Topic: Rush Limbaugh: As Always, Wallowing in Slime | |
---|---|
commentators on Iraq by television networks have been groomed by the Pentagon, leaving some feeling they were manipulated to report favorably on the Bush administration, The New York Times said in Sunday editions.
A Times report examining ties between the Bush administration and former senior officers who acted as paid TV analysts said they got private briefings, trips and access to classified intelligence meant to influence their comments. "Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks," the newspaper said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24220130 _________________ In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile ~Hunter S thompson |
|
|
|
You also mentioned social security. Well, with the lowering value of the dollar and all the baby boomers reaching retirement age how is social security not in trouble? If given the choice, I would rather not be taxed for social security and save for my own retirement. Lets also remember that social security was set up to help those affected by the great depression. It wasn't established to last forever. |
|
|
|
Of course they are gonna limit information to the media. I mean if we were planning an air strike and the media found out they would be stupid and air the time, date, and location of where the air strike would be, and guess who would find out about it. The people we are freaking attacking.
|
|
|
|
Of course they are gonna limit information to the media. I mean if we were planning an air strike and the media found out they would be stupid and air the time, date, and location of where the air strike would be, and guess who would find out about it. The people we are freaking attacking. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/22/8453/ |
|
|
|
Of course they are gonna limit information to the media. I mean if we were planning an air strike and the media found out they would be stupid and air the time, date, and location of where the air strike would be, and guess who would find out about it. The people we are freaking attacking. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/22/8453/ |
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Mon 04/28/08 02:05 PM
|
|
You also mentioned social security. Well, with the lowering value of the dollar and all the baby boomers reaching retirement age how is social security not in trouble? If given the choice, I would rather not be taxed for social security and save for my own retirement. Lets also remember that social security was set up to help those affected by the great depression. It wasn't established to last forever. Thats assuming they managed to save up all this extra money in the first place and that money didn't depreciate. No propaganda here just my own thoughts on the subject. I really wish social security was optional. I don't like the fact that I am gonna be taxed more because I went to college and worked hard to get a degree in engineering. This degree will allow me to earn a good income so the govt. decides to tax me at a higher percentage because of my income that I worked hard to achieve. I would most likely get more money for retirement if that money they taxed for SS was put into a personal retirement plan. |
|
|
|
here is some of what the so called left wing media has done for corperate America.(Fixed it for you, your spellcheck must be off)...........have helped create the myth that social security is failing, paving the way for the realization of one of the right's political wet dreams: privatization of social security. {It's true you know. Social Security is busted. Like it or not.} perpetuate conservative myths about wellfare and simultanously turn a blind eye to corporate wellfare. {I'm no fan of any form of welfare but when the government bails out a corporation they save many jobs and keep tax revenues flowing.} sensationalize street crime and ignore corporate crime. {I'm sorry but I do not see this as a true statement. The mainstream loves to go after evil corporations. The sensationalism of street crime is a tad tedious don't ya think. That's what folks apparently want to see though.} treat religious right groups such as the Promise Keepers with kid's gloves and thus help legitimize them in the public perception {While groups like the NAACP and ACLU are scrutinized? Give me a break.} generally avoid reporting on the lunatic fringe of the right, such as militias, neo-Nazis and anti-abortion terrorists, and in particular, avoid examining the personal and ideological connections these groups have to the Republican party created the perception that there is widespread popular opposition to affirmative action when in fact most people support it. {The lunatic fringe on the left has become the democratic base. I never see fluff pieces on nazi groups, what are you even talking about? You think that affirmative action has that broad of a support base? I'm sorry you've been beaten out by someone who is less qualified than you but fills a quota need.} all but ignore waste, mismanagment and corruption in the military-industrial complex, especially as it relates to the planned missile defense system {I recall seeing reports on outrageous military spending and I still hear all of the time about how some defense contractors are misbehaving. I mean hell, HALIBURTON.} downplayed protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO by portraying protestors as leftist fringe groups, communists and anarchists {Those protesters were for the most part leftist, communists and anarchists.} report corporate PR as legitimate scientific research. {They also report that Al Gore is some type of climate expert when his name and "legitimate research" don't ever belong in the same story. Besides who spends more on scientific research than corporations?} Given these facts, the claim of the liberal media bias is shaky enough as it relates to major newspapers and television networks. {That is laughable. Over 80% of media personalities admit to being democrats.} But when one admits radio stations into the picture, the claim becomes wholly preposterous. Conservative hate radio has been carpet bombing the nation with hard-right ideology, unbridled hatred towards liberals and Clinton, distortions, lies and bogus science for years. Hate radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan and Oliver North are heard by millions of people every day, and they have no progressive counterparts of any significance. Not exactly surprising, considering that corporate sponsors have a vested interest in supporting pro-business voices, and suppressing progressive ones. {I listen to conservative leaning talk radio frequently (I know..shocker) and I just don't hear the hate you talk about...or whoever wrote what you cut and pasted here. Conservatives don't hate liberals, we just point out that liberal policy is more often than not bad for our country. You say progressive and I say I'd prefer less progress in the direction of socialism and bigger government.} Have a nice day. (I wrote my own response here so hence the lack of a cut & paste credit.) http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html |
|
|
|
Of course they are gonna limit information to the media. I mean if we were planning an air strike and the media found out they would be stupid and air the time, date, and location of where the air strike would be, and guess who would find out about it. The people we are freaking attacking. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/22/8453/ How does that make my claim incorrect? If the media receives the information they will broadcast it whether or not it would ruin a secret operation or not. Thats all i said. |
|
|
|
Of course they are gonna limit information to the media. I mean if we were planning an air strike and the media found out they would be stupid and air the time, date, and location of where the air strike would be, and guess who would find out about it. The people we are freaking attacking. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/22/8453/ How does that make my claim incorrect? If the media receives the information they will broadcast it whether or not it would ruin a secret operation or not. Thats all i said. |
|
|
|
So, you quote me and take it in a different direction and claim I dont get it? You might not have been talking about secret operations but I was. I think it was you that didn't get it.
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of things madisonman doesn't "get". If he can't cut and paste it from some leftist site he's not so sure about it.
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of things madisonman doesn't "get". If he can't cut and paste it from some leftist site he's not so sure about it. I was trying to point out the gray area. Things are not always black and white. |
|
|
|
Edited by
madisonman
on
Mon 04/28/08 02:24 PM
|
|
I would suggest you google the NY times and see if they are talking about some "secret missions" that isnt the jist of the story, for the feeble minded I will spell it out......fomer retired generals are paid commentators , they get this lucrative job by keeping there channles with the pentagon open, to do this they are simply mouthpieces for them spinning there story as told. I bring this up to point out that the media is far far from left. and far far right. I will let you search the story out yourself but if you call yourself an american I do not know how you can defend it
|
|
|
|
I don't like the way Rush puts his spin on things. I don't like the way he talks about women either.
|
|
|
|
Sigh, ok let me spell this out. I didn't quote your original writing because this is not completely related to what you wrote. Your writing did remind me, however, about how people complain about the government not divulging every little thing. My whole point is that some things should be kept secret until the time is right( such as troop movements or special ops). It was not directly related to what you were talking about. Its called going on a tangent (you reminded me of something so I went off topic to make a statement about something).
|
|
|
|
"Former generals" who cares what they say? They aren't on the ground in Iraq now. Why would I care about a former general who is entrepreneurial enough to get himself an analyst gig on the mainstream news? The ones I have seen on are far more critical of the war and of the administration in general than you report. Of course you are a progressive so facts are secondary.
I don't read the tripe printed in the NY Times but it does not surprise me at all to find that you do. I feel that they could be shut down for disclosing matters of national security. I don't know how you can call yourself an Umerikan and expect respect from anyone, especially from Americans. |
|
|
|
madisonman, Why do you hate your country? Your hatred shows. Why is it that you believe any viewpoint which varies from your leftist radical viewpoint is not valid? Conservatism has a voice in this country (thank God)and it is talk radio. The leftist socialists have a voice as well. It's called the mainstream media. If Rush bothers you so much I suggest sticking to Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews, one of the major network talking heads or some other leftwing nut job. Rush's battle with prescription drug addiction is one he has shared with the public. He left the airwaves to rehab and makes no excuses for it. Fox news is mainstream media (atleast here in kentucky) and its pretty right wing. I would love to see a left wing media, just to see what crazy stuff they come up with cause right wing goes nuts lol. I was referencing the historical mainstream media that unfortunately is the way the majority of Americans get at least some of their doom and gloo...er news. ABC, NBC CBS The NY Times and other major news outlets. You can say that AP is biased because they are. Same with CNN, CNBC, well.. just about every news channel on TV other than fox. If you want to see left wing media just open your eyes and watch ABC,NBC or CBS. You will get left wing shoved down your throat and wont even know it. Ok, i got your point. I think all news outlets are pretty bias, they all have the "omg we are going to die" stories, then top news, then political coverage. Thats why I read fark.com for news |
|
|
|
Rush, your reign of gutter radio commentary has embedded you into the public consciousness as one of the ultimate slime wallowers in our nation’s history. You show no sign of letting up. In fact, perhaps an air of desperation has finally reached you as the taste for your style of “political analysis” is receding. To say that you embrace hypocrisy is letting you off far too gently. Yours is the mammoth category of hypocrisy that would have to be carried to the realm of infinity and beyond. Remember Rush, you were the one who took the stern and unrelenting view that anyone caught consuming drugs under any circumstances should sustain one of two punishments: 1) execution; 2) be dismissed from America without ever receiving a future opportunity to return. Such a strong message from someone who makes such a great role model! When it was discovered that you were a habitual consumer of Oxycontin, what did you do, Rush? Along with obtaining highly paid, high profile Miami criminal lawyer Roy Black to fight your legal battles, what was his strategy and yours? I cant understand why this man has any fans left......................read the rest here at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14272 1) Humans can change. If someone feels that way at one point in his/her life, their opinion can change. That's not hypocracy, that's growth. 2) Can you show me links to those "quotes" from Rush Limbaugh? I like Rush, if you had his talent, you wouldn't be dependant upon copy/paste to get your "message" across. Talent?? Talent???!!! I have more talent in my big toe and it is not very talented lol |
|
|
|
I don't like the way Rush puts his spin on things. I don't like the way he talks about women either. |
|
|
|
Rush is a joke because he claims to be conservative when he is in fact a closet liberal. It's true. War elephant: Are you being sarcastical/silly? Lindyy No actually, I was being serious. This is a guy who claims to be conservative, yet says over and over again on his show that getting rid of the income tax is "insane." Some people may like him for his style, and I agree, as a radio personality he has a lot of it--but ideologically, I don't see a difference between him and Bill Moyers. |
|
|