quote:

Originally posted by The17sss almost as funny as when Obama made up those languages that people in Afghanistan speak. I always chuckle when you quote the Huffpo, after one of their people just got busted for doctoring video by cutting Trace Gallaghers voice saying one thing over John Gibson's who was saying another to make him look racist (to Huff's credit, they fired the guy but that's the kind of people that work over there). See doctored video below, followed by the real video. http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/rex256797662.html

Your article, had you read it, would have informed you that the video was doctored by WBAL-TV (wherever the hell that is)... and just to let you know, HuffPo is a blog... not a newspaper.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On How characteristically irrelevant of you.

And yeah, I don't know how I fall for that shit all the time. Of course his response is to hit the site that hosted the story and not respond to the verifiable fact that Rush doesn't know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence, which is not exactly like mixing up languages that 98% of Americans have never heard of while not making an attack against someone else for mixing them up.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Your article, had you read it, would have informed you that the video was doctored by WBAL-TV (wherever the hell that is)... and just to let you know, HuffPo is a blog... not a newspaper.

Why the hell did BO call on them for a question at his first Q&A Press Conference? (You may not know the answer. I sure as hell don't.)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why the hell did BO call on them for a question at his first Q&A Press Conference? (You may not know the answer. I sure as hell don't.)

Beats me. But Eric Cantor and other congressmen talk to Matt Cooper at TPM too, and that's assuredly just a blog as well.

___________________

Even the Republicans hate the guy:

quote:

On the same night he was offering the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh drew criticism from an unlikely source: Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.” Steele’s criticism makes him the highest-ranking Republican to pick a fight with the popular and polarizing conservative talk show host. But the new RNC chairman’s extraordinary comments won’t sit well with the millions of conservative listeners Limbaugh draws each week, and Steele aides scrambled to limit the damage Monday morning by trying to change the subject. “Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance so they are building straw men to attack and distract,” said RNC spokesman Alex Conant. “The feud between radio host Rush Limbaugh and Rahm Emanuel makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats’ problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi.” Limbaugh, asked to respond, said he’d save his counter-attack for his listeners. “I’ll handle it on the radio,” he wrote in an e-mail. In an interview on CNN with D.L. Hughley, Steele assured that he, not Limbaugh, was in charge of the party before saying that he wanted to put the right-wing talker “into context.” “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” Steele said. “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.” Steele’s comments, first noticed by NBC producer Chris Donovan, are sure to rankle Limbaugh in part because they validate the liberal critique of the conservative force: that he’s merely an “entertainer.”

http://www.politico.com/news/storie...98.html?ref=fp3

But don't you worry ladies and gents, Rush has a response that he's going to give! He'll take on everybody in order to raise his profile!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Even the Republicans hate the guy: http://www.politico.com/news/storie...98.html?ref=fp3 But don't you worry ladies and gents, Rush has a response that he's going to give! He'll take on everybody in order to raise his profile!

No, Steele is taking issue with the idea of Rush as the GOP leader (because he would consider himself to be that), and trying to play down the Democrats efforts to have the party labeled by Rush.

quote:

Rush Fires Back at Steele: 'I Hope the RNC Chairman Will Realize He is Not a Talking Head Pundit' By Matt Lewis Mar 2nd 2009 2:17PM Responding to RNC Chairman Michael Steele's recent comments, Rush Limbaugh fired back on his radio show today. "The Republican National Committee and Michael Steele need a little leadership ... we're going to have to drag them kicking and screaming back to our core," Limbaugh said. "They are caught up in so much fear because of where they live and work in Washington, DC," he said. Responding to Steele's argument that he is the "de facto" head of the GOP, Limbaugh warned: "Michael Steele -- you are head of the RNC -- you are not head of the Republican Party." Limbaugh went on to say Steele would have to become President for that to happen. He also noted: "... I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be." "I hope the RNC Chairman will realize he is not a talking head pundit," Limbaugh added. Limbaugh also noted that he had helped Steele out in the past: "Michael Steele was on this program ... he got air time on this program ... I personally took time to defend Michael Steele ... Something has happened. Now, I'm just an 'entertainer', and now I'm 'ugly' and my program is 'incendiary'." http://news.aol.com/political-machi...-chairman-will/

Oooo this is going to be good. If neither one backs down they could cause the party to faction OR if one of them apologizes it will be hilarious no matter which one!

perhaps an article the Limbaugh haters might agree with? (from none other than the Huffpo...*winks at Lebez*)

"You're damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail"

Why Limbaugh Is Right to Oppose Obama's Economic Policies

quote:

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama's econimic policies to fail. He said it, he said it again, and he said it again at CPAC. Limbaugh was quickly accused of treason, more or less, and now he says he doesn't understand what all the outrage is about. All he said was that he hopes the economic recovery plan fails. Why is this suprising? I'm not stunned that conservatives oppose President Obama's economic policies. Actually, I wouldn't have it any other way. El Rushbo didn't stop there, of course. Limbaugh went on at CPAC to suggest that liberals opposed to the war in Iraq wanted the war to fail. Oh, shock and outrage!!! Well, guess what? You're damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail. Yeah, I said it. I think I'm not supposed to say that out loud because then I'm supposed to be afraid that I'll be accused of hating America and wanting troops to die. So maybe I should rephrase that tenderly and with great care.... "I wanted the Bush policy on Iraq to fail because the war and the ideas it was based were in complete opposition to my basic principles about how The United States should use its wealth and power. However, I was hoping that a magic genie would be found in Baghdad that would create a situation where Bush's policies didn't work but with no loss of life, damage to property, expense or harm to our nation's reputation." The problem is - I'm not Bobby Jindal so I don't believe in magic. So I repeat - damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail. Not because I hate our country or hate the troops but for the exact opposite reason - because I love my country and I value the lives of the people sworn to protect it. If you opposed the war, I bet you feel the same way. Now, fasten your seatbelt while I go a step further. I believe that Limbaugh wants the President to fail because he loves the country, too. Let me explain with a specific example from the war: torture. I didn't want torture to succeed. That's not because I pray for a world populated by terrorists devoid of fear or the ability to feel pain. No, I wanted torture to fail because I can't bear the idea of a world where America tortures people because 'it works.' That's not America to me. I assume Rush Limbaugh feels the same way, more or less, about the President's economic plan. I bet he simply can't bear the idea of a world where massive government spending is effective and therefore popular because 'it works.' The trick here is not to jump to conclusions. This is where so many fail, both liberal and conservative. They can't just accept a person's statement as it stands. They need to embellish it with accusations of treason. It's wrong to leap from "I oppose policies that I'm opposed to" to "I want people to suffer and die." Of course, this very thing was done to Candidate Obama during the election. It's been done to all Democratic candidates for years and by people like Limbaugh. Well, not just people like Limbaugh but by Limbaugh himself, obviously. The real crime Rush Limbaugh should be called out on isn't for his opposition to liberal policies - because, duh - but for being such total hypocrite. His bread and butter for years has been forming ridiculous conclusions based on purposely distorting his opponent's statements. He could give it but he can't take it. But just because accusing our political opponents of treason is a tactic that Republicans have used with glee for years doesn't mean it's something that Democrats should adopt. It's wrong and it's counterproductive. I have no problem stating the simple truth -conservatives like Limbaugh love America just as much as liberals do. That's not the issue. The real problem gets lost in all the sound and fury - we just have different ideas of what America means. Since I'll be accused by conservatives of being part of the 'blame America' crowd, let me be clear - there's a deep ideological split in this country and I blame America. We're a complex nation; big, sprawling and full of contradictions. Just looking at the personalities of our forefathers from the pious prudish Pilgrams to libertines like self-help guru/orgy attendee Ben Franklin explains a lot about why the country that we love is such a messy mass of mixed messages to this very day. We had founders like Jefferson who simultaneously wrote stirring words of freedom and owned slaves. Small wonder part of our manifest destiny was the two party system and CNN's Crossfire. Don't blame Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. It's America's fault. The whole country and our rich jambalaya of history. We're complicated. Deal with it. The thing we can do to get along better isn't to expect to agree on things. Forget that. But we can agree to disagree without the pointless added bullshit playacting of pretending disagreement is treason. The healthy conflict of views on our homeland is as American as Christian TV preachers involved in gay sex scandals. It's a war of ideas. Bring it on, Rush,. We'll keep the light on for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-s...o_b_170815.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Your article, had you read it, would have informed you that the video was doctored by WBAL-TV (wherever the hell that is)... and just to let you know, HuffPo is a blog... not a newspaper.

no shit, Sherlock. So, your beloved blog holds no accountability for allowing unvetted fake content on their site that set off a wave of anger among its readers?

quote:

The Huffington Post posted the doctored video last week without any disclaimer and without calling Gibson or Fox for comment. After the doctoring was revealed, the liberal Web site published an apology. "My ire in this situation is directed at the Huffington Post," Gibson said. "I really think this would have been very easy to check. A kid made a mistake and did something goofy, fine. But these guys [at the Huffington Post] claim to be and are regarded by many as a legitimate news organization. It spoke to their bias against me that they went ahead with it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...opinion/columns

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss no shit, Sherlock. So, your beloved blog holds no accountability for allowing unvetted fake content on their site that set off a wave of anger among its readers? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...opinion/columns

Why don't you respond to their legitimate questioning of you attacking the source without addressing the content that you have yet to claim as incorrect?

___________________

Because the content isn't incorrect. And it's silly to think that a blog that posts hundreds of articles and videos every day would never get something wrong. Gibson is kidding himself if he thinks people care enough about him to consciously launch a campaign to vilify him. In my opinion, it simply speaks volumes about the nature of the guy that nobody thought twice about the video's accuracy - it wouldn't at all have been surprising.

That said, I'd still love to hear what you have to say defending Rush's faux pas - is it possible that the Constitution's most loyal defender doesn't even know what its most famous section reads?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Because the content isn't incorrect. And it's silly to think that a blog that posts hundreds of articles and videos every day would never get something wrong. Gibson is kidding himself if he thinks people care enough about him to consciously launch a campaign to vilify him. In my opinion, it simply speaks volumes about the nature of the guy that nobody thought twice about the video's accuracy - it wouldn't at all have been surprising. That said, I'd still love to hear what you have to say defending Rush's faux pas - is it possible that the Constitution's most loyal defender doesn't even know what its most famous section reads?

I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that the Huffpo has some responsibility in the content of it's reporting. But you do a good job of finding excuses as usual.

You are accurate to call it a "faux pas"... because that's what it was. If you truly believe that Rush didn't make an honest mistake while giving a fiery speech, and seriously can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, then I can't help you. Did you condemn Joe Biden for gaffe-tastically blowing the quesiton of the VP's role as defined by the constitution during his debate with Palin? Doubtful. Find something with a little more substance to squabble about.