All day Friday, even after Rush Limbaugh corrected the misinformation, MSNBC promoted a story fed to them by the far-left Media Matters about how Rush Limbaugh had called military personnel who served in Iraq and oppose the war “phony soldiers.” Limbaugh opened his noon EDT radio show on Friday by explaining how he was referring not to any real soldier but a phony one, notably Jesse MacBeth, who became a hero to the left when he recounted how his Army unit murdered innocent Iraqis. In fact, he hadn't even completed basic training.
Nonetheless, MSNBC headlined a 4pm EDT segment “'PHONY SOLDIERS' INSULT; Rush Limbaugh: U.S. Troops Who Oppose Iraq War are 'Phony.'” Anchor Tamron Hall asserted: “Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh never served in the armed forces, so when he made the following comments about Iraq War veterans who return home to oppose the war, it set off a firestorm of outrage.” Hall ran a clip of Limbaugh saying it is Democrats who need to apologize for insulting the troops, but failed to relay Limbaugh's explanation of who he said was “phony.” Pairing it with MoveOn's “General Betray Us” ad, retired Colonel Jack Jacobs called it “stupid talk” and suggested those in the military “would like people who don't know what they're talking about to just shut up.”
At the top of the next hour, Chris Matthews teased Hardball: “Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh says veterans who support withdrawing the troops are 'phony soldiers.' Those are his words.” A guest charged Limbaugh “didn't go to Vietnam because he had a bump on his butt. So, I mean, this guy's a draft-dodger.” Then at 8pm EDT, with “Limbaugh Bashes Vets for Withdrawal” on screen, and briefly “...Phony Soldiers...” over video of Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann teased Countdown: “Comedian Rush Limbaugh tries to back out of his quote: Servicemen protesting the war are quote, 'phony soldiers.'”
On his September 27 radio program, a caller asserted that the media “never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.” Limbaugh interjected: “The phony soldiers.” After the call, Limbaugh proceeded to recount:
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal" I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way:"We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero...
At worst, who Limbaugh meant by “phony soldiers” was unclear and so any story should, at the very least, include Limbaugh's explanation and not just presume the hostile spin from a far-left group is a newsworthy take that cannot be contradicted in multi-minute segments with plenty of time to better inform viewers. But that's what MSNBC did Friday.
The above Limbaugh transcript is from an excellent rundown of the situation, “NEXT STOP: RUSHVILLE; Mainstream Media's Smear Train Chugs Along,” by Brian Maloney on his RadioEqualizer blog. (Earlier NewsBusters posting by Ken Shepherd summarizing it.) Maloney began:
Not content to wait until Bill O'Reilly's hoped- for demise, the George Soros- funded Media Matters/mainstream media smear machine has added a second target: Rush Limbaugh.And this time, the distortion of words may actually be more severe than in O'Reilly's case.
Now, Media Matters has twisted and edited Rush's words in a way that makes it appear he's insulting the troops. They've taken the false idea that he called anti- war soldiers "phony troops" and spread it across the Internet. Even the White House fell for it. But Limbaugh said nothing of the sort.
Under “The Anatomy of a Smear: 'Phony Soldiers' Is a Phony Story,” Limbaugh's Web site features a transcript, and YouTube video, of his Friday show opening with a detailed explanation of what he said Thursday and how liberals have deliberately distorted it.
Michelle Malkin's site has more on Jesse MacBeth. ABC's World News, in a September 24 story on what anchor Charles Gibson described using the same “phoney” term as Limbaugh, looked at “phoney heroes” -- those passing themselves off as Iraq war veterans. Reporter Brian Ross noted:
The authorities say the most disturbing case involves this man: 23-year-old Jesse MacBeth. In a YouTube video seen around the world, MacBeth became a rallying point for anti-war groups as he talked of the purple heart he received in Iraq and described how he and other U.S. Army Rangers killed innocent civilians at a Baghdad mosque. It was a complete fabrication.
Now, highlights from MSNBC's Friday afternoon and evening (September 28) doing the bidding of the far-left effort by Media Matters to impugn and discredit the leading voice of conservatives:
MSNBC Live at about 4:12pm EDT (transcript provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth who corrected the closed-captioning against the video):
TAMRON HALL: Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh never served in the armed forces, so when he made the following comments about Iraq War veterans who return home to oppose the war, it set off a firestorm of outrage. Take a listen.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it's not, and what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
HALL: MSNBC wanted to hear Mr. Limbaugh's side of the story, but he declined our invitation. Instead, he offered this on the show today. Here's a quote: "If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology. They owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology -- and are they owed massive defeat in 2008! They are irresponsible, they are dishonest, they are incompetent, and they pose a great threat to this country -- as evidenced by this small little episode."
HALL: To talk more about that episode, U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, who's an MSNBC military analyst, is here with us to talk about this. So, Colonel Jacobs, it's interesting, of course, MoveOn.Org, heavy criticism, even taken up issue on the Congress floor about their "General Betray Us" ad. Is it different when you criticize a general as MoveOn.Org did as when you compare to Rush Limbaugh's comments about soldiers?
Retired Colonel JACK JACOBS, MSNBC military analyst: Well, stupid talk is stupid talk no matter who it comes from and who it's talking about. You know, when I was in Vietnam, we looked back at the states and saw all the turmoil in the streets, the yelling and screaming in Congress, complaints and moaning and groaning on television, and we didn't pay any attention to any of that stuff. We had lots more important things to do like taking care of each other and completing the mission. Whether you're for the war or against the war, it's really quite irrelevant.
HALL: So it does not affect the morale of troops because you often hear people say, oh, they can hear what's going on here, and it affects the way they feel out there.
JACOBS: Well, they do hear what's going on, you know. With technology being the way it is, with all the information that's going out to the battlefield and coming back from the battlefield, there's a huge, so they can hear, everybody out there can hear everything that goes on back in the United States, including stuff like this and MoveOn.Org and so on. But they're not paying any attention to it.
HALL: How are troops who come out and, lately have come out against the war, how are they treated and perceived by other personnel in the military?
JACOBS: Well, it's interesting. You know, it's a free country. You can say anything you want to anytime you want to. And that includes soldiers, as well, but it's an interesting thing about war. Emotions that are forged in the crucible of combat are extremely tough indeed. And most of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, they like to think about their comrades, about taking care of their comrades, and it's going to be very, very difficult to get them to say anything bad about their comrades and what they do. They can oppose the war and think that we've done a bad job, we didn't use enough resources, we should have gone in with more troops, should never have gone in in the first place. They can think and say all those things, but at the end of the day, they're going to keep faith with the troops who are back there fighting.
HALL: But without some of their insight, we would not be able to know the other side. Of course, my father was in the Army for 35 years. He follows the line, I know. He's master sergeant. But without insight from the troops, you have all of these people on the outside who have never served chiming in giving their opinion.
JACOBS: Well, you raise a very significant question. It's really a good thing that we, we ought to pay as much attention as we possibly can to people who have the experience, including the generals who have come out and said, look, we did this all wrong, and we the generals should have paid more attention to it and said more at the time, and pay no attention to people, for example, like Rush Limbaugh and the people at MoveOn.Org who have no military experience at all.
HALL: So from the people who have the military experience, are you thinking that they want MoveOn.Org, Rush Limbaugh, both sides just to shut up at some point?
JACOBS: Yeah, I think if you were to distill it down to its irreducible minimum, I think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines would like people who don't know what they're talking about to just shut up.
HALL: All right, thank you very much, Colonel Jacobs. Always good to talk to you. Love that frank talk that you give me.
Hardball, live at 5pm EDT and re-run at 7pm EDT:
TEASE FROM CHRIS MATTHEWS: Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh says veterans who support withdrawing the troops are “phony soldiers.” Those are his words...PLUG FROM MATTHEWS FOR THE UPCOMING SEGMENT: And later, is it unpatriotic for a veteran of the Iraq war to criticize the war? Rush Limbaugh thinks it is.
In the subsequent segment with two guests (Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org and Buzz Patterson of Move America Forward), neither of whom corrected Matthews' characterization of Limbaugh's comment, Matthews displayed on screen, as audio played, the same excerpt the network did an hour earlier:
RUSH LIMBAUGH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
From the discussion which followed:
SOLTZ (TOP GUY IN THE SCREEN SHOT) TRASHED LIMBAUGH: Invite me on the show brother, because I want to have a one-on-one discussion about how our service is phony when this is a guy that, you know, didn't go to Vietnam because he had a bump on his butt. So, I mean, this guy's a draft-dodger...
Countdown, live at 8pm EDT, to be re-run at 12am EDT Saturday morning:
With “Limbaugh Bashes Vets for Withdrawal” on Screen, and Briefly “...Phony Soldiers...” over Video of Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann teased:
Comedian Rush Limbaugh tries to back out of his quote: Servicemen protesting the war are quote “phony soldiers.”
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I never said what you think I said
OLBERMANN: Not only did he, now he said something similar about the Congressman and Vietnam vet Jack Murtha.
OLBERMANN SOON CONTENDED: Limbaugh now trying to claim that his tirade referred to just one phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq war. That re-write might have a better chance of passing the smell test had Mr. Limbaugh's original 'phony soldiers' comment -- still plural at that point -- not come nearly two minutes before he ever mentioned MacBeth on yesterday's radio show. Limbaugh making things worse for himself today by adding Congressman John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet, to his list of 'phony soldiers' -- now back to being plural.
AUDIO OF LIMBAUGH: How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?
But Olbermann left out Limbaugh's very next sentence, the one by coincidence MSNBC's 4pm EDT hour featured, that made clear he was reacting to demands that he apologize by arguing that liberals need to apologize for their insults of the troops:
If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat Party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology. They owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology -- and they are owed massive defeat in 2008!
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
They get away with it every time
September 28, 2007 - 22:05 ET by steveba4Even when other sources outside the MSM bust them on their BS twisiting and distortion of facts...they always seem to get away with it.
No other media to
September 28, 2007 - 23:17 ET by oorampNo other media to correct the lie. Seems to me that the media is associating Rush with move on org to make the fools among us believe both sides are the same. How dangerous the old dying media use to be.
MSNBC and the entire
September 29, 2007 - 14:44 ET by TruthMongerMSNBC and the entire MSM/moonbat conspiracy are only screwing themselves royally with this - I'm only too happy to egg them on...
The MSM does not cater to informed people. Informed Americans (the vast majority) are not idiots - they see this for what it is - hence the PMSNBC ratings residing firmly in the crapper...
Keith and company, please feel free to continue:)!
our sincere, pleasure...
Echo chamber
September 29, 2007 - 00:15 ET by KC MulvilleThat's because there hasn't been any sources outside the liberal echo chamber to cast doubt on the story. What was the phrase Katie Couric used the other day -- it was an accepted truth? And remember Ted Koppel argued that Dan Rather's story must be correct, for no reason other than that it fit Koppel's pre-existing assumption?
Your assumptions guide your perceptions, and that's why you need philosophy -- to constantly test and improve your own assumptions. The liberal, mainstream media is the most unphilosophical and unreflective institution in the culture, because they never question their assumptions. They have a set of accepted truths, built on their own biases, and everything else confirms their beliefs or it simply doesn't show up on their radar. If it doesn't cohere with their assumptions, they literally can't see it. Since they can't see any evidence to the contrary, then, they happily assume that they have no bias. After all, blind people have a consistent vision.
That's why Newsbusters matters -- this site has dozens of examples of liberal bias every day, and MRC has been compiling examples for many years. Eventually, the body of evidence won't be ignored.
Clinton's Left Wing Conspiracy
September 29, 2007 - 05:18 ET by sembyDid you know that the Clintons are behind MSNBC and Media Matters. They controls these very organizations.
It's obvious that the Clintons want to bring down every conservative commentator from O'Reilly to Rush.
Did you see Clinton on with Keith last night. Why would Clinton, a former President, speak to Keith who in most eyes is a second rate journalist. And Hillary spoke to Scarborough.
I think things are really beginning to add up!
I know...I purposely caught
September 29, 2007 - 06:26 ET by motherbeltI know...I purposely caught the beginning of Hardball and Matthews teased
“Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh says veterans who support
withdrawing the troops are 'phony soldiers.' Those are his words.”
Anyone that watched: did he run any audio?
Next I caught Olbermann saying Limbaugh was trying to "back out of his quote" that said servicemen who protest the war are "phony soldiers."
And I thought good grief! The correct transcript has been out there all day; I have never heard anything get so distorted. And Rush said no one called him or his show to verify before running with it. Don't these guys do any research at all? And then I realized: no, not if it might get in the way of a good bash.
Don't these guys do any
September 29, 2007 - 07:34 ET by drillanwrDon't these guys do any research at all?
That's why they are now known as the LLLMSM ... Lazy Lame Liberal MSM.
I especially love
September 29, 2007 - 09:24 ET by motherbeltI especially love Olbermann:
Limbaugh now trying to claim that his tirade referred to just one phony
soldier, Jesse MacBeth who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and
veteran of the Iraq war. That re-write might have a better chance of
passing the smell test had Mr. Limbaugh's original 'phony soldiers'
comment -- still plural at that point -- not come nearly two minutes
before he ever mentioned MacBeth on yesterday's radio show. Limbaugh
making things worse for himself today by adding Congressman John
Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet, to his list of 'phony soldiers' -- now
back to being plural.
Holy cow, where to begin? He's twisting himself up with his plurals and
singulars. As if no pundit ever said "conservatives" when they were
talking about a particular one. Gee, none of them ever said "the Rush
Limbaughs, the O'Reillys" as an example?
This is such a stretch it could span NY to LA. Then KO, who is so particular about
whether a word is singular or plural, jumps to the conclusion that,
because Rush mentioned Jack Murtha in the next sentence, on a different topic... (that he believed the report about Haditha) he is lumping him in with the "phony soldiers." What a leap!
This would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous. These people are
determined to discredit O'Reilly, Limbaugh and anyone else who doesn't
agree with them, and they will keep at it until they get it to stick!
they know they're lying -
September 29, 2007 - 14:48 ET by TruthMongerthey know they're lying - this is deliberate - which makes them especially dispicable:)
you can somewhat forgive the average mis-informed idiot on the street over these things - but these professional lying MSM bastards don't qualify for that...
Isn't Dan Abrams the
September 30, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Andrew H.Isn't Dan Abrams the manager at MSNBC? Does anyone had his email? He seemed to be almost fair when he had his own show.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
E- Mails
September 30, 2007 - 13:09 ET by Jerry MackAndrew: I do not have the address. Perhaps one of the members could post a list of all the talking heads E-mail addresses at the Forum section. I would appreciate it.
Thanks man--I'll watch it
September 30, 2007 - 13:22 ET by Andrew H.Thanks man--I'll watch it over there as I search.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Nice try, MSDNC and Media
September 28, 2007 - 22:08 ET by fitzfongNice try, MSDNC and Media Matters scumbags. No one buys your phony stories...partly because nobody watches.
Good point
September 28, 2007 - 22:24 ET by well99I want Rush's monitor.Back OT It is a shame that the msm waste all this time with these hit pieces.They could be using the time to do something constructive.I guess that is beyond them.My only question is are they trying to compete with those mags near the check out counters.The ones with stories by people claiming to have aliens kidnap them or they are the love child of Elvis.
The check-out counter mags
September 28, 2007 - 22:35 ET by drillanwrThe check-out counter mags are more credible than the LLLMSM.
True
September 28, 2007 - 23:01 ET by well99LOL .....the msm is really sinking into tabloid fever.They are losing what credibility they have.
"They could be using the
September 29, 2007 - 17:54 ET by MikeB"They could be using the time to do something constructive." Um, no they couldn't. Marxism/socialism is not a constructive philosophy. This has been proven time after time.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Rush is right - It's not
September 28, 2007 - 23:12 ET by kgRush is right - It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
The MSM left have a completly different thought process. It shows in nearly everything they say. All one can do is just shake their heads and say "yes, they do walk among us".
DON'T go over to the posted
September 28, 2007 - 23:20 ET by drillanwrDON'T go over to the posted replies over at the youtube link.
You'll NEVER again leave your house for fear of having some of those people out on the streets.
they took a knife to a gun fight
September 28, 2007 - 23:15 ET by RousseThe Main Stream Media and their cohorts on cable have made a tragic mistake this time ... they took a knife to a gun fight. Rush will fight them to the end ... until they eat this one with big-time, prime-time, front page retractions and apologies. And you can bet our milpers will kick up a fight too. They know who cares about them and who doesn't. This may be worth buying TIVO for. I'll want to watch over and over again.
BOR is in on this too - it's
September 29, 2007 - 14:50 ET by TruthMongerBOR is in on this too - it's time to go 24/7 with some psychiatric experts live on the air regarding this disgustingly evil lying MSM pyschosis infesting the media and the moonbat left...
They have to do it
September 28, 2007 - 23:17 ET by celatorMatthews, Olbermann, Hall, the whole lot over there at MSNBC, really have no choice in the matter. They must do what George Soros orders them to do. He ordered a media hit on Limbaugh etc. and if they want to keep their cushy jobs, they have to follow through. Someday, a brave journalist is going to expose Soros, and it will shock most viewers. Till then, when Soros says "JUMP" to them, their only response is "YES SIR, MR SOROS!!!!" That's how they do it at Move On.
Limbaugh is a big fat gasbag
September 28, 2007 - 23:23 ET byLimbaugh is a big fat gasbag who makes Father Coughlin look like Al Franken. He shouldn't be calling any soldier phony, considering he ducked out of going to Viet Nam by claiming to have an anal cyst. Fittting, considering the guy is such an a-hole. I'd like to see a batallion of "phony" soldiers storm his Florida mansion and show him how "phony" they really are.
bluster is a big fat troll
September 28, 2007 - 23:30 ET by fitzfongbluster is a big fat troll who, like all left wing sock puppets likes to spout Media Matters talking points because he can't conjure up an original thought. These PHONY soldiers Limbaugh was speaking of were PHONY soldiers...and they'd be incapable of storming anything because they'd be too busy selling each other out to the enemy.
Reading Not Required
September 28, 2007 - 23:41 ET by Sua Sponte 75Yea, why read the story of how he was misquoted and the whole story not told, why bother with the facts?
It should go like this....
1. Read
2. Comprehend
3. Reply
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
You have to remember the
September 29, 2007 - 01:28 ET by Gary P JacksonYou have to remember the "phoney soldier" in question, is indeed that!
This guy, Jesse Macbeth, who washed out in basic, after 44 days, and therefore, never became a soldier, went around telling everyone of the drive bys that he was a Ranger!
And of course there is no fact check needed, because he fits the template. This guy claimed to be a decorated Army Ranger, and told all sorts of cock and bull stories, about the atrocities that never occured.
The drive-bys desperately want this to be Vietnam.
I think the answer is for everyone to try and take their neighborhoods back, then slowly get the cities back, then the state, andthen of course the country!
If we could just get the non voters we know to become engaged and enlightend. We can throw the Barbarians from the gates. And maybe even take back Congress!!
What? There has been
September 29, 2007 - 02:06 ET by Andrew H.What? There has been proof a number of so-called Iraq veterans againstt he war were students who visited an army/navy store to buy uniforms--heh.
You don't know what you're talking about. But that never stops a lefty from spewing.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
time to K.O. Olberman's network
September 28, 2007 - 23:28 ET by RousseP.S. NBC's football broadcasts? Time to turn it off, for the whole season. Listen on the radio. Nothing speaks louder than last-place ratings. Oh, I know, it's a toss up between NBC and CBS, but I think the person who gave the final OK on putting Keith Olberman in the booth needs to feel his face on the mat.
KEEP THIS ON HERE
September 28, 2007 - 23:52 ET by Gigantor"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One to lie and one to listen...."
Is it just me or has the Left now gotten so flagrant and unhinged in their out of context bashing and their lies? I mean, they know what they are doing, they know the context, they know what they are purposely leaving out of the debate (Matthews/Olberman/Anything on MSNBC) it is insulting. But here on Newsbusters we have a solid, point by point account of how they (The Left) is flat out lying. It is here,on Newsbusters, and on record. We know, but the problem is that not everyone reads this site.
I'm frustrated, the absolute lies and distortion laden attacks from these hack "journalists" are getting tiresome. And the f**cking idiots say FOX NEWS is GODAMN BIAS!? I dont even know what to say, other than that I am very frustrated.
Really kind of makes you
September 28, 2007 - 23:58 ET by drillanwrReally kind of makes you wish an asteroid would just hurry up and hit, already, eh? ... Yeah, I feel your pain.
Sick and tired?
September 29, 2007 - 07:45 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI mean, they know what they are doing, they know the context, they know
what they are purposely leaving out of the debate
(Matthews/Olberman/Anything on MSNBC) it is insulting.
So write MSNBC and tell them you are sick of their phony journalism. I sure did! I also pointed out I only hear about them from others (like here), I never watch their crappy shows.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Rotten peaches
September 29, 2007 - 10:39 ET by JDWNews media prints without verifying fact until proven otherwise.
News media relies on select libs for responses to questions, answers which they email into HQ for regardless of validity. Their purpose is to manipulate, not report.
JDW
CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?
"He shouldn't be calling
September 28, 2007 - 23:53 ET by ckc1227"He shouldn't be calling any soldier phony, considering he ducked out of going to Viet Nam by claiming to have an anal cyst."
You do realize that draftees couldn't just claim a non-existing ailment and get an instant pass, don't you?
Who am I kidding, of course you don't.
No, he doesn't ... In his
September 28, 2007 - 23:56 ET by drillanwrNo, he doesn't ... In his little world it's ever changing cloud shapes in the sky, drifting by slowly ... slowly ... Until Mom or Dad yell down the basement steps for him to shut that music off and take the damn trash cans to the curb.
LMAO
September 29, 2007 - 00:44 ET by well99That was good.
In order for me to
September 29, 2007 - 00:16 ET by JerIn order for me to intellectually follow the controversy, what is Rush's current version of whom he was referring to as "phony soldiers"?
a. only Jesse MacBeth
b. Jesse MacBeth and John Murtha
c. MacBeth, Murtha, and Scot Beauchamp
d. all soldiers advocating immediate withdrawal
e. all soldiers who have expressed anti-war sentiments in or to the media
f. (d.) and (e.) but only if they are Democrats
g. others not included in the foregoing choices
Thanks, Jer
c. plus John Kerry is a
September 29, 2007 - 02:21 ET by fitzfongc. plus John Kerry is a start.
Actually, fitz, I meant to
September 29, 2007 - 17:48 ET by JerActually, fitz, I meant to include Kerry on the list and inadvertently left him off. {I had read some comments from Rush calling Kerry a phony in Nam.)
Jer
Well, not knowing for sure
September 29, 2007 - 08:22 ET by rimskyWell, not knowing for sure exactly what Rush might be thinking, I can say that you hit square on all my choices of people that I would call phony soldiers, except that you left out John Kerry, and I have to tell you that I hadn't given party affiliation a single thought until YOU suggested bwo choice 'f'.
Media Matters went over
September 29, 2007 - 00:29 ET by maggieqpublicMedia Matters went over budget this week with their release of sludge. They are stepping on the toes of their own story, “Racist O’Reilly”, and replacing it with “Draft Dodger Rush”.
The Left has had a very bad month: a) the war takes a positive turn; b) moveon.org slimes a decent, patriotic and thoroughly competent General with a juvenile rhyme; c) the New York Times, paper of record, is not forthcoming about its role in sliming the General; d) Investor’s Business Daily puts the Soros billions under the microscope; e) David Shuster plays gotcha journalism with the death of an American soldier; f) the list of names connected to Norman Hsu continues to grow.
for Jer
September 29, 2007 - 00:38 ET by Roussehttp://www.rushlimba...
There ya go, Jer. This links to Rush's website, so you can go over there and read and/or listen to the show. That's the best way to know exactly what Rush said.
Yup
September 29, 2007 - 00:45 ET by well99Always best to judge for yourself.
Thanks for the link, Rousse...
September 29, 2007 - 01:09 ET by Jerjust finished reading what Rush had up at the site.
Jer
!
September 29, 2007 - 06:06 ET by old croWhile you are there, check out "Lt. Kerry's Purple Hearts Club Band" by Paul Shanklin for Rush. Its bound to be an instant classic!
Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink. --Lady Astor to
Winston Churchill Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it. --His reply
Rush is a draft dodging scumbag
September 29, 2007 - 01:03 ET by goldwaterfan70% of the soldiers in Iraq disagree with the current "Stay the Course" strategy. In Rush's mind, they are all "phony soldiers". Limbaugh is just another Anti-millitary, Anti-American loser.
Are you kidding me? For
September 29, 2007 - 01:48 ET by Gary P JacksonAre you kidding me?
For one "stay the course" may be an overall strategy, but the surge, which is working very well, is most certainly a change in strategy.
The dims whined like a bunch of school girls wanting change in Iraq. Now that there IS change, the dims want to go back to the pre-surge strategy of "stay the course". They don't have a clue.
AND, I'd love to see your obviously misreported poll saying 70 percent of US Soldiers are against this mission. So please, please, show us were to find this poll!
The truth is moral is very high. The soldiers believe in what they are doing. I have family over there, and yes it's tough, but they feel it's worth it.
As for Rush, why don't you, instead of spouting off nonsense you got from Media Matters, or Move on, actually go to Rush's site. He has video up that puts it ALL in context, and explains that it's ONE SOLDIER, who never actually became a soldier, but has told the drive-bys many out and out lies, who he is calling a phony soldier. And that's what the guy is. The Army should prosecute him to the fullest. 20 years in Leavenworth aught to do it.
And it's obvious you've never heard Limbaugh's show. He is as pro American, and pro military as it gets!
He also has one of the largest audiences in all of media, who understand a smear when they see it!
I'll get off my soap box now!
Make up your own news & polls day
September 29, 2007 - 02:35 ET by Sua Sponte 75What's been with the past few days of making stuff up?
I'm quite positive your 70% quote is way out of context or an outright lie, I'm prefering to go with the latter. I for one, as with the many I serve with over here know exactly what Rush was saying and in the correct context, then again we're not hand wringing grandmas' with tissue paper skin either. The screed you spew is nothing more than a hate for Rush, wish is your right, but under the cover of "supporting the troops". I challenge you to find a troop anywhere that is satisfied with not completing his mission.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
"What's been with the past
September 29, 2007 - 05:22 ET by ckc1227"What's been with the past few days of making stuff up?"
The past few days? Try the past few years, lol. The left's entire platform consists of made up stuff.
Seriously, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe Rush would slam the troops? Of course not. But, Media Matters isn't in their right mind, are they?
O'Reilly the racist, and Rush the troop-hater. It's so ridiculous it's laughable. Media Morons have definitely jumped the shark this week.
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......................
Poll Cite, Please?
September 29, 2007 - 17:30 ET by Del DolemonteLet me guess-it was done by the Military Times group of publications, owned by Gannett? If so, that poll has been busted as faulty.
Actually, "goldwaterfan",
September 29, 2007 - 17:47 ET by fitzfongI'm sure you and your MorOn.org cronies have the facts to support your 70% statistic. No? Didn't think so. Actually, "goldwaterfan", it seems that you are the real anti-Military, anti-American loser.
?
September 29, 2007 - 04:56 ET by old croHALL: But without some of their insight, we would not be able to know
the other side. Of course, my father was in the Army for 35 years. He
follows the line, I know. He's master sergeant. But without insight
from the troops, you have all of these people on the outside who have
never served chiming in giving their opinion.
And you Miss Hall, served when? It chaps my a** that all this debate over who served or who didn't comes to the fore when the left wants to trash someone. I myself did not serve, but, I'll be damned if I will let anyone speak ill of our country and servicemen in front of me. If or when you have served has no bearing at all on your level of patriotism, and I would gladly sacrifice anything I am or have achieved to protect this country and our way of life. JMHO
Open and free discussion of ideas?
September 29, 2007 - 05:54 ET by Blogger Guy00001Ah the left! The left which claims to promote free speech. The left which claims to promote open dialogue.
Wrong.
The left is actively working to silence O'Reilly and Limbaugh. This is only the beginning. They know that they have nothing now. The purpose of these attacks is to pave the way for the big assault which is coming between now and the Imperial Election of Her Highness to the throne.
What's Truly Distressing About This?
September 29, 2007 - 07:17 ET by BourbeauIt's that the likes of MSNBC, can create a days worth of programming around a trumped up story, that was completely false from beginning to end, and not feel the slightest bit embarrassed by the entire episode. Worse yet, not one of those morons would invite Rush to confront his "accusers" because they know, only too well, he'd debate their butts into the ground. It's disgraceful what the MSM can do without any regard to the truth; but that's the game they play. Fast forward to the S-CHIP debate; today the Democrats will have a 12 year old rebutt the Presidents weekly message. If the Republicans did this it would be "child abuse"; they do it, and it's an informed constituent. Give me a break.
Fast forward to the S-CHIP
September 29, 2007 - 07:44 ET by drillanwrFast forward to the S-CHIP debate; today the Democrats will have a 12 year old rebutt the Presidents weekly message.
You are frakking kidding me!!??!!! Is this a toe-in-the-door to demanding the vote for kids now??? Unbelievable! The democrats/left CONTINUE to exploit children ...
Their selection?
September 29, 2007 - 07:50 ET by ThisnThatSo, what kind of child are they going to choose?
A poverty-stricken one with ragged clothes, lice-filled hair, tin cup to appeal to the emotions? or,
A middle-class kid sitting in the family's Volvo, polo t-shirt on, to appeal to truth -- that they want universal coverage, beginning with the $80K+ crowd today?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
He/She : "Mr." Bush ... I
September 29, 2007 - 08:14 ET by drillanwrHe/She : "Mr." Bush ... I have asthma and ADHD and I take four medications everyday... My little brother has ADHD and he takes two medications everyday ... My 14 yr. old sister is sexually active and needs to be on the birth control pill and needs her drug cocktail for her HIV ... We all have to visit the doctor a couple times a month. ... "Mr." Bush, why are you being so mean? Why do you want to take our medicine away? Why won't you let us go to the doctor, "Mr." Bush? "Mr." Bush, why do you want us and other little children to die <voice breaks a little and holds back sob>. "Mr." Bush, I don't want my brother and sister to die. Our mom and our dads don't want us to die ... "Mr." Bush ... <sobs> ... I don't want to die ... Please don't kill us, "Mr." Bush? Please? You have two daughters --- <completely breaks down into full weeping ... Pelosie and Reid enter from stage left and coddle the crying child ... Nan and Har look into the camera and sadly shake their heads>
The fade-away
September 29, 2007 - 14:19 ET by ThisnThatAnd then fade away to a coffin, a cemetary, an American flag (the only time the left displays the American flag, by the way) -- four months later. with the headline: "Bush vetos Children's Health Bill; how many more must die".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Perfect!
September 29, 2007 - 14:22 ET by drillanwrPerfect!
Has MSNBC or any MSM done a
September 29, 2007 - 07:24 ET by AntiMediaHas MSNBC or any MSM done a story on Jesse MacBeth? If not, I wonder why.
I’m not sure about you
September 29, 2007 - 07:41 ET by USA4freedomI’m not sure about you guys but some times I just have to
take a break from the news for a few days. It just wears me out. The constant
drum beat from the left. It seems like after the start of Fox news, it has
gotten 1000% worse. Its like.. we don’t even have to pretend, “they” have fox.
If you think about the corruption of the news from Dan
Blather and his “true story” and his false papers.
To the Bill
O'Reilly’s BS story.
To Rush to: every
Republican that gets in trouble.
Democrat corruption runs non stop in NJ and not a word in
the press hardly.
William J. Jefferson (D-LA): as Rush likes to say. It
goes on and on, Global warming. (by the way, where are all those hurricanes)
From what they do cover to what they don’t.
From George Soros’s, non stop money to every left wing group
that wants to destroy our country. Ugh...
I think I will go sailing.. it’s a little too windy but I
think I will reef some sails and bash some waves..
Every one have a good week end.
And for all of
you leftist and trolls: Go to hell.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Yeah, I hear ya. I
September 29, 2007 - 07:46 ET by drillanwrYeah, I hear ya.
I usually step away from it all by Friday ... Even the talk radio shows. Four days is usually my limit. I even go liter online.
Hey, everyone ... Just
September 29, 2007 - 08:28 ET by drillanwrHey, everyone ... Just found this clip over at Pat Dollard's site. It's a must listen!
John Gibson: Media Matters Is Lying About Rush Limbaugh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
P.S. Anybody know why Gibson calls KO Bath Tub Boy?
phony msnbc
September 29, 2007 - 08:53 ET by roni personally do not watch matthews and olberman. they are pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous. matthews allows soltz to say limbaugh dodged the draft. of course, their hero clinton didn't do that. i wrote nbc a letter telling them i would not watch games on their network if olby was part of the broadcast in any way. it may not do any good but at least i expressed my opinion. by the way. how can olby call limbaugh a comedian. has he noticed his own ratings lately? now that's funny
Wow!
September 29, 2007 - 09:33 ET by philgagI'm in Iraq right now, I get my Info from TV when I can watch ,but mostly from my computer.I havent heard RUSH in a while but I listen to him daily when I'm home,I know exactly what he was trying to say and I didnt even hear it! They're (MSM)always trying to distort the truth!!!!!. As far as being affected by whats happening back home.....speaking for myself, there is no effect,wer'e here doing a job,were focused and getting the job done regardless of what the MSM says.Keep up the good work back home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hooah!
philgag
September 29, 2007 - 09:41 ET bythanks to you and those serving with you
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Thanks for your
September 29, 2007 - 09:54 ET by drillanwrThanks for your service.
"Phony soldiers" are those who lie about their service and duty experiences.
Say what you will about Limbaugh's politics and on air delivery, the man has/does support the troops with more than just words.
His site has an "Adopt A Soldier" program. And he annually promotes and gives to the Marine charity, opening his radio show up for listener donations also.
delete
September 29, 2007 - 09:26 ET by motherbeltdelete
King David was an atheist
September 29, 2007 - 10:28 ET by fosstenCHRIS MATTHEWS: Today on Hardball, was King David an atheist? Some say we have absolute proof found in his very words. Joining me now is Contessa Brewer from CNN via satellite. Contessa, WOW you look great baby! Turn a little for me, show me that caboose! HAHAAAAAAAA! Just kidding! So what have you got for us?
BREWER: Well, Chris, thanks to a very reliable source who did some masterful research, we can definitively say that King David himself, as quoted in Psalm 14:1, claimed that there is no God. [Caption appears below Contessa in font size 14: "There is no God."] While experts are speculating as to why King David would say such a thing, the words are clear, regardless of what English version you use. We tried to get pastors of several prominent Baptist Churches to comment, but they declined our invitation.
The real question we should be asking is why a statement like that would be found in the Bible. I mean, Chris, these so-called Christians claim God wrote the Bible, but why would a God that wrote the Bible allow words to be printed that discredit his very existence? Some experts say that this is more proof that men wrote the Bible, because this is clearly one of the many contradictions found there, and this also contradicts the "Christians'" claim that an infallible God could not have made a mistake.
MATTHEWS: Ok, thanks Contessa, we always love seeing your a -- er -- face. Come back and bring us an update. Next on Hardball, we will be taking Bush to task for claiming that not one more single solitary American soldier would be killed in Iraq because of the "Mission Accomplished" sign over his shoulder.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Rush is a moron
September 29, 2007 - 10:06 ET by xfastwho stuck his foot deep in his mouth on this one. I've read the entire transcript, and he starts with caller number one blasting him that he's not a Republican because he disagrees with Rush's assessment. Then when the second caller comes on, they are clearly talking about PLURAL numbers of soldiers that the left pulls up, not a singular.
Rush is backtracking as if he were talking about only one soldier, but he's full of it. He is an embarassment to a lot of Republicans because he is totally arrogant, and more conceited than almost anyone I can think of.
While I totally agree the hit on O'Reilly was incorrect, I'm not siding with Rush because either he is flat out lying, or he was very vague in the original transcript and should at least admit it doesn't sound good. There are soldiers who think we should leave, and they have the right to think that. They are the smaller minority as I believe most troops believe in our mission. But there are some who have been to Iraq that think we should leave, and Rush made a blanket statement, regardless of if that was the way he meant it. He should quit being so damned arrogant and at least explain that what he said sounded wrong. But I don't think Rush has ever admitted he is wrong, he think's he is God's gift to America.
Your entire rant has
September 29, 2007 - 10:35 ET by fosstenYour entire rant has already been debunked by John Gibson here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3KE7naoSA
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Rush made a blanket
September 29, 2007 - 10:45 ET by drillanwrRush made a blanket statement, regardless of if that was the way he meant it.
So, in the course of doing a show, the person whose show it is should be extremely careful and spell out word for word exactly what is meant ... with great detail and accuracy? The listener is too damn dumb to understand it any other way? And does this include the likes of an Olberman whose blanket statements insist conservatives and republicans are Nazis/fascists (although I am a conservative/republican I have never attended "meetings" or received literature from Nazi or fascist groups and I am a huge champion of Jews and Israel ...) ... and Matthews who thinks the viewing audience is just his massive spittoon for his random ramblings? That politicians who make the blanket statement that the country is against this war is okay, when it's NOT under the manner by which poll questions were worded and asked and who was actually polled? That blanket statements about the combined income of a two worker household somehow puts them at a "wealthy" level and they must be taxed more, without consideration to their regional cost of living, household budget, and debt? The blanket statement that X-number of people in this country are "uninsured", without defining or breaking down the specifics as to WHY they are uninsured? The blanket statement that Global Warming has complete scientific concensus, when there are just as many scientists on the opposing side whose voices are NOT being magnified in the MSM?
I listened to Rush's show both Thursday and Friday. His "meaning" was quite clear. He has a history of supporting the troops.
I tend to stay away from the "witch hunt" term ... But it really does apply to Limbaugh's case and O`Reilly's. MediaMatters and MSNBC ... and the DNC ... should be investigated and possibly fined for this. I hope Limbaugh's lawyers are busy gathering a law suit against both entities. This is a can of worms MM and the MSM gambled on opening ... and they should be forced to play the hand they were dealt to the end.
What we witnessed yesterday and the day leading up to it in the MSM about this story, and the days/one prior to it re: O`Reilly has been blinding evidence of the dangerous path the liberal media in this country is taking this country down.
drill
September 29, 2007 - 10:50 ET by BlondeI agree with your entire screed....but I'd change one little thing.
"forced to play the hand they were dealt".....The MsM was doing the dealing....from the bottom of the deck, I might add. Filthy rotten lying liars.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
You're right, Blonde ... I
September 29, 2007 - 10:58 ET by drillanwrYou're right, Blonde ... I worded that incorrectly ... Should have been The hand they drew ...
BTW, in addition, right after Glenn Beck got his TV gig on Headline News (CNN) Olberman made a blanket statement that Beck would say something that would cost him his job ... Was that a threat of this sort of media witchcrafting we are seeing now with O`Reilly and Limbaugh?
1) exactly what makes someone as blatantly biased and vicious so confident that he himself won't say something that might just cost him his job?
2) when are the people in this country going to wake up, rub the boogies from their eyes and realize they have given over way, way, WAY too much power to the MSM in this country? I don't believe even the government has as much power.
3) what I have witnessed in the last week has been quite frightening on an Orwellian level even George never anticipated, I believe.
Drill....Orwell
September 29, 2007 - 11:08 ET by BlondeSince you brought up Orwell...I just had to find this to post again. Hillary down on the (animal) farm.
Your (1) comment above is fascinating too. Kind of puts a point on a bit of organization, doesn't it?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
MSM Power?
September 29, 2007 - 14:25 ET by ThisnThatEveryone's getting too carried away here, I think. Rush has millions of listeners. MSNBC has thousands, and it's dropping. MSNBC is trying to convince a handful of liberal believers that Rush is anti-American. Rush has explained to millions of listeners exactly what the problem is.
Who's winning this argument? RUSH is. MSNBC is losing. They have no power.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
The problem is that the DBM
September 29, 2007 - 14:33 ET by fosstenThe problem is that the DBM outlets will pick up this story and make sure they smear Rush just like the lying be-atch Katie Couric did to Rush over the Michael J. Fox flap.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
I not a Rush fan
September 29, 2007 - 14:59 ET by well99There are things I agree with him on but on the most part I dont like or listen to him.I dont dislike him.It is the same with BOR.What I really dislike is propaganda.I listen to both his and BOR's tapes and the msm is doing a smear job.That is BS.You dont make up garbage to hammer someone.That ticks me off to no end.I am a independent and centralist.So I look at the issue and person in office.One thing I really hate is the pieces of s!!! who are spreading these lies.The msm is leftist to me not liberal.Anyone that uses the tactics that I have seen posted is a left wing piece of trash.It reminds me of how totaltarian regimes started.They would make false allegations against their opponents.If you have someting against BOR/Rush then use facts and not a bunch of edited and distorted lies.The msm and those little hate bloggers think people are to stupid to see thru their game.Wrong answer.
Liar
September 29, 2007 - 11:03 ET by JDWWho is not lying;
Murtha- Marines in Haditha engaged in wanton murder
Kerry- American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children...
Durbin- Americans have treated POWs like Nazis did
Schumer- The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, we have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves
JDW
CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?
xfast is a...
September 29, 2007 - 12:24 ET by fitzfongDouchebag.
Please, xfast, hold your precious breath waiting for Rush Limbaugh to apologize for his "phony soldiers" remark. There is absolutely nothing to apologize for, what he said was entirely true. This "controversy" is just a lame Media Matters concoction meant to create the impression that they support the troops and Rush Limbaugh does not. Nice try, they're not fooling anyone (except people like you who wish to be fooled)...least of all, the troops. Contrary to what John Kerry would have you believe, the real soldiers are more than intelligent enough to know the difference between someone who actually supports the troops (Rush Limbaugh, for instance) and someone who pretends to support the troops exclusively for political gain (Media Matters comes to mind). Sure, there are soldiers who legitimately oppose the war...but they're nowhere near even a small minority. But anti-war libs play this shell game where they attempt to use the anti-war soldiers to speak for all the troops. Then they seize on known frauds ("phony soldiers", mmm) like MacBeth, Kerry and Beauchamp to lie about the conduct of other soldiers in an attempt to grab some of the moral high ground. It's beyond phony...it's treasonous. Now crawl back in your hole and keep holding that breath...
ALL
September 29, 2007 - 13:05 ET by JDWBoth blaster and xfast posted biased stupid statements and disappeared.
Why post something so controversial only to exit stage left?
What does it say about their positions?
What does it say about their intentions?
JDW
CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?
What does it say about
September 29, 2007 - 14:08 ET by maggieqpublicWhat does it say about their intentions?
Maybe their intent is just to fan the flames of the Limbaugh phony story. That keeps subjects such as Soros, Hsu, David Shuster’s outrage, et.al., off center stage for awhile.
Serious question, fitz: Do
September 29, 2007 - 19:17 ET by JerSerious question, fitz: Do you know whether Rush has ever apologized for any remark in all of his--how long is it now...nineteen?--years at his current gig? I know he made a sort of, I'm-really-not-all-that-sorry, conditional "apology" in the Michael J. Fox dustup, but I'm talking about a full-blown, unequivocal statement of regret for something he said on air.
I presume you and most, if not all, of Rush's fans believe he has never done or said anything to warrrant an apology, and, frankly, the current charge seems rather flimsy in comparison to some of his past comments, even if his "phony soldiers" reference is interpreted in the most negative context possible. Assuming he was applying the term to others besides MacBeth, it hardly reaches the red zone on the offensive meter. (In fact, I was bothered more by some of his statements accompanying his explanation than by the original colloquy which caused the firestorm.)
Anyway, knowing you're a big fan of Rush, I thought I would ask.
Thanks, Jer
Serious question, Jer
September 29, 2007 - 19:27 ET by RJWhen did you hear Limbaugh apologize for what he said about Michael Fox?
As for the current attempted smear by the left, go back and read the transcript again. MediaMatters has it posted. In it, Rush says that he had talked about these "fake soldiers" in an earlier broadcast. (MediaMatters even printed his description, from that earlier broadcast, of one of those Phony Soldiers and exactly why he was "phony.")
It follows, then, that Rush was aware of exactly who he was speaking about when he said Phony Soldiers, and it wasn't "veterans returning from Iraq to complain about the war" as the media has put it.
It also follows that MediaMatters, Matthews, Olberman, etc, etc, are either too stupid to follow that logic...or they're lying....a tossup.
Rush apologies
September 29, 2007 - 19:56 ET by balboaThey're hardly ever serious. When he called the Duke lacrosse woman a "ho" he tried to act like he was apologizing later, but wasn't sincere.
Look, dude. I may not
September 29, 2007 - 20:14 ET by fitzfongLook, dude. I may not agree with Jer most of the time, but at least Jer comes to the table with legitimate points and substantive questions. Where, exactly, did you get your information on the "exotic dancer"? I don't remember him calling her a "ho", and I certainly don't remember him apologizing later. Your accusation sounds made-up...though I've come to expect that from you.
And you know my points
September 29, 2007 - 20:19 ET by balboaAnd you know my points aren't substantive because...you say so? He said it. I didn't make it up. And I haven't made up anything else I've posted on here, even if you -- for some reason, apparently -- expect it.
bal, since it's doubtful that you listen to Rush
September 29, 2007 - 20:27 ET by RJI suspect you picked up your "information" from some site or other. Link, please.
Well, since it's doubtful,
September 29, 2007 - 20:34 ET by balboaWell, since it's doubtful, you can go ahead an ignore my comment, right? You're right; I completely made the whole thing up. I do that a lot, make things up about people just for fun, so then I can post it on messageboards.
That's childish, bal
September 29, 2007 - 20:41 ET by RJI made a logical statement and followed up with a request for a link. I said nothing about making up or ignoring.
Logical.
September 29, 2007 - 20:44 ET by balboaLogical. Hm.
http://mediamatters....
Nice that you can tell from that that Rush wasn't "sincere", bal
September 29, 2007 - 20:50 ET by RJBut more interesting to me is that you use MediaMatters as a source. I had a higher opinion of you.
There aren't a lot of other
September 29, 2007 - 20:52 ET by balboaThere aren't a lot of other websites that keep transcripts of Rush's show where he calls someone a "ho." Where else am I supposed to get the info? There's an audio clip, too.
So, did you go to MM just now to confirm,
September 29, 2007 - 21:00 ET by RJor did you already "know" the information at the time of your original post?
See, if you already "knew" it, it means you use MM regularly as a source....and that's a contradiction of your implying that you don't. ;^>
I don't like to use MM as a
September 29, 2007 - 21:07 ET by balboaI don't like to use MM as a source, but it can lead to the original source sometimes. In this case, I Googled "rush limbaugh hos", and tried to find a non-MM source, but everything linked to MM. So...what's a guy to do?
So, since "everything links back to MM"
September 29, 2007 - 21:18 ET by RJit means that your original source was MM. You're getting all tangled up, bal. ;^>
Tangled up in what? MM was
September 29, 2007 - 21:23 ET by balboaTangled up in what? MM was the "deepest" source I could find to back up my recollection of the incident.
That's not what I said, bal
September 29, 2007 - 21:31 ET by RJBut that's ok. You're not keeping up, so I'll just say goodnight....
Bal sorry. Bal try to keep
September 29, 2007 - 21:49 ET by balboaBal sorry. Bal try to keep up better next time.
For argument's sake, let's
October 1, 2007 - 15:27 ET by MikeBFor argument's sake, let's say Rush did call the "exotic dancer" in the Duke LaCrosse story a "ho". Let's look at the facts: upon examination of DNA evidence from the "lady" in question, there was found DNA from five different men in and on her. So, the female in question had recently had sexual intercourse (whether or not protection was used is immaterial) with at least five different men (none of the DNA matched up to any of the LaCrosse players). That sounds like wh*rish behavior to me. If Rush did call her a "ho" or, more specifically, a wh*re, he was right on the money, and owes or owed no apology. If this female got her feelings hurt from Rush's alleged comment, then perhaps she ought not act like a wh*re.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Well, at least you're
September 29, 2007 - 20:43 ET by fitzfongWell, at least you're finally being honest.
No, bal, I know your
September 29, 2007 - 20:42 ET by fitzfongNo, bal, I know your "points" aren't substantive because they usually aren't. If you make a blanket accusation, as you often do, it becomes your obligation to substantiate it. I am saying that you, balboa, have ZERO credibility. I am not going to take your claims at face value because you have never given any reason to do so. So, go fetch.
I don't make blanket
September 29, 2007 - 20:43 ET by balboaI don't make blanket accusations. And I'm not really concerned with how credible you think I am. You fetch.
It's not a question of how
September 29, 2007 - 20:48 ET by fitzfongIt's not a question of how credible I think you are. It's a FACT. You have NO credibility. In other words, you're a liar. Waste someone else's time with your pathetic fiction.
"In other words, you're a
September 29, 2007 - 20:50 ET by balboa"In other words, you're a liar."
Oh, I get it: you're actually SP in disguise. Intriguing...
SP?
September 29, 2007 - 20:56 ET by fitzfongOh, you mean someone else knows that you're a lying sack of excrement? Don't be too shocked, balboa. You're not nearly as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
Eh...you can do better than
September 29, 2007 - 20:58 ET by balboaEh...you can do better than that. C'mon, REALLY insult me. But the good news is you couldn't possibly be SP because your sentence structure is too good.
dammit RJ, [is it O.K. to
September 29, 2007 - 20:19 ET by Jerdammit RJ, [is it O.K. to say "dammit" here?]. Anyway, dammit RJ, I had just finished a medium long reply to you and just as I was about to post it, I got a "webpage has expired" message and my brilliant response completely evaporated. This happened a lot during my early visits to NB, but not in the past three months.
Is it happening to anyone else or am I the victim of some vast right-wing conspiracy?
Jer
it's all you Jer
September 29, 2007 - 20:21 ET bybecause you do not occassionally hit the "preview comment" button which resets the clock and allows you to continue your comment until you are ready to hit the "post comment"
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Jer, in truth, I think
September 29, 2007 - 20:06 ET by fitzfongJer, in truth, I think people hear what they choose to hear. You're right, Rush did make a semi-apology in the Michael J. Fox case. However, I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I don't believe he should have expressed any sort of apology in that case. Like it or not, Michael J. Fox allowed himself to be exploited by a political action group to distort Jim Talent and Michael Steele's "opposition" to all stem cell research. The Democrats went to great lengths in that election to cloud the issue of stem cell research to suggest that opposition to government funding for embryonic stem cell research was somehow akin to opposition of the administration of all stem cell research...and thus was a sign of indifference and even outright hostility to sufferers of terrible diseases like Parkinson's. It was a shamefully dishonest campaign, and Michael J. Fox played a major role in the distortion by adjusting his intake of prescribed medication to enhance the visible symptoms of his disease for the cameras. One of the routines consistently used by Democrat strategists is the "lead with the victim" approach. Take a victim (a "Jersey Girl" 9-11 widow, a relative of James Byrd, Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, Hillary Clinton in the debate with Rick Lazio), inject them into the political debate, encourage them to overstate the position and use their victimhood as cover for any substantive scrutiny. It's the old "you'd never hit a man with glasses" ploy...any substantive criticism of a victim is automatically considered bullying. Limbaugh was illustrating that very point...he indicated that Fox must have been off his meds when he shot this ad. While he was talking about it, he illustrated Fox's movement on the Dittocam...of course MSNBC later admitted to looping his movement for maximum effect. In my view, Limbaugh had nothing to apologize for.
A similar situation took place when he worked briefly on ESPN covering the NFL. He made a comment about the media's desire to have a successful black quarterback, thus causing them to overrate Donavan McNab. Somehow this turned into Rush Limbaugh harassing a black quarterback because he was black.
Limbaugh acknowledges that he's always going to have a target on his back...it comes with the territory. But it smacks of lazy partisanship when a nobody like David Shuster attempts to create a new Rush Limbaugh scandal out of absolutely nothing. Look, Jer, I don't know what you want from Rush Limbaugh...and even if you got what you wanted from him, what would it accomplish, exactly?
It's completely obvious!
September 29, 2007 - 10:47 ET by c5thenRush is talking about the false witnesses that the liberal media trot out to push their propaganda. When someone, especially military, says they are against the "war" or in favor of a cut-and-run policy, the liberal media do not look into their background or even ask reasonable questions about why. All they do is prominently feature them as "experts" in some form or another.
Jesse MacBeth is only the most recent one to be uncovered.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
These traitors in the
September 29, 2007 - 11:11 ET by Conservative_in_mass.These traitors in the media, who have spent an enormous amount of time second guessing, ridiculing, smearing and lying about our men in women in uniform are attempting to come to the"support" the military against someone like Limbaugh?
By attempting to take down Rush, they are by proxy attempting to further weaken this nations' GWOT. They are fully aware that Limbaugh is on the side of the military. It's just the fact that these disingenuous ba***rds can't pass up an opportunity to whack the other side, facts be damned.
The more these people try to advance their agenda the more idiotic they look. I say, let them go right over the cliff.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
The more these people try
September 29, 2007 - 11:58 ET by drillanwrThe more these people try to advance their agenda the more idiotic they look. I say, let them go right over the cliff.
Can we give `em a nudge? ... Just a little one ... ???
Drill a nudge would work but...
September 29, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Conservative_in_mass.I was thinking more along the lines of throwing a bag of cement at them as they peer over the edge. After all, you may need something to counteract the air pockets inside their heads...
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Don't you guys get it?
September 29, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Free StinkerDon't you guys get it? ;-)
This is one of the first battles of the 2008 presidential election!
They're trying to take out anyone who could say something negative about Hillary. O'Reilly, Rush, who's next? Hannity, Levin, Crowley, Grant (and they "got" him once) . . .
I bet that even Imus was considered too dangerous to be left alone out there. This guy lets McCain come on his show, and for all of McCain's RINO negatives, the guy might be campaigning for his buddy Fred Thompson if he gets the nomination. Can't have that.
This is information warfare.
Free:
September 29, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Conservative_in_mass.out a doubt you are correct. It's a media lunch mob that's out to get anyone who will criticize the Hildebeast.
Imagine if these information nazis ever get their wish with the "Fairness Doctrine"?
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
The media keeps pressing
September 29, 2007 - 11:26 ET by kgThe media keeps pressing that "Phony Soldiers" was plural. Well, it seems to me it should be plural. Besides MacBeth in the Iraq war there was Kerry in the Vietnam war. Plurals are used when there are two or more Phony Sildiers.
The Very Liberal MSM is disgusting
September 29, 2007 - 12:01 ET by WiggyI wonder when they are going to criticize John Edwards for saying:
“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating —
pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male
population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One
of the two.”
Oh, that's right, they won't because it doesn't fit their agenda to smear every conservative and Republican they can. They know good and well that if they had to talk about issues people would not vote for Democrats.
I am Retired Navy. I KNOW what Rush was referring to.
Wiggy -
September 29, 2007 - 12:05 ET by drillanwrI am Retired Navy. I KNOW what Rush was referring to.
Oh, please ... No you don't! Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, CNN, MSNBC and MediaMatters say you, and the rest of us unwashed masses of piss-ons, don't ... ;^ )
Y`all, well worth the MUST
September 29, 2007 - 15:05 ET by drillanwrY`all, well worth the MUST read (via h/t instapundit) WOW!!! :
Limbaugh On Solid Ground On "Phony Soldiers"
http://influencepeddler.blogspot.com/2007/09/limbaugh-on-solid-ground-on-phony.html
And YES! Limbaugh DID mean these "soldiers", damn it! How do I know (and I can do this WITHOUT using the mind-reading the liberals are trying to pull off here) ...
1) because I IMMEDIATELY thought about these "soldiers" when he said "phony soldiers"!!!
2) as a regular Limbaugh listener I know Limbaugh's history/background on troop/military support, and his disdain for the fakes and the political idiots
3) Soros, Olberman, Matthews, Kerry, the LLLMSM can all bite me and kiss my a--- Never mind ... I forgot I haven't had a tetanus shot since 1962 ... They can all sit and spin on it
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay ... Been a stretch today since I posted the link above. I hope the no-replies to it don't mean you guys haven't visited and read it.
Last night I gave poster "cathearder" (I think it was the name) 4 names of "phony soldiers". The story on the link above has several additional links to many such stories as Jesse MacBeth's (seems phony soldiers is a bit of a growing epidemic across the country). Here's a telling paragraph sample:
... How serious is the problem of 'phony soldiers?' Congress last year passed legislation to allow prosecution of people who claimed medals that they had not earned. It passed both the House and Senate unanimously. It was introduced by Congressman John Salazar (D-CO), whose press release on the measure lists several phony heroes -- Michael O'Brien, Lawrence Hammer, and Gilbert Velasquez. The stories above mentioned Larry Porter, Merrick Hersey, Michael Heit, Carlos Valle Rios (a registered sex offender, by the way), Preston Garris, Glenn Marshall, Tim DeBusk... the list goes on and on. According to NPR, there are 50 ongoing investigations by the FBI into violations of Salazar's legislation. ...
Noel or Matthew, maybe you guys should add this to the NB page after you've had time to go through the whole thing?
Transcript does not support Media Matters
September 29, 2007 - 17:50 ET by Alfred J. LemireThanks to the Internet, and even hostile sources like Media Matters, one can read transcripts and hear primary sources. Rush did say "phony soldiers." Media Matters also concluded, in a headline, that, "Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are 'phony soldiers.' " And in the lead sentence of the intern's post: "Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq 'phony soldiers.' He made the comment. . . ." None of the stuff after the first "phony soldiers" rests on anything Rush said.
The intern did not cite the instance where he said anything in the repeated assertion other than the words "phony soldiers." Here are the relevant words, from Media Matters' own transcription:
LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even—if—the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull—what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t—I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: “Save the—keep the troops safe” or whatever. I—it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.
Those words do not support the Media Matters intern's conclusion. One wonders: did any regular staffer review the intern's writing before it was posted?
The Media Matters site appears to have been known to MSNBC staffers or they directly used it. (It's remotely possible that some redhot provided information with which MSNBC staffers ran.) It's a serious journalistic blunder not to check out what Rush actually said, either by reading a transcript or trying to reach Rush. (He has said that no one from MSNBC contacted him.)
MSNBC staffers possibly did read beyond the wholly unsupported Media Matters conclusion. But if so, why didn't they see that Rush's words did not back Media Matters' notion of what he said? One can't know what happened. For the sake of MSNBC's reputation, one hopes someone in responsibility there has asked a few questions about what happened. MSNBC had some retired officer on who proved clueless about what Rush had said and expounded at some length about something for which Rush was totally blameless. Rush has said stupid things. He has plenty of opportunity to err. But not this time. I'd fault him only for not recognizing that a few soldiers have called for a pullout. We know this because seven wrote an op-ed that ran in the New York Times. (The Times unsurprisingly rejected an eloquent op-ed supportive of the war effort, from someone who has served in Iraq.}
Further, the transcript shows that an earlier caller claimed he was a Republican, with "some military" experience. He argued for the U.S. to pull out of an unwinnable war. I suspect that call and Rush's reaction to it affected Rush's later remarks. Rush said he doubted the caller was a Republican. Rush, like other call-in hosts, have had to face numerous callers who were not who they claimed to be; it's possible Rush thought the military reference was false. Rush was wrong, however, to question whether the man was a Republican. Being Republican does not prevent one from being wrong on Iraq, though most Republicans have the sense not to give al Qaeda and other militants a victory.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, the highly unpleasant John Kerry, Chris Van Hollen, and sundry other reckless Democratic Party politicians and like-minded bloggers took their cues from Media Matters and expanded on what the intern imagined, often with ad hominem references to Rush. As is almost always the case, people who insult others end up looking worse than their target(s).
The correct conclusion, condensed
September 29, 2007 - 18:14 ET by Alfred J. LemireI should add the entirety of a posting made at another site. It doesn't provide evidence, but has the virtue of being like the author: short:
This writer can be succinct.
The Internet lets one hear what Rush said. It lets one read the transcript of his remarks, even at mediamatters.com, which is hostile to him. It’s not a big deal. Anyone can do it. Doesn’t take long.
Rush said “phony soldiers” but in no way did that remark attack anyone other than “phony soldiers.” Faulty conclusions and commentary based on errors, including ad hominem argumentation, have further discredited many Democratic politicians, people working in the news business, and fellow believers on the left.
With the primary sources so easily investigated, one wonders why Rush’s critics didn’t check out the transcript before adding to the evidence that their information and their views are unreliable.
I just checked out Media Matter's website
September 29, 2007 - 18:44 ET by Aetius728They are claiming that the clip Rush played yesterday was edited. It appears that they are correct, as they have audio of his comments on Thursday. Though since it is Media Matters one can never be certain.
However, the comments they claim Rush left out do not change the context, or the fact that they manufactured the story by taking his quotes out of context.
Those are good points, Aetius
September 29, 2007 - 18:58 ET by RJI also had a discussion here yesterday about the MediaMatterstranscript (on another thread).
As I told the lefty poster, Rush said in the transcript that he had discussed the subject of Phony Soldiers in an earlier program. Therefore, Rush had to have known that he was talking about specific lying soldiers and not "Iraq veterans who are speaking out against the war."
Either MediaMatters staff are too stupid to put that together, or they are lying.....a tossup.
To his credit the poster (Catherder) admitted that MM was wrong.
Rush apologies
September 29, 2007 - 23:16 ET by timotheI specifically recall two Rush apologies. The first was recent, when he apologized to the President of the mail carriers union. That issue was too long and convoluted to regurgitate, but it turned out that Rush wasn't really wrong.
The second time was when he apologized to his audience after admitting his pain killing drugs addiction.
Say what you will about Rush, but he's been doing three hours of radio 5 days a week for 19 years with many many many enemies. And none of them have been able to bring him down. That's amazing on two levels; that he kept enough of his audience for that length of time to remain relevant and that Rush's success and longetivity proves that our great nation still does allow for freedom of speech.
Actually, his "apology" to
September 30, 2007 - 00:05 ET by fitzfongActually, his "apology" to the president of the mail carrier's union was sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. He had nothing to apologize for. This was an example of his illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
pay the fiddler
September 30, 2007 - 09:24 ET by CatherwoodProblem is Mathews, Olberman and the rest of the drive-bys are never held accountable for their lies and deceptions. The left is that way. Slick Willy was never held accountable for all the lies he told and the havoc he wreaked. Billary the Ice Queen has never been held accountable the the lies she told and the lives she destroyed, i.e. Travelgate. Consequently, the haters on the lest have only to say what they want and do what they want with impunity. It is we, the American people, who will have to pay the price for all these lies and Al Jazeera talking points provided by the left to our enemies. Someday, somewhere along the line this evil propaganda fomented by the left is going to result in a weakness that will cause a lot of Americans to die. Even then, these sniveling liberals will deny their part in the weakening of the American spirit. Their's is only a mission to deconstruct American and to constuct a socialist nation where America once stood. They are weaklings who can't stand and fight, so they cast empty lies up into the wind and see where they blow. They are the scum of the earth.
Catherwood
September 30, 2007 - 09:43 ET byit's off-topic but did you see this?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Their desperation is a sure
September 30, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Andrew H.Their desperation is a sure sign he still gets to them... the MSM liars and con artists who take advantage of a dumb population--like Hillary does.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Troop Haters Among Us
August 19, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Edwardhttp://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3553
Troop Haters Among Us, American veterans are the largest single group discriminated against. “If you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you. Is that a bargain?” is from Alice In Wonderland. Did you know that American veterans are the largest single group of American citizens discriminated against? Why aren’t veterans protected against discrimination? Health care, home loans and home purchases are the three areas veterans are discriminated against the most in. Since I started this Among Us series, I get a wide range of stories from people. Some of these people are angry. Others are crying. Some are perplexed. Others are frustrated. Some are desperate. Others are in shock. Enough time has gone by that I am now getting information on a person or business from more than one source. Some I have personal knowledge of. It is way past time veterans also are a State and Federally protected class of American citizen. Certain classes of people are Federally protected against discrimination. Classes such as race, nationality, ethnicity, marital status, age, familial status, disability, etc. in loans, leasing and selling of houses in Fair Housing in Housing and Urban Development, in employment such as in the Equal Employment Opportunity, and access as in the American With Disabilities Act.The Reno-Tahoe area has many good things going for it. Another one of them is the regional VA Medical Center. As a disabled Navy Viet Nam vet, when I lived in the Bay Area I used to go to the San Francisco VA. It had excellent care. The VA hospital here is also excellent. When the VA Hospital is overwhelmed, as it often is with the massive influx of younger veterans from The supercilious War On Terror, it out-sources us. It gives us vouchers to pay for our medical care. The reason is that the VA is a health care plan – one exclusively for veterans. The intent of the VA is that a veteran gets health care outside the VA and their health insurance covering them is VA. No different from other health care insurance providers such as Kaiser, Blue Cross, Hometown Health, etc. Great idea except the private sector refuses to treat veterans with VA insurance. Such as Ed Angelini. Melody Cote was one of the people at Dr. Angelini’s office that hung up on veterans with a VA voucher. One of those veterans was me. She is now a Realtor. Her husband, Jack Cote, is formally of RemCor Realty . Both are now with Coldwell Banker Village Realty. Dr. Angelini, Mrs. Cote was quick to send us to war and certainly enjoy the daily benefits of living in a free society. Yet, they denied their services to veterans. Services for which they advertise they do, will be paid to do by the VA, yet they refuse to provide their service solely because the patient seeking their service is a veteran.Same story for a veteran seeking to use their GI Bill to purchase their home. I have also received several complaints about Realtors and loan officers that will not work with a veteran wanting to buy their home with a VA insured home loan. I myself had the same problem with a Realtor named Danny Podesto. I called Senator Harry Reid and spoke with a Susan Lisagor for Senator Reid to sponsor legislation to add veterans to the protected list so veterans can’t be discriminated against.I want American veterans immediately added to the protected class of citizen for discrimination. We have State and Federal laws to protect against discrimination. It is way past time veterans also are a State and Federally protected class of American citizen. The Salvation Army (a Hero Among Us) is the only store I’ve ever found that gives me a Veteran’s discount upon presentation of my Veterans ID.Others (Troop-Haters Among Us) that I have received stories that have denied services to veterans solely because of the veterans’ VA insurance or the use of a Veterans ID.NO pharmacy in town out side of the VA pharmacy.Doctors: Dr. Terance Cochrane, Eyetech Visioncare, Dr. Thomas Komadina, Sierra Eye Associates, Dr. Geoffrey Cecchi, Family Eyecare Associates, Dr. Michael Fischer, Dr. Hum, Dr. Denis Humphreys, Dr. Stanley Plecha, Dr. Tyson Kales, Dr. Evan Pritchett, Dr. Christine Siebert, Dr. William Durant, Dr. Bud Schonder, Dr. Michael Stanko.Realtors: Rose Newman with Prudential Nevada Realty, Carl Jorgensen with Coldwell Banker Village Realty, David Morris with RE/MAX, Donna Clark with Dickson Realty, Greg Cook with RemCor, Dana Haley with Keller Williams,w Veena Ranganath with Coldwell Banker Plummer, Corey Carter with Keller Williams, Linda Hartman with Century 21, Chris Harris with Coldwell Banker Village Realty, Michael Robinson with Chase, Rodley Moser with Dickson Realty, Jonathan Wornardt with Coldwell Banker Village Realty.Loan Officers: Brent Harte with CTX Mortgage, Kevin Anderson with Countrywide, Gina Nolte with Indymac, Sheryl Christensen with Countrywide.Banks: Bank of America refuses to accept a Veterans' ID. That also happened to me. Many of the stories I got about this discrimination were from elderly and/or disabled veterans. They do not drive so their only ID is their Veterans ID.“If you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you. Is that a bargain?” If these businesses will believe in and support us veterans, then I’ll believe in and support them. Until then, to stop the discrimination against veterans, I will not use them. I wrote this article. I tell others about the discrimination. I ask that you do not use those that discriminate against veterans, and that you contact your local and Federal representatives telling them to sponsor and support legislation adding veterans to the protected classes. Veterans served so that every American citizen enjoys the benefits of a free society. However, the veterans do not get respect, or the benefits we paid to get. If you enjoy your freedom, thank and support a vet. If not, get the hell out of America. Copyright © 2008 Craig BEd
Edward
August 19, 2008 - 21:47 ET bywhat's the jist of your comment, and how does it apply to the story??
i ask because i believe you have something valid to contribute, but when people see repeated cut & paste of the same comment they will ignore it.
Perhaps you would want to post a forum topic?
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
botg... Hey I just wanted
August 19, 2008 - 21:52 ET by bigtimerbotg...
Hey I just wanted to thank you real quick, I just couldn't figure out how to put what you did without sounding mean.
A forum post is a great idea Edward.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh