Rush Limbaugh was convicted of racism in a kangaroo court of "objective" media and dropped as a potential owner of the St. Louis Rams football franchise. His accusers claimed he once said slavery "had its merits" and that the assassin of Martin Luther King deserved a "Medal of Honor." The story circulated on the Internet and was eventually picked up by the major media, including both CNN and MSNBC.
But no one bothered fact-checking. In fact, his accusers and those media that repeated the accusations never stopped to ponder there was no need to fact-check this, so obvious were the fabrications.
Start with this reality: One could clearly dismiss these quotes as fabrications based on the simple fact that Rush would never have uttered them, since he doesn’t believe them. Period.
Add to it this second piece of common sense: Were Rush guilty of uttering this garbage back in 1998, would we really be discussing it for the first time in October of 2009? Common sense tells us that if he made these comments on his show, his advertisers would dump him so quickly he’d be out of a job by sundown.
Let’s give the media a break and conclude that when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, they just have no common sense. Fine. That’s where fact-checking comes in. A couple of minutes on the computer would have proven that these quotes were pure fantasy, put forward by radical leftists, with no substantiation whatsoever, purely to assassinate this man’s character, as is their wont.
But the Left – including many in the "news" media -- is so blinded by its hatred of Rush Limbaugh that it will accept any accusation as authentic, and the more salacious, the better.
Start with CNN. This network is so prideful of its professionalism that it fact-checks comedy skits on "Saturday Night Live." Clearly it needs to focus less on comedy shows on NBC and more on the "news" coming from its own anchors.
On Monday October 12, afternoon anchor Rick Sanchez showed his expertise at hit-and-run journalism by repeating the "slavery had its merits" quote as fact, with no effort whatsoever to authenticate it before moving on. When it was made clear that no authentication existed, and an apology was in order, instead Sanchez made matters worse. The following day again he read the offensive fabrication, but this time added Limbaugh’s denial, "to be fair to Rush," thus keeping alive the possibility that the accusation was truthful. On Friday, four days after they broadcast a falsehood, Sanchez finally delivered an apology.
MSNBC was even worse. They kept pushing the fake quotes even after it was apparent to everyone that they had not been substantiated. Their on-screen citation for the slavery quote was even sillier. It wasn’t a newspaper. It was a linebacker: "Cited by James Farrior, Pittsburgh Steelers." After sliming Limbaugh from Monday to Thursday, on Friday MSNBC’s David Shuster finally acknowledged they needed to "clarify" their sloppiness: "MSNBC attributed that quote to a football player who was opposed to Limbaugh’s NFL bid. However, we have been unable to verify that quote independently. So, just to clarify." No retraction, no apology.
Earth to MSNBC: the best time to verify your quotes is before you broadcast them across the nation for four days. But that would have hurt MSNBC’s pressure on the NFL to dump Rush. "Clarifications" can wait until the damage is done.
These cable networks were not alone. Newspapers from USA Today to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published these howlers from sports writers, and liberal talk-radio hosts put the lies in heavy rotation. Washington Post sportswriter Michael Wilbon spewed the phony slavery quote on his ESPN show "Pardon the Interruption." That show could now be called "Pardon the Fabrication."
Now match this war on Limbaugh with the White House’s war on Fox News, and what you see is a blatant campaign by the Left to "delegitimize" conservative talkers and alternative media outlets. Is there anything that sounds more hermetically sealed in a liberal bubble than claiming Fox News is not a "legitimate" news network because it reports information with a "perspective"? If there’s anything more bizarre in the last week than watching Al Sharpton attack anyone else for being "racially divisive," it’s watching David Axelrod complain to George Stephanopoulos that the news shouldn’t come with a partisan "perspective."
Team Obama’s idea of "straight news" is that which goes straight from Rahm Emanuel’s cellphone into Stephanopoulos’s mouth. Team Obama’s idea of news without "perspective" is Brian Williams broadcasting publicity stunts like Obama buying hamburgers for his staff and the "news" of the day is how many apples can be spotted at the White House.
The only thing in their way is the emerging alternative media, which is why they’re out to destroy Rush Limbaugh.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ya know it would almost
October 20, 2009 - 14:08 ET by Dan The Man 2Ya know it would almost seem that the WH is behind this and possibly other full court presses from the SCM. And I dont think they have any sense other than the idea they are making money and kicking the agenda can down the road.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
The cabal know's exactly
October 20, 2009 - 14:17 ET by Apodicticwhat it's doing. They are pushing us toward martial law and armed conflict. Come get ya some.
RUSH MENTIONS M WORD TOO
October 21, 2009 - 07:54 ET by reelman46RUSH FINALLY MENTIONS THE M WORD
What has changed the past 40 years or so? What is at the heart of American cultural decay?
Any thinking person realizes its MORALITY.
That is why I say modern liberalism is now simply secular socialism.
Secular socialism is NOT progressive in any way! The terms
“progressive” and “liberal” are way out of date and should NEVER be
used to describe national democrat principles. Some would say secular
socialism is “the new religion”. I agree.
When TRADITIONAL American families are consistently trashed (undermined) via TV.
When national politicians break all-time lying records on a weekly basis treated as EXCUSED expected behavior.
When TRADITIONAL adult authority in general is serially disrespected in media.
When white families become 28% fornication shack-ups and 76% of black families the same.
When homosexual activists seek public school pre-teen indoctrination.
When abortion and pot use are defended by millions as some sort of basic human rights.
When homosexual activists invade and disturb Church services.
When the housewife is portrayed as a “she-man and surgeon” while the husband can barely tie his shoes unassisted.
When profanity seeps daily into public TV as “a given”.
When fornication becomes a mandatory plot or subplot or actually a “cultural given”.
When atheists have public buses carrying their “don'’t need no God” message.
When people of faith or churches are continually portrayed as dangerous
sicko cultural kooks (except for islam of course)…guess what?
Your country has been attacked by the secularists and they are winning…big time!
Are you happy with the results?
Morals matter, character counts.
(Remember…calling me judgmental makes you judgmental so get off that false comeback)
http://conservablogs...
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
The other media outlets HAD BETTER get the message
October 20, 2009 - 14:33 ET by TexasMom0517Even Nixon didn't so blatantly and publicly threaten reporters! No "journalist" can say they didn't get Emanuel and Axelrod's warning- Don't investigate any stories you might see on Fox or YOU will get the same treatment. They were VERY clear on the Sunday talk shows!
I used to think that such intimidation/coercion just happened among the criminal class. I guess now it's part of the political class' modus operandi.
Saw this coming
October 20, 2009 - 14:53 ET by BluegillThe media is going from cheering BHO to being afraid to oppose him. Thank god for fox, internet and talk radio.
The BHO adiministration is
October 20, 2009 - 14:21 ET by mattmThe BHO adiministration is the fulfillment of the Leftist dream being played out before our eyes.
They're taking over industry; they are deliberately bankrupting the country to expand the population of government dependants; their health-care plan, in direct contradiction to their stated goals, is sepecifically designed to limit choice, and on and on and on...
It's no surprise that they would try to shut down opposing voices, since they believe opposition to their viewpoint is morally wrong, and they, despite their howls against moralism, are the sole arbiters of right and wrong in this society - as they see it.
This may sound outrageous, but it isn't. People, even JFK Democrats and Scoop Jackson types, and even open-minded linerals (if there is such a thing) had better wake up pretty soon, or we can kiss Liberty goodbye for at least a generation.
The chances of Rush being
October 20, 2009 - 15:06 ET by JerThe chances of Rush being muzzled are roughly equivalent to those of my dog flying to the moon tomorrow. And I don't even own a dog.
When Rush could utter the damnable, despicable lie that 'Bill Clinton and Janet Reno deliberately incinerated innocent women and children at Waco, and liberals didn't care because they don't like religious people' and not only not be chastised but later be invited to White House sleepovers with President Bush toting his bags, I realized that Limbaugh was truly untouchable and indeed the de facto leader of the Republican party.
He won't be fired. He can't be fired. He's way too big for that. He can only be condemned, and should be.
Jer
Ignore
October 20, 2009 - 15:25 ET by richb313Ignore
you've mentioned this a few times
October 20, 2009 - 15:43 ET by katainkentwondering if this is the same quote.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
No kata... But it's a
October 20, 2009 - 16:18 ET by JerNo kata... But it's a variation of the same theme. I personally heard him say it, so there is no question about his making the statement. It was in the late 90's, and I'm pretty certain it was in the summer of either 1998 or 1999--probably late August. I say this because it was while I was driving from Atlanta to Destin, Fla. which I did in August of both of those years.
There was a report that came out [in Aug. 1999 I believe] regarding the type of tear gas used by the FBI which may have prompted Limbaugh's tirade.
Jer
The chances of Rush being
October 20, 2009 - 15:49 ET by Dan The Man 2The chances of Rush being muzzled are roughly equivalent to those of my dog flying to the moon tomorrow. And I don't even own a dog.
Jer, you dont understand or are a willful participant. They will shoot a dog into space and say its yours and the public will believe it. Once you understand that then you might get out of that line of lemmings jumping off the cliff. But I dont hold much hope for you so I'll say bye right now.
As far as Waco, it was a screwup of huge proportions. I have an inside scoop from an ex intelegence specialist that the first shot was an accident. It seems one of the government men was on the roof and he slid a bit and his firearm discharged. Well, that is the story I heard from what was a reliable source back then.
BTW source the Rush comment.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Dan...
October 20, 2009 - 19:23 ET by JerIf you or anyone else can tell me how to access ten year old transcripts of Limbaugh's broadcasts, I'll be more than happy to corroborate what I very explicitly heard him say.
Jer
Jer thats not how it works,
October 21, 2009 - 10:45 ET by Dan The Man 2Jer thats not how it works, if you cant back it up then it probably aint so. Its like if I said "Jer said he was a fifth collumnist a while back" and could not back it up. Yes I used a term taht gets under your skin for the simple reason it works and you might understand the comparison better.
Basically if you cant produce the goods then you are guilty of slander.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
"Probably ain't so"? I
October 21, 2009 - 15:16 ET by Jer"Probably ain't so"? I hope you're not suggesting I just made the whole thing up, Dan. I HEARD RUSH MAKE THE CLAIM. I WAS LISTENING TO HIS SHOW WHEN HE SAID IT.
Truth is an absolute defense to slander. I told the truth. If there are unedited transcripts or audios of all of his shows, the words will speak for themselves. If Rush wants me to submit to a polygraph, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
Also, consider this: In light of Slyrr's recollection of a closely related statement by Rush about Waco, do you not believe it a reasonably likely that he also made the one I referred to?
Your post is ludicrous, Dan.
Jer
Your post is ludicrous,
October 21, 2009 - 16:01 ET by Dan The Man 2Your post is ludicrous, Dan
ROFLMAO, because you say so. Thats what I'm talking about its your word Jer. Your word dont mean squat if you cant back it up with the goods. In the ether your word, my word and in fact no ones word means squat without backup.
Of course I dont expect you to understand, most of yall dont.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
reply
October 21, 2009 - 16:16 ET by Mike76No one is going to make you submit to a polygraph, and I think you know that. This is an internet message board, not a court of law.
You seem absolutely sure that's what he said - about 10 years ago.
I'll assume you're telling the truth, to the best of your knowledge, but I have yet to meet anyone who's memory is 100 accurate, especially over the span of 10 years. Plus, we all seem to have "filters," or selective perception, to some degree. But without an actual quote, it seems impossible for you to establish authority in the matter.
However, if he did say it, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that what he said was RIGHT.
If you're want someone to say that Rush Limbaugh has said things that are factually inaccurate, well sure, he has. But just because he's not perfect, doesn't mean he's without credibility or merit.
He sure seems to do much better than most liberal sources when it comes to facts.
I am off for the day, so later.
I am sure, absolutely.
October 21, 2009 - 16:45 ET by JerI am sure, absolutely. And I can further assure you, although my recollection of the actual quote may be off by a word or two, it is accurate in all of its material elements.
And there is far more credible evidence that Rush was dead wrong about his accusations regarding Clinton and Reno.
Jer
Getting to this late due to
October 21, 2009 - 22:06 ET by Scuba DudeGetting to this late due to extremely poor internet connection.
What you think you heard does not matter. Source it. We are not going to take your word for it. Because until you can provide proof I would think what you are stating is hearsay as far as I am concerned.
The burden of proof is upon you and you alone.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Scuba...
October 21, 2009 - 22:38 ET by JerGetting to this late due to extremely poor internet connection.
Prove it...source it. Why should I take your word for it? I think it's because you have been afraid to debate me. ;-) [Actually, mine has been pretty lame lately, too.]
But, seriously, Scuba, what if you gave me your word that your mom told you so and so when you were 12 years old. Am I to simply disbelieve you unless and until you can absolutely prove it?
If the relevant transcript no longer exists, then you can either take my word for it or refuse to believe me. That's why I have inquired about others' knowledge in this regard [whether or not 10-year-old Limbaugh transcripts still exist and, if so, are they reasonably accessible.] Mostly, I have been mocked for even asking the question.
I know that at one time Vanderbilit University was recording and archiving every news program publicly disseminated. I am not sure if this extended to talk radio broadcasts or not, nor am I sure of the ease of retrieval if it did.
All I can assure you of at the moment is that I know what I heard and I commited it to memory. Rush's words are correctly stated by me. I'll continue to try to chase down the quote, but I regret that you and others refuse to take my word for it.
Jer
But, seriously, Scuba, what
October 22, 2009 - 01:04 ET by Dan The Man 2But, seriously, Scuba, what if you gave me your word that your
mom told you so and so when you were 12 years old. Am I to simply
disbelieve you unless and until you can absolutely prove it?
All lawyers ask for proof, perhaps you only stayed at teh Hol;iday iNN Express and dreamed you was one?
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Lil Man... A complaint
October 22, 2009 - 13:28 ET by JerLil Man...
A complaint can be filed with an affidavit attached swearing to the allegation. If the defendant denies the allegation, I can subpoena his records including the relevant transcripts via discovery. Once he produces them, his own words would prove my case. Or perhaps, in this case Limbaugh would be the plaintiff against me, but the discovery procedure would remain the same.
That's how it works, l'il man.
Jer
Jer, you're lying
October 22, 2009 - 17:34 ET by CobraMan"I HEARD RUSH MAKE THE CLAIM. I WAS LISTENING TO HIS SHOW WHEN HE SAID IT."
Jer, you're lying to us.
I WAS WITH YOU DURING THAT TIME AND YOU NEVER EVEN OWNED A RADIO, LET ALONE LISTENED TO RUSH! At that time, you thought Rush was just another 80's rock band, and you HATED 80' rock, so you avoided anything that had Rush in it's title. Prove me wrong, Jer.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
CobraMan... Just to give
October 22, 2009 - 20:02 ET by JerCobraMan...
Just to give you one example of how my mind has continually and reflexively gravitated toward Limbaugh, when Dave [R D Helm] enthusiastically announced last year he had tickets to see "Rush", I thought he was referring to the formerly corpulent, brain-behind-the-back, much admired as well as despised conservative talk radio behemoth--rather than the band.
Pretty powerful evidence right there.
Jer
Rush's comment about WACO
October 20, 2009 - 16:28 ET by buddycRush's comment about WACO is true. They did intentionally and deliberately authorize the Federal Authorities to use force that would kill innocent women and children.
Why does that bother you?
They authorized the force they believed to be necessary to protect the children there, to pretect the federal authorities and to enforce the law.
Are you so stupid as to believe Reno and Clinton did it by accident? Nope, fully knowing that the use of a tank would kill innocents women and children they authorized that use of those type of vehicles and other force.
And if you are so "stupid"
October 20, 2009 - 17:40 ET by JerAnd if you are so "stupid" that you would attempt to justify the remark and call it "true" based on such patently feeble reasoning, then replying to your drivel would obviously be a waste of my time. But, what the heck, I have a couple of minutes to waste, so I'll simply point out that by your (what I will generously describe as) "logic", George Bush deliberately butchered our innocent young men and women serving in Iraq since he authorized the force he believed to be necessary to protect our security interests. And I should add that that statement--as hideously reckless and outrageous as it is--would be even more theoretically defensible than Limbaugh's, since it is clear from the Danforth report that Koresh and the Davidians started the fires which "incinerated the innocents".
And, make no mistake, the children did indeed need to be protected from further acts of rape by Koresh.
And, please, don't any of you accuse me of actually making such an odious claim about Bush. I'm not.
Dick Durbin, Waco and Gitmo...
October 20, 2009 - 21:07 ET by SlyrrDuring the Iraq war in which we finally got rid of the despot nut-job Saddam Hussein, Dick Durbin took to the floor of the senate, whining about the air conditioners being turned off at Gitmo to make the prisoners uncomfortable. It was then that he called our troops 'Nazis, Pol Pot... Soviets in their gulags'.
Here's what I remember Rush saying:
'I will tell you - no matter what the temperature reaches in the prison cells at Gitmo - it's definitely a lot cooler there than it was in Waco at the Branch Davidian compound when the Clinton administration burned it to the ground. Come to think of it, I don't remember Durbin saying anything about that - he MAY have... And I think they blasted music for weeks when they tried to get the branch Davidians to come out of that compound, did they not? And I thought they brought in big lights to shine on the compound during the night, all to keep them from being able to sleep.
Where WAS Dick Durbin when all this 'domestic torture' was going on?
And these were US citizens the Clinton administration was targeting, incluing men, and women, and babies - and they eventually burned 'em out with tanks. The Waco invasion. Much hotter there than at Gitmo - wouldn't you say....?'
And Clinton was too much of a coward to even own up to his massive blunder. He threw Janet Reno under the bus, then ran and hid under the desk in the Oval Office while the ashes of the compound were still smoldering. And the men who Clinton said were there to 'save' the children of the Davidian compound were instead left with the grisly task of gathering up their charred bones.
Clinton may have been 'trying to help'. But what actually happened? His hamhanded attempt to be 'macho' and prove he could take charge of the situation wound up killing everyone - including the children he claimed he was trying to 'protect'. This is par for the course whenever liberals and their 'good intentions' try to force their will on everyone else without their consent. It's political rape of the sleaziest kind.
Come to think of it, aren't the Demorats in power now saying the same things that rapists say to their victims? 'You know you want it, baby'. Whether it's forced sex, or forced socialism, the end result is, everyone gets screwed and the only one happy about it is the rapist.
Ann Coulter, makes a Waco comment. BTW Jer can't stand Ann
October 20, 2009 - 22:00 ET by upcountrywaterTHE FBI'S INCENDIARY LIES
The New York Times has run more editorials on campaign finance reform
in the past six years than it has on this military-style assault on
American citizens. Liberals believe the government (BEGIN
ITALS)should(END ITALS) be able to kill sincere religious-believers.
Most recently, the FBI was caught lying about the use of pyrotechnic
tear gas canisters. For six years the agency has sworn up and down that
no incendiary devices were deployed on the day the Branch Davidian
compound burned. Whoops.
If only they had been demanding taxpayer funds to take photos of men
with bullwhips up their anuses, the Left would have been in a high
dudgeon about the grave threat to our civil liberties if any government
official said anything mean about them, much less killed them.
During the Iraq war in
October 20, 2009 - 22:24 ET by JerDuring the Iraq war in which we finally got rid of the despot nut-job Saddam Hussein, Dick Durbin took to the floor of the senate, whining about the air conditioners being turned off at Gitmo to make the prisoners uncomfortable. It was then that he called our troops 'Nazis, Pol Pot... Soviets in their gulags'. [My emphasis]
Gosh, that's awful. It wasn't quite the way I recalled Durbin's remarks, so I checked. Perhaps you should have, too, because here are his actual words, spoken after 'citing an FBI account of how Guantanamo prisoners had been chained to their cells, in extreme temperature and depived of food and water':
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings...Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
That puts his statement in proper context and makes it far less sweeping and offensive than does your mischaracterization. Nevertheless, Durbin apologized on the Senate floor, noting that "a senator lives by his words but occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies." Limbaugh would do well to take a lesson in humility from Durbin.
Here's what I remember Rush saying:
'I will tell you - no matter what the temperature reaches in the prison cells at Gitmo - it's definitely a lot cooler there than it was in Waco at the Branch Davidian compound when the Clinton administration burned it to the ground...
If your memory here is more reliable than with your account of Durbin's remarks, then Limbaugh has compounded his slander. As noted in a previous post, the Waco comment I heard from Rush was made in 1998 or 1999. The one you recall was made after the Final Report by the Danforth Commission which clearly established Koresh's culpability for the fire which incinerated innocent women and children.
Koresh, the deranged messiah and child-rapist, had stockpiled an arsenal of automatic weaponry, thousands of rounds of ammunition and explosives in his "church" in preparation for a self-fulfilling Armageddon prophecy with the government. He was then extended more latitude by a government whose very agents he had murdered than, arguably, any killer had been previously granted in American history. It is clear Koresh was never coming out voluntarily, nor was he going to release any of his children who were the product of his illicit sexual acts with young girls. Tanks were used to protect the agents from potential hostile fire and tear gas cannisters were inserted in the mistaken belief it would precipitate the safe exodus of the occupants. Instead, Koresh ordered that fires be set to burn the compound to the ground, and all inside were either shot by other Davidians or burned alive.
That is the monster Limbaugh implicitly defends, while choosing to smear Clinton, Reno and dedicated agents of the FBI and the ATF.
Jer
To paraphrase Han Solo, I
October 21, 2009 - 18:37 ET by SlyrrTo paraphrase Han Solo, I must've hit pretty close to the bulls-eye to get you (and 007) hopping like this. :)
Even you seem to be digging at the carpet with your toe while you wrote your half-hearted and rather lame attempt to defend ol' DICK Durbin and his smearing of the US troops. Even 'putting it in proper context' (as you say), the best you could say about it was that 'it makes his comments far LESS sweeping and offensive'. So you're still admitting that Durbin's comments were, indeed, sweeping and offensive - you're only griping about the degree of stupidity from our dear ol' Demorat senator.
If Durbin's comments were so innocent and not directed at our troops, then why did he apologize for them a few days later once the public outcry began over his silly, absurd comparison? 24 hours after he made his stupid statement, likening our troops' conduct to Nazis, Pol Pot and Soviets in their gulags, he angrily declared that he refused to apologize. Because he meant it. That's how the really thinks about our troops. But once the outcry became too big for him to ignore, he had to cringe to the microphone and beg their forgiveness.
Instead, because I paraphrased the words he used to describe our troops, you're claiming the description was somehow misleading? He DID use those terms to describe the conduct of our troops - it was gutless, cowardly and despicable of him, and even he knew it - otherwise, why apologize?
And he used the same non-apology two-step that YOU just used. 'Oh, he was just taken out of context - the people were just too stupid to understand what he REALLY meant...'
You're straining at gnats and swallowing camels here, dude. You are TECHNICALLY correct that Durbin didn't say flat out 'our troops are Nazis, Pol Pot and Soviets in their gulags'. He said 'you would most certainly believe this was done by nazis, pol pot, or soviets in their gulags', and then said 'sadly this was the action of americans towards their prisoners'. But what other conclusion can one reach from such a statement? You're essentially twisting yourself into a pretzel just like Clinton did with his 'it depends on what you mean by the word 'the'.' or, 'I didn't inhale'. Even Durbin had to eat crow and admit he was wrong to say what he said.
And you've played another typical dirty trick here, by pretending that 'Rush defended a child rapist'. He did no such thing. I dare you to show any transcript or quote from Rush were he says that Koresh wasn't a criminal or didn't deserve to be arrested. You won't find any - unless you pull them from the same body cavity that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson pulled their 'slavery' quotes from.
What Rush was doing was saying that Koresh didn't deserve to be killed by the Clinton administration the way he was - and certainly his duped followers didn't deserve to be slaughtered. And I don't believe for a moment that you don't get that - you simply choose to be wilfully ignorant because the facts don't fit your world view. Koresh should have been captured and put in jail, and his followers freed without harm. Instead, the Clinton administration went in with tanks and burned the compound to the ground, killing everyone inside.
Koresh's criminality was a factor, but the resultant tragedy WAS the Clinton admin's fault - the 'pyrotechnic tear gas' information here has already been documented by others. You're simply choosing to believe in the reports that absolve 'your side' of his blame, while ignoring the rest. Hopefully Clinton didn't 'inhale' those fumes either....
Slyrr slurs Durbin-How ironic, a lie on a blog about lying liars
October 20, 2009 - 22:48 ET by 007memoSlyrr slurs Durbin, how ironic, Slyrr promotes a lie on a blog whose subject is media lying liars.
Slyrr inaccurately "reports" that Senator Dick Durbin "called our troops 'Nazis, Pol Pot... Soviets in their gulags'."
Here's the actual quote taken in it's entirety from Fox News.com:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said last week."
See, Durbin never actually "called our troops 'Nazis, Pol Pot... Soviets in their gulags', did he? But someone in the Media must have reported it to you that way - I wonder where you got that idea from? Tell me, who do you get your "news" from?
Durbin didn't say what you thought was a true report, Limbaugh didn't say what the media reported either. Do you see the irony, Slyrr?
Let's use this as a teaching moment, Slyrr! I did as Brent Bozell suggested:
"Start with this reality: One could clearly dismiss these quotes as fabrications based on the simple fact that Rush" except here I substituted the name Dick Durbin, "would never have uttered them, since he doesn’t believe them. Period."
Cause when I read your claim that Durbin called our troops "Nazis, etc, etc" I figured I'd have to suspend all disbelief to ever believe that crap, so I did a fact check.
Class dismissed!
Durbin quote from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160275,00.html
007 = stupid
October 21, 2009 - 08:19 ET by Mike76James Bond Jr. - a lying liar calling other people "lying liars." Can you say "Projection?"
In one paragraph, "007" quotes:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime."
In the next paragraph, ghetto version James Bond writes:
"See, Durbin never actually "called our troops 'Nazis, Pol Pot... Soviets in their gulags', did he?
Well, yes, that's almost exactly, what he said, unless you want to split molecules over what "called" means. This "lie" hardly is the same as the whoppers liberals come up with on a daily basis.
Talk about dishonesty. 007 must be hallucinating if he thinks anyone takes him seriously.
007 is just demonstrating a
October 21, 2009 - 08:25 ET by FeynmanFan007 is just demonstrating a little leftist spin. It's important to have words mean what you want them to mean if you're going to successfully promote your agenda.
Sorry double-naught. No White House pat on the head for you this time.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Good Ol' Slick Willie...
October 20, 2009 - 21:30 ET by Mike76....Protecting children from child abuse - by burning them to death.
Pure fable.
October 20, 2009 - 22:25 ET by JerPure fable.
Jer
lol
October 21, 2009 - 08:21 ET by Mike76Suuuure it is, Jer.
In all fairness, I'm sure
October 21, 2009 - 18:29 ET by SlyrrIn all fairness, I'm sure it wasn't Clinton's INTENTION to slaughter everyone in the compound. But that's exactly what wound up happening.
The road to the Davidian compound was paved with liberals' 'good intentions'. Instead, they had to grit that road with the ashes of their unintended victims.
They couldn't even arrest one criminal without killing everyone - why would anyone trust them with our health care? I wouldn't trust the government to open a can of sardines that was ALREADY open....
On the contrary,
October 21, 2009 - 20:18 ET by JerOn the contrary, Slyrr....
It was the FBI team which was constantly urging more aggressive tactics against Koresh. Are you claiming the FBI agents were a bunch of liberal pussies? It was Reno who continually advocated a more cautious approach. So, who do you believe was exercising better judgment. Should she have unleashed them sooner and more forcefully?
Jer
That said, I do appreciate your taking a stand against Rush's characterization. It appears very few here are willing to do so.
Jer....RUSH IS RIGHT, and you still a democrat*.
October 20, 2009 - 20:54 ET by upcountrywaterRush is still around ,because he TELLS THE TRUTH!!
OPPS
WASHINGTON (AP) - An FBI lawyer ``goofed'' in not telling superiors in 1996
that federal agents fired pyrotechnic tear gas canisters into the Branch
Davidians' compound in Waco, Texas, a former senator who investigated the deadly
raid said Wednesday.
Danforth, a longtime Republican senator from Missouri, was appointed by
Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate the siege after the government
acknowledged, following years of denials, that it used pyrotechnic tear gas
canisters during the final assault.
Some guy protecting his Church families and property, 2nd admendment stuff..
If he did rape a girl, then he stands trial!
Jer, It's a proven fact that our government Killed 54 adults and 21 children.
*democrat
If he did rape a girl, then
October 21, 2009 - 00:58 ET by JerIf he did rape a girl, then he stands trial!
Unfortunately, he incinerated himself (as well as most of his victims). He thus avoided trial. There was one-- not in the compound--whom Koresh had attempted to rape, so she was able to tell her story on national TV. She was ten years old at the time of the attempt!
Jer
Jer
October 21, 2009 - 08:32 ET by Mike76Jer, you're going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what the evidence indicates. Have fun with your delusions.
On the contrary, Mike,
October 21, 2009 - 09:04 ET by JerOn the contrary, Mike, I tend to believe the findings of lengthy, exhaustive, independent investigations which involve extensive research, testimony from hundreds of witnesses, and in-depth examinations and analyses of all available evidence.
What do you base your beliefs on, other than agenda-driven political rants by Rush?
Jer
Stop it Jer.
October 21, 2009 - 11:30 ET by Mike76I kind of like you Jer, so I am trying to be nice to you. At least, you seem to have some intelligence, unlike most of the other liberals on this site.
I don't base my beliefs on "agenda-driven political rants by Rush."
I'll admit, I'm not an expert on Waco, Texas. But I do recall seeing footage of ATF agents firing into the compound, as well as cheering when it went up in flames. I remember reading that David Koresh tried to surrender, among other things. Since the people in the compound were burned to a crisp, they can't really tell their side of the story, can they?
Consider the general criminality and arrogance of the Clinton administration, and the way they handled the Randy Weaver case. Consider the hatred liberals seem to have for Christian seperatist type groups (The FLDS group/Obama delegate Rozetta Swinton case comes to mind). Consider all of the Clinton scandals.
I don't think that it's a big leap to assume that Hillary or Bill ordered the place torched. I mean, they sent in tanks, for Chrissakes. They sent in tanks and chemical weapons, but I don't believe they bothered to send in fire trucks - for a building they knew was made of wood.
I haven't really thought about this for awhile. On the other hand, but I have seen no evidence that you are basing your opinion on "the findings of lengthy, exhaustive, independent investigations which involve extensive research, testimony from hundreds of witnesses, and in-depth examinations and analyses of all available evidence."
That's what you're saying, right? That you looked at "testimony from hundreds of witnesses" from the Waco, TX, incident?
I will admit it's POSSIBLE that the Clintons did not do it intentionally, but I think it's unlikely as I write this. If they did not do it intentionally, then at least, their handling of the situation was grossly incompetent.
I kind of like you, too,
October 22, 2009 - 21:57 ET by JerI kind of like you, too, Mike. But when you instruct me to "Stop It"--after accusing me of suffering "delusions", I feel compelled to point out that you started it.
I'll admit I'm no expert on Waco, Texas. But I do recall seeing footage of ATF agents firing into the compound, as well as cheering when it went up in flames. I remember reading that David Koresh tried to surrender, among other things. Since the people in the compound were burned to a crisp, they can't really tell their side of the story, can they?
Are you really surprised they were "firing" inasmuch as their fellow agents were being mowed down by the superior firepower possessed by the Davidian faithful. As far as cheering, that is the first time I've heard the allegation. Are you sure you saw it? It wouldn't have been ATF agents anyway, since the FBI was then in charge of the operation. If you read that Koresh "tried to surrender", then you were reading a pure fictional account of the event. Never happened. Some escaped. Most were burned pursuant to Koresh's orders to set the fires as had been previously arranged.
Consider the general criminality and arrogance of the Clinton administration, and the way they handled the Randy Weaver case.
I'll check, but I believe the Randy Weaver case occurred during the previous [George H. W. Bush] administration.
I don't think that it's a big leap to assume that Hillary or Bill ordered the place torched. I mean, they sent in tanks, for Chrissakes. They sent in tanks and chemical weapons, but I don't believe they bothered to send in fire trucks - for a building they knew was made of wood.
You honestly believe that Hillary or Bill Clinton made a premeditated, conscious, cold-blooded decision to burn the compound to the ground and purposely incinerate women and children. Sorry, Mike, but that is just absolutely preposterous, and is a breathtaking accusation--even from the most unreconstructed Clinton-haters. As I've noted before, tanks were used to protect their occupants from the Davidians who had shown no reluctance to use deadly fire. However, the absence of firetrucks is a legitimate issue, which I likewise questioned while watching the tragedy unfold on live TV.
I have seen no evidence that you are basing your opinion on "the findings of lengthy, exhaustive, independent investigations which involve extensive research, testimony from hundreds of witnesses, and in-depth examinations and analyses of all available evidence."
Final Report. Please read. At least the more relevant sections. It's well indexed.
Jer
No.
October 22, 2009 - 22:39 ET by JWFRead it yourself. We are not here for your amusement.
This country is on the verge of collapse and Ceasar here is giving us homework assignments on the siege of Edessa during the Hunnic empire.
Your intention to remain ignorant on the issue is noted, JWF...
October 23, 2009 - 00:28 ET by JerBut, do you also speak for Mike? He asked me specifically about the investigation I referred to. I linked it for him. If you don't want to read it and would rather keep your head buried in the sand, that's your decision.
Jer
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong again.
October 23, 2009 - 01:03 ET by JWFYou act like a troll. This is what you get - I don't care. Wait... Just a sec... No.... No.... No... Yep. Did a thorough search. Can't find my concern for you.
You think it is funny. You come out of retirement with an absolute dripping hostility to the other users here.You think we will be all onboard with you acting like the thug in chief stomping on whatever critics disagree with him. Punking on us one minute and then getting all perfesser with the read this the next. Go pee up a rope.
reply
October 23, 2009 - 10:51 ET by Mike76"If you read that Koresh "tried to surrender", then you were reading a pure fictional account of the event. Never happened."
Maybe, then again, maybe not. I remember it as distinctly as you remember the Rush Limbaugh quotes. Unlike you, apparantly, I don't believe my memory is infallable, so I would have to do more research in order to make sure.
"Are you really surprised they were "firing" inasmuch as their fellow agents were being mowed down by the superior firepower possessed by the Davidian faithful."
The superior firepower of a ragtag group of some sort of Christian cult, vs. various groups of the Federal and state governments, including Army tanks, chemical weaponry, electronic survelliance, etc. Sure, Jer.
All they needed to do to avoid being shot was to BACK UP.
"I'll check, but I believe the Randy Weaver case occurred during the previous [George H. W. Bush] administration."
No, it happened in 1992, and Clinton was president.
"You honestly believe that Hillary or Bill Clinton made a premeditated, conscious, cold-blooded decision to burn the compound to the ground and purposely incinerate women and children. Sorry, Mike, but that is just absolutely preposterous, and is a breathtaking accusation--even from the most unreconstructed Clinton-haters."
I don't think it's "absolutely preposterous" or a "breathtaking accusation." I think it's a logical assumption. I don't hate the Clintons, I despise them. What is it with liberals and their hysterical use of language? Anyway, yes, I think it's the likely scenario. Hard to swallow, yes, but even harder to swallow is the likelyhood that they could be so inept that the whole incident was an accident.
The Clinton scandals were endless, and it seems within their characters that they would try such a thing. I don't despise the Clintons so much because they are liberal or democrats, but because they seemed to be sociopaths or psychopaths.
In the interest of full disclosure, I believe that there are right wingers who are much the same, or ARE the same sort of creature as the Clintons. I despise, and even hate the right-wing socios/psychos MORE, because they are "mine" and need to be ruthlessly pruned from the tree.
"If you read that Koresh
October 23, 2009 - 15:42 ET by Jer"If you read that Koresh "tried to surrender", then you were reading a pure fictional account of the event. Never happened."
Maybe, then again, maybe not. I remember it as distinctly as you remember the Rush Limbaugh quotes. Unlike you, apparantly, I don't believe my memory is infallable, so I would have to do more research in order to make sure.
In that case, there would be no "maybe" about it. My memory is far from perfect--e.g. my uncertainty whether Rush made the comment in 1998 or 1999, but matters which I specifically commit to memory, I tend not to forget. Because Limbaugh's Waco accusation was, in my view, so completely over the top and stunningly offensive, my recollection of the content is vivid.
************************************
"Are you really surprised they were "firing" inasmuch as their fellow agents were being mowed down by the superior firepower possessed by the Davidian faithful."
The superior firepower of a ragtag group of some sort of Christian cult, vs. various groups of the Federal and state governments, including Army tanks, chemical weaponry, electronic survelliance, etc. Sure, Jer.
All they needed to do to avoid being shot was to BACK UP.
Mike, I believe you are conflating the initial confrontation with the final event weeks later. The ATF officers were thoroughly outgunned by the Davidians, and they did BACK UP, carrying their wounded and dead with them. They were beaten by overwhelmingly surperior firepower in the hands of these people of God. That's precisely why tanks were used in the second incident--to PROTECT those inside from suffering the same fate of the ATF agents. Furthermore, the tanks were inserting tear gas, not firing artillery rounds.
**************************************
"I'll check, but I believe the Randy Weaver case occurred during the previous [George H. W. Bush] administration."
No, it happened in 1992, and Clinton was president.
Right, August of 1992. But you're wrong. Bush was president. Clinton didn't become president until January, 1993. I wonder why Limbaugh didn't accuse Bush of deliberately murdering Weaver's wife and son. It appears Rush's outrage is very selective. What about yours? Do you think Bush deliberately ordered them killed?
************************************
The Clinton scandals were endless.
I think it would be fair to say they were endlessly investigated, and not much came of those investigations, aside from the Lewinsky mess.
Jer
What in the name of Sam are you talking about?
October 23, 2009 - 20:28 ET by JWFDippy the Pinhead: Right, August of 1992. But you're wrong. Bush was president. Clinton didn't become president until January, 1993.
Wikipedia: On February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) raided Mount Carmel.
Oh Fudge. I got confused with all of Jer's conspiracies. Sorry. This is Jer's Bush killed Weaver theory. Not Rush killed Koresh and Reno & Clinto had nothing to do with it theory.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
What in the name of Sam [am
October 23, 2009 - 21:17 ET by JerWhat in the name of Sam [am I] talking about?
Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge, genius. You know, the issue Mike specifically raised so I thought appropriate to address.
Try to keep up, JWF.
Jer
Oh look what Jer missed.
October 23, 2009 - 22:35 ET by JWFJWF: Oh Fudge. I got confused with all of Jer's conspiracies. Sorry. This is Jer's Bush killed Weaver theory. Not Rush killed Koresh and Reno & Clinto had nothing to do with it theory.
Braaaaaaackkkk. Can't read. Squawk. Time to pontificate. Braaacckkk.
You guys are killing me! ROFLMAO!
October 26, 2009 - 10:50 ET by MightyMouth"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
What in the name of Sam are you talking about?
October 23, 2009 - 20:26 ET by JWFDippy the Pinhead: Right, August of 1992. But you're wrong. Bush was president. Clinton didn't become president until January, 1993.
Wikipedia: On February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) raided Mount Carmel.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Same question. Same
October 23, 2009 - 21:18 ET by JerSame question. Same answer.
Jer
I'll have to get back to this later.
October 24, 2009 - 00:46 ET by Mike76I'll have to get back to this later, Jer. I will take a look at your link, like I said I would, but I don't have time to read it or study this much right now. It may even be a week or two. It may be less.
A couple comments:
While I read your link, I suggest you find the source of the Rush Limbaugh comment you say you remember so clearly, I am going to see if I can find a source for David Koresh trying to surrender, before the they burned the place to the ground. I will probably look for other things.
Yes Bush 1 was still president when Ruby Ridge took place, I was wrong on that point. But Janet Reno was the Attorney General when the actual investigation took place. That is significant, as she was the one who gave everyone involved a free pass, more or less.
If you think the Clinton scandels were all fabrications made up by the vast right wing conspiracy, Then you and I must live on different planets. It's true that Slick Willie was just about made of Teflon.
But He, like Obama, had a press more than willing to do whatever it took to minimize his involvement and attack his political critics. This included smearing the women who accused him of rape and sexual harrasment as "Bimbos," if I recall.
The Clinton scandels included, in no particular order:
The death of Vince Foster
Filegate
Billy Dale
Whitewater
Castle Grande
The Lippo group
Paula Jones
The Buddhist Temple
Katherine Willey
Technology secrets to China
Ruby Ridge
Waco TX
That Cuban kid in Florida who's name I can't recall, taken by force by black outfitted stormtrooper looking agents
Gennifer Flowers
Juanita Broderick
Monica Lewinsky
Hillary's cattle futures
Pardongate
and stealing white house cutlery at the end. How tacky
I didn't even list all of them. But the Clinton presidency was a river of corruption. I find it hard to believe that anyone couldn't believe that the Clintons wouldn't fry kids at Waco.
adding:
October 23, 2009 - 11:26 ET by Mike76I didn't see the link to "Final Report" until now, but I will take a look at it.
Don't worry Big Guy.
October 23, 2009 - 11:46 ET by JWFYou have until next summer to finish reading it.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Mike76, That POS "final report " came out before this...
October 23, 2009 - 16:21 ET by upcountrywatergoofed
An FBI lawyer made a mistake in not telling superiors in 1996 that
United States federal agents fired pyrotechnic tear gas canisters
into the Branch Davidians' compound in Waco, Texas, a former
senator who investigated the deadly raid has said.
Jer, Is a bitter clinger..
Sorry, ucw...wrong [again]
October 23, 2009 - 17:00 ET by JerNo wonder you are so hard to convince, ucw...you misinterpret and misrepresent your own evidence.
This was testimony by Danforth himself before Congress. It exonerates Clinton and Reno. And, contrary to your assertion, it predated the Final Report.
Jer
Whatever Jer, the link I posted 9 times now, POST DATES
October 23, 2009 - 20:54 ET by upcountrywaterYour worthless government, poo.... as the final word from on high.
Go ahead and pick apart the FACT Pyrotechnics were used...You can't...
State controlled health care is Tort Reform. Update! music video.
That issue was specifically
October 23, 2009 - 21:22 ET by JerThat issue was specifically raised in your link, which you embarrassingly and erroneously thought supported your argument.
Epic fail.
Jer
Jer ,hello Jer hello, Pyrotechnics HELLO PYROTECHNICS
October 24, 2009 - 02:07 ET by upcountrywaterOnce again you dither off on some side tracking issue....MAYBE THIS OR MAYBE THAT
NOT ONCE DID YOU EVER COMMENT ON PYROTECHNICS
Why? Kuz you can it's your style..slather the boards with shysteresk gobbly gook.... HELLO PYROTECHNICS WERE USED....
State controlled health care is Tort Reform. Update! music video.
It is addressed in your
October 24, 2009 - 02:20 ET by JerIt is addressed in your link, and extensively in the Final Report, and as noted earlier, exonerates Reno. Was it a mistake to use it? Sure. Did it "cause" the fires. No.
Jer
Reply to Jer
October 26, 2009 - 12:11 ET by Mike76Jer
I am not going to have time to read your report. I have a full time job and am working on uh, about 4 "mini-enterprises" and also have a critical personal issue to deal with in the next couple of weeks. I just don't have time to do this right. "Doing it right" would include reading your 207 page report, but I'd also want to take a look at the "Rules of Engagement" documentary, found here:
http://tinyurl.com/y...
I'd also want to look at what the other posters wrote about to "do it right."
However, I did write that "I remember reading that David Koresh tried to surrender, among other things." Although I did not find an actual recording, I did find two links that back up my comment. The Chicago Sun Times, July 26, 1995
http://tinyurl.com/y...
and also the Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1995
http://tinyurl.com/y...
"WASHINGTON — Disputing criticism that they acted in haste, FBI officials who supervised the deadly siege of a cult compound near Waco, Tex., testified Wednesday that they gave little credence to a surrender plan proposed by sect leader David Koresh's lawyer five days before a final assault on the complex."
Also, on page 2, LATimes:
"But a Justice Department spokesman, Carl Stern, said later that Reno was apprised of the surrender proposal before the FBI launched the tear gas on April 19."
So much for "a purely fictional account." Also, I had no luck finding your Rush Limbaugh quote, but I'm not sure where to look for that.
Mike...The Final Report
October 26, 2009 - 14:53 ET by JerMike...
The Final Report is indeed lengthy and I appreciate your time limitations. Not only is it over 200 pages, but a companion interim Report is nearly as long. I don't pretend to have read each in their entirety, but there are significant parts [e.g. the chapter on setting the fires] which would prove useful in the immediate discussion.
As far as Koresh's efforts to surrender, there was never any offer by Koresh to immediately come out of the compound with the remaining women and children--and other occupants--and turn himself over to the authorities. There was what might be termed a plan of resolution suggested by Koresh, accepted by the negotiators, and entailed providing Koresh unprecedented broadcast access to deliver a lengthy theological message. His request was considered, accepted, and acted upon in good faith by the negotiators. Koresh spoke for, I believe, over an hour over a national radio network. He then proceeded to completely renege on his word.
It became evident that Koresh intended to keep no promises--as his demands became more strident and irrational. He reaffirmed his own divinity, and informed the authorities that God Himself would be party to any further negotiations. By that point, his intentions were clear and ominous. Were mistakes--serious miscalculations--made by the FBI? Without a doubt. But Koresh wasn't coming out voluntarily. The apocalyptic confrontation he had prophesied and planned for with a United States government he considered a force of evil was assured, with the loss of innocent lives tragically inevitable.
Jer
well, I can't really comment
October 26, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Mike76well, I can't really comment much without doing further research.
But I would want to look at multiple sources, "pro" and "con" in order to try to get the "complete picture."
Mike...
October 26, 2009 - 16:27 ET by JerThere is a two-hour documentary called "Assault On Waco" produced in 2006 which was rebroadcast on cable a couple of weeks ago and will probably be shown again. It is a well-made, balanced presentation of the events. Also recommended is "Children of Waco".
But, understand, the Danforth commission was completely non-partisan. It just so happened that many of its findings of fact flatly contradicted the anti-government, anti-Clinton/Reno allegations.
Jer
Dang, shudda made movies, used Quaaludes and Champagne.
October 21, 2009 - 09:07 ET by upcountrywaterBut no! He made a living gunsmithing. Gosh they are a Church they should only have bake sales. Well well well our government thought so too, and BAKED 'em.
THE guy you voted for (BJ Bill) murdered him via Janet, FBI, ATF.. Here is the AP LINK July 26, 2000 for the 6 th time.
An FBI lawyer ``goofed'' in not telling superiors in 1996
that federal agents fired pyrotechnic tear gas canisters into the Branch
Davidians' compound
Your revisionism continues to crash and burn around here..
ucw... Your own link
October 21, 2009 - 09:22 ET by Jerucw...
Your own link indicates the FBI agent did not tell superiors about he use of potentially incendiary tear gas. That in and of itself tends to exonerate Clinton and Reno. Your link goes on to note Danforth's "100% certainly" the FBI did not start the fires.
I know you desperately want to believe Clinton is a murderer, but sometimes your fantasies happen to be diametrically opposed to the truth. Such is the case with Waco. Sorry.
Jer
Jer, incendiary tear gas, has been around for over 100 years.
October 21, 2009 - 10:41 ET by upcountrywaterAfter the LAPD burned down the SLA hideout, one would think, responsible folk would never ever use it on wood structures.
opps
Danforth was commenting on a pack of lies, told to him earlier.
You know before the FBI goofed.
Guess your theory of Koresh burning down the place flies out the window.
BTW every tear gas canister has a warning label on it, manufacturer's specifications specifically
state that it "is designed for outdoor use in crowd control
situations . . . . It should not be deployed . . . indoors due to its fire producing capability."
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
Not my theory, ucw. It is
October 21, 2009 - 15:38 ET by JerNot my theory, ucw. It is the unassailable conclusion reached by the commission which has exhaustively studied the case. I'm sorry that their clear findings of fact rip to shreds your preferred fable about Clinton and Reno deliberately burning them alive. Sometimes things just didn't happen like you had hoped.
Jer
My hope was that , the, Waco gang would come out ALIVE...
October 21, 2009 - 16:13 ET by upcountrywaterYou pal, are the one that sings for joy that Koresh was burned alive.
He was murdered by the FBI, and they (FBI) covered it up! After the conclusion of the Danforth commission, did the FBI mention flammable tear gas.
I have posted links, you are running on feelings...typical.
My hope was that, the Waco
October 21, 2009 - 16:30 ET by JerMy hope was that, the Waco gang would come out ALIVE..
I realize that. It was mine, too. But it's clear that your hope was that Clinton would be blamed for their deaths.
Jer
~I watched them watch it burn
October 21, 2009 - 16:43 ET by choselife3xΩ "A document filed with the Branch Davidians' Wednesday motion, a
two-page FBI summary of an April 9 briefing, indicated that Assistant U.S.
Attorney LeRoy Jahn asked FBI leaders in Waco "if there was a firetruck available in case the Davidians attempted to torch the compound."
A second document, described in the sect's motion as a phone report filed at FBI headquarters at 7:30 that evening, reported that Waco FBI leaders were sending Washington their plan for emergency medical trreatment during the proposed tear gas assault. But that report added, "per ... Jamar and ... Rogers, there would be no plan to fight a fire should one develop in the Davidian compound."
The Justice Department's lengthy 1993 review of the Waco tragedy gives no indication that Attorney General Janet Reno was advised of the FBI commanders' decision. Mr. Jamar later told Congress that he held local firetrucks back from the compound for more than 40 minutes after it caught fire because sect members had fired shots at FBI tanks that morning and he didn't want to endanger firefighters."
Regardless of how the fire started, they should have tried to put it out. Allowing those children to burn was an atrocity.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
Regardless of how the fire
October 21, 2009 - 17:50 ET by JerRegardless of how the fire started, they should have tried to put it out. Allowing those children to burn was an atrocity.
I tend to agree on that point, chose. I was watching it live on TV and thinking to myself "Where are the firetrucks?!
But the outrageous claim that Clinton and Reno deliberately incinerated women and children is a shameful lie. And the evidence that Koresh ordered the fires set is overwhelming.
Jer
~The whole thing
October 21, 2009 - 18:00 ET by choselife3xWas FUBAR from the get go.
I blame everyone in the chain of command for atrociously poor handling of the situation. If you're dealing with an apocalypse wacko, you don't surround the place with tanks and give him his dream scenario. It's simply criminal stupidity.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
If not tanks...
October 21, 2009 - 18:08 ET by JerWhat should they have used, bicycles? So Koresh could murder a few more federal agents? And then burn the compound to the ground along with everyone inside?
Jer
what I would have wanted to know
October 21, 2009 - 18:20 ET by katainkentis rather than put advanced special forces tech into the hands of FBI agents.. why not just let special forces perform an extraction and use the tech themselves. It would seem to make better sense.
But I had three infants when this was taking place. The only thing on the tv at the time was blues clues.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
~Jer
October 21, 2009 - 20:34 ET by choselife3xI don't ever approve of using tanks against American citizens. Especially not when children are involved.
So Koresh could murder a few more federal agents? And then burn the compound to the ground along with everyone inside?
That's what happened, anyway. All the Feds managed to do in that situation was to terrify small children for six weeks and begin a chain of events that led to their grisly deaths.
Koresh was a wacko who predicted a violent end at the hands of the government. They very foolishly obliged him. Nothing good came out of the way they handled it.
I have nothing more to say of the matter, thinking about those children is very upsetting to me.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
chose...
October 21, 2009 - 20:51 ET by JerI have nothing more to say of the matter, thinking about those children is very upsetting to me.
You don't think it rips my heart out whenever I think about it. One thing for sure, Koresh could have avoided the death of a single child merely by keeping his promise to release them. It was his option. Instead, he chose to burn them alive. He set the fires, knowing full well what the result would be--it was the result he predicted, yearned for, and directly caused. He was a despicable monster--a killer and a rapist.
Jer
~Jer
October 21, 2009 - 21:01 ET by choselife3xI wasn't implying it didn't. I wasn't saying it wasn't Koresh's fault that those children were there in the first place. I simply said that the Feds handled it in a way that led to a fiery death for those children.
That building would not have burned down if the Feds hadn't been there. Simple as that.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
chose...
October 23, 2009 - 01:17 ET by JerWhat would you have law enforcement do? Give the pedophile/messiah Koresh a pass for murder? "Well, Dave, we realize you blew away federal agents using your illegally stockpiled weaponry and wounded many more, but just promise not to do it again and we'll let it slide this time."
I wonder what the American public would be demanding if this were an Islamic sect which had stockpiled an arsenal of particularly lethal firearms and explosives. Any thoughts?
Jer
What inside knowledge do you posess?
October 23, 2009 - 01:22 ET by JWF. I wonder what the American public would be demanding if this were an Islamic sect which had stockpiled an arsenal of particularly lethal firearms and explosives. Any thoughts?
What do you know? Where? This is funny? Are you also one to think bomb jokes are funny in airports? Seriously, why are you joking about this when we are arresting homegrown terrorists left and right in this country the last month?
It's no joke, JWF...you've
October 23, 2009 - 01:28 ET by JerIt's no joke, JWF...you've already indicated you're not interested in reviewing the official report, so why not move on.
Jer
It was no joke in Kinsman, Illinois.
October 23, 2009 - 01:45 ET by JWFhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569185,00.html
But, nooooooooooooooo. Jer just coincidentally starts flapping his gums at the same time the world is reading about this.
If you are not joking, then what is with you screaming fire in a crowded movie theater. It is not like you can just come up with something like that off the top of your head. Who thinks about this kind of stuff and puts it out there in a public forum? Huh? I ask you now. Huh?
Jer's idea of funny: I wonder what the American public would be demanding if this were an Islamic sect which had stockpiled an arsenal of particularly lethal firearms and explosives.
It is not like you can just
October 23, 2009 - 02:05 ET by JerIt is not like you can just come up with something like that off the top of your head. Who thinks about this kind of stuff and puts it out there in a public forum? Huh? I ask you now. Huh
No, I wasn't aware of that particular incident. But, actually, it's very easy to "come up with something like [my example] off the top of your head". It's known as an analogy, Einstein.
Jer
Oh, I get it. Still treating us like suckers at NB.
October 23, 2009 - 02:15 ET by JWFJer would have us believe he is prescient now.
And with that classic
October 23, 2009 - 02:29 ET by JerAnd with that classic dodge, I'll say
g'night JWF.
Jer
Jer, The feds should have used seige tactics
October 22, 2009 - 16:49 ET by upcountrywaterThe art of seiges goes back thousands of years.
Sit on it, wait them out. The agents could set up a perimeter out of the range of small arms fire.
Instead the feds ATTACKED WITH ARMY TANKS and BURNED them out with pyrotechnic CS tear gas.
Jer, Show me the link, regarding the tanks leaving the Army base without Clinton signing off on that?
Howdy ucw... You know how
October 22, 2009 - 17:00 ET by bigtimerHowdy ucw...
You know how much Jer loves to harp on this subject...endlessly...as we both know by now.
I just started laughing at here at home last evening when I saw the same old same old with him...I'm not bothering with banging my head against the wall with links etc as we have done in the past...it's useless.
Enjoy though...I know you're more of a die-hard than I am when it comes to Jer and this. ;-)
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Aloha bt, Why on earth am I around TV at various times?
October 22, 2009 - 17:28 ET by upcountrywaterI was traveling and happened to catch the live assult of the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army ), by the LAPD... They tear gassed the WOOD building, and a few moments later the entire structure WAS IN FIRE!
Once again years later, I view the live feed of the real time assult on the Waco Church... Tear gas wait a few moments then FIRE...I kid you not , the same EXACT time passes from tear gas injection to fire as in the SLA assault.
Yea I was screaming..... No one learned anything, NO they knew all along what cs tear gas does...
Then after years of cover-ups, it's found out later that OPPS, the feds used pyrotechnic tear gas rounds....
Jer, poped open Waco in this thread...
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
upc... Yep...right you
October 22, 2009 - 17:35 ET by bigtimerupc...
Yep...right you are...I watched all that as well back then.
As well as WACO...as well as Ruby Ridge...which was horrific on it's own...I only live about 20 minutes or so from that area.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
bt, I missed Ruby Ridge, Got my live feed of M. Heemeyer
October 22, 2009 - 18:12 ET by upcountrywaterGranby Colorado
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
ucw... Wow..ya know...I
October 22, 2009 - 18:46 ET by bigtimerucw...
Wow..ya know...I forgot all about that episode/ordeal.
Thanks for the link.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Don't hurt your head, bt...but
October 23, 2009 - 01:26 ET by JerAs long as I think I may convince one or more persons of looking at the Waco tragedy from a perspective different from Limbaugh's continuing "Clinton/Reno deliberately burned them alive" meme--by reviewing the actual evidence instead of embracing politcal agendas--then I'll probably keep commenting on it. But you're certainly free to ignore it or debate it.
Jer
Jer, as long you WORSHIP the only holy grail of POS paper work.
October 23, 2009 - 01:55 ET by upcountrywaterand continue to SKIP over, the pyrotechnics blasted into the Church by the FBI...
You pal, are lost
Why is that? Because you are a linkless soul drifting about in here NB land, coasting on your worthless blatherness and written squawking oratory ...
I said source it.
October 23, 2009 - 01:59 ET by JWFJer: Limbaugh's continuing "Clinton/Reno deliberately burned them alive"
Limbaugh has said no such thing and you can't prove he did. No one but you is claiming this to be true.
Source it.
Did you read Slyrr's
October 23, 2009 - 02:15 ET by JerDid you read Slyrr's comment earlier in the thread? Or are you still adhering to your "don't tell me what to read" proclamation? If you did or do, you'll notice that he recalls a somewhat similar quote by Rush. Are you calling him a liar, too? And Kata linked a related statement by Rush.
As for mine. I'm the source. I heard him say it. If the transcript is available it will verify it.
Jer
credit where credit is due
October 23, 2009 - 02:47 ET by MrShyJer, gotta give you props on that one....
"You want a source? I AM the source."
That is a brilliant dodge. (Okay, maybe not "brilliant", but very funny. :p)
We should do a parody of the famous Malice scene.
Thanks Shy...I consider
October 23, 2009 - 02:55 ET by JerThanks Shy...
I consider any props from you to be a rare treat--backhanded or not. :-)
Now, this time I'm really outta here.
Jer
Btw, a great scene from a really good, and probably underrated, movie.
Jer lies right in our faces.
October 23, 2009 - 03:16 ET by JWFHow in any way does Slyrr's quote match up with yours?
Slyrr: ...Rush was doing was saying that Koresh didn't deserve to be killed by the Clinton administration the way he was - and certainly his duped followers didn't deserve to be slaughtered.
How in any way to you get deliberately from the above statement?
Jer: Limbaugh's continuing "Clinton/Reno deliberately burned them alive"
Looks like Jer took a pass on telling the truth.
October 23, 2009 - 22:37 ET by JWFIt is better to half read another post than to respond to his lies.
Jer lies in our faces then spits.
October 23, 2009 - 03:30 ET by JWFJer: And Kata linked a related statement by Rush.
Lie Lie Lie Lie!
From Kata's link -
Rush Limbaugh: When the Waco invasion against the Branch Davidians took place, there was no Drive-By commentary on excess use of force by government on its own citizens, because the Drive-Bys thought they were a bunch of religious wackos, and Janet Reno said they were abusing children in there. So the way to solve this is burn everybody down and burn everything that they were in, up! Every time some nutcase goes out and kills people, that becomes secondary to the agenda-driven item that is gun control. You have uninformed people talking about, "What do we do about these automatic weapons," and how we need an honest dialogue. You have Howard Fineman out there saying yeah, yeah, this is going to reignite the gun control debate. Virginia is the headquarters of the NRA, home to loose gun laws and so forth. They're going to "ignite the debate," as though they're just bystanders who are just watching and there's going to be a debate that crops up. I'm sure some leftists groups will start the debate again. They, too, will take advantage of the opportunity to do that, but the Drive-Bys will act like, "Hey, we're just bystanders watching this." They're going to be the instigators of the "debate."
He was paraphrasing what the drive-by's were thinking and saying. Very little of this was Rush's own opinion, but Rush saying what the drive-by's, uninformed people, Howard Fineman, agenda-driven & leftist groups were saying.
I want an apology from Jer now for making me ONCE AGAIN research and link to dispel his LIES.
Well then.
October 23, 2009 - 03:35 ET by JWFSlyrr did not back you up. Kata did not back you up.
And since your brand is lower than whale poop. No, we don't trust you to tell us what you heard anyone say.
Jer: Limbaugh's continuing "Clinton/Reno deliberately burned them alive"
Now stop wasting our time with your bull about people backing you up and SOURCE IT.
Not Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Jer, Who ordered the siege, Janet,and or Bill?
October 21, 2009 - 17:07 ET by upcountrywaterWho was the CinC of the Army, at the time?
BTW Tanks are controlled by the Army.
ucw... Read the report I
October 21, 2009 - 17:52 ET by Jerucw...
Read the report I linked for you months ago. All of it. Because it answers all of your questions.
Jer
Jer, Your faith in government is your god of total amazement
October 23, 2009 - 00:41 ET by upcountrywaterSorry I do not share your faith..
No way in Hell does it (a pile of paper work ,missing FBI launched pyrotechnic CS tear gas info) answer ALL MY QUESTIONS.
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
Braaaackkkk. Rush is a hater. Squawk. Carl Rove. Braaack.
October 20, 2009 - 20:55 ET by JWFWhat is next for the jertroll? Rush should explode like a big bag of meat?
My turn! I am now going to focus on liberal radio talkers and give names and quote quotes and talk about liberal radio talk show hosts ad nauseam blah blah blah blah blah. Ready?
....
Oops. Forgot. Don't listen to lib radio. Can't name a hosts. Can't quote a one of them. Too bad. So sad.
Doesn't stop the reverse with the jertroll now does it?
Will Rush sue the St Louis
October 20, 2009 - 16:24 ET by buddycWill Rush sue the St Louis Paper, ESPN, NBC and Michael Wilbon?
The statements they made were false but when there is a public figure involved, Rush must prove actual malice. This term means more than just failure to double check sources. But when it is clear that Rush would not have uttered such comment (because of his view or even because such statement would have been audio taped and availble), then actual malice might exist. Wilbon and others previously expressed extreme hatred of Rush would also be used to establish malice.
Personally I think he should sue them. He has a 1 in 10 chance of success. Who knows maybe the US Supreme Court will go back and over turn Sullivan, as they should. It was a case political decided but one of the most political US Sup Courts in our history. It was bad law and has encouraged the horrible discourse we suffer through today. Even if the modified the standard to determine a failure to check sources constituted "actual malice" it would certainly help.
Limbaugh rejected because he has long been percieved a racist
October 20, 2009 - 21:27 ET by 007memoLimbaugh was rejected because he has long been perceived a racist, not because his accusers made 11th hour claims that "he once said slavery "had its merits" and that the assassin of Martin Luther King deserved a "Medal of Honor."
As despicable, incompetent and grossly negligent as the media was in reporting these lies, Limbaugh's actual history of race baiting, racist rants are very well documented.
Perhaps the Republican NFL Owners threw Limbaugh under the bus because they didn't want to have to explain away all those racist comments, like this one for example: "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."
And in the interest of fairness, can we agree that we should call out all media lies and the lying, liars that tell them: We all know Limbaugh lied about this one, so why not call him on it: "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama"; Obama "has yet to prove he's a citizen."
Follow the Link for Rush's racist rants along with audio, in his own words and in full context:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049
(yawn)
October 20, 2009 - 21:28 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
double yawn
October 20, 2009 - 21:35 ET by Mike76yeah, yawn. "Very well documented" says James Bond Jr. Except no one can seem to find any of these "well documented" racist remarks anywhere. "Well documented" but nowhere to be found.
Maybe "007" thinks the hallucinations in his head count as "documentation." Who knows.
What a tool.
I have one better for you Bond
October 20, 2009 - 21:31 ET by katainkentwithout the Media Matters aftertaste
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
on the angry Statist/Socialist 007
October 20, 2009 - 22:30 ET by UnsaneIt is kinda funny how he MUST go to Media Matters, yet he cannot go - oh, I don't know - straight to the source and see for himself. But it is probably for his own good. If he were to click on rushlimbaugh.com, the anger he would instantly experience would probably kill him.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
For the intellectually bankrupt Statist/Socialist
October 20, 2009 - 22:27 ET by UnsaneLet's review, shall we, my hate-filled Statist/Socialist?
You do not know what a "right" is. You cannot differeintiate between political parties and political philosophies. You do not understand the fundamental difference between federal and unitary governments, and you truly, deeply believe that the United States has a unitary government. You make cheap accusations you cannot back up, and to top it all off, when you DO provide evidence, you show me and all the world that you cannot be bothered to conduct basic source evaluation.
And the only reason you are screaming "RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!" is because YOU are too intellectually bankrupt to take on anything he says.
Yet you still have the audacity to call your betters "rubes, unsophisticates", and so on, even though you repeatedly, constantly demonstrate your very own stupidity every time you flap your gums on NB.
If I tried a tenth of the crap you repeatedly pull here on NB I would have been laughed out of academia long ago.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually, It's Just The Same Thing That Happened To Pres. Bush
October 21, 2009 - 00:09 ET by The7SticksThere you go again, acting like one side is good (which to you is Fox News) and the other side is bad (which to you is everyone else). Ever considered that both sides are bad? I've only noticed this recently, but Fox News has begun to take a decidedly antagonistic turn on the Obama administration the way MSNBC and CNN did in trying to smear President Bush. It wasn't always that way, but no longer is Fox News fair and balanced. Of course, MSNBC and CNN aren't any less guilty than Fox News either. Why would they even get that worked up over Rush Limbaugh wanting to buy the St. Louis Rams? I hate those traitors who turned their back on Los Angeles for that, ugh, a-hole of a city. I hate St. Louis! They stole our Rams and they stole our pennant from the Dodgers. As far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they want, just don't hope they come back to Los Angeles because if they do, we Angelenos will pistol-whip the Rams' hides back to the Stone Age! Or at least to St. Louis.
As for Rush, I'd rather he picked the Pittsburgh Steelers instead. At least they're a credible team.
Let's review class, Rush Limbaugh is a Racist, unsane.
October 21, 2009 - 00:25 ET by 007memo"you show me and all the world that you cannot be bothered to conduct basic source evaluation."
Not being in academia, I must ask you, WTH are you talking about? I have to assume you're talking about Media Matters not being a proper source for the exact audio clips of Limbaugh's racist remarks. If so, LOL!
"And the only reason you are screaming "RACIST! ..." is because YOU are too intellectually bankrupt to take on anything he says."
How about this for a change then, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot! And explain to me professor, and I hope you have tenure cause so far I'm not impressed, what remarks by Rush have you "taken on" to explain for the class how they shouldn't be classified as racist?
"Yet you still have the audacity to call your betters "rubes, unsophisticates", even though you... demonstrate your very own stupidity every time you flap your gums.."
Well, my "betters", of whom you consider yourself among, are only perceived so by your fellow believers here in your little circle. Beyond your little circle, the world has passed you by. Luckily for America, you and yours are an anachronism, your views are the "minority" view, more appropriate for the 1950's.
Your perception of Limbaugh's racist remarks is the "minority's" perception as well.
007 = stupid
October 21, 2009 - 08:17 ET by Mike76James Bond Jr. still can't come up with any of the "very well documented" racist quotes of Rush Limbaugh.
He's quite competent at being hysterical though.
All in all, though, I'm not impressed by inbred morons.
007 files intellectual Chapter 11
October 21, 2009 - 09:15 ET by UnsaneNot being in academia, I must ask you, WTH are you talking about? I have to assume you're talking about Media Matters not being a proper source for the exact audio clips of Limbaugh's racist remarks. If so, LOL! Again, you stupidly post on this board acting as if though you are the smartest human being ever, that NB is personally demeaning to you, and that the other posters who post here need to just SHUT UP and put back in their place, and lorded over by people like you. Yet, you do not know what source evaluation is? Hint: it has nothing to do with whether Media Matters is proper.
I'd recommend you go straight to the source for your audio clips and transcripts. But to do so would require two things you completely lack: intellectual honesty and objectivity. When I conduct research, I go straight to the source, not through some secondary or tertiary source where Shahinshah knows what sort of prism it is viewed through.
Be a brave researcher for a change.
How about this for a change then, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot! That only further confirms your total intellectual bankruptcy here. Instead, I recommend you develop the intestinal fortitude to confront his arguments and ideas squarely. Name-calling and baseless accusations do not a caounter argument make. But then, I don't expect a disaffected Second Worlder, a committed, extremely angry Statist/Socialist like you to get that. And explain to me professor, and I hope you have tenure cause so far I'm not impressed that's fine because as you do not sign my paychecks, I am under no obligation to impress you, what remarks by Rush have you "taken on" to explain for the class how they shouldn't be classified as racist? I am even less impressed by you. You still have yet to prove why he SHOULD be classified as a racist. And IF he is this evil racist you so desperately want us to believe, as you so constantly, repeatedly assure us he is, please explain James Golden for me.
Well, my "betters", of whom you consider yourself among, are only perceived so by your fellow believers here in your little circle. Beyond your little circle, the world has passed you by. Actually, no. If this is the case, you can explain why even the Europeans are tossing Leftists governments out the window. You can explain to me in full why the CDU/CSU/FDP won the last German election, and why Gordon Brown is marking time until next June. Or why Sarkozy beat Royal in 2007. Those governments are still to the Left of me but I find such telling, and it makes your little whine of how the world is allegedly passing me by quite laughable. Oh, and just so you know, my side did not run in 2008. Luckily for America, you and yours are an anachronism, your views are the "minority" view, more appropriate for the 1950's. Unluckily for you, you are failing to back up why you think Americans are aching to become a bunch of Happy Little Socialists, how you think that Americans want to turn this superpower with the world's largest and most efficent, advanced economy into a very whiny, pathetic shell of its former self where the lowest common denominator is catered to and endlessly babied by a Nanny State.
You are going to have to learn to back up what you say here because your word is NOT the Holy Writ, and that when you do, you are going to have to learn how to evaluate your sources.
I do not know where you are getting this "1950s" crap from. Bear in mind that I was not even alive in the 1950s, so with me, that is not going to fly. But I attribute that to your unclear writing. Yet another reason why your puffing yourself up to be this elite, smarter than thou, holier than thou guy is only showing us your deep seated insecurity at best, and at worst, is only just childish bragging with no ability to back it up.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...
October 21, 2009 - 09:35 ET by JerI inquired about this on a related thread and no one has responded yet, so I'll pose the question to you. Do you know how far back unredacted Limbaugh transcripts are available to the public? I'm inteested in one for a broadcast during the late 90's.
Thanks.
Jer
Research question answers
October 21, 2009 - 11:45 ET by UnsaneWhy not contact rushlimbaugh.com, or perhaps those like Clear Channel Communications (whom, IIRC, have Limbaugh under contract)? Or you can look at who had him under contract during the time period you are interested in.
(That I am telling an attorney how to do research is a bit amusing to me, I must admit.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Glad to amuse you,
October 21, 2009 - 15:32 ET by JerGlad to amuse you, Unsane. I'm confident I've done more legal research in a single month than you have done in your entire lifetime.
But, back to he issue. I'm not a member of Rush 24/7, but it appears that even if I were, ten-year old transcripts would not be accessible via that route. If they are not, I wasn't going to join just to find that to be the case. I thought you might have a quick answer for me. Anyway, I appreciate the info and advice you provided.
Jer
For Jer
October 22, 2009 - 00:04 ET by UnsaneI'm confident I've done more legal research in a single month than you have done in your entire lifetime. Jer, is this an attempt by you to somehow impress me, to leave me awestruck? If so, it is laughable. I am confident that I have done more archival research in the span of a few days this past summer than you and many NBers have done in your lifetimes combined. Rest assured, I am not the least intimidated. In fact, I could be an outstanding legal researcher, as I know of places to look where some would perhaps not consider looking.
Besides, this is EXACTLY the reason I typed that last sentence. There are some professionals I do not expect to be dispensing research advice to. Attorneys are one of them, as I figure they have the whole "research" thing ironed out long ago. If you don't...well, I would be well advised to have you not represent me in court, or to do so at minimum wage.
I thought you might have a quick answer for me. Sorry I could not be of more help...those are the avenues with which I am most familiar. (And the "creativity" of finding avenues of research is something I am trying to learn every day.) Of course, you could probably ask one who has Rush 24/7 to help you in your cause.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...
October 23, 2009 - 21:08 ET by JerI'm quite sure you would be a superb legal researcher. My high opinion of your abilities is probably only exceeded by your own.
The inquiry was prompted by speculation that perhaps someone here possessed specific knowledge about accessing older Rush transcripts and thus be able to provide a quick solution for me.
Once again, I appreciate your suggestions. They were good ones.
Jer
Jer is a shyster, I knew
October 21, 2009 - 16:06 ET by Dan The Man 2Jer is a shyster, I knew there something I did not like about him. They rank just below whale turds in esteem. IMO lawyers are Satan's own spawn and are responsible for all the crap laws we have in this land.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Your anti-Semitic
October 21, 2009 - 16:12 ET by JerYour anti-Semitic terminology is duly noted, Dan, as is your continued foolishness.
Jer
DtM2
October 21, 2009 - 16:19 ET by MrShyMust you call him a shyster? :p
But yes, I have to say I'm tempted to go along with your assessment of him, shyster-wise and esteem-wise.
Unsane was exactly right, that if he really cares to dig up a transcript, any of that stuff is out there with just a little bit of pavement-hitting, and he can certainly dig it up without hand-holding of an NB'er... and the guy IS (he claims) a lawyer, no less!
Your anti-Semitism is duly
October 21, 2009 - 16:33 ET by JerYour anti-Semitism is duly noted also, MrShy.
Jer
Jer, I have known Mr Shy
October 21, 2009 - 16:42 ET by Trix RabbitJer,
I have known Mr Shy - albeit not personally - for as long as I have been on NB. Speaking as a Jew, I know for a fact that he is not an anti-Semite. Facetious, yes. But, anti-Semite, no.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Trix Rabbit... The Jewish
October 21, 2009 - 17:15 ET by JerTrix Rabbit...
The Jewish lawyer I practiced with for a number of years considered the term anti-Semitic based on the belief the term was derived from Shakespeare's Shylock.
Apparently, there is some debate about the actual etymology and thus whether or not it should be considered anti-Semitic. But there is no disputing the slanderous and/or libelous nature of the term even if applying it in its more contemporary usage connoting a "crooked lawyer".
So MrShy may not have [nor Dan] been guilty of an anti-Semitic remark--but rather just more of their repugnant name-calling on display.
Jer
It is a popular term for
October 21, 2009 - 17:39 ET by Dan The Man 2It is a popular term for lawyers, well used in many writings. If the world had less lawyers it would be better off. Satan was most likely the pattern for the lawyer judging by his performance in teh Garden of Eden; Some truth and some lie.
I never did get the law that says if a murder admits his guilt and even tells how he did and reveals all, the lawyer is bound to keep silent. Man what a stupid law, if the idiot is guilty then tell someone. I know I couldnt live with myself in that situation. Sorta like a news camera man who knows an ambush is taking place but keeps silent.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
???
October 21, 2009 - 16:45 ET by MrShyJer, seriously, don't call people bigots or racists based on nothing... that's called slander.
shyster:
~Jer interpreting it as anti-Semitic
October 21, 2009 - 16:47 ET by choselife3xSimply speaks to his familiarity with Shakespeare, rather than the word's more contemporary usage.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
chose
October 21, 2009 - 16:53 ET by MrShyAfter his post, it occurred to me that in very remote circles it's interpreted as some very vague reference to Semitism. Obviously, to just about everyone, my idea and use of the word is the one we all generally have come to know.
Jer's a piece of work.
~"Very remote circles"
October 21, 2009 - 16:57 ET by choselife3x"Very vague reference". Hilarious.
It's a literary reference. But I'm sure it was Greek to you.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
Right, Shy...your usage to
October 21, 2009 - 17:20 ET by JerRight, Shy...your usage to smear me as a "crooked lawyer". Please proceed with your noxious slurs. It shows such class.
Jer
don't call people bigots or
October 21, 2009 - 16:55 ET by Another Dead Kennedydon't call people bigots or racists based on nothing... that's called slander.
Slander is spoken, Shy. You're confusing it with libel.
xoxo - Ted
~Zing
October 21, 2009 - 16:58 ET by choselife3xdborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
Okay
October 21, 2009 - 17:14 ET by MrShyOkay, Jer lovers, I've been duly double-zinged.
That I'm clearly not an anti-semite was of no concern to either of you. I'm shocked!
~Oh goodie
October 21, 2009 - 17:22 ET by choselife3xHa! Ha! Ha! You are truly deranged!
September 9, 2009 - 23:43 ET by Sergeant ROCK
Chickensh!t* coward. But then, you are an 'Independent' afterall. lol..
Coward.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
*my edit
That I'm clearly neither deranged, nor a chickensh!t coward was of no concern to you.
I didn't agree with Jer, I informed you of where the "anti-semitic" inference derivated. That was it.
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
oh no....
October 21, 2009 - 17:29 ET by MrShyShe's baaaack....
*Mr. Shy quickly gathers his carpentry tools from the attic to build more "No Drama" signs.*
~Annnnnd Shy dodges...again
October 21, 2009 - 17:33 ET by choselife3xIn another riveting display of hypocrisy and balle$$ness.
We need a better class of conservative, here.©
dborschjr68, CTPatriot, and pelicanmarsh are dead to me. I want
nothing to do with them as they represent a time for me that was less
than Christian and less than appropriate. --black47211 aka donaldborschjr
It's not that I like Jer so
October 21, 2009 - 17:28 ET by Another Dead KennedyIt's not that I like Jer so much as I rather dislike you. But we already know that much. As far as you being an anti-semite, I don't particularly think calling someone a shyster qualifies. An insult, yes, and given that was your intention, you succeeded. Congrats.
xoxo - Ted
Libel in the written word
October 21, 2009 - 17:13 ET by Dan The Man 2Libel in the written word on paper, but what about in teh ether, the net; I have used and some posters I know have used the terms like "did you hear me" or have a familiarity of speaking when writing. So is it libel or slander or slanbel?
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Dan
October 21, 2009 - 17:21 ET by MrShyEven I thought this, not to mention we are not walking around under the royal throne of England circa late-16th Century.
With the Ted's and chose's of the world, appearing to win little battles means everything to them, so I figured I'd let them bask in a little glory.
MrShy...
October 21, 2009 - 18:12 ET by JerIf I am wrong about the derivation of shyster, I will gladly withdraw any implications of anti-Semitism associated with the term. As I mentioned earlier, that is how it was explained to me by a Jewish lawyer I practiced with some years ago, and I heard the same from other Jewish attorneys.
But, back to the issue. Exactly what do you endorse or not endorse regarding Dan's disgusting post about me?
Jer
Update: Hmm...Shy seems to have moved on. Just more of his hit-and-run namecalling tactics apparently.
I'm pretty sure he's off at
October 21, 2009 - 18:20 ET by Another Dead KennedyI'm pretty sure he's off at his new video shoot. He'll be back.
xoxo - Ted
but what about in teh ether,
October 21, 2009 - 17:21 ET by Another Dead Kennedybut what about in teh ether, the net
I'm not sure what this means, but to answer your question, it's libel. Regardless of how one feels when posting their thoughts on a web page, it's still written, and it's still libel.
xoxo - Ted
It's libel. But the
October 21, 2009 - 17:27 ET by JerIt's libel. But the distinction makes little difference in this context. It's defamatory, it's abusive, it's repugnant, and it violates the terms of use--which you have done so repeatedly and have been warned about previously.
Jer
Jer, you are really thin
October 21, 2009 - 17:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Jer, you are really thin skinned. Get over it.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Shyster
October 22, 2009 - 08:20 ET by Mike76Dirty rotten shyster:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-shy1.htm
I'm not referring to you, Dan, but I felt I had to attach this important piece of evidence somewhere relevant.
Hmm, it's gone from attacks on Rush Limbaugh (the topic of this thread) to Waco, TX, to the origin of the word shyster, to accusations of libel and/or slander and/or anti-semitism. But not necessarily in that order.
Could it be that someone is trying to deflect attention from the original topic?
It is a common liberal
October 22, 2009 - 09:44 ET by Scuba DudeIt is a common liberal tactic Mike76. Since they cannot answer truthfully or they do not have an answer they will deflect from the original topic or question. You can see this in action right now from the White House with their attacks on Fox News and Rush. They are deflecting attention from things like Healthcare reform and Afghanistan.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
reply
October 22, 2009 - 11:09 ET by Mike76Apparently so. This thread has now "evolved" into some sort of conversation about masochism. You know, being beaten and/or spanked, etc. and liking it.
Love your rants, unsane
October 23, 2009 - 04:28 ET by 007memoLove your rants unsane. Keep em coming.
Those who can do, those who can't teach, Unsane. Your splittin acedemic hairs with: "Yet, you do not know what source evaluation is? Hint: it has nothing to do with whether Media Matters is proper."
All that matters is that I linked to the original audio of Limbaughs Racist, race baiting rmarks.
And when I said this: How about this for a change then, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot! I thought it was kind of funny in a sort of ironic way.
And how do I explain James Golden? And he's the token what??? There for you all to point to to prove Rush isn't a racist. Hahahahahahha!!!
Idiot.
October 23, 2009 - 04:47 ET by JWFIt is you're, idiot.
It would be splittin', idiot.
It is academic, idiot.
3 stupids in one sentence. A new record.
It should be Limbaugh's, idiot.
typo idiot - rmarks.
Keep it up with the troll tells. 3 question marks in a row. 3 exclamation points in a row. And the 12 year old AOLer hahaha's.
Back it up Jer. We assume you lie.
October 21, 2009 - 20:31 ET by JWFI can't find your Rush near quote anywhere ever. I am tired of searching. Yes, no one believes you. You must be sourced to be believed. If you can stop coming in with hyper-partisan anti-conservative, anti-Republican drivel, your brand might be better and people might believe you. As it stands now, you are assumed to be lying until proven correct. Just like nwahs.
Jer: 'Bill Clinton and Janet Reno deliberately incinerated innocent women and children at Waco, and liberals didn't care because they don't like religious people' --- Source that.
How is your hate based on political ideology any different than hate based on race?
Jer: What do you base your beliefs on, other than agenda-driven political rants by Rush?
Is Rush code for The Jews? How is this hate any different? You hate. Jer hates. How is his hate any different than this?
What do you base your beliefs on, other than agenda-driven political rants by the Jews?
How is Jer's hate any different?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
And I assume you are a witless troll, JWF,
October 21, 2009 - 20:43 ET by JerAnd I assume you are a witless troll, because you demonstrate it virtually every time you post another of your unfounded character assaults. Two can play your game, son. I'll never initiate any attack on you, but I reserve the right to respond or not respond to your relentless ad hominems as I see fit.
If you want to engage in reasonable, civil dialogue, I'm more than willing. But if you keep this up, it will generate absolute nothing that's of any benefit to this website.
Jer
I just wanna know.
October 21, 2009 - 20:49 ET by JWFHow is your hate based on political ideology any different than any other hate, nwahs?
If you're addressing me, JWF,
October 21, 2009 - 21:16 ET by JerIf you're addressing me, JWF, I reserve my hate for mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and for a child-rapist, child-killing monster like Koresh.
Unlike Shy has admitted, I don't hate mere political adversaries, or consider them evil or my enemies. I deplore extremist, demonizing political rhetoric, be it from the left or the right. That's why I have never accused Rush or any other conservative opinion/talker of racism or anti-Americanism or treason.
I do believe that Rush has such an intense dislike for liberals that it is fair to say it rises to the level of hatred, even though I do believe he is a very decent man in his personal life. But he demonizes Democrats. He accuses Clinton of mass murder. He implies (still) that the Clintons orchestrated Vince Foster's death. He has called Tom Daschle devil-like and El Diablo and questioned his patriotism. And he has made many remarks which I find to be not overtly racist but at least racially insensitive. And once again, my comment the other day about Limbaugh's "hate" regarding blacks was specifically in relation to his putative hatred of Democrats and liberals, and thus only inferentially applicable at blacks--since 90% vote Democratic. If I gave you or anyone else the impression that I believe he hates blacks on racial grounds, such was certainly not my intention.
Hope that helps.
Jer
Source it.
October 22, 2009 - 10:26 ET by JWFSource it - I do believe that Rush has such an intense dislike for liberals that it is fair to say it rises to the level of hatred
Source it - ...he demonizes Democrats
Source it - He accuses Clinton of mass murder.
Source it - He implies (still) that the Clintons orchestrated Vince Foster's death.
Source it - He has called Tom Daschle devil-like and El Diablo and questioned his patriotism.
Source it - ...he has made many remarks which I find to be not overtly racist but at least racially insensitive.
Source it - his putative hatred of Democrats and liberals
thus only inferentially applicable at blacks--since 90% vote Democratic. - And? I hate liberals and Democrats because they lie and then refuse to source anything. They play word games when a simple factual post will do. They say the most hateful things ever about conservatives and Republicans. Things that clear identifiable hatred when you swap out the ideological word for the Jews or the Blacks. So, since I hate Democrats, well lookey here, Jer, and far too many people in the MSM, I am a racist!
Sincerely,
a racist Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF ,Here is another " Source it" for Jer
October 22, 2009 - 17:07 ET by upcountrywaterSource it- "...child-killing monster like Koresh".
Jer, derailed this thread with his own personal verson of WACO.
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
JWF
October 21, 2009 - 21:16 ET by MrShyWatch out. You know -- we all know -- what happens every time we try and put the mirror up to Jer.
He doesn't take kindly to his own reflection.
MrS... LMAO! 'Doubling
October 21, 2009 - 21:44 ET by bigtimerMrS...
LMAO!
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Where've you been, bt?
October 21, 2009 - 21:51 ET by JerWhere've you been, bt?
Shy's and JWF's amen corner has been pretty much empty during your absence.
Jer
Lol Jer... I think we all
October 21, 2009 - 22:03 ET by bigtimerLol Jer...
I think we all have done fine on our own one way or the other over time when it comes to you and your tactics.
Missed you too.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Would you believe I
October 21, 2009 - 22:11 ET by JerWould you believe I actually missed the beatings. I had gotten so use to 'em I had started dropping my pants as part of my standard log in routine.
Jer
Jer
October 21, 2009 - 22:43 ET by shawn228ummm TMI my friend :-)
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
"Whats wrong with a little sodomy between friends?"~Sergeant ROCK to Mr Shy.
Shawn...
October 21, 2009 - 22:52 ET by JerMy new administration will be completely transparent. Full disclosure. Nothing to hide.
Jer
Well Jer
October 21, 2009 - 23:25 ET by shawn228As long as you don't expect anyone to get behind your policies....
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
"Whats wrong with a little sodomy between friends?"~Sergeant ROCK to Mr Shy.
228...
October 21, 2009 - 23:33 ET by JerI can promise you this, Shawn. If you were part of my administration, it would only be as a front man. ;-)
Jer
mas·och·ism
October 22, 2009 - 08:28 ET by Mike76Main Entry: mas·och·ism Pronunciation: \ˈma-sə-ˌki-zəm, ˈma-zə- also ˈmā-\Function: nounEtymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch†1895 German novelistDate: 1892
1 : a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object — compare sadism
2 : pleasure in being abused or dominated : a taste for suffering
— mas·och·ist \-kist\ noun
— mas·och·is·tic \ˌma-sə-ˈkis-tik, ˌma-zə- also ˌmā-\ adjective
— mas·och·is·ti·cal·ly \-ˈkis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
We can start em up again.
October 21, 2009 - 22:59 ET by MightyMouthEver been paddled by a 7th grade math teacher(in front of class) with a paddle made in the wood shop class? Was drilled full of holes so it was more effective. This was a PUBLIC school in Detroit. Now... close your eyes Jer because I am about to be graphic! I had to stand in front of the class and HOLD MY ANKLES while my super hot female math teacher gave me two rather hurtful swats on my 7th grade ass! It happend only once! You want to know why?... because I learned my friggin lesson from that paddling!
Now you may be too young to have such rightful correction so you are pretty much among the generation of sissys and spoiled kids. I call you guys dipshits but I feel a little responsible for your "dipshitedness" sorry buddy!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Watch the language MM :-)
October 21, 2009 - 23:03 ET by shawn228We wouldn't want the profanity police after you would we :-) Hey on a lighter note, I have a weird memory, didn't you tell me one of your teachers posed for Playboy? Was the 7th grade teacher her?
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
"Whats wrong with a little sodomy between friends?"~Sergeant ROCK to Mr Shy.
Ha!
October 21, 2009 - 23:12 ET by MightyMouthSame Teacher shawn! She was a centerfold and like a dumb kid I brought it to school and was confiscated by a male homeroom teacher...go figure!
Thanks for the flashback buddy, that's one good thing about the difference between lies and the truth, you can always remember the truth!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
MM...
October 21, 2009 - 23:19 ET by JerMy eyes are still closed and I can't seem to stop thinking about it. Would you go into a little more detail about exactly how hot was her "hotness". However, I don't particularly care to hear any more about your 7th-grade ass.
Actually, I never got paddled at school until the 11the grade, and then by a sadistic history teacher appropriately nicknamed "Spanky" McFarland. He managed to get all the guys before the year was out. But my parents didn't spare the rod--at least my mom didn't. I had to go outside and procure the very switch to be utilized on my young legs. Said switch was rejected if not up to prescribed standards. And she wielded it masterfully. So you'll need to look elsewhere for your sissys and spoiled kids.
Jer
Fair enough Jer.
October 21, 2009 - 23:27 ET by MightyMouthIf I can find the pics I will post them with honor. Swear to God and hope to die! (and by the way you will be soooo jealous!) Mrs. Blankenship! (sp)
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
MM...
October 21, 2009 - 23:39 ET by JerJust the way you type "Mrs. Blankenship" exudes a certain wistful affection.
Pics....I must see them. ASAP! Very important.
Jer
I have actually done some research online but didn't have...
October 21, 2009 - 23:48 ET by MightyMouththe "gumption". But rest assured my friend this is one of my top 10's before I die. If I am succesful I may have to have a "come to Jesus" meeting with my wife about wall decorations! I hope to prevail, please pray for me!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
I will pray very hard for
October 21, 2009 - 23:54 ET by JerI will pray very hard for you, my friend. Just send all the pics to me. They will remain under my strict care and control. You shan't be led astray.
Jer
1x4 narrowed at one end
October 21, 2009 - 23:37 ET by general companySo Pop could weld it comfortably, because he used it often about everyother day on me. Didnt help one bit, as many of you may have noticed.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The rod should be used sparingly,I think thats in the bible.
October 21, 2009 - 23:41 ET by MightyMouth"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Well
October 21, 2009 - 23:45 ET by general companyI am sure Pop thought he was sparing it.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
gc
October 21, 2009 - 23:52 ET by MightyMouthIt must have had an effect. You just didn't realise at the time!
Ask yourself: do you love the man?
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Pop and I
October 22, 2009 - 00:07 ET by general companyHated each other until I was 25 or so. In-fact I left home a week after my 15th b-day. We did not think alike, I never understood his reasoning. To a certain degree I still dont. But I was not a good kid, quite headstrong and I felt compelled to do what I wanted.
We are pretty close, but we live 1200 miles apart.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Ouch. Did he periodically
October 21, 2009 - 23:47 ET by JerOuch. Did he periodically replane the wood to maintain it in perfect paddling condition. Now I feel spoiled to have only been switched.
Jer
You kidding
October 22, 2009 - 00:19 ET by general companyPop kept it slick by whipping my fanny with it. I have 7 siblings, who thank me all the time for wearing out Pop so he would advoid paddling them.
In all seriousness, Pop is pretty upset about the whippings, and has apologized many times, but I didnt give him much choice, I would force him to sometimes, for spite. By the time I was 7or8 I could take anything, pain wasnt a deterrent.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Jer, grandma made me go out find a switch, owww. lol flash back
October 23, 2009 - 01:01 ET by upcountrywaterThere are wall switches..
Then there are nice green flexible sticks....
And public school , bend over I'm going to WHACK on you on 3... 1..2.. WHAM...
The VP lied to meeeee. My first taste of government.
deleted comment
October 22, 2009 - 08:29 ET by Mike76deleted comment
Special place for the infamous Jer quote.
October 23, 2009 - 06:30 ET by JWFSpecial place for the infamous hot summer Alabamy Jer quote here.
Sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
October 23, 2009 - 10:51 ET by JWFWalk quietly when you visit. The voice in his head is sleeping.