Rush Limbaugh auctioning Harry Reid's smear letter on ebay

[forrestunifreak]

Rush Limbaugh pulls one over on the Dems!

Announcement on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppO7hF7ugY

Actual ebay auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQihZ016QQcategoryZ4105QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrd Z1QQcmdZViewItem

It's up to $40,000 already, after only two days, and with 5 days left to go it will probably sell for millions since it's all going to the the Marine Corps.

[forrestunifreak]

Those of you have don't know about the story... I'll explain.

A couple weeks ago Rush did a segment on his radio show about "phony" soldiers that claimed to be war hero's and such, when in fact they did not even see action or go to Iraq (and one guy in particular, I can't remember his name). He noted the Lefts attachment to phony soldiers like this one who lied about their service to protest the war. This particular phony soldier stood trial for lying and accusing the military of false war crimes.

Now the democrats, and Harry Reid in particular, jumped at the chance to smear Rush, and tried to turn it around saying that Rush was calling all soldiers who spoke out against the war "phony" when it was obvious he was talking about one soldier in particular who lied about his service and made false accusations about war crimes in Iraq when in fact he never served in Iraq.

As you will see in the two links above, Harry Reid sent a petition signed by 41 senators, to the owner of the network Rush's show is on calling for Rush, a private citizen, to be censored.

[monkeyman]

Oh, gag me with a spoon.

[forrestunifreak]

Partison or not, that doesn't take away from the issue.

[john_childs]

I hope that letter doesn't contain MoveOn.org's trademark (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301267,00.html) or the auction will get pulled from eBay.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

As you will see in the two links above, Harry Reid sent a petition signed by 41 senators, to the owner of the network Rush's show is on calling for Rush, a private citizen, to be censored.
Wait... what really defines a private citizen? I don't like censorship but that aside, he's got a show. Show's can be censored. They censored Pearl Jam a while back. They do it all the time. Why should Rush (haha, Rush. That's a funny name) be immune for it?? Aren't the cats in Pearl Jam "private citizens"?

Hahaha, I don't know what you're saying is pretty much what I'm getting at.

[john_childs]

Free Speech for me, but not for thee. That's the American way.

[GILD]

Is Rush Limbaugh related to Danny Bonaduce?

[forrestunifreak]

Wait... what really defines a private citizen? I don't like censorship but that aside, he's got a show. Show's can be censored. They censored Pearl Jam a while back. They do it all the time. Why should Rush (haha, Rush. That's a funny name) be immune for it?? Aren't the cats in Pearl Jam "private citizens"?


What were the "cats" censored for saying?



The point is, they (Harry Reid and some of the other democrats) don't like Rush Limbaugh because he frequently speaks out against them, so they are doing everything they can to get rid of him.

They called him names, lied about him, said he was against the troops, etc. and he turned the tables around by selling the letter to donate money for the Marine Corps.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

George Bush, Leave this world alone.
George Bush, Find yourself another home.

I don't agree with censorship of any kind. It's stupid, no matter who's doing it.
But a better use of that money would probably be aid to the civilians who's lifes we're screwing up over there...

[wickedbob]

George Bush, Leave this world alone.
George Bush, Find yourself another home.

I don't agree with censorship of any kind. It's stupid, no matter who's doing it.
But a better use of that money would probably be aid to the civilians who's lifes we're screwing up over there...

How so seriously? I mean we are helping them. The tyrant leader has been removed and executed... I know there must be some terrible things, but the darkest hour is always before dawn.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Dude, do you actually beleive that shit that we're there "freeing the Iraqis"?
Remember, first of all, they had weapons of mass destruction.
Then when everybody realized that the government was bullshitting us, it was throwing out a dictator.
If you read the news, we're doing horrid things to everybody there. Our soldiers, their soldiers, the civilians.

If we're starting a crusade against WMDs and dictators, let's start at home.


Iraq is in worse shape then it was when we entered.
So is Afganistan. Just nobody cares about Afganistan cuz that was, what, six years ago? That's oooold news man, old news.

[wickedbob]

Dude, do you actually beleive that shit that we're there "freeing the Iraqis"?Remember, first of all, they had weapons of mass destruction.

Yeah, somewhat
Then when everybody realized that the government was bullshitting us, it was throwing out a dictator.
We actually did remove their dictator from power who did many terrible things to his own people.
If you read the news, we're doing horrid things to everybody there. Our soldiers, their soldiers, the civilians.

Hypocrisy on your part no? The news says we do great things and you asked if I actually believe that making it seem foolish to do so yet you do the same.
If we're starting a crusade against WMDs and dictators, let's start at home.
Not really extreme dictators here, but we do own more than our share of wmd's. That being said America is not as likely to use them as some other smaller countries wanting power.

Iraq is in worse shape then it was when we entered.
Removing a tyrant from power is not a pretty sight. We are making it better in the long run. Looking at somethings short term affect is foolish with anything.
So is Afganistan. Just nobody cares about Afganistan cuz that was, what, six years ago? That's oooold news man, old news.
Yeah, people do care. It has just left the public's eye with all the business going on in Iraq for obvious reasons.

.

[forrestunifreak]

Are you kidding me??? Why did you want to throw George Bush into this? Are you that blinded by your political views?

And what "news" do you watch anyway, the doomsday conspiracy channel? Goats, stop playing the fool.





Congrats to you though, wickedbob.

[forrestunifreak]

But a better use of that money would probably be aid to the civilians who's lifes we're screwing up over there...

The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation gives scholarships to children of killed law enforcement, among other things.


Maybe you don't read the news, but we are helping thousands of civilians lives over there. I know you don't want to believe that or any truth on the subject, but I had to say it anyway.

[wickedbob]

Are you kidding me??? Why did you want to throw George Bush into this? Are you that blinded by your political views?

And what "news" do you watch anyway, the doomsday conspiracy channel? Goats, stop playing the fool.





Congrats to you though, wickedbob.

I am beginning to think he is kind of. There has probably been terrible things done there just like any in any war, but the good over shadows these incidents. Imagine being shot at, or having a friend killed brutally next to you. There is no way you can say you would not be mad at the people there even if just for a while until your head cleared. People don't realize what the war can do to totally change people even our own troops. What would you do if you had to shoot a minor to save your life or anybody else for that matter?

Thanks Forrest.

[john_childs]

George Bush, Leave this world alone.
George Bush, Find yourself another home.

You're in the wrong thread. This is the thread where we get to laugh at the Democrats for getting stuck in their own spin after totally misrepresenting (yet again) what Rush said. I'm laughing and thoroughly enjoying the situation.

Stupid Dems. Look who all signed the letter? What a joke. Do they even have a clue about what they're signing? It's time for them to move on(tm) and quit playing games and deal with real issues.

[tomblackwood]

Free Speech for me, but not for thee. That's the American way.
Actually, John, I think the free speech is for me, and not for thee. I tolerate your speech because you've proven (this far) to be a nice enough guy who has just fallen under the Dynastic Bush's Hypnotic Spell (DUHS). It's easy for me to say DUH John, why can't you come over to the proper side of these important issues? I suspect that answer is a conversation in itself. In the meantime, we've both made a change.

[john_childs]

My comments were heavy in sarcasm. Just having fun with a political story.

Free speech for me -- But not for thee (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Me-But-Not-Thee/dp/006019006X) is a core political issue for me. All to often political sides attempt to shut down the other side in ways that are against the philosophy of free speech. You fight what you consider bad speech with good speech of your own, not by shutting down the other side.

I find it telling that in both the letter to Rush and the MoveOn.org story the left has attempted to shut down the opposition in a way that just shows they only believe in freedom for themselves and not their enemy.

And I know the right does the same. But I get to pick and choose when I get to comment and have fun in a political thread. And this thread is play time.

[BluntRM]

I think the signing Democrats were trying to bounce back after their hand was forced in condemning the "General 'Betray Us' Petraeus" ad a few weeks ago (Did someone already say that?). That said, Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict, at least the proceeds are going to a decent cause. Does anybody remember when we hated France and renamed French fries as "freedom fries"? I forgot why we hated France; are they still "next" after Iran? Maybe the Democrats should do something symbolically worthless with their congressional majority and rename all references to "Rush Limbaugh" in official text as "fat lying drug addict". In fact, you're all fat lying drug addicts that obviously hate freedom and the troops.

[GILD]

The tyrant leader has been removed and executed... I know there must be some terrible things, but the darkest hour is always before dawn.
Actually, all you did was prop up a strongman, give him the tools to keep a peace, after a fashion, among the warring tribes.
When he stopped playing ball, or was late on a payment or something, you stormed in there, broke his kneecaps with a baseball bat, and left a massive power vacuum.
One that you were either too dumb to realise would exist, or couldn't care. And one that you now seem to have neither the means nor the will, the resources or the balls to sort out.
But hey, you have a perpetual enemy, it is (as John mentioned in a different context) now playtime, with your ex-constitution as the first toy. Oops, that's broken, what else is there?

Are you that blinded by your political views?
Dude, you're the one who brought up Limbaugh...

[john_childs]

That said, Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict
True. But he's not nearly as fat as he once was.

The Freedom Fries episode just proves the Republicans have a sense of humor.

The AeroPress (http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress_story.htm) is fantastic. Aerobie should advertise it on Rush's show. Spin it as an alternative to the French press cause anything French can't be good. ;)

[GILD]

The Freedom Fries episode just proves the Republicans have a sense of humor.

That's a bit of a stretch, even for Sarcasm-John.

The AeroPress (http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress_story.htm) is fantastic.
Didn't Aerobie used to make throwing toys?

http://www.wildcatcommerce.com/productimages/large/26/aerobierings.jpg


Different company?

Thanx for mentioning that, I've never heard of that machine.
I found the South African importers, they're going to let me know where I can buy one in my town.

[john_childs]

now playtime, with your ex-constitution as the first toy. Oops, that's broken, what else is there?
There was a time when I believed that the Democrats would be able to use a majority in Congress to strip out some of the offensive bits in the Patriot Act. But they've been largely ineffective in that. The cynic in me says they're just stalling so they can make hay on their way to winning the 2008 presidential election. Sad that they would put that ahead of fixing the Patriot Act now rather than later.

The constitution isn't broken. We just need the Dems to step up and fix what they consider broken. Same as we sometimes need the Republicans to fix parts of the constitution that the Democrats occasionally break.

I really was hoping that the Dems would act as a more effective buffer in curbing excesses in the Patriot Act and similar legislation. But noooooo. They've been milquetoast.

[john_childs]

Didn't Aerobie used to make throwing toys?
http://www.wildcatcommerce.com/productimages/large/26/aerobierings.jpg

Thanx for mentioning that, I've never heard of that machine.
I found the South African importers, they're going to let me know where I can buy one in my town.
Yup. That's the same Aerobie. The AeroPress in unique in that it is not a good throwing toy.

Mr. BluntRM first mentioned the AeroPress. That's how I learned of it. I'm saying thanks back to Mr. Blunt.

It is a nifty coffee maker. With some experimentation you can get a strong cup of coffee that resembles what you can get with a French press, but with much less mess, quicker brewing time, and more convenience. Just takes some experimentation on water temperature, timing, and how much to water the coffee down (Americano style).

[BluntRM]

I would vote for an Aerobie presidency.

[GILD]

I would vote for an Aerobie presidency.
Oooh, do we have the beginning of a bi-partisan something?

[john_childs]

Oooh, do we have the beginning of a bi-partisan something?
Yes. I'd be willing to give that a throw.

[GILD]

The local importer just got back to me.
He's down in Cape Town but said he would send me a unit up to be here on Wednesday. Comparable price to what I've seen online.
I like him.
I hope I like the machine.

Oh, is this thread jacked now?

[john_childs]

This thread was destined to get jacked. With luck it can get back on track before the end of the auction.

[john_childs]

I hope I like the machine.
It's neat. Just don't expect it to make espresso.

It makes a coffee concentrate that makes a nice cup of coffee after being watered down Americano style. I consider it an alternative to a French press rather than anything "espresso". Coffee concentrate does not equal espresso.

[Brian MacKenzie]

That's a bit of a stretch, even for Sarcasm-John.

Didn't Aerobie used to make throwing toys?

http://www.wildcatcommerce.com/productimages/large/26/aerobierings.jpg




How many tree tops and lake bottoms have I landed those in!!

[GILD]

The only one I own was retrieved from a treetop, the owner wasn't around to claim it anymore.
Yours?

[Brian MacKenzie]

The only one I own was retrieved from a treetop, the owner wasn't around to claim it anymore.
Yours?


Knowing how far those things went, it's quite possible!

[skrobo]

the boomerang ones are cooler :P

[skrobo]

this is a good example of how politicians work.
they are retarded people who falsify everything. nuff said.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Are you kidding me??? Why did you want to throw George Bush into this? Are you that blinded by your political views?

And what "news" do you watch anyway, the doomsday conspiracy channel? Goats, stop playing the fool.


Those lines about Bush were what Pearl Jam got censored for.

I have to leave right now so I'll post later.



But anybody who gets their news from Rush... meh.

NPR, CNN, BBC are favorites of mine...

[johnfoss]

Are you that blinded by your political views?If you think Rush isn't a one-sided, party line-following spouter of Rush's opinion as "THE TRUTH" then the answer is yes.

Kudos to Rush for raising what looks to be a pretty sum for a good cause. But he's still anything but a source of news, unbiased information, or an accurate place to hear about "THE TRUTH."

[Into the blue]

How many tree tops and lake bottoms have I landed those in!!

Quite a few years ago I bought one of those and, with my excited college housemates, drove down to the beach to try it out. Jumping out of the car, my first friend shouted "Watch this!" and threw it as hard as he could.
My brand-new Aerobie whistled over the beach, soared over the incoming tide and disappeared several hundred yards out to sea.

We all got back in the car slowly and drove home.

[GILD]

Quite a few years ago I bought one of those and, with my excited college housemates, drove down to the beach to try it out. Jumping out of the car, my first friend shouted "Watch this!" and threw it as hard as he could.
My brand-new Aerobie whistled over the beach, soared over the incoming tide and disappeared several hundred yards out to sea.

We all got back in the car slowly and drove home.
You have to contact the Aerobie company and pitch that exact scenario as a TV-ad idea.

[BluntRM]

It's like Aerobie frisbees are the same all over the world.

[john_childs]

More like human nature when first encountering an Aerobie flying ring is the same all over the world.

[kington99]

Supposedly true storey: the aerobie was designed by a guy working at NASA, who used the down time between jobs on the computers to do the CFD for it. Heard this one through engineering circles so there might be a ring of truth to it.

[nick]

wait, all the letter asked was for an apology, right?

Also, this pales in comparison to other censorship issues, such as tipper and her PMRC. Not to mention the FCC's crusade against stern and other quality radio programming, as well as the horrible way the superbowl incident with jannet's breast was handled.

All I'm saying is that both the republican party and the democrats are evil, and when either side points out the other, of course there are going to be ways to make them look like hypocrites.

That being said, how can anyone respect Rush after his prescription drug scandal? Seriously, what a joke.

[Brian MacKenzie]

My brand-new Aerobie whistled over the beach, soared over the incoming tide and disappeared several hundred yards out to sea.

We all got back in the car slowly and drove home.

that's about the size of (one of) my story (ies) too! but the kicker was it was only a few inches above his catching hand as it whizzed by him!

[forrestunifreak]

Also, this pales in comparison to other censorship issues, such as tipper and her PMRC. Not to mention the FCC's crusade against stern and other quality radio programming, as well as the horrible way the superbowl incident with jannet's breast was handled


No, it doesn't. You are missing the whole issue. Those things you mentioned were censored for obvious reason, they were unfit for public programing, in an obscene way.

The Rush Limbaugh issue here is, and I believe it's already been explained, is that your tax dollars paid for these US senators to make false accusations about something Rush never said. Isn't that bad enough?



That being said, how can anyone respect Rush after his prescription drug scandal? Seriously, what a joke.

Nonsense! There was no "scandal". He got accidentally hooked on prescription pain medication, went through a quick rehab program and is back to normal.

What about the large amount of celebritys/actors/musicians/you name it, with REAL drug addictions? Are you worried about them too?
I'd be willing to bet you don't have a problem with drugs under "normal" circumstances.

[forrestunifreak]

But he's still anything but a source of news, unbiased information, or an accurate place to hear about "THE TRUTH."

Does his 'reporting' (or whatever you want to call it) on facts make them anything other then facts?

Does it matter if he gives information with bias on his own opinion? Is not every news commentator "biased" in some way or another? You'd have to get a machine to speak with complete unbiase.




Besides, I doubt you know anything about him or his show other then what the general media tells you about him (and democratic senators, we already know what it is they do)

[nick]

No, it doesn't. You are missing the whole issue. Those things you mentioned were censored for obvious reason, they were unfit for public programing, in an obscene way.

The Rush Limbaugh issue here is, and I believe it's already been explained, is that your tax dollars paid for these US senators to make false accusations about something Rush never said. Isn't that bad enough?



Nonsense! There was no "scandal". He got accidentally hooked on prescription pain medication, went through a quick rehab program and is back to normal.

What about the large amount of celebritys/actors/musicians/you name it, with REAL drug addictions? Are you worried about them too?
I'd be willing to bet you don't have a problem with drugs under "normal" circumstances.

You're an idiot.

First of all, censorship is subjective. What you consider obvious reasons may not make sense for the community at large. I am against any form of government censorship, and there is nothing unfit for public programming. Government funded projects should follow a diffrent set of rules, but other than that, I feel that any censorship is wrong. Take some personal responsibility for your actions. If you don't like it, turn it off, and media is not a babysitter.

But that's not really the issue here.

My tax dollars paid for these senators to spend 30 seconds signing a letter. If they never read it, then it's probably more like 5 seconds. I really don't care about that time wasted, as it pales in comparison to other things they waste time on, I'm sure. Someone probably told someone else what Rush said, it got taken out of context because no one spent more than 5 minutes looking into it, an intern typed up a letter, people signed it without reading it, and then we know the rest of the story.

All the letter asked was for Rush to apologize. If he says "no, I'm sticking by my guns" then he can do that. Seriously, not a big deal. No one is forcing him to do anything.

As for the prescription pain killers thing, if you can look past that, then you're obviously a brain dead neocon puppet...

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

How do you "accidentally" get hooked on prescription pain medication? Did he take it by accident? In other cases are people getting hooked on purpose? Even with heroin, no one is going out saying "I'M GANNA GET ADDICTED TO SMACK AND RUIN MY LIFE!" everyone gets addicted by accident, so don't go out of your way to say it to make Rush look innocent.

We all know that Rush pretty much skated on his charges, and used every legal manuver possible to get out of trouble.

Lets not bring up his supposed family values and patriotism...

As for your point about other celebrities; celebrity worship is for suckers. It doesn't matter if it's Rush Limbaugh, Tom Gable, Britney Spears, Ted Nugent, whoever. My heros are my friends, and yes, I may look up to people who have accomplished what I consider to be great things, but that doesn't make anyone better than anyone else.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that of course celebrities have drug problems, but I really don't care about any celebrities anyways.

Actually, this is all besides the point. Rush's problem wasn't the drugs, it was the hypocricy! He goes on these tirades about drug users and family values and being a patriot, and then he abuses drugs, divorces wives like their yesterdays trash, and he dodged the draft durring vietnam! If he had gotten addicted, then before getting caught, came out on his own and publicly admitted his problem, and gone to rehab, and gotten clean, he would have been in the right. But instead he shirked all responsibility and continued to fool morons like you into thinking he's an "all around good guy".

While I'm on a roll here, let me also point out that I really don't have a problem with drugs. I don't use drugs (any including caffine and alchohol) not because they are illeagle, but because they are not condusive the kind of lifestyle that I want to have. It should be a personal decision as to weather or not someone should use drugs, and the drug war is poor excuse by the US government to keep the poor man down. Yes, I really believe that.

Oh, and I listend to conservative talk radio for 3 long years while I worked construction.

[monkeyman]

Excellent post, Nick. You pretty much touched on everything that needed to be dealt with.

[forrestunifreak]

You're an idiot.


As for the prescription pain killers thing, if you can look past that, then you're obviously a brain dead neocon puppet...

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

How do you "accidentally" get hooked on prescription pain medication? Did he take it by accident? In other cases are people getting hooked on purpose? Even with heroin, no one is going out saying "I'M GANNA GET ADDICTED TO SMACK AND RUIN MY LIFE!" everyone gets addicted by accident, so don't go out of your way to say it to make Rush look innocent.


Hmm. You are also an idiot.

It's quite simple. He was taking pain medication for prolonged back pain, got dependent on them without realizing it, then when he did realize he was dependent on them, he got help and stopped.

If he had gotten addicted, then before getting caught, came out on his own and publicly admitted his problem, and gone to rehab, and gotten clean, he would have been in the right.

Um, he did do that. If it weren't for the "general media" making such a big fuss about it (with plenty of false accusations, as they do often), you would have probablly never even known about it.



let me also point out that I really don't have a problem with drugs.
Ah, that's what I thought. You don't really care what he did, you just want to slander him in any way possible, wether it's true or not.

Rush's problem wasn't the drugs, it was the hypocricy! He goes on these tirades about drug users and family values and being a patriot, and then he abuses drugs, divorces wives like their yesterdays trash, and he dodged the draft durring vietnam!
Oh, then why the heck did you say his problem was drugs in the first place?


First of all, censorship is subjective. What you consider obvious reasons may not make sense for the community at large. I am against any form of government censorship, and there is nothing unfit for public programming. Government funded projects should follow a diffrent set of rules, but other than that, I feel that any censorship is wrong. Take some personal responsibility for your actions. If you don't like it, turn it off, and media is not a babysitter.
Foul language and nudity on open public channels might not make sense to the community at large?? Bull.

Regardless, censorship is not the issue though. They weren't trying to censor him because of foul language or anything, they are trying to censor him because they don't like him. He hurts their political party and their political ajenda.

He's the most listened to radio talk show host in the country. He has influence. When he exposes everything someone does wrong (like Harry Reid), it hurts them. That's why they are trying to shut him up.




Oh, and I listend to conservative talk radio for 3 long years while I worked construction.

Conservative talk radio is not the Rush Limbaugh show.

[BluntRM]

The facts have a well known liberal bias...

[johnfoss]

Hmmm, directed at me. Okay, you asked...

Does his 'reporting' (or whatever you want to call it) on facts make them anything other then facts?I don't have a problem with facts. How do you know they're all facts, or accurate? But this is the case with any type of reporting, be it news, opinions or whatever. The facts may be wrong, they may be incomplete, they may be distorted, or they may be only half the facts. Someone who speaks based on opinon, however, is much more likely to cherry-pick only the facts that build or support his argument. That's what Rush does. Partial sets of facts aren't very useful to me. They shouldn't be useful to you either, unless you would rather just agree with Rush than try to get an objective view of things.

Does it matter if he gives information with bias on his own opinion?Not a bit. It only bothers me when he says "The truth is..." and proceeds to enlighten us with his opinion of things, rather than anything factual. He does this a lot.

Anyone as opinionated as Rush is only going to be "right" about 50% of the time. If it doesn't seem that way, it's because you're only listening to him, and not anyone representing the "other side." I listen to commentators on both sides of the political aisle.

I doubt you know anything about him or his show other then what the general media tells you about him (and democratic senators, we already know what it is they do)Don't you mean Republican senators, with their wide stances and all? :p What a dweeb that guy has been.
But let's not stray from the subject; Rush is fun enough, and Democrats are no less human than Republicans (though they tend to be a little less hypocritical). Earlier in his career he worked (and lived) in Sacramento. He was on KFBK, one of the talk stations I listen to now. Some of the people there are friends of his. Neither of us are experts on his career.

You, however, seem to be under the impression that he broke no laws with his drug addiction. You make it sound like he went "Oops, I've become addicted to these innocent pain meds, and I'd better stop." Hardly. He did not stop himself, did he. Did he stop on his own, or when he got caught? Duh. Could he even have gotten so much medication from a single doctor? Duh. Why else would you need multiple doctors to prescribe medications for you? Do you realize how dangerous it is to have multiple doctors prescribing meds for you without being in contact with each other? He did this on purpose because it was the only way to get the stuff. That was not legal either and he knew it.

Your telling of the incident makes it sound like you only learned of it from Rush himself, on his show. Nice and factual was his telling of it, I'm sure. Only the facts you needed to hear.

Rush likes his cochlear implant. They are a hot item of political debate among deaf people, but I don't know if he has an opinion about that aspect of them. It made perfect sense for him to get one. I just wish he hadn't.

[forrestunifreak]

I don't have a problem with facts. How do you know they're all facts, or accurate? But this is the case with any type of reporting, be it news, opinions or whatever. The facts may be wrong, they may be incomplete, they may be distorted, or they may be only half the facts. Someone who speaks based on opinon, however, is much more likely to cherry-pick only the facts that build or support his argument. That's what Rush does. Partial sets of facts aren't very useful to me. They shouldn't be useful to you either, unless you would rather just agree with Rush than try to get an objective view of things.

If you look at it that way, then really, isn't EVERYTHING a matter of opinion?
I agree with Rush because what he says is logical and makes sense, most of the time he says things or bases things on what I already believed/knew in the first place, and he does give the facts.

Wether or not he gives "partial facts" is a matter of opinion. Sure, if he reads just the part of a factual news story that pertains to what he is takling about, you could say that.
But I don't believe you would listen to his radio show and say that he is only giving part of the facts, and is therefore wrong, unless it was just your opinion that he's wrong.

Of course I am under the opinion that he is right. So what? I'm also under the opinion that the sky is blue. Debating all this won't get us anywere. I believe you've said that before yourself.
Anyone as opinionated as Rush is only going to be "right" about 50% of the time. If it doesn't seem that way, it's because you're only listening to him, and not anyone representing the "other side." I listen to commentators on both sides of the political aisle.

50% of the time? You make it sound like he picks things at random. He could be right 50% of the time by throwing darts at a dartboard to make descions.

But that's just your opinion. So you're probably wrong.




You, however, seem to be under the impression that he broke no laws with his drug addiction. You make it sound like he went "Oops, I've become addicted to these innocent pain meds, and I'd better stop." Hardly. He did not stop himself, did he. Did he stop on his own, or when he got caught? Duh. Could he even have gotten so much medication from a single doctor? Duh. Why else would you need multiple doctors to prescribe medications for you? Do you realize how dangerous it is to have multiple doctors prescribing meds for you without being in contact with each other? He did this on purpose because it was the only way to get the stuff. That was not legal either and he knew it.
Well I admit I shortened it down earlier. But the guy has been over this for years, he's apolgized for it, come clean, it's over. Does the fact that that happened make him any less right on things?

And I find it amusing that people still hold this against Rush, but yet when somehing happens on the 'other side of the aisle' (say, Bill Clinton sex scandal maybe) they think of it as irrevalant.


(Not that I'm comparing Rush's prescription drugs to Bill Clinton's scandal, mind you.)


Rush likes his cochlear implant. They are a hot item of political debate among deaf people, but I don't know if he has an opinion about that aspect of them. It made perfect sense for him to get one. I just wish he hadn't.
What does that have to do with anything? Do you really care that he uses a device to help him hear better, or are you just trying to smear him in whatever way you can because you don't like him?



Man, this is a useless arguement.

[monkeyman]

Man, this is a useless arguement.

Oooh, oooh!! Pick me, pick me!!! I know why!

Just like I said at the very beginning. Partisanship.

[forrestunifreak]

Oooh, oooh!! Pick me, pick me!!! I know why!

Just like I said at the very beginning. Partisanship.

Nah, that's just your opinion.

[johnfoss]

I agree with Rush because what he says is logical and makes sense, most of the time he says things or bases things on what I already believed/knew in the first place, and he does give the facts.Ouch. Pretty much end of story right there. You aren't listening.

But I don't believe you would listen to his radio show and say that he is only giving part of the facts, and is therefore wrong, unless it was just your opinion that he's wrong.I would have to listen to his show to offer the opinion that he give out one-sided facts. I don't listen to him every day so I can't say that he does this every day, just every time I've listened to him.

Of course I am under the opinion that he is right. So what?Always? 100% of the time? I even agree with him some of the time. How can this be if I"m a "liberal" or some other label he might use to describe me?

He could be right 50% of the time by throwing darts at a dartboard to make descions.This would probablly make his show better listening, and more informative. :)

But that's just your opinion. So you're probably wrong.I'm wrong about 50% of the time. :D The reason I say this about Rush (and, I'll add, about any partisan blowhard on either side of the aisle that assumes their party is always right) is for the obvious fact that the Repubs, nor the Dems, are alway right. Ever notice this? Or are the Repubs always right, no matter what, in your book? A scary thought, that. If you think they're always right, you might have a tendency to stop paying attention. "No, whatever Rush says is right, his track record proves this. Nothing comes out of his mouth but the truth (at least after his drug conviction)..."

Does the fact that that happened make him any less right on things?Look up the word hypocrite. Then discuss the Rush quote that was offered by Nick above. Explain Rush's position then vs. now. Or tell us why you won't.

(Not that I'm comparing Rush's prescription drugs to Bill Clinton's scandal, mind you.)And well you shouldn't, as Clinton didn't do anything illegal, I don't think, until he lied to a Grand Jury. And why are we talking about that? Is that the standard Republican response to illegal activities by famous Republicans? Surely there must be better ones.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you really care that he uses a device to help him hear better, or are you just trying to smear him in whatever way you can because you don't like him?You accused me of knowing nothing about Rush. I know about Rush, and about cochlear implants. You were expecting some kind of smear there, weren't you? You just assumed something would be there? Guess again. Deaf people have strong opinions about cochlear implants. I know lots of deaf people. What has this got to do with Rush? Now he's a deaf person, and his use of the implant gave them lots of publicity and reopened the debate about whether deaf children should get them, blah blah blah.

Man, this is a useless arguement.It sure is if you're not really listening...

[john_childs]

Rush is not a reporter. The show is not a news show. It is a talk show about editorial comment on current political and social events. It's not news. It's editorial.

Rush is often full of hyperbole and calls it news just to stoke the fires. If you were able to get him to turn off the hyperbole even he would admit it's not a news show.

What is successful about Rush's show is how he is able to read and present editorials and his take on editorials while making it interesting to listen to. He can read an editorial from the newspaper and make it interesting. Give the same editorial to an NPR presenter and the audience falls asleep. Political talk radio doesn't have to be boring to listen to.

[john_childs]

The bidding is up to $56,000.00 (USD).

[monkeyman]

I agree with Rush because what he says is logical and makes sense, most of the time he says things or bases things on what I already believed/knew in the first place, and he does give the facts.

Pretend you ask someone to talk about India's economy, and they answer with this gem:
"India has a large potential workforce."
This statement is "correct", but is it really accurate? Did they mention the poverty, and the corresponding large number of homeless and starving people? How about the rampant corruption?

It is easier than you'd think to be completely factual, fully logical, and wrong.

[wickedbob]

You're an idiot.

While I'm on a roll here, let me also point out that I really don't have a problem with drugs. I don't use drugs (any including caffine and alchohol) not because they are illeagle, but because they are not condusive the kind of lifestyle that I want to have. It should be a personal decision as to weather or not someone should use drugs, and the drug war is poor excuse by the US government to keep the poor man down. Yes, I really believe that.


Care to explain this at all? Some drugs like marijuana yes, but others no. What about all the people in my town with parents that do drugs so they suffer terrible lives not able to do anything about it because they are 7. They wait in the cold for school with a terrible coat and shoes that are barely there. Anyways I think we should give poor people who want drugs more eventually they will die off somewhat. No that was not serious. People doing serious drugs is dangerous and ruins lives I supposed drunken driving should also be a personal choice. I'm seriously interested as to what your going to be if it is intelligent, which I think it will be. Hopefully not just " Because they hate poor's and loves riches so they don't support drug use..."

[BluntRM]

Mandatory prison terms are generally smaller for "rich" drugs like prescription medications and white powder cocaine when compared in similar volume to "poor" drugs like crack cocaine.

Edit: $56,000 bid? I bet it's this guy:

http://blog.funtax.org/images/Simpsons/RichTexan.jpg

[forrestunifreak]

......

Or are the Repubs always right, no matter what, in your book? A scary thought, that. If you think they're always right, you might have a tendency to stop paying attention. "No, whatever Rush says is right, his track record proves this. Nothing comes out of his mouth but the truth (at least after his drug conviction)..."


The republican party, no. Simplified, I would say that 'most' of the democratic party is "bad", and 'most' of the republican party is "good".

Key word most. There are some "good" people in the democratic party, although names fail me, and there are "bad" republicans in the republican party. Also there's what's sometimes called Rino's; Republican In Name Only.

That is my simplified version of course. By "bad" or "wrong" I mean either factually wrong, or mostly, wrong/bad in their opinion, their belief, and their political agenda.




If I was listening to Rush's show, and he read a factual news story, then went on to explain why the news story was bunk, the news source was bunk, or whatever (which he does often) then I would have no reason to believe otherwise. He is a good man, and I trust what he says, opinion or not. If he gives his opinion on a matter, then I either agree with him or at least agree with the principle.

I have no reason to run home and check up to see if his facts are straight. If he makes a mistake with a statistic or something, he'll correct it the next day or something.

Interpret from that what you want.

Look up the word hypocrite. Then discuss the Rush quote that was offered by Nick above. Explain Rush's position then vs. now. Or tell us why you won't.
Speaking for Rush, I would say he holds the same position now as he does then. Drugs are harmful, and he knows that, but he messed up. He made a mistake. That doesn't change his position, it just means he acted against his better judgment, perhaps.

I am speculating on that of course.

Besides, prescription pain medication is different then the usual drug culprits. That certainally doesn't make it ok, and I don't pretend to know all that much about drugs, but that should at least be taken into consideration.



And well you shouldn't, as Clinton didn't do anything illegal, I don't think, until he lied to a Grand Jury. And why are we talking about that?
Well, lying to a grand jury is part of that "scandal".

I'm just saying, it's ironic. That's all....

You accused me of knowing nothing about Rush. I know about Rush, and about cochlear implants. You were expecting some kind of smear there, weren't you? You just assumed something would be there? Guess again. Deaf people have strong opinions about cochlear implants. I know lots of deaf people. What has this got to do with Rush? Now he's a deaf person, and his use of the implant gave them lots of publicity and reopened the debate about whether deaf children should get them, blah blah blah.

Okay, I don't know anything about cochlear implants, other then they help someone to hear? Why should he be blamed for opening the debate about it because he wants to improve his hearing? Sorry if there is more to it then that....

[forrestunifreak]

The bidding is up to $56,000.00 (USD).

$60,000 now. And Rush has announced that he will match whatever the bid amounts to out of his own bank account.


Edit: $56,000 bid? I bet it's this guy:

Nah, it will probably be won by some organization or something.

[forrestunifreak]

Pretend you ask someone to talk about India's economy, and they answer with this gem:
"India has a large potential workforce."
This statement is "correct", but is it really accurate? Did they mention the poverty, and the corresponding large number of homeless and starving people? How about the rampant corruption?



Ok, if Rush said a statement like that, that is factually 'correct', he would assume his listeners were smart enough to understand the rest of it (as in, knowing that India is corrupt and rundown).


He does that sometimes, expects his listeners to know things like that. Which is why the drive by media takes him out of context so much.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Foul language and nudity on open public channels might not make sense to the community at large?? Bull.

What??
Who mean like, I see some naked dude on TV saying "F*******CK!!" and I'll be like,
"'The hell?"

Wait, bad exzample. But you get me? Do you mean, they won't be offended? Ummmm... well. Swear words are real. People say them and they're just other words.

Banana!!
^^^like that.

And what's wrong with nudity? If the weatherman wants to report in the nude, I say let him!

[GILD]

He is a good man, and I trust what he says, opinion or not.
Trusting druggies now?

Whatever, the jack is still more interesting.

Supposedly true story: the aerobie was designed by a guy working at NASA, who used the down time between jobs on the computers to do the CFD for it. Heard this one through engineering circles so there might be a ring of truth to it.
It would seem you're onto something, but it seems slightly less clandestine than someone using machines for unauthorised projects during downtime.

This might be the source of the NASA Engineer story.

Dr. Thomas A. Edwards (System Development)

Dr. Edwards is currently Director for Aerospace at the NASA Ames Research Center, with responsibility for a diversity of research efforts including air transportation automation, thermal protection systems technology, and aerodynamic analysis. He earned his B.S.E. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University and holds a Ph.D. and M.S.E. degrees in Aeronautics and Astronautics from Stanford University. He recently earned an M.S. from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University as a Sloan Fellow. Tom has authored over 40 technical publications on the application of computational methods to the analysis of flight vehicles, and is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He has consulted on the aerodynamic design of flight objects such as the Aerobie™ flying ring, which holds the world record for flight of a hand-thrown object. (http://noahbasketball.com/index.cfm?cmd=noah.about)

Here's some technical detail on the A (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/6/88.06.02.x.html#e)erobie.

And apparently it flies better in hot air, so this post is not a thread-jack.

[GILD]

Mmmm, the plot thickens a bit.
The inventor, Alan Adler, does not seem to have any direct NASA connections on his resume, but definately moved in 'those circles'.
A self-taught engineer, Adler has nonetheless been a lecturer at Stanford University for decades. He worked for high-tech firms including Ampex, Acurex and Lockheed Electronics as an electronics engineer for 25 years, doing research for jet engines, before moving out on his own.

Aerodynamics has always been an interest of Adler's.

"Things that flew always had a bit of magic to me," he said. "The first time I threw a Frisbee, I was quite pleased." (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2003/2003_07_23.aerobie23ja.html)

[monkeyman]

Care to explain this at all? Some drugs like marijuana yes, but others no. What about all the people in my town with parents that do drugs so they suffer terrible lives not able to do anything about it because they are 7. They wait in the cold for school with a terrible coat and shoes that are barely there. Anyways I think we should give poor people who want drugs more eventually they will die off somewhat. No that was not serious. People doing serious drugs is dangerous and ruins lives I supposed drunken driving should also be a personal choice. I'm seriously interested as to what your going to be if it is intelligent, which I think it will be. Hopefully not just " Because they hate poor's and loves riches so they don't support drug use..."

So let them ruin their life. I'm not egotistical enough to assume that my way is everyone's way. I have no interest at all in doing drugs...I also have no interest in gymnastics (and people get hurt there all the time). I'm not going to stop anyone from doing either of those things though.

Ok, if Rush said a statement like that, that is factually 'correct', he would assume his listeners were smart enough to understand the rest of it (as in, knowing that India is corrupt and rundown).


He does that sometimes, expects his listeners to know things like that. Which is why the drive by media takes him out of context so much.

Ok, Forrest, I feel obliged to tell you that you're crossing the line that separates the loyal fans and the crazy fanatics. You can't seriously be telling me that you're perfectly fine with Limbaugh not giving the whole story. You would go crazy if a Democrat did it.


Partison or not, that doesn't take away from the issue.
Actually yes, it does. It makes it absolutely impossible to take you seriously.

The republican party, no. Simplified, I would say that 'most' of the democratic party is "bad", and 'most' of the republican party is "good".
Case in point.

[wickedbob]

Mandatory prison terms are generally smaller for "rich" drugs like prescription medications and white powder cocaine when compared in similar volume to "poor" drugs like crack cocaine.

Edit: $56,000 bid? I bet it's this guy:

http://blog.funtax.org/images/Simpsons/RichTexan.jpg

Oh well I guess all the druggies should save their money for "rich" drugs. Thing is rich people get out of a lot of things normal people don't not just drug sentencing...

[wickedbob]

So let them ruin their life. I'm not egotistical enough to assume that my way is everyone's way. I have no interest at all in doing drugs...I also have no interest in gymnastics (and people get hurt there all the time). I'm not going to stop anyone from doing either of those things though.

If you want to look at it like that. You honestly don't care when a person ruins their children's lives? My way is not everybody way, but when little kids live terrible lives because there parents are on drugs then yes I believe they should take my way and not to drugs. Sorry for being a caring egotistical prick, my bad. I don't have a problem with the extremely few people who do drugs and cause no problems what so ever. Seriously if somebody has the capacity to do all the drugs in the world, but be a great person more power to them. To bad that doesn't happen... That's fine, but when a crack head shoots an innocent person for more drug money there is a problem. What about all the people that die because of the drug trade hmm? If you had 7 cousins of yours lives f#$@ed up because of them would you feel the same? How about when they go hungry while there mother does drugs? Yeah, that is what mine go through and I don't see why anybody else should.

Gymnastics doesn't hurt peoples lives around them like drugs do. People do realize what drugs can do and think they can because they have watched a little tv and read some papers. This is not just directed at you Alex. Well I have experienced it first hand in my family once you do come talk to me ok?

One more things poor people keep themselves down, drugs are just a fantastic tool to help the job.

[forrestunifreak]

Ok, Forrest, I feel obliged to tell you that you're crossing the line that separates the loyal fans and the crazy fanatics. You can't seriously be telling me that you're perfectly fine with Limbaugh not giving the whole story. You would go crazy if a Democrat did it.



Actually yes, it does. It makes it absolutely impossible to take you seriously.


Case in point.

I'm saying I'm perfectly fine with him not giving the whole story. I'm saying he doesn't do it.

At least not in the way that you assume he's untruthfully with holding information.




What it really comes down to, is that you don't agree with his Opinions.

I do.

[monkeyman]

What it really comes down to, is that you don't agree with his Opinions.

Congratulations, Forrest. You just pushed the "Piss me off" button. I absolutely LOATHE this attitude. Why in the name of all that is intellectually honest must I disagree with Limbaugh's opinion to call him out on shoddy reporting? Could it be possible that I agree with some of what he says, but I disagree with the way he says it? Why the hell does it matter whether or not I agree with him?

Are people nowadays honestly so blinded by party loyalty that they refuse to take any sort of criticism unless it comes from a flag-waving supporter of their own party? It's not about agreeing on your answer, it's about arriving at the best answer. If you can't wrap your mind around that concept, stay the hell away from anything that involves semi-intelligent thought.

[forrestunifreak]

Why in the name of all that is intellectually honest must I disagree with Limbaugh's opinion to call him out on shoddy reporting?

Earlier someone said that he is mainly a news commentator instead of a reporter.

Either he's a reporter, or a commentator. Pick one and stick with it.

If you're going to call him a shoddy reporter, fine. Whatever. But if you're going to say that he is just a news commentator, and he's biased and wrong, etc. then doesn't that just mean you don't agree with his opinions on his commentating?
By "you" I guess I sometimes don't mean you personally (Alex). I may be lumping you all together on some things. Sorry if that's the case.





So. I agree with Rush's commentating.

And I say he does not have shoddy reporting.

[monkeyman]

If you want to look at it like that. You honestly don't care when a person ruins their children's lives?
I do care. However, criminalizing drugs will not even come CLOSE to solving the problem. It's obviously not working now, it is?


That's fine, but when a crack head shoots an innocent person for more drug money there is a problem. What about all the people that die because of the drug trade hmm?

Legalizing drugs would get rid of the drug trade. I sincerely hope my grandkids (maybe even my kids) will be learning about the second era of Prohibition and how it failed in their American History classes


If you had 7 cousins of yours lives f#$@ed up because of them would you feel the same? How about when they go hungry while there mother does drugs? Yeah, that is what mine go through and I don't see why anybody else should.
So blame drugs, or blame the bad parenting? You hunt, right? Do you support guns being outlawed because guns can cause bad things?

Gymnastics doesn't hurt peoples lives around them like drugs doAlrighty then. You know what created organized crime? You know what created crime lords like Al Capone? The 18th Amendment. The one that outlawed alcohol. The government tried to outlaw alcohol, and it didn't work. All it did was push it into the black market...it created an entire business of illegal alcohol sale. Why would a situation with drugs be any different? It's obviously not working.

By "you" I guess I sometimes don't mean you personally (Alex). I may be lumping you all together on some things. Sorry if I am.
Same here.

I agree with Rush's commentating.

And I say he does not have shoddy reporting.
Commentating is shoddy reporting. Reporting is about the facts. If you add your own opinion, it becomes bad reporting.

[wickedbob]

I do care. However, criminalizing drugs will not even come CLOSE to solving the problem. It's obviously not working now, it is?




Legalizing drugs would get rid of the drug trade. I sincerely hope my grandkids (maybe even my kids) will be learning about the second era of Prohibition and how it failed in their American History classes



So blame drugs, or blame the bad parenting? You hunt, right? Do you support guns being outlawed because guns can cause bad things?

Alrighty then. You know what created organized crime? You know what created crime lords like Al Capone? The 18th Amendment. The one that outlawed alcohol. The government tried to outlaw alcohol, and it didn't work. All it did was push it into the black market...it created an entire business of illegal alcohol sale. Why would a situation with drugs be any different? It's obviously not working.


Same here.


Commentating is shoddy reporting. Reporting is about the facts. If you add your own opinion, it becomes bad reporting.

Ok any normal person can see your argument makes much more since. I have to hand it to you I was wrong you were right. I do believe in the legalization of drugs, I however wanted to argue from the other side a little while. I am not totally decided on either one 100% yet. Nice intelligent response I did really enjoy reading it(no sarcasm).

[john_childs]

The letter sold for $2.1 million. With Rush's matching pledge that makes $4.2 million to the Maine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

News story here: Limbaugh Letter Fetches $2.1 Million on eBay (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303569,00.html)

Note to the whiny Liebrals that I don't go trolling Fox News (or CNN or other broadcast news sites) for news. The Fox News story just happened to be the top story on Google News and the top Google News like at this time about that story. So don't get on your horse about me reading Faux News cause that horse ain't gonna run.

[BluntRM]

On Fox and Friends in the Morning, before the auction ended, they said that "some people are saying" George Soros may have bidded up the price just to bankrupt Rush on his promise to match the winning bid.


And some Freeper quotes (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913182/posts):

-I think the loser libs are over bidding it at this point, having no intention of really paying the inflated price.

-Rush has a bid pre-approval process in place that’s suppose to keep leftist traitors from bidding. But, then, E-Bay is run by leftist traitors, so who knows?

-"I think Soros may be having some fun with Rush." My exact thoughts also. He takes it up so high Rush can't match it, then reneges because Rush will have to break his matching funds deal, making him look bad.



Here's the "official" Freeper thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913188/posts?q=1&;page=1651) covering this--there's probably 50 different ones, but the response is generally the same, paranoid conspiracy, George Soros and the mainstream media, take that evildoers, etc., etc..


And at the final bid, the bidder's identity was revealed to not be George Soros and the mainstream media...



(Why is eBay a Leftist traitor?)

[kington99]

Wow, who'd bid $2.1 million for an ebay memeber with zero feedback?

[kington99]

Wierd i just looked at the bid history (http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=260170172469&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:BIDN), all the bidders bar the winner had names that were two letters with three asterixs inbetween.

[john_childs]

On Fox and Friends in the Morning, before the auction ended, they said that "some people are saying" George Soros may have bidded up the price just to bankrupt Rush on his promise to match the winning bid.


And some Freeper quotes (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913182/posts):

Free Republic scares me at times (most of the time?). There are strange things in the water over there. They are what I consider KOOKs (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Keepers+Of+Odd+Knowledge).

[john_childs]

Wierd i just looked at the bid history (http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=260170172469&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:BIDN), all the bidders bar the winner had names that were two letters with three asterixs inbetween.
It's a new privacy feature on eBay.

[BluntRM]

Free Republic scares me at times (most of the time?). There are strange things in the water over there. They are what I consider KOOKs (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Keepers+Of+Odd+Knowledge).

No disagreement there. I could start a thread devoted to Freeper quotes, but I'd be afraid that someone would post my address and photo at the Free Republic, etc. etc....

[BillyTheMountain]

No disagreement there. I could start a thread devoted to Freeper quotes, but I'd be afraid that someone would post my address and photo at the Free Republic, etc. etc....

Well then, you'd have to agree that the terrorists have won.

Are they Christianoterrorists?

[johnfoss]

Coming back to a discussion from last month...
I'm saying I'm perfectly fine with him not giving the whole story. I'm saying he doesn't do it. At least not in the way that you assume he's untruthfully with holding information.I credit Rush as a witholder of information on nearly every controversial story he talks about. As to "untruthfully" that's another story. If someone chooses only certain talking points and ignores others is he being untruthful? He's just talking about the bits and pieces that build his argument.

I don't doubt his sources as, for the most part, they are the same sources of news that everyone else uses. They are imperfect, but generally not in a politically biased way so much as in a ratings-biased way. News agencies "produce" news as a commodity, and their business model requires them to keep it interesting. So it's not always about the stuff we need to know.

But back to Rush. Whole story? He almost *never* does it! Like any political commentator, he's only going to talk the points that build his argument. He will only bring up the counterpoints if somebody asks, or if he wants to respond to the known arguments. Otherwise, nothing.

What it really comes down to, is that you don't agree with his Opinions. I do.(realizing this was written in response to Monkeyman) But sometimes I *do* agree with his opinions. And sometimes *you* should probably not! Do you really, always agree with everything he says? Scary.

Anyway, any word on whether the buyer has paid and the funds have been matched? There is still room for one or both players to run into "snags" that may add more drama to this story. If not, Rush has done a great service to the Maine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. I wish I had stuff I could auction off to raise such sums for charity!