbaugh was right. USA Today reported on this, and many news people picked it up. Basically, the surplus' came from shady MCI-style accounting, not counting pensions and retirement as current liabilities (which is illegal for private corporations to do -- Apple learned this with their options fiasco a few days ago).
http://policy.heritageblogs.org/2006/08/how_about_sox_audits_for_washi.html
As far as MediaMatters being the best source of information, they're a liberal powerhouse. You could paint similar pictures of Bill Maher, Cris Mathews, or really anyone else who talks for a living. I'm not saying he's the best angel in the world and everything that comes out of his mouth is marshmallow fluff, but give me a break. Check out MediaMatters position on the recent Reuter's goof:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608080001
To whit, we should believe the media as long as they're saying things we agree with. If that isn't the biggest load on this page, I don't know what is.
Feminazis is a term I've used myself, and Cindy Sheehan is an embarrasment to the American Soldier's Mom. Do you hate Limbaugh for what he says when he's wrong, or for what he says when he's right?
The distinction that I make between Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher is that the first two first of all, AREN'T FUNNY in the least. If you think they're funny you have a very strange, perverted sense of humor. Bill Maher is a self-proclaimed COMEDIAN. Almost everything he says is calculated and designed (or at least an attempt) to make you laugh. Bill Maher is hired as a comedian, whereas coulter and limbaugh's job description is specifically political pundit. Now I know there's a fine line to be drawn here, but there is a difference between trying to be humorous ALL THE TIME and attempting to spike a serious conversation with humor. The latter is extremely hard to pick out, especially if that person is so incredibly passionate about the argument that they're trying to make. Bill Maher doesn't take himself seriously... EVER. Ann Coulter and Limbaugh take themselves seriously almost all the time and they say ridiculous things just to say them. They're idea of humor is "shock and awe", something very similar to Bush's military strategy. I'm sorry, but that's not funny. It's not sarcastic.... it's just some guy saying some crazy, out-there statement. What's so funny about that?
Of course Media Matters is a liberal powerhouse. It's funded by Soros. I said they were a legitimate source of CONSERVATIVE (keyword) misinformation, not misinformation in general. If I want to find ridiculous comments made by conservatives I go there, BECAUSE it's a liberal powerhouse that keeps a close eye on these nutjobs. They don't take their comments out of context, therefore they are a legitmate source for conservative misinformation.
Obviously I hate Rush Limbaugh for the things that he says when he's wrong, since it would be impossible for me to hate him when he's right (if he ever was right about anything). To say that Clinton didn't have a surplus during his presidential term is to be completely blind of the facts. Clinton's presidency saw the only surplus we've had in the last 40 years.
Murtha is the most worthless public figure possible, and sheehan is an embarrassment to ALL soldiers mom's. Let me tell you something, if I were a congressman, or a parent of a child lost in this war. I would be SCREAMING at the top of my lungs at the people who took us there. What has the war accomplished? Nothing. Did we find WMD's there that were any more dangerous than the chemicals you find under your kitchen sink? NO. Have we caught Osama Bin Laden? No. I would be furious if one of my relatives died in this horrible, unnecessary war and I would never forgive people like you for supporting it. I would do anything I could to get national attention and call this administration out for misleading all of us on a number of issues. I need to post something different that is totally off this topic tonight or I might just lose my mind.
This is the end, I'm going to stop talking about this now.
It's nothing against you matt. I like debating you alot. You're more than a worthy opponent. It's just things like this that really get me stressed out and upset. I don't like feeling upset about something that I have absolutely no control over (which is why I started this blog in the first place). Other topics like global warming are funner to debate because they're based entirely on facts and data, and less on feelings and opinions.
I suppose, although the ability to make a distinction between emotion and logic are, to me, the hallmark differences between left and right.
You apparently didn't read the USA Today article. The only reason the Clinton administration posted a surplus is the same reason Enron did. Not that it really matters; congress was the one cooking the books, just like they have for every president in the past few decades. Read the article, its really interesting (and will probably make you mad).
Let me explain something to you -- and this is something that needs to be explained to all Sheehanites and Murthas out there. There were no American children lost in this war after 9/11. Our sons and daughters, yes, but we live in a society that is protected by a volunteer army. NOT ONE of those brave men and women were forced to serve. Please, please, please do not belittle their sacrifices by insinuating that their lives were somehow stolen from them. I know many Marines because I am in NROTC, was going into the Marines prior to a running-ending injury. Based on this I can tell you those folks know what they're doing, they believe in it, and they'd do it again.
Sheehan's poor son has been completely politicized; his sacrifice has been forgotten in the wake of his mother's ravings. The woman is a lunatic, as is anyone who would use the death of a loved one as a spring board into the political arena. That, my friend, is truly sick.
While I do find fault with Murtha for his opposition of the war, that wasn't the root of the comment I made. He's a hatemongering politician, who has shown himself utterly devoid of any inkling of understanding the phrase "Semper Fi", who has turned his back on his fellow Marines, and who has sold out his integrity for a few cheap moments in the media spotlight. His allegations of "cold blooded murder" and the whole cavalier, gleeful attitude of "guilty until proven innocent" has absolutely ruined the careers of men fighting and dying for this country. Anyone who can sit there and say the things he said is someone whom I truly cannot respect. If those men did what they allegedly did (not to get into the supposed veracity of the Times' and subsequent reports) they should fry -- but to pronounce them guilty of war crimes before they'd even had a chance to be charged of a crime is downright ridiculous.
Whether or not you agree with the war, you should join me in condemning Murtha and Sheehan not for the stand they've taken, but for the utterly disgusting methods they've chosen to employ to get their message out there. Dancing on the grave of your son or impinging the honor of hundreds of thousands of brave American volunteers with little more than hearsay to go on should be things everyone is sickened and horrified about.
I truly respect your stance on this 100%. I find a part of myself feeling the same way. I don't really know how to respond to that with dignity. But I'll make an attempt.
I completely and utterly, from the bottom of my heart, oppose this war. I think it ruined any chance of global peace that the world may have seen after the end of the cold war, and especially after 9/11. We've shown our teeth to the rest of the world. Now they're paranoid about our intentions.
We were the last super-power left in the world. We had built up a military mighty enough to be able to destroy the Soviet Union 15 times over... then they were gone in a flash. What was our military complex to do? Any other society on Earth would have allowed their military funds to at the very least remain fixed, or (heaven forbid) to decrease government funding for defense. This is because there is only SO MUCH money you can use in government operations.
That money could have gone into humanitarian causes. Instead, every year the military-industrial complex expanded and became more and more powerful, eventually becoming an almost individual political force of it's own over the years. We could have tried to stop that progression a long time ago. If we were only concerned with pure defense instead of offense, our budget would be much smaller.
We could have become a country that was devoted and specifically aimed towards helping third world nation's economies, fighting diseases like AIDS, providing humanitarian aid to every corner of the planet. Giving and providing. Giving to other people looks a hell of a lot better than bombing them... agree? or disagree? I know, I know... we're already doing this. But take a closer look at our humanitarian contribution to the rest of the world based on the overall populations and GDP's of other western countries.
After the cold war, the world kept a close eye on us specifically because they were afraid that a politician may someday take advantage of that awesome military power. They'd look at organizations like PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and get the jitters because their geo-political aims resembled that of historical military empires. Then guess what happened... in 2000, almost every single appointee to the Bush Administration was or had been a member of the PNAC in the past.
Every single presidential term for the past 50 years has been in one major war at one point in their term. There hasn't been a president that wasn't in wartime since before the 40's. This in a day and age where every single arena of human experience has seen an exponential advance in understanding. Yet, we cannot figure out a way to end war and suffering. Starting wars, even the consideration of starting a war that does not involve an absolute IMMINENT THREAT to the well being of your country is immoral and WRONG. I'm going to finish this point in my post today.
The "Sheehanites" and the "Murthas"
out there are the ones that are trying to reverse this slow trend towards militarism, and reverse the world's perception that we'll bomb anybody that disagrees with us. That might scare some people away, but then what happens is you get things like rogue states and terrorist groups, filled with fundamentalists who are willing and ready to oppose your empirical intentions. We have to change the perception of the people who hate us. That is the only way we will truly defeat their idea. Remember, we are not out to defeat people, merely the idea that they are united by. And don't say "that's impossible". You don't ever give up on a cause in the military, so why give up on trying to convince these people we don't mean them any harm. Occupying people who don't want you in their country won't help reverse animosity. You can't kill every terrorist in the world, they aren't a nation or a government. They're loosely held together by an idea. That's it, an idea. Idea's are bulletproof.
Look, I don't care if it's a volunteer army or not. A lot of those soldiers enlisted because they had no other choice, nowhere else to turn in their lives. They either had no family, they had no job and they couldn't support themselves... say they're watching tv, as many people who don't have jobs do, and a commercial that the military has spent billions of the american taxpayers money on, comes on the tube. The commercial shows how great it's going to be in the army, (no mention of "this is a very dangerous job, you might die, because were planning on invading a lot of people soon"), how all you have to do is serve for 3-4 years and they'll pay for you college education. Wow, that really sounds nice. Then you get there and you realize that the government owns your body, literally. You are their property and if you refuse to do whatever they say, whether it be cleaning, cooking, repairing or shooting another human being with an M-16 in the head, off to prison you go. I don't mean to over-generalize, but I have seen this happen to people I went to high school with.
With all of THAT said... if you want to make a clear distinction as to whether or not I believe our soldiers lives have been wasted, I would say, yes and no. They're my heroes, they're dying for me, working their asses off in the 120 degree iraqi heat to protect ME. They're being thrown into these dangerous conditions and being killed in the hopes that I will be safe here at home. Were their lives wasted? Absolutely not. These young men and women mean more to me and to the rest of the american population than they will ever know. "I will die so that you can live". I respect that mentality more than I respect anything on this Earth. To say that they're lives were "wasted" sounds horrible. But there really isn't another word in the english language that can describe the extremely unfortunate circumstance of the death of a human being with all the potential in the world, as a result of powerful people who's honorable ends of setting up a democracy in the middle-east justified any means necessary.
I've noticed a lot of this black and white argument around the conservative blogs today. I hate that, because no one is ever 100% for or against something, we all have our doubts in our own convictions now and then.
Make this another post so we can discuss without it being buried in this thread.
You make some good points, but I don't agree with the basis or initial conditions you're starting with.
People running the same program can put in different initial conditions and get wildly different answers -- thats the cause of most of the angst in America today.
BTW, I finally took the plunge and tossed up a blog on here, used a few old posts and got a few started.
Check it out, logosphilia.blogspot
Post a Comment
<< Home