Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Podcast Episode 3 Rush Limbaugh and "phony soldiers" Controversy

This episode is my take on Rush Limbaugh and the "phony soldier" controversy.

Rush Limbaugh 24/7
Media Matters


  1. Here is what I don't get about this podcast; you play the clip of Rush talking to the soldier and say it shows the context, yet you never explain what the context (which, you would argue, exonerates him) is. You have to at least understand that a significant portion of Americans disagree with your opinion about Rush, myself included, so you might try explaining how that clip makes it seem like Rush isn't calling anti-war soldiers 'phony'.

    I don't know if you just think it is bloody or what, but I would like to actually know why you think what you think, rather than just hear you say you unsubstantiated opinion over and over.

    btw, if you are so sure, as you say, that this kind of ting is going to come back to bite democrats, do you want to make a wager about 2008? I am willing to put my money where my mouth is; are you?

  2. Just listened to it, and I'm still laughing! Alright, Andy B. Hammond!, perhaps you can provide the proof that Media Matters is funded or started by George Soros. It isn't. It wasn't. You lied. 'Don't know whether you're being malicious or just ignorant, but you might want to check your facts a little.

    And would you please, for the love of God, learn the difference between an adjective and a noun? No, didn't think you would.

    I really have to wonder why you splice two segments together to make your point? (actually Rush did it, but you've taken credit for its veracity so we'll just laugh at you now.) There was no mention of phony soldiers like MacBeth before or during the discussion of Mike in Olympia's *rebuttal* to Mike in Chicago. Mike in Chicago was the soldier who served and Mike in Olympia was rebutting the guy that Rush called a "phony soldier". No reference to Macbeth at all, until much later. I don't expect you to get it; you're too steeped in identity politics. But most folk are seeing it for what it is. Deny it all you want.

    Now, has taken Rush to task for his comment, but yet you ignore it. Worse, you even ignore the fact that he called a decorated wounded vet nothing more than a suicide bomber. That's what he said.

    Limbaugh has done nothing but denigrate our military for 20 years, and he's relying on the ignorant like you to support him. He dodged military service with an ass-pimple, and hasn't looked backed since. He refers to a decorated veteran of the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq as a manipulated suicide bomber, and you attack the Democrats. He lies about the Veterans who started the organization VoteVets, and you swallow his load whole and unquestioned.

    I'm not going to bet you anything, Andy. I'm just gonna come back here and laugh my ass off when chickenhawk pantywaist Bush supporters lose seats in the Congress next year.

    The Democrats aren't your enemy, Andy. Your pathetic worship of a liar might be. Mull it over.

  3. And I notice that you still haven't answered my question, Andy. What do you get out of ridiculous defenses of Limbaugh?

    I know what he gets. He gets to keep taking Oxy fueled trips to countries that specialize in under-age sexual prostitution while packing butt-loads of illegal Viagra. (And you're worried that Elton John has some pictures ... hehehehehh!)

    But what do you get? You get the derision of your statesmen. You get to hear your dulcet tones as you tell verifiable lies. You get to defend a man who seems to laugh and spit on everything you believe, as long as you keep supporting him to do so. I'm dead frickin' serious here; what do you get out of this?

  4. Colby and Wulfgar,
    I'll respond to both of you in a separate post in a day or two when I have more time.

    And Colby thanks for the compliments on your site about me!