• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is up with Rush???

Again with the comedy! We laugh at his ass..... you just don't get it do you? HAHA
Oh I get it alright, and so do you. That's why you are trying to discredit a proven liar, right? :doh
 
You don't seem to understand that the President isn't supposed to let emotion, and blood lust cloud his emotion! And if our President isn't strong enough to do what's best for the country, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

On the contrary, I understand it perfectly and was praising him for acting with restraint. What I object to is saying we need to apologize for being less than perfect... we didn't act perfectly in WW2 either. We lost 2,500 men in a training exercise for D-day... how do you think the press would spin that in the news today?
What would the modern-day media have said about the firebombing of Dresden and the death of tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children?

It's a given the UN is constantly stumbling over itself, and the UK follows our lead. And there was evidence given to us by Iraqi exiles saying there were nukes in Iraq.

In the 1990's, Clinton believed it, Pelosi believed it, the UN believed it, Tony Blair believed it, Saddam's neighbors believed it and trembled in fear. You think this is not significant?

Yes, the UN is a sad joke, thank you for that btw, I agree entirely.
 
Could you provide your source for the information that states that rejected it don't need it?

Regarding all those Republican Tea-bagger anti-tax anti-stimulus govenors. Let's start with Senator Jon Kyl who complains about the stimulus. So ...
Senior Obama officials question Ariz.'s desire for stimulus money

Top Obama administration officials asked Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday whether the state wants to forfeit ongoing federal economic stimulus money after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested that the program should be nixed.

Agency heads ranging from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to housing Secretary Shaun Donovan sent letters to Brewer, pressing her to declare whether she supports the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or sides with Kyl and is willing to give up some of the money.

And of course the Republican govenor responds:

McCain, Brewer defend Kyl on stimulus

"The governor is hopeful that these federal Cabinet officials are not threatening to deny Arizona citizens the portion of federal stimulus funds to which they are entitled," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said. "She believes that would be a tremendous mistake by the administration. And the governor is grateful for the strong leadership and representation that Arizonans enjoy in the United States Senate."

I guess we can also just ignore that good old Bobby Jindal is now taking credit for stimulus money:

Jindal presents parish with $500K

$157,848 in Community Block Grant
$138,611 for Byrne/JAG job training programs

Need I even mention that good old Rick Perry now asking for a loan...
Texas asks for federal help after rejected stimulus money

"We are expecting to need to borrow about $650 million from the federal government through October 1st, to pay for unemployment benefits"

I do not think we should enable Governor Perry, he needs to prepare his state for their independence don't you think?

Lastly, could we even forget our favorite good old boy Mark Sanford? Enough said, the hypocrisy is just amazing.
 
On the contrary, I understand it perfectly and was praising him for acting with restraint. What I object to is saying we need to apologize for being less than perfect... we didn't act perfectly in WW2 either. We lost 2,500 men in a training exercise for D-day... how do you think the press would spin that in the news today?
What would the modern-day media have said about the firebombing of Dresden and the death of tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children?

Ok, but I was saying he should have given it a bit more restraint, before unleashing our military on those pathetic excuses for countries. Even 2 months would have been adequate to get our military on the right track.

Well, everyone can improve, but we acted in such a way that the possible improvement was blatantly obvious. Getting information from Iraqi exiles, having no one really in place gathering Human Intelligence...

During World Wars of the intensity of WWII, certain rights are limited. Certain groups also understand (or eventually learn) when to shut the hell up as well.

And the modern media would rip apart our government for Dresden...but back then, it was just kill every single one of the Facists, so it went relatively unnoticed.
 
It doesn't help when the congress democrats are leaking all the top secret information to left wing blogger's who then make sure it ends up on CNN.

Now Repeter I got to say you are a interesting guy to debate so I'm going to try and keep this peaceful backed up and clear as possible so we can engage in something constructive here.

So if the topic is why did Bush go to Iraq lets break it down in a time line. First i'd like to mention that Peloshi in 98 stated that if Sadam even attempted to make WMD's she condoned going to war against them was the right choice and Clinton said in 2003 that " I would of made the same choice." in reference to starting this war.

Now we sent in inspectors who reported subtle radiation readings inside some of these suspect nuclear spots. They even found burns on some of the walls that were highly concentrated and believed to be from the discharge of Yellow Cake debri ( Yellow Cake is one of the most prime dangerous ingredients for making Nuclear power weaponized.) Brittian's spy networks also had reliable sources that told them Sadam was ordering Yellow Cake from Niger. (This is where that whole Valerie Plame debacle started where she ignored her protocol requirements and leaked CIA information to the press.) I think given just this information we had more than enough right to invade, but your point is we should of waited longer.

You already been told this but the country was very blood thirsty at this point. Waiting that long would of been ill advised. It would of made the president look weak and unwilling. Now you have a point when you say Iraq is not responsible for 9/11; however the moment we started fighting in Iraq there were no further attacks on the US. I'd like to chop that up to good military intelligence. But Iraq was key, if you look on a map Iraq is surrounded by countries that have ties to terrorism. Iran, Jordan,Egypt, Saudi Arabia no matter how you look at it, strategically speaking Iraq is perfect for cutting off trades. Does that mean all countries that have good position should be invaded? No, but at the time Iraq was pretty much under our jurisdiction so why not use it?

Thank you for keeping this peaceful, and I look forward to your response.
 
Pepsi is addictive?... Speaking as someone who drank a case a day and then quit cold turkey after drinking it for about 5 years all I got to say is... wrong. ;)
I'm sure you've never craved it since then or felt any form of withdrawal... :lol:
 
I'm sure you've never craved it since then or felt any form of withdrawal... :lol:

I'll be honest I have had times where I wanted a can, but I never had withdrawals. But addictions in their purest form can't be just let go at the drop of a hat without withdrawals, however I believe withdrawals only become physical because of the mental stress. I was informed that cigarettes have filters to take most of the toxins out of it in order to do less damage to your lungs, it was by my co-manager at work who is a avid smoker so I think the information is reliable. So yeah, I guess I just got a lot more endurance than the average so called addicted person. :cool:
 
I'll be honest I have had times where I wanted a can, but I never had withdrawals. But addictions in their purest form can't be just let go at the drop of a hat without withdrawals, however I believe withdrawals only become physical because of the mental stress. I was informed that cigarettes have filters to take most of the toxins out of it in order to do less damage to your lungs, it was by my co-manager at work who is a avid smoker so I think the information is reliable. So yeah, I guess I just got a lot more endurance than the average so called addicted person. :cool:

ad·dic·tion - 1: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading> 2: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal
 
Now Repeter I got to say you are a interesting guy to debate so I'm going to try and keep this peaceful backed up and clear as possible so we can engage in something constructive here.

Back at you dude. Yeah, lets not get any infractions going here...

So if the topic is why did Bush go to Iraq lets break it down in a time line. First i'd like to mention that Peloshi in 98 stated that if Sadam even attempted to make WMD's she condoned going to war against them was the right choice and Clinton said in 2003 that " I would of made the same choice." in reference to starting this war.

Yes, Congressional Democrats aren't very bright. No politician really is, when it comes to warfare. Based on their limited understanding of things, they thought that it would be good to invade a country based upon the evidence at hand. There is also considerable evidence saying that he didn't have WMD's, and that if he did in fact have them, he would gladly show the world, so their fears of him would be well founded. The following link is extremely interesting in that matter. Here it is.

Now we sent in inspectors who reported subtle radiation readings inside some of these suspect nuclear spots. They even found burns on some of the walls that were highly concentrated and believed to be from the discharge of Yellow Cake debri ( Yellow Cake is one of the most prime dangerous ingredients for making Nuclear power weaponized.) Brittian's spy networks also had reliable sources that told them Sadam was ordering Yellow Cake from Niger. (This is where that whole Valerie Plame debacle started where she ignored her protocol requirements and leaked CIA information to the press.) I think given just this information we had more than enough right to invade, but your point is we should of waited longer.

In relation to the weapons inspector, we actually have one on this site. Ask Scorpian89 for his account of it. My personal understanding of what happened was that we found traces, but nothing more then that. We found some evidence, enough to pursue the fact until conclusion, but not enough to use as justification for war. Also, the danger is that if he had them, and we attacked, he could launch them, and there go 20 Million people. We should have waited longer, to either confirm or deny the initial *incomplete* reports. Based upon the complete reports, we could either have had B-2's destroy the weapon sites, and then proceeded with an invasion to capture Saddam, or we could have simply called the entire thing off.

You already been told this but the country was very blood thirsty at this point. Waiting that long would of been ill advised. It would of made the president look weak and unwilling. Now you have a point when you say Iraq is not responsible for 9/11; however the moment we started fighting in Iraq there were no further attacks on the US. I'd like to chop that up to good military intelligence. But Iraq was key, if you look on a map Iraq is surrounded by countries that have ties to terrorism. Iran, Jordan,Egypt, Saudi Arabia no matter how you look at it, strategically speaking Iraq is perfect for cutting off trades. Does that mean all countries that have good position should be invaded? No, but at the time Iraq was pretty much under our jurisdiction so why not use it?

I see your point in this, but at the same time, I disagree with it. Had Bush waited some time, not longer then half a year, we could have gotten the necessary information about the country, about what we might face, and how we could counter that. Had Bush acted with more prudence, no matter what happened in the short run, he would be thought of as a great president in the long run. And yes, when we invaded and occupied Iraq, the terrorists had no need to come to America to fight us.

Saddam Hussein has been against terrorists such as, our enemy, Osama Bin Laden. A reasonable assumption, based on the knowledge that OBL tried to topple and kill Hussein, is that Hussein would have allowed us to perhaps make a staging base in Iraq to Afghanistan. He wanted Bin Laden dead almost as much as we did, and that would have really helped us in Afghanistan.

For the trade remark, there had to be a betetr way of doing things. If we were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the sense that we only occupied one or the other, we would be much better off. Our troops in Afghanistan have, until recently, been completely on their own. They have been seriously undermanned, outgunned, and for the most part, cut off from the rest of the world. Had we invaded Iraq, finished up there after 5 years, then gone directly into Afghanistan, or the other way around, things would be great. The Taliban were nearly destroyed when we invaded Afghanistan, and if we had brought the troops necessary to garrison the country, they (along with Bin Laden) would be dead. Unfortunately, we got bogged down in another war a tiny bit away, and that stopped us from finishing them off. In essence, the division allowed us to nearly win 2 wars, rather then completely win 1 war.
 
Once, just once, I'd like to hear Rush actually speak of conservatism and express some ideas, rather than always bash the liberals and democrats. Afterall, it is the "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies".
 
Rush is just giving his predictions, you take it how you want. I like listen to him but I don't sit there and believe everything he says. He's right sometimes and wrong sometimes, so what, so is everybody who ever lived! I like listening to the local conservative radio host, He actually listens to both sides and doesn't force you to try and believe him!
 
Rush is just giving his predictions, you take it how you want. I like listen to him but I don't sit there and believe everything he says. He's right sometimes and wrong sometimes, so what, so is everybody who ever lived! I like listening to the local conservative radio host, He actually listens to both sides and doesn't force you to try and believe him!

I will agree that everybody can be wrong at times, and right at times. The problem with this slack jawed yokels like Rusn, Coulter, Hannity, etc. is there never make an attempt to even try to be honest. Worse is that they even knowingly lie right out their @$$ when they know the truth. Making mistakes is human, like Lenny says that's why we have erasures on pencils. But it is quite another to knowingly lie and deceive to advance not just a political agenda, but their own agenda as well.
 
I will agree that everybody can be wrong at times, and right at times. The problem with this slack jawed yokels like Rusn, Coulter, Hannity, etc. is there never make an attempt to even try to be honest. Worse is that they even knowingly lie right out their @$$ when they know the truth. Making mistakes is human, like Lenny says that's why we have erasures on pencils. But it is quite another to knowingly lie and deceive to advance not just a political agenda, but their own agenda as well.

Lies are just Politics 101, any president, politician or any of the major news castors will lie to you just so they can get you to agree with them.
 
Lies are just Politics 101, any president, politician or any of the major news castors will lie to you just so they can get you to agree with them.

No, this is entirely false, here is why. When two House Reps go on Hardball to duel it out, they of course can at times often mislead to represent a point. A President may, and will, often present THEIR case in any discussion. That is their role. Of course mistakes often happen, and many times people have incomplete data on the subject. A newscaster may present a point that does not cover everything because maybe not everything is known at the time. That is why honest journalism always presents their corrections. Newsweek and Time always put this at the beginning. NY Times and my own hometown newspaper put corrections on the 2nd page, or in the editorial/letters to the editor.

What these jokers engage in is NOT politics 101. Presenting one's side is admirable, complete distortions and lies are quite another. Slanting the news is fine, so long as they orginator is honest about the bent. Nobody should expect a liberal perspective from National Review any more than one should expect a conservative view from The Nation. But then again, Hannity, Coulter, and Rush are not members of this crowd are they? They are a separate entity of infotainment where facts are discouraged. If David Brooks or Kathleen Parker make an egregious error, they will admit it. Then again as long as I have read David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, George Will, etc.. none of these have EVER gone so far as to completely pull something out their @$$. Then again the difference is quite apparent. On the one hand you have conservative intellectuals, and on the other you have self serving blow-hards more interested in advancing their own agenda, and using the gullible twats that listen to them. Believe me when I say that Rush and co. do not, I repeat DO NOT represent conservative views, they represent their own personal ambitions to sell books and gain higher ratings. They do more harm than good, and thus do not take it as a surprise that the Democratic party has worked so hard to paint Boss Limbaugh as the face of the Republic party.
 
No, this is entirely false, here is why. When two House Reps go on Hardball to duel it out, they of course can at times often mislead to represent a point. A President may, and will, often present THEIR case in any discussion. That is their role. Of course mistakes often happen, and many times people have incomplete data on the subject. A newscaster may present a point that does not cover everything because maybe not everything is known at the time. That is why honest journalism always presents their corrections. Newsweek and Time always put this at the beginning. NY Times and my own hometown newspaper put corrections on the 2nd page, or in the editorial/letters to the editor.

What these jokers engage in is NOT politics 101. Presenting one's side is admirable, complete distortions and lies are quite another. Slanting the news is fine, so long as they orginator is honest about the bent. Nobody should expect a liberal perspective from National Review any more than one should expect a conservative view from The Nation. But then again, Hannity, Coulter, and Rush are not members of this crowd are they? They are a separate entity of infotainment where facts are discouraged. If David Brooks or Kathleen Parker make an egregious error, they will admit it. Then again as long as I have read David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, George Will, etc.. none of these have EVER gone so far as to completely pull something out their @$$. Then again the difference is quite apparent. On the one hand you have conservative intellectuals, and on the other you have self serving blow-hards more interested in advancing their own agenda, and using the gullible twats that listen to them. Believe me when I say that Rush and co. do not, I repeat DO NOT represent conservative views, they represent their own personal ambitions to sell books and gain higher ratings. They do more harm than good, and thus do not take it as a surprise that the Democratic party has worked so hard to paint Boss Limbaugh as the face of the Republic party.

I believe you took me a bit too serious there slappy. ;)
 
I will agree that everybody can be wrong at times, and right at times. The problem with this slack jawed yokels like Rusn, Coulter, Hannity, etc. is there never make an attempt to even try to be honest. Worse is that they even knowingly lie right out their @$$ when they know the truth. Making mistakes is human, like Lenny says that's why we have erasures on pencils. But it is quite another to knowingly lie and deceive to advance not just a political agenda, but their own agenda as well.

Can you please tell us and show us how Rush "intentionally or knowingly lies" please.

I listen to Rush, and I find him quite blunt and straight forward. He gives his opinion on matters and lets the chips fall where they may. To say he is "intentionally or knowingly lie" requires evidence on the matter.
 
I know that probably no one in the whole world, besides Limbaugh himself could answer this, but what the hell is Rush Limbaugh trying to do all the time? I understand he always yells about something for a good rating, and for money, but why is he purposefully misleading so many people? I honestly have counted more lies then truths when I listen to him...and afterwards, I need to watch something true, and not misleading just to clear my head of his rants. Also, I've heard that occasionally, he has said violent things, which are capable of inciting others to violence, so I'm wondering why doesn't anyone say anything? I understand that if a liberal tries it, everyone will start yelling at the liberal. There are plenty of conservatives who think he's crazy, so why don't they do anything about it? Honestly...when I listen to him... it's amazing to me how no one has attacked him yet.

I think his whole presentation of whatever subject is geared to the base characteristics in people. He makes people feel good about their worst traits like greed and fear/anger. He reminds me of many of the TV Evangelists who convince the older populations nearing death that they need to give their money to his church to have eternal peace. Only, in his case he just wants ratings.

Whether it is an act, or he is just a hateful person that found a way to capitalize on it is anybody's guess!
 
Last edited:
Lies are just Politics 101, any president, politician or any of the major news castors will lie to you just so they can get you to agree with them.

Note this was a tongue and cheek joke, just wanted to say that before anything starts. Let me clear this up by saying I am not calling Rush Limbaugh a liar, I'm just saying politicians and news casters tend to sway the truth to make it appear more aligned with their own opinions. Although I believe that Limbaugh doesn't do this, I will admit that he tends to embellish things for dramatic effect.
 
Can you please tell us and show us how Rush "intentionally or knowingly lies" please.

Here is a sampling:

I listen to Rush, and I find him quite blunt and straight forward. He gives his opinion on matters and lets the chips fall where they may. To say he is "intentionally or knowingly lie" requires evidence on the matter.

  • LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

    REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
  • LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)

    REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")
  • LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

    REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.
  • LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

    REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.
  • LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

    REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."
  • LIMBAUGH: "We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful." (Ought to Be, p. 163)

    REALITY: "The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before," editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93).
  • LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)

    REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2).
  • LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)

    REALITY: In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million today (The Bum's Rush, p. 136). Limbaugh's claim also ignores the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems.
  • LIMBAUGH: "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)

    REALITY: According to Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million. Native populations in the late 19th century fell to 250,000, due in part to genocidal policies. Today the U.S.'s Native American population is about 2 million.
  • LIMBAUGH: "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

    REALITY: Before feminism, women couldn't even vote.
  • LIMBAUGH: On Whitewater: "I don't think the New York Times has run a story on this yet. I mean, we haven't done a thorough search, but I--there has not been a big one, front-page story, about this one that we can recall. So this has yet to create or get up to its full speed--if it weren't for us and the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator, this would be one of the biggest and most well kept secrets going on in American politics today." (TV show, 2/17/94)

    REALITY: The New York Times broke the Whitewater story on March 8, 1992, in a front-page story by Jeff Gerth that included much of the key information known today. The investigative article ran over 1,700 words.
  • LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)

    REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body that is not white.
  • LIMBAUGH: "You better pay attention to the 1993 budget deal because there is an increase in beer and alcohol taxes." (Radio show, 7/9/93)

    REALITY: There were no increases in beer and alcohol taxes in the 1993 budget.
  • LIMBAUGH: "And it was only 4,000 votes that--had they gone another way in Chicago--Richard Nixon would have been elected in 1960." (TV show, 4/28/94)

    REALITY: Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to 219 for Nixon. Without Illinois' 27 electoral votes, Kennedy would still have won, 276-246.
  • LIMBAUGH: "Those gas lines were a direct result of the foreign oil powers playing tough with us because they didn't fear Jimmy Carter." (Told You So, p. 112)

    REALITY: The first--and most serious--gas lines occurred in late 1973/early 1974, during the administration of Limbaugh hero Richard Nixon.
  • LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to "sabotage" President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: "Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War." (Told You So, p. 304)

    REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought.
  • LIMBAUGH: On the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." (TV show, 4/18/94)

    REALITY: Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the U.S. to use force against Iraq.

  • "For the first time in military history, U.S. military personnel are not under the command of United States generals." (TV show, 4/18/94)

    REALITY: That's news to the Pentagon. "How far back do you want to go?" asked Commander Joe Gradisher, a Pentagon spokesperson. "Americans served under Lafayette in the Revolutionary war." Gradisher pointed out several famous foreign commanders of U.S. troops, including France's Marshall Foch, in overall command of U.S. troops in World War I. In World War II, Britain's General Montgomery led U.S. troops in Europe and North Africa, while another British General, Lord Mountbatten, commanded the China-Burma-India theater.
  • LIMBAUGH: On the poverty line: "$14,400 for a family of four. That's not so bad." (Radio show, 11/9/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)

    REALITY: Just a few months earlier, Limbaugh was talking about how tough it was to make 10 times that: "I know families that make $180,000 a year and they don't consider themselves rich. Why, it costs them $20,000 a year to send their kids to school." (Radio show, 8/3/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)

The Way Things Aren't

Limbaugh advances numerous falsehoods while discussing Hurricane Katrina

Well either he is a pathological liar, or just a complete idiot. So what does this say about an audience who would listen to some blowhard who either does not know what the hell he is talking about, or intentionally deceives them?
 
[*]LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
..........................
Well either he is a pathological liar, or just a complete idiot. So what does this say about an audience who would listen to some blowhard who either does not know what the hell he is talking about, or intentionally deceives them?

Well damn, you don't mess around, do you???
 
  • LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

    REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
  • LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)

    REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")
  • LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

    REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.
  • LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

    REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.
  • LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

    REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."
  • LIMBAUGH: "We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful." (Ought to Be, p. 163)

    REALITY: "The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before," editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93).
  • LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)

    REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2).
  • LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)

    REALITY: In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million today (The Bum's Rush, p. 136). Limbaugh's claim also ignores the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems.
  • LIMBAUGH: "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)

    REALITY: According to Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million. Native populations in the late 19th century fell to 250,000, due in part to genocidal policies. Today the U.S.'s Native American population is about 2 million.
  • LIMBAUGH: "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

    REALITY: Before feminism, women couldn't even vote.
  • LIMBAUGH: On Whitewater: "I don't think the New York Times has run a story on this yet. I mean, we haven't done a thorough search, but I--there has not been a big one, front-page story, about this one that we can recall. So this has yet to create or get up to its full speed--if it weren't for us and the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator, this would be one of the biggest and most well kept secrets going on in American politics today." (TV show, 2/17/94)

    REALITY: The New York Times broke the Whitewater story on March 8, 1992, in a front-page story by Jeff Gerth that included much of the key information known today. The investigative article ran over 1,700 words.
  • LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)

    REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body that is not white.
  • LIMBAUGH: "You better pay attention to the 1993 budget deal because there is an increase in beer and alcohol taxes." (Radio show, 7/9/93)

    REALITY: There were no increases in beer and alcohol taxes in the 1993 budget.
  • LIMBAUGH: "And it was only 4,000 votes that--had they gone another way in Chicago--Richard Nixon would have been elected in 1960." (TV show, 4/28/94)

    REALITY: Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to 219 for Nixon. Without Illinois' 27 electoral votes, Kennedy would still have won, 276-246.
  • LIMBAUGH: "Those gas lines were a direct result of the foreign oil powers playing tough with us because they didn't fear Jimmy Carter." (Told You So, p. 112)

    REALITY: The first--and most serious--gas lines occurred in late 1973/early 1974, during the administration of Limbaugh hero Richard Nixon.
  • LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to "sabotage" President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: "Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War." (Told You So, p. 304)

    REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought.
  • LIMBAUGH: On the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." (TV show, 4/18/94)

    REALITY: Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the U.S. to use force against Iraq.

  • "For the first time in military history, U.S. military personnel are not under the command of United States generals." (TV show, 4/18/94)

    REALITY: That's news to the Pentagon. "How far back do you want to go?" asked Commander Joe Gradisher, a Pentagon spokesperson. "Americans served under Lafayette in the Revolutionary war." Gradisher pointed out several famous foreign commanders of U.S. troops, including France's Marshall Foch, in overall command of U.S. troops in World War I. In World War II, Britain's General Montgomery led U.S. troops in Europe and North Africa, while another British General, Lord Mountbatten, commanded the China-Burma-India theater.
  • LIMBAUGH: On the poverty line: "$14,400 for a family of four. That's not so bad." (Radio show, 11/9/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)

    REALITY: Just a few months earlier, Limbaugh was talking about how tough it was to make 10 times that: "I know families that make $180,000 a year and they don't consider themselves rich. Why, it costs them $20,000 a year to send their kids to school." (Radio show, 8/3/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)

The Way Things Aren't

Limbaugh advances numerous falsehoods while discussing Hurricane Katrina

Well either he is a pathological liar, or just a complete idiot. So what does this say about an audience who would listen to some blowhard who either does not know what the hell he is talking about, or intentionally deceives them?

Before accepting these as stated, I'd have to see solid proof that Limbaugh actually said these things, and that the counterpoints were actually correct. I'm sure Limbaugh makes mistakes at times, as anyone will, nor do I doubt that he is capable of some hyperbole at times. Still, just because you posted it and have a link doesn't make it necessarily 100% true.
 
Before accepting these as stated, I'd have to see solid proof that Limbaugh actually said these things, and that the counterpoints were actually correct. I'm sure Limbaugh makes mistakes at times, as anyone will, nor do I doubt that he is capable of some hyperbole at times. Still, just because you posted it and have a link doesn't make it necessarily 100% true.

I suppose you could open the links in a new tab, find the thing Limbaugh was accused of saying, and use the time/date at the end of each quote to go find the actual quote, and the context.
 
Before accepting these as stated, I'd have to see solid proof that Limbaugh actually said these things, and that the counterpoints were actually correct. I'm sure Limbaugh makes mistakes at times, as anyone will, nor do I doubt that he is capable of some hyperbole at times. Still, just because you posted it and have a link doesn't make it necessarily 100% true.
True, but he posted his "facts" with a source. If you are claiming they may be falsehoods, the onus is on you to support that.
 
A couple of things most don't know.
#1. Almost half of the people who listen t Rush are Liberals. FACT!
#2. Rush only lies about half the time.
#3. He'd do much better by taking a page out of Obama's book and lie all the time.
#4. I only listen to his promo's when listening to non idiots programing.
#5. Rush is not #1 in all markets in his time slot.
#6. Rush is just a diversion like Ed Schultz is for the Liberals. What you never heard of Ed. He's equal to Rush in the Idiot department.
#7. Rush is no more representative of Conservatives than I hope the Axis of Anti American evil Obama, Pelosi, And Reid are for Liberals. I have hope they will reject the Axis and come back to loving this Country before the Axis destroys it. Yea I know they think they love it now but you can't support the Axis and love this Nation.
 
Last edited:
A couple of things most don't know.
#1. Almost half of the people who listen t Rush are Liberals. FACT!
#2. Rush only lies about half the time.
#3. He'd do much better by taking a page out of Obama's book and lie all the time.

Prove it.


#4. I only listen to his promo's when listening to non idiots programing.
#5. Rush is not #1 in all markets in his time slot.
So???

#6. Rush is just a diversion like Ed Schultz is for the Liberals. What you never heard of Ed. He's equal to Rush in the Idiot department.
#7. Rush is no more representative of Conservatives than I hope the Axis of Anti American evil Obama, Pelosi, And Reid are for Liberals. I have hope they will reject the Axis and come back to loving this Country before the Axis destroys it. Yea I know they think they love it now but you can't support the Axis and love this Nation.

:ranton: Next time, warn us.
 
Back
Top Bottom