The Poor Conservatives...  

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Do you beleive all the ladies that made accucations against President Clinton or are they part of the Right Wing Conspircy. Remember the comments being used by the Clinton Camp about "Trailer Park Trash", or the "Bimbos", the comment of "drag a dollar through the trailer park and she will flip over for you".

You cite Media Matters and Moveon.org as sources. Media Matters was started by amoung other Hillary Clinton and if you follow what they report it is always favorable to the Clintons and can be very viscious to any one who challenges her or attacks her. Several democratic candidates for house, senate and state offices are afraid that her negative rating will hurt them but they don't want to cross the Clintons either. Moveon.org was formed to move past the Clinton scandales and has always supported the Clintons.

What constiutes a victim? Is Brack Obama a victim when the President said he was articulate, but not when Senator Bidden called him articulate and clean? The press thinks so. Are you a victim when you over medicate to show people what it is like to have a disease to sell a political agenda or are you a victim when you call the person out. Why is it alright for Senator Durbin to call our troops Nizas, PolPot, Jailers in a Russian Goulag; or for Senator Kerry(who admitted to a congressional committee that he committed war crimes by killing civilians) to accuse oru troops of being terriorist attacking women and children in the middle of the night; or Congressman Murtha to tell the world that our Marines are cold blooded killers; or Moveon.org calling General Pertraus - General Betray us.

Twice the Liberal media has attacked Rush Limbaugh using things taken out of context and twisting what he said to try and to discredit him. Unfortunatly when the truch comes out Rush is proven right. When he was trying to show people how Michale J. Fox was acting in the add. His comments were that either he was acting or was not on his meds. As it turns out Michal JFox was over medicated which produces the same results. Michael J Fox admitted that he has done this in the past when testifying before congress. In the latest incident where Rush talked about Phoney Soldiers. ABC ran a news feature on the Phoney Soldiers http://blogs.abcnews.com/... earlier in the week. This was the point of the discussion and what the caller was refering to. Within 2 minutes Ruch made it very clear that Phoney Soldiers were soldiers that were never in the Military and were trying to collect money from the Veterns Administration, and Vet Groups. Now the government is cracking down on these people. Now, General Clark wants Rush punished for what "we" felt he meant to say. This is PC run amouck. Now I can be accused of anything because someone thinks I was thinking about something bad in everything I say.

I didn't cite Media Matters or MoveOn.org as my sources, I said they're among the many entities and individuals who are blamed for attacking these right-wingers after they put their foot in their mouth. I don't follow Media Matters that closely so I can't say much about them but I'm a member of MoveOn.org and they are NOT always for the Clintons. Rush wasn't just talking about these truly phoney vets, he was clearly talking about soldiers that speak out against the war, he in fact personally attacked Sgt. Brian McGough yesterday or the day before, even made a "suicide bomber" analogy about him. Talk about being blamed for doing something wrong because someone knows what your intent is...Rush Limbaugh is the champ of that! He's constantly telling his faithful robots what someone is REALLY thinking or what they really feel. Appaarently if a woman claims she was harrassed or assaulted by a Democrat she's a victim and if the alleged assailant is a Republican she's a vicious liar and a sl*t.
Annie

Hello Anniepa,

Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? Careful, this is a trick question. If you say yes, you'll be scorned by the left. If you say no, then you'll be called out for not knowing what you're talking about.

I happened to have heard the show in question, as well as the shows on the preceeding Monday and Tuesday, of the same week. Only a complete idiot, or a person with a political axe to grind would have misconstrued what Rush said to the caller.

Once again Annie, you've been duped!

I wasn't duped, I'm not an idiot and I don't have a "political axe to grind" but I heard what Rush said and it was quite clear what he was talking about! He repeated it later in reference to the soldier who appeared on an ad asking him to say it to his face. Sorry.
Annie

A lot of the figureheads are abominations.
Both Clintons (lots of unanswered questions and dealings, I've noted some before)
Goreacle (Occid Petroleum is the key for today),
Empty Golfbags and Pills (Rush)
O'RLY!? No way -_-(O'Reilly)
Most of the figurehead clowns in the Congress (Boxer, Pelosi and the gang of nothings)
Everyone running for the title of Emperor, I meant "President" -_-

And in the end, no new ideas really exist. No one tries to correct the problems. Any proposals that are up aren't to help people its to expand the government and hence the power of those elected. The sad part is some people really go in for this one-card monte. "Two parties" whatever, tts just the same party only different people at the helm, while the ship is on fire and sinking.

'Unfortunately what happens is because these fools get so much attention, people who know better start thinking they somehow have to defend them. It's a knee-jerk reaction it seems. Some people don't even investigate what they say to find out the facts, they just jump on the bandwagon.'

Cremechese51 I think that's the most senseful comment I've read in a while. I don't mean with regard to the US, I don't live there, but here on mylot we are all guilty of this, I know I am. We don't necissarily agree with their extreme oppinions, we just start defending them because we sit on that partiular side of the argument. It would be much better if we all spoke objectively and not let other's oppinnions represent our own.

Thanks so very much for weighing in on this! I was so afraid I wouldn’t hear from you. There was a he** of a lot more to that right-wing conspiracy with all their lies and exaggerations than there is to the liberals picking on those poor little babies Rush and company! As for Clinton's Presidency, what I wouldn't give to go back to that time of peace and prosperity.

I hated that time and don't want to go back. Plus again, I have to bring up the unanswered questions of Chinagate, illegal funding/campaign funding, Korea reactor gate, giant continental freeway (while lying about it), no real change in America just bread & circuses. Its tons of stuff. Of course its still bread and circuses in this time and none of our beloved always right leaders (and some of their die hard supporters) on either side of "the isle" have any answers, just attacks.

The Clinton years were far from peaceful, Clinton's idea of foreign policy could best be described as cruise missile imperialism.

He bombed a bunch of countries and was bombing Iraq throughout most of his presidency in preparation for invasion of Iraq. There was Somalia, Afghanistan, Kosovo and several others as well.

His prosperity amounted to a few years of actually balancing the budget at the expense of business and putting the US into a recession.

Prosperity at the expense of business? Huh??? Put the country into a recession? Greenspan slowed th economy down intentionally with the rate increases and if you ask me we're in worse than a recession now! You can give me all the facts and figures you can dig up to show how great Bush's tax cuts for the rich are but I know what I see and LIVE for myself as well as how my friends and relatives' lives are now compared to the Clinton years. Also, our country wasn't known for torture and illegal secret prisons then or for wiretapping private civilians phone lines.

Actually, the tax cuts were not only for the rich, they were across the board for everyone including a new 10% tax bracket for the poorest taxpayers.

I worked during the Clinton years and the during the time Bush's tax cuts took effect and saw my tax bill go down a bunch.

If the democrats do win, you can kiss those tax breaks goodbye.

I see, Greenspan put us in a recession deliberately, hmmm?

That couldn't have been good for the economy.

Unless there was another incident I never heard about, Ann Coulter had a pie thrown at her; heck, a little sweetness might do that sourpuss some good...lol I don't disagree that "both sides" do it but it just seems that especially lately the conservatives have been outdoing themselves with their hypocrisy. I guess that's what bothers me the most! When they attack out troops, or people with diseases they certainly can't help having or widows of terror victims that's definitely crossing the line. I'm not familiar with the photo you mention but for something like that to be faked is horrible and I would certainly never defend anyone who did that. For the record I just wish when someone says something that offends others they take a page from Don Imus's book and apologize and don't make excuses for themselves. Also, for what it's worth if you can give me an example of a liberal and/or a Democrat saying something hurtful about someone totally undeserving or unable to defend themselves I'll be just as angry about that!
Annie

Well, I'll probably need the weekend for more relaxing, but if I somehow find something where they've said something undeserving or cruel to a defenseless target I'll post it. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are some common attacks on presidential candidates and their spouses and this is actually something else that transcends both isles (so once again we're back at my main point of the one-card monte made into a two-card deal only with attacks -_-)

Got to go Annie, got some chores that need to be done.

I agree with you on this, my only problem with him is why did he plead guilty to making a public disturbance? OK, I can understand he claims an Idaho paper was conducting a witch hunt on him, and that may well be true, I know people in the public eye are made targets and I don't condone that at all. If he's a homosexual, who cares? I also realize hindsight is 20/20, but wouldn't it have been easier if he pled not guilty to begin with, then called a press conference (which he ended up doing anyway and it was much worse) and tell the truth? He is a U.S. Senator and surely had access to lawyers, even friends of his in the Senate, I'm sure could've advised him. My brother, who is as liberal as they come, said much the same as you have; he even said he's going to be extra careful how he moves his feet and what he touches when in public restrooms. That Tucson law is outrageous! I'd never heard that before but that really sucks.
Annie

I wonder about that b.s. monitoring. From Rush, with his ditto-heads, to the legions that follow Fox News, I can't help thinking many people have been taken in by the right wing media. Are they expressing what people felt anyway, or have they put the anti-liberal rhetoric in the mouths of a lot of people? Some of it started with Newt Gingrich, but in general Repub politicians don't talk this way. I don't know, but I think a lot of the so-called 'facts' and the vocabulary used by conservatives on MyLot sounds like parroting the likes of Rush, Savage, Coulter, et al.

Both sides are excellent with lies, deception, misinformation and the like. Each has an agenda but really its all just a nice charade for those that want to believe. All the empty flapping heads can say what they wish and make all the promises, cry foul, lie, hide information, but in the end nothing really changes and the real problems still exist. And I did note some cases where some of these voices are indeed being silenced depending on what viewpoint they have. Agree with the silenced(or targeted) viewpoints or not, people should still be concerned the government is starting to infringe upon free speech rights (as well as others).

The truth is that nothing of any importance will get done without the two parties coming together and making it happen. And since they are busy demeaning each other,nothing will get done.

Strange, but I just don't see the level of vitriol from liberal commentators that you say you've encountered. I couldn't listen to Rush for more that 5 minutes, and Ann Coulter is just offensive. In general, I just see all the vitriol coming from the right wing, and the rational arguments coming from the left. I guess there's Al Franken, but he has the benefit of being funny (though I guess not for conservatives). And he's just responding to the tenor of debate set by Rush. Michael Moore gets a lot of flack, but he is not vitriolic, just, shall we say, a little biased.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is immune to being influenced by one's sources of information. I'm sure AnniePa can stand up for herself, but she seems extremely clear-headed and rational in her posts.

Hello Bravenewworld,

I respect you sticking up for another member. That's admirable.

I see little value in going tat for tat (we cannot use the accurate term because of the filtering software). I could name Janine G'arafolo or some other liberal, and say that they're more extreme than the next commentator.

However, my point was that we need to stop listeing to the babbling heads, and start thinking for ourselves. If we find that we need to be weened off the babbling heads, then OK -- we can listen to them. But, if we listen to one side, then we should check out some of the other side, for ourselves -- enabling us to come to our own conclusions. Or better yet, how 'bout if we employ a bit of fact checking?

Below in an exchange from another of Annie's threads where she admits that she spouted (what turned out to be) trumped up charges against O'Reilly & Juan Williams without ever doing any of her own fact checking. How is that "clear headed"?

What about integrity? What about responsibility? Before I decree something as factual or fraudulent, I do my due diligence. And yes, I believe it's reasonable to expect the same from others. Otherwise, we're all just spreading someone else's lies. How does that help our nation?

I'm really very sorry if it hurts Annie's feelings that I call her out on these types of debates. We keep seeing poll after poll, indicating that what the American People most want from their politicians is honesty. Right? Well, how can we expect them to be honest, when we're not being honest amongst ourselves?



"Okay, I have to ask - did you listen to O'Reilly's whole show that day, or did you just listen to the edited, piecemeal clip on Media Matters? Or did you hear it from one of the news outlets who just repeated what Media Matters said on ABC, CNN, and MSNBC?

I urge you to listen to the unedited segment from which the clip was taken. It can be found on billoreilly.com here:

http://www.billoreilly.co.

After listening to the show, compare and contrast that to the edited clip, and then decide if O'Reilly is railing against racism, or being a racist. You can also decide whether Media Matters was giving a true account of what was said, or if they were being selective.

O'Reilly has a pretty big target on his back. There are a lot of things that (in my humble opinion) are not reported accurately. I encourage you to watch a whole week of his show (every episode in its entirety) and then form an opinion. Don't just listen to the rants of people who simply don't like him.



Rated!




anniepa (555) 2 weeks ago
I used to listen to the radio show quite often in my car but our local radio station cancelled his show and I can't get it now. I tried to listen through the link you gave but my speakers aren't working on my computer and I tried to find a transcript and if there is one only premium members can access it. So, if you could tell me some of what was said other than what was played on the other media outlets I promise to be objective and if I was wrong in what I said I'll gladly apologize. However, I've seen and heard enough of O'Reilly's shows to know that he can be quite arrogant and full of himself. To be honest, thought, I was a bit surprised because I don't think I ever would have thought of him as a racist, unlike some other right-wingers such as Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Annie"

Since you already covered most of what I had to say (and what I already said), I will piggyback on your response.

Let's talk about Rush Limbaugh.

Rush was quoted as using the term "phony soldiers" - which he did - in the context of a conversation about a man who was a soldier for a few days, and then lied about going to Iraq AND lied about being wounded in Iraq AND lied about a receiving purple heart. So what should Rush have called him instead to avoid being misquoted?

The phony soldier comment had absolutely nothing to do with soldiers who disagree with the war or the policies of the current administration. That was the way media matters chose to twist it.

Anniepa, since you seem to prefer transcripts over actual audio clips, here ya go:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.c...

Hello Hmmmmm,

OK, since you've referenced your self here, I'm honored to give credit for the first part of the text that I submitted. I deliberately left that out, because I didn't have your permission to quote you. I hope I didn't offend you.

Your respectful words in the other thread may help us all to be a little more responsible with how we disseminate information. Since we are all computer users here in MyLot, there is simply no excuse for not doing some basic fact checking before we electively smear another human being. A good rule of thumb, that we probably all learned somewhere down the line is: Go to the source, first.

"I hope I didn't offend you."

God, no. I was flattered.

I don't know, the transcript indicates to me that Rush was referring to a general class of phony soldiers, who has have said they are for withdrawing from Iraq. He has also gone on to include John Murtha in this phony soldier classification. He can back-track or play semantics all he likes, but it's clear that his intent was to smear the anti-war movement. It's no doubt been blown out of proportion and liberals are jumping on a chance to attack Rush. But as the original post indicates, he's hardly a poor victim to have much sympathy for.

Actually, after reading that transcript, I believe that Rush pretty well nailed it dead-on.

I'm one of those that have never listened to Rush on the basis that I've gathered he's a conservative blowhard. This transcript doesn't make me think any different. It makes MoveOn and MediaMatters look like works of scholarly sobriety and rationality. There have to be more intelligent right wing pundits than Rush, Savage, Coulter and Hannity, surely? Maybe I'd start listening if there were. But in general, with Reagan and George W. as prime examples, conservatives seem to favor anti-intellectualism. I wonder why that is?

Hello Bravenewworld,

The well deserved criticism of John Murtha has everything to do with the fact that Murtha condemned U.S. soldiers, before an investigation into the charges was complete, and before those soldiers even had their day in court. Let's remember that the U.S. Constitution grants us all innocence until guilt is proven by a jury of our peers.

Do you believe that elected representatives should be condemning our soldiers before they've had their day in court? What would you think if you were wrongly condemned for conspiracy and murder in the halls of Congress, before you'd even given testimony?

Rush's blanket criticism of all people who give credibility to "phony soldiers" is not only well deserved, but is a reminder to us all to perform responsible due diligence, and allow the judicial process to unfold before condemning our fellow citizens.

Moreover, Jesse MacBeth is by no means the only "phony soldier". Remember the series of fictitious articles submitted to "The New Republic"? Which were posted as accurate, by "phony soldiers" who used fictitious names, to libel real soldiers. Once pressure mounted to learn the true identities of these hacks, the "New Republic" had to eat crow. Moreover, the ABC report cited numerous instances where "phony soldiers" were applying for, and receiving Veteran's benefits, for which they are not eligible. Geesh, Jesse MacBeth was only in the military for less than seven weeks, before he washed out of boot camp. Yet, he claimed to have earned a Purple Heart. I cannot help but wonder what my Father, who earned two Purple Hearts (one on the shores of Normandy, and the other in Germany) would have thought about this.

Let's not let this "he implied" argument distract us from the reality of the existence of "phony soldiers". They are out there, and they are being propped up by certain individuals and groups for political reasons. They are frauds, and for the media to elevate them to the status of genunine heroes, without responsible fact checking is both reprehensible and unforgettable.

I don't appear to be arguring with you, particularly as you seem like a thoughtful, respectful person.

However, I think the concern is the use of the label "phoney soldiers" for soldiers who serve but express anti-war opinions and are for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

But maybe that's not what Rush or yourself intend. Certainly the water has been muddied by a soldier who apparently claimed to have fought honorably but didn't.

Murtha may have been wrong in his statement(s) (I don't know the details or context). But again, as an ex-soldier who has come out publicly against the war and for withdrawal, it appears that there's an attempt to discredit him, and again the "phoney soldier" tag was used.

Man, I wish I could edit my comments after they're posted (I seem incapable of proof reading).

The first line was meant to read "I don't want to appear to be arguing with you..". :)

Hello Bravenewworld,

Thank you for the kind words. I do appreciate it, as I make a genuine effor to be fair and honest about my presentation of events.

Yes, you're right in suggesting that the intent behind the phrase "phony soldiers" is the issue at hand. The term is used to condemn those who illegally, and dishonorably pretend to be genuine heroes.

America has a long history of millions of true heroes, who have sacrificed life and limb to protect and serve us. It is they who deserve our respect and honor. And, yes that absolutely includes every man and woman in the armed forces who want this war to end, and who also might believe that it was a mistake in the first place. The term "phony" is only applied when one discards honor.

Just so you know, I've been listening to Rush for eight years, and in that time he has repeatedly honored any soldiers right to disagree with the powers that be. Of course, it only really became an issue over the last six years. But, I give you my word that Rush, and all the other 'talking heads' who support Conservatism, have done so as well. I would personally be the first in line to excoriate the first Conservative spokesperson who dared to besmirch a US Soldier for his or her views.

I don't consider myself a "victim" although I've been called an idiot, a liar and I've been accused of not thinking on my own. I've listened to Rush Limbaugh as much as some of his biggest fans and supporters and I know what he said and the context in which he said it. He went on to attack the soldier I mentioned above who was awarded a Purple Heart and now speaks against the war. Thanks, Brave, for defending me. It's much appreciated.

That's a very good point, Hon! I don't feel sorry for any of them either. Limbaugh had a teensy bit of my sympathy when he first announced he was going deaf and then even when I learned of his drug addiction. But he feels no sympathy for anyone else no matter what if they happen to be of a different political leaning than him. What a scum.
Annie