Limbaugh Totally Wigs Out

[IJ Reilly]

I always knew he had it in him.

On his program yesterday, Limbaugh lashed out at Tom Harkin for introducing an amendment to a defense bill requesting the development of oversight rules for the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. Seems they carry only one political show, Limbaugh's program, on their talk radio channel. This is what Harkin requested in his amendment:

Public criticism of American Forces Radio content has focused on the fact that Rush Limbaugh's commentary is carried daily on the talk radio service. I generally do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's commentaries. But I do not object to the fact that they are run on a daily basis on this service. Some people do object. However, what I do take issue with is the fact that there is no commentary on the service that would even begin to balance the extreme right-wing views that Rush Limbaugh routinely expresses on his program.

Critics have specifically cited Rush Limbaugh's use of his show to condone and trivialize the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. As many of my colleagues know, and as has been pointed out previously here on the Senate floor, Mr. Limbaugh reportedly likened the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity initiation. He called some of the abusive tactics a ``brilliant maneuver.'' I think the critics are right. Limbaugh's remarks--and there are many more offensive remarks by Mr. Limbaugh on this topic than I have mentioned here--are repugnant. They do damage to the American image when they are heard around the world. I would guess that Limbaugh's comments on Abu Ghraib also probably offend a large majority of American service members.

Still, I am not calling for American Forces Radio to pull Rush Limbaugh's commentaries from their talk radio service. I am asking, and I am pleased that the Senate is now on record asking, that AFRTS meet its own mandate, as generally articulated in Department of Defense Regulation 5120.20R. That regulation calls for AFRTS political programming that is ``characterized by its fairness and balance,'' as well as news programming guided by a ``principle of fairness'' that requires ``reasonable opportunities for the presentation of conflicting views on important controversial public issues.''

...My amendment in no way prescribes specific content or programming at AFRTS. That is not the role of the Senate. What my amendment does do, appropriately, is state that it is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should ensure that AFRTS policies of fairness and balance are being fully implemented. The amendment calls on the Secretary to develop appropriate methods of oversight in this regard.

Pretty tame stuff, right? Here's how Limbaugh spun it yesterday:

I'm in a Defense appropriations bill!

...For the past seven weeks, this little website, Media Matters, has been monitoring The Rush Limbaugh Show, transcribing and publishing my offensive statements regarding the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. And they've written Rumsfeld two letters demanding I be taken off. Rumsfeld didn't respond. So they went to Harkin and they've got their --

Now this is censorship. This is the United States government. This is a United States senator amending the Defense appropriations bill with the intent being to get this program -- only one hour of which is carried on Armed Forces Radio -- stripped from that network

...

And I just read this guy's statement, and he's lying through his teeth about what was said on this program about the prison abuse scandal. He's lying about what I said. He's taking it all out of context. He's regurgitating the out-of-text quotes taken by this so-called analyst website, which is nothing more than an appendage of the Democratic Party.

And so a bunch of falsehoods about me were spoken on the floor of the Senate yesterday, or in the paper. I don't know if it was on the floor or not, but -- but this is his official Congressional Record statement. It might have been verbal. Authorizing this amendment, or proposing this amendment. And it's full of -- it's just chock full of lies and -- and -- and misrepresentations and out of context statements.

Now, here's the bit where Limbaugh launches straight into orbit:

There's nothing I can do to fix this other than to fight for my First Amendment right. And I'm going to, as I'm doing now. And I'm going to alert people to what is happening. And again, I want to stress that the reason it's happening is because not only do they have to take out Bush, for some reason, they think they have to take me out.

...Now, I've told you, all these George Soros groups -- Take Over America, Take Back America, Media Matters for America, this new Lib Talk Radio Network -- this is all about Hillary Clinton. These groups are not businesses, they are not in the commercial business -- commercial sector to turn a profit. These are not groups in -- into analysis. They are action-oriented political groups seeking to advance the goals and ideas of the Democratic Party.

Make no mistake about it. And they're all in existence to help Hillary. They're all run, or controlled by, or influenced by the Clintonoids and their supporters. The Clintons have long, long, shall we say, had a problem with me. And it's that truth detector line. ... The fact is it is I who am and was the truth detector at -- when analyzing them. That's what they don't like. They want to blunt my effectiveness by using their allies in Congress and elsewhere to do what they can to silence me. It's raw politics, folks. It's the kind that dictators and the Clintons like. It's raw politics. This is what -- this is disguised as theories. Or what have you.

Earth to Rush... Earth to Rush!

[skunk]

double post: server's playing up... :mad:

[skunk]

Earth to Rush... Earth to Rush!
Or Rush to Earth - head-first if possible...

Seriously, do US troops listen to this crap out there? Makes you wonder about a cause-and-effect relationship... :eek:

[zimv20]

Seriously, do US troops listen to this crap out there? Makes you wonder about a cause-and-effect relationship... :eek:
i'm more worried about people in the middle east hearing it. on one hand, they've got bush on al jazeera saying the US doesn't condone the behavior at abu ghraib, and on the other, they've got rush on US-sponsored radio saying it's not serious at all.

the inside-the-US and outside-the-US propoganda is being mixed up!

[Backtothemac]

Except for one thing. In 1994, the men and women of the armed forces were questioned as to what programing they wanted, and they were given several choices. Rush was the number 5 choice per a write in. He wasn't even on the ballot. If the men and women of the armed forces want to hear him, then so be it.

[IJ Reilly]

Except for one thing. In 1994, the men and women of the armed forces were questioned as to what programing they wanted, and they were given several choices. Rush was the number 5 choice per a write in. He wasn't even on the ballot. If the men and women of the armed forces want to hear him, then so be it.

Sure, fine. But even Harkin's amendment doesn't call for Limbaugh to be cut from the service, but you wouldn't know that by Limbaugh's reaction, which is so completely counterfactual it's positively astonishing, even by his low, low standards. Then he launches into that bizarre tirade about Hillary Clinton.

I keep expecting to hear a "foomp!" and see Limbaugh vanish in a puff of smoke, like the drummer in Spinal Tap. Can spontaneous combustion really be so far off?

[3rdpath]

and who says drug abuse has no lingering effects...well, besides deafness...

[skunk]

I keep expecting to hear a "foomp!" and see Limbaugh vanish in a puff of smoke, like the drummer in Spinal Tap. Can spontaneous combustion really be so far off?
I didn't think marijuana was his drug of choice...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sure, fine. But even Harkin's amendment doesn't call for Limbaugh to be cut from the service, but you wouldn't know that by Limbaugh's reaction, which is so completely counterfactual it's positively astonishing, even by his low, low standards. Then he launches into that bizarre tirade about Hillary Clinton.

I keep expecting to hear a "foomp!" and see Limbaugh vanish in a puff of smoke, like the drummer in Spinal Tap. Can spontaneous combustion really be so far off?

People didn't read that "regulation calls for AFRTS political programming that is ``characterized by its fairness and balance,'' as well as news programming guided by a ``principle of fairness'' that requires ``reasonable opportunities for the presentation of conflicting views on important controversial public issues.''.

Sorry Rush it is not always about you and Hillary.

[Voltron]

one political show! Apparently your ignoring NPR which is that left wing broadcast that has mostly a monopoly on armed forces radiohttp://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/party32.gif

[mactastic]

one political show! Apparently your ignoring NPR which is that left wing broadcast that has mostly a monopoly on armed forces radiohttp://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/party32.gif

Now I know facts won't interfere with your... I mean Neal's opinion, but just for the rest of the forum let's look at Sly's claim here.

Link (http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html)

Liberal bias?


That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives. Spanning from the early ’70s, when President Richard Nixon demanded that “all funds for public broadcasting be cut” (9/23/71), through House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s similar threats in the mid-’90s, the notion that NPR leans left still endures.

News of the April launch of Air America, a new liberal talk radio network, revived the old complaint, with several conservative pundits declaring that such a thing already existed. “I have three letters for you, NPR. . . . I mean, there is liberal radio,” remarked conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan on NBC’s Chris Matthews Show (4/4/04.) A few days earlier (4/1/04), conservative columnist Cal Thomas told Nightline, “The liberals have many outlets,” naming NPR prominently among them.

Nor is this belief confined to the right: CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer (3/31/04) seemed to repeat it as a given while questioning a liberal guest: “What about this notion that the conservatives make a fair point that there already is a liberal radio network out there, namely National Public Radio?”

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.

The Right Stuff:
NPR’s think tank sources


FAIR’s four-month study of NPR in 1993 found 10 think tanks that were cited twice or more. In a new four-month study (5/03–8/03), the list of think tanks cited two or more times has grown to 17, accounting for 133 appearances.

FAIR classified each think tank by ideological orientation as either centrist, right of center or left of center. Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one: 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks provided sources for 56 appearances.

The most often quoted think tank was the centrist Brookings Institution, quoted 31 times; it was also the most quoted think tank in 1993. It was followed by 19 appearances by the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies and 17 by the centrist Council on Foreign Relations. The most frequently cited left-of-center organization was the Urban Institute, with eight appearances.

Diversity among think tank representatives was even more lopsided than the ideological spread, with women cited only 10 percent of the time, and people of color only 3 percent. Only white men were quoted more than twice, the most frequent being Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (8 appearances), Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings (7) and E.J. Dionne, also of Brookings (6).

[Neserk]

one political show! Apparently your ignoring NPR which is that left wing broadcast that has mostly a monopoly on armed forces radio


Good. They need to hear something from people who actually think.





http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/party32.gif

gross

[Voltron]

I wouldn't trust a left wing organization such as FAIR to report on whether or not NPR is left wing.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

For example
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/index.html
http://www.fair.org//index.html
guess what they seem to link to?
http://www.webactive.com/page/520
Basically a bunch of left wing rhetoric. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gifand them are the facts.

[wwworry]

if you want the facts then listen to NPR. There are lots of studies that show that regular listeners of NPR are the best informed.

How is it that being accurately informed is somehow "left-wing"?

[Chip NoVaMac]

if you want the facts then listen to NPR. There are lots of studies that show that regular listeners of NPR are the best informed.

How is it that being accurately informed is somehow "left-wing"?

Sorry, but I think the neo-cons would prefer a group of people that will only listen to their approved sound-bites. An uninformed public is easier to control and pass laws against.

[Voltron]

if you want the facts then listen to NPR. There are lots of studies that show that regular listeners of NPR are the best informed.

How is it that being accurately informed is somehow "left-wing"?
How many of them think we attacked Iraq for oil?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_all_coholic.gif

[Neserk]

How is it that being accurately informed is somehow "left-wing"?

:confused: Because anyone who is well informed is left-wing :eek: :D :p

[Voltron]

:confused: Because anyone who is well informed is left-wing :eek: :D :p
misinformed would be the proper expression.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/banghead.gif

[Neserk]

misinformed would be the proper expression]

Another great smiley. But you are confused. It is informed :D :p

[zimv20]

"misinformed" is not an expression. it's a word.

[Voltron]

"misinformed" is not an expression. it's a word.
The act or an instance of expressing in words:
articulation, statement, utterance, verbalization, vocalization, voice.
See words.

Something that takes the place of words in communicating a thought or feeling:
gesture, indication, sign, token.
See show.

A sound or combination of sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning:
locution, term, word.
See words.

word or group of words forming a unit and conveying meaning:
locution, phrase.
See words.

Must we always be so picky?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_smoke18.gif

[Mav451]

Haha that reminds me of a great line made by a Republican in one of my engineering classes. He wrote on the board, during one of our project meetings, "All Democrats are idiots"--supposedly in jest, he said.

Turns out, while everyone got A's, he got a C-. Everyone else was a Democrat in our group, but none of us made fun of him in retaliation--I guess you could say our actions (academically) spoke for themselves...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Haha that reminds me of a great line made by a Republican in one of my engineering classes. He wrote on the board, during one of our project meetings, "All Democrats are idiots"--supposedly in jest, he said.

Turns out, while everyone got A's, he got a C-. Everyone else was a Democrat in our group, but none of us made fun of him in retaliation--I guess you could say our actions (academically) spoke for themselves...

Hooray for you all! Elevating the standard. Thats a good one.

I think it does show the issues now that we are an electorate ruled by the sound-bite. It sickens me that the Republican Party has moved dirty politics to a whole new level. The Republican Party says that they are for less government, but look at the intrusion in to states rights. I guess they meant less government for those with money, the rest of us can just go suck a lemon.

[Voltron]

Hooray for you all! Elevating the standard. Thats a good one.

I think it does show the issues now that we are an electorate ruled by the sound-bite. It sickens me that the Republican Party has moved dirty politics to a whole new level. The Republican Party says that they are for less government, but look at the intrusion in to states rights. I guess they meant less government for those with money, the rest of us can just go suck a lemon.
No, they were stupid enough to think they could appease the left by pretending to be the left and wasting money on crappy socialization programs instead of using it to beef up our military or pay on the deficit. Even so far as giving that murdering bastard Kennedy carte blanche in writing the education bill didn't appease anyone.

Goes to show appeasing folks just don't work.

[skunk]

No, they were stupid enough to think they could appease the left by pretending to be the left and wasting money on crappy socialization programs instead of using it to beef up our military or pay on the deficit. Even so far as giving that murding bastard Kennedy carte blanche in writing the education bill didn't appease anyone.

Goes to show appeasing folks just don't work.
Unworthy even of you.

[wwworry]

No, they were stupid enough to think they could appease the left by pretending to be the left and wasting money on crappy socialization programs instead of using it to beef up our military or pay on the deficit. Even so far as giving that murdering bastard Kennedy carte blanche in writing the education bill didn't appease anyone.

Goes to show appeasing folks just don't work.

Well you are right that the party in power is stupid. Everything else - jejune (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=jejune).

[Neserk]

or pay on the deficit.

Two things. (1) there was no deficit to pay on when Bush took office, so that shouldn't have even been an issue, and (2) those so called crappy social programs beneift the whole country. You'd be amazed the $$ cost of *not* having them. Not to mention the humanitarian and social cost.

[Krizoitz]

You'd be amazed the $$ cost of *not* having them. Not to mention the humanitarian and social cost.

Ah but here is the problem, the Republican establishment (not necessarilly individual people, but the party hard cores) don't care about other people. They have this imaginary belief that all the money they make exists in a vacuum and that no one else helped them get it so they should keep it all. Plus they forget that as members who benefit from the US existence that there are membership dues, such as taxes to help pass on benefits to others. It all boils down to selfishness and greed really.

[Thanatoast]

Even so far as giving that murdering bastard Kennedy carte blanche in writing the education bill didn't appease anyone.being from the younger set, i've never gotten the full story on kennedy. i've heard of a drunk driving crash, but what's this murdering bastard stuff? what's more, even if he *is* a murdering bastard, he's still more honorable than bush, who sent the nation to war based on lies and deceit. i can't believe you'd put kennedy to the flame for drunk driving and not crucify bush for sending 900 soldiers to their deaths in the name of vendetta.

[Neserk]

Don't forget that Dubya also has charges of DUI, etc. So he has done that, as well.

[Voltron]

being from the younger set, i've never gotten the full story on kennedy. i've heard of a drunk driving crash, but what's this murdering bastard stuff? what's more, even if he *is* a murdering bastard, he's still more honorable than bush, who sent the nation to war based on lies and deceit. i can't believe you'd put kennedy to the flame for drunk driving and not crucify bush for sending 900 soldiers to their deaths in the name of vendetta.
Kennedy let his mistress slowly drown to death while trapped in the car in 4 feet of water while muttering about how it was going to be the end of his career if anyone found out he had a mistress. His excuss for not saving her later was that he couldn't swim. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/smashfreakB.gif You don't need to know how to swim in 4ft of water with a car to hold on to. He was able to save himself wasn't he.

[mactastic]

I wouldn't trust a left wing organization such as FAIR to report on whether or not NPR is left wing.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

For example
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/index.html
http://www.fair.org//index.html
guess what they seem to link to?
http://www.webactive.com/page/520
Basically a bunch of left wing rhetoric. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gifand them are the facts.


Hehehe... if only you were so critical of Boortz. :D

[Voltron]

Hehehe... if only you were so critical of Boortz. :D
There are a bunch (see I didn't use allot) of things about Boortz I don't like. Hasn't been a reason to post any of them since none of them had been a viable topic if you ignore the lets bash Boortz thread. Besides Boortz is an entertainer, not a member of the so called news media, nor a politician, thus it is easy to not get too picky of him. No point in pointing out his bad points since he's not running for office, and he's not suppose to be unbiased. Doesn't mean "a bunch" of things he says isn't viable or useful in an argument.

[IJ Reilly]

being from the younger set, i've never gotten the full story on kennedy.

About all you really need to know about it, is that it's a key verse in the far right wing canon. No matter what you talk about, eventually the conversation will to be directed to what Ted Kennedy may or may not have done over 30 years ago. I think the people who will truly morn when Ted shuffles off will be the ultraconservatives. They hardly know how to respond in a debate without him.

[Chip NoVaMac]

About all you really need to know about it, is that it's a key verse in the far right wing canon. No matter what you talk about, eventually the conversation will to be directed to what Ted Kennedy may or may not have done over 30 years ago. I think the people who will truly morn when Ted shuffles off will be the ultraconservatives. They hardly know how to respond in a debate without him.

Well they'll have Clinton and his tryst.

[IJ Reilly]

Well they'll have Clinton and his tryst.

Yup, they'll always have that one. I have admire the on time arrival of the Ted Kennedy reference in this thread. Anything to avoid owning up to Rush Limbaugh's increasingly bizarre behavior and statements.

[Krizoitz]

Yup, they'll always have that one. I have admire the on time arrival of the Ted Kennedy reference in this thread. Anything to avoid owning up to Rush Limbaugh's increasingly bizarre behavior and statements.

When a democrat does they are vilified.
When a republican does it they are pitied.

Where was the vast right-wing out cry when Rush turned out to be a drug addict?

[zimv20]

or when janklow killed that motorcyclist?

[Voltron]

When a democrat does they are vilified.
When a republican does it they are pitied.

Where was the vast right-wing out cry when Rush turned out to be a drug addict?
I myself think drugs should be as legal as alchohol.
Our jails are full of people they shouldn't be full of.
Who owns your body?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_smoke18.gif

[IJ Reilly]

Once again, thanks the MMA, we catch Limbaugh in another wholesale fabrication:

From the June 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The [9-11 Commission] report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001. We've known this for a long time.

From the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement 16":

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred.

[skunk]

We've known this for a long time.
Him and the rest of the Voltronians, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Him and the rest of the Voltronians, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Maybe he meant knowing in the Biblical sense.

[skunk]

Maybe he meant knowing in the Biblical sense.
Keep it clean...

[mactastic]

Well see the thing is you have to prove it didn't happen in order for the right wing to believe it. Proving the negative is all the rage these days apparently.

[Chip NoVaMac]

When a democrat does they are vilified.
When a republican does it they are pitied.

Where was the vast right-wing out cry when Rush turned out to be a drug addict?

Why should they? They elected a former drug and alcohol abuser to the White House. I guess it is ok as long as you use, and not to forget to inhale.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I myself think drugs should be as legal as alchohol.
Our jails are full of people they shouldn't be full of.
Who owns your body?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_smoke18.gif

So do we have a conservative that supports abortion rights and the woman's choice?

[skunk]

So do we have a conservative that supports abortion rights and the woman's choice?
It may LOOK like a conservative and TASTE like a conservative, but it swears blind it's a Libertarian. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not a shrink, and I don't play one on the internet, but isn't this condition usually called "delusions of grandeur?" (From Limbaugh's 6-18 program)

LIMBAUGH: The Harkin amendment, I talked to Senator Ted Stevens, folks, after the program yesterday. I called him and because Ted Stevens is the senator from Alaska.

[...]

He [Stevens] sent me a fax today with a revised amendment. They've gone in and they fixed the amendment. They -- they've watered this thing down. Whatever the Harkin amendment was, it now doesn't mention my name.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: So, they -- they won't -- they -- they did -- Stevens did something yesterday to revise this and he sent me the -- well, the -- the -- the -- the new amendment and he said, "Is this OK?" He said, "Do you have any objections to this?" [laughter] And I -- I looked at it and said, "Am I allowed?" [laughter] "Am I allowed to object to an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill when I'm not a senator?" I mean, I can as a -- as a citizen, obviously, but, I mean, any citizen could object. Doesn't matter.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Now, we're not through with this because there's still a chance to get this -- this whole thing taken out over on the House side. And I think -- I -- I do not withdraw from the position that I -- that I said yesterday. This is unprecedented for a United States senator to single out a single citizen in a Defense appropriation bill -- a major, major piece of legislation -- a United States senator singles out a single citizen, me, as representing harm, as spreading propaganda, as damaging the morale of the troops.

Now that's censorship. That is attempted censorship -- not what happens to other people in the private sector. That may be bad enough, but it's not censorship. This, when a United States senator, reacting to a bunch of numbskulls that are extensions of the Democratic Party, can simply add an amendment based on a single citizen. Why, I mean -- I mean, on the one hand, folks, it's astounding. It's -- it's unbelievable. On -- on the other hand, I'm going -- heh -- "I am really screwing with these people and I love it. Now this is cool." [laughter]

[Voltron]

I'm not a shrink, and I don't play one on the internet, but isn't this condition usually called "delusions of grandeur?" (From Limbaugh's 6-18 program)

Delusion of grandeur because your shocked they put your name in an amendment, something to my knowledge is never done?

[Taft]

Delusion of grandeur because your shocked they put your name in an amendment, something to my knowledge is never done?

Delusions of grandeur because Limbaugh thinks that asking for armed forces radio to be balanced and equitable in the ideas it presents equates to the government censoring him alone. The bill did not call for censorship of Limbaugh, but rather that opposing views get an appropriate amount of time as well.

The fact that the legislation mentioned him by name has nothing to do with the intent or extent of the legislation.

Taft

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm not a shrink, and I don't play one on the internet, but isn't this condition usually called "delusions of grandeur?" (From Limbaugh's 6-18 program)

LIMBAUGH: The Harkin amendment, I talked to Senator Ted Stevens, folks, after the program yesterday. I called him and because Ted Stevens is the senator from Alaska.

[...]

He [Stevens] sent me a fax today with a revised amendment. They've gone in and they fixed the amendment. They -- they've watered this thing down. Whatever the Harkin amendment was, it now doesn't mention my name.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: So, they -- they won't -- they -- they did -- Stevens did something yesterday to revise this and he sent me the -- well, the -- the -- the -- the new amendment and he said, "Is this OK?" He said, "Do you have any objections to this?" [laughter] And I -- I looked at it and said, "Am I allowed?" [laughter] "Am I allowed to object to an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill when I'm not a senator?" I mean, I can as a -- as a citizen, obviously, but, I mean, any citizen could object. Doesn't matter.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Now, we're not through with this because there's still a chance to get this -- this whole thing taken out over on the House side. And I think -- I -- I do not withdraw from the position that I -- that I said yesterday. This is unprecedented for a United States senator to single out a single citizen in a Defense appropriation bill -- a major, major piece of legislation -- a United States senator singles out a single citizen, me, as representing harm, as spreading propaganda, as damaging the morale of the troops.

Now that's censorship. That is attempted censorship -- not what happens to other people in the private sector. That may be bad enough, but it's not censorship. This, when a United States senator, reacting to a bunch of numbskulls that are extensions of the Democratic Party, can simply add an amendment based on a single citizen. Why, I mean -- I mean, on the one hand, folks, it's astounding. It's -- it's unbelievable. On -- on the other hand, I'm going -- heh -- "I am really screwing with these people and I love it. Now this is cool." [laughter]

Man with an ego like that, there is little wonder if there is any room left anyone else. While the argument is specifically towards his show, it more about the requirement of Armed Forces Radio to provide a "fair and balanced" perspective.

Maybe the Armed Forces Radio should only read from AP newswire? Would the neo-cons be happy with that?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Delusions of grandeur because Limbaugh thinks that asking for armed forces radio to be balanced and equitable in the ideas it presents equates to the government censoring him alone. The bill did not call for censorship of Limbaugh, but rather that opposing views get an appropriate amount of time as well.

The fact that the legislation mentioned him by name has nothing to do with the intent or extent of the legislation.

Taft

And that brings up another ball of wax. If Rush gets three hours between the hours of lets say 12n till 3PM, and a "liberal" gets 12AM till 3AM, is that equal?Or is it equal that in week one Rush gets Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and in week two he gets Tuesday, and Thursday; while the "liberal" gets the opposite? The same could be said with every thing flipped.

I have a better idea, Armed forces radio should only broadcast music from Aaron Copeland, or maybe John Philip Sousa.

[IJ Reilly]

Delusions of grandeur because Limbaugh thinks that asking for armed forces radio to be balanced and equitable in the ideas it presents equates to the government censoring him alone. The bill did not call for censorship of Limbaugh, but rather that opposing views get an appropriate amount of time as well.

The fact that the legislation mentioned him by name has nothing to do with the intent or extent of the legislation.

Delusions of grandeur because the amendment never included Limbaugh's name, but he continues to insist that it does (or did). He also continues to bloviate about a phantom censorship issue. Actually, I should probably call the second one a persecution complex.

[IJ Reilly]

Busted again.
Stevens says Limbaugh got no help from him

AMENDMENT: An addition to a defense bill called for balance on Armed Forces radio.

Anchorage Daily News

(Published: June 24, 2004)

WASHINGTON -- Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has made light of Iraqi prisoner abuse reports, last week told his listeners this: A U.S. senator authored an amendment aimed at censoring him, but Limbaugh talked to Sen. Ted Stevens, and Stevens had it "watered down" for him.

Stevens, through his spokeswoman, said the Alaska Republican only faxed Limbaugh a copy of the amendment, after the Senate already had passed it.

"We did not water it down," said Courtney Schikora, Stevens' spokeswoman.

...

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/5226299p-5160560c.html

[IJ Reilly]

The Limbaugh watch goes on. From the July 1 broadcast of the King of Cruel:

Folks, it doesn't get any better than this. [laughter] Do you know something that's -- I'm sorry. [laughter] Oh, I'm trying to maintain my composure. The Democrats have found their keynote speaker for their convention: Saddam Hussein. [laughter] "The real criminal is [President George W.] Bush." Give him a talk show. Put him on "Dead Air America". [laughter]

[...]

It makes you wonder who hates Bush more, Saddam or the Democrats.

[...]

Let me -- let me ask you liberals out there: Did that image of Saddam in a sport coat and an open collar just melt your heart?

[...]

All he's doing is reading Democrat talking points. Come on. Bush is a criminal? What's the difference in what Saddam says and what you hear coming out of MoveOn.org every day, or George Soros, or any of these other people that are out there speaking against George W. Bush?

[...]

We killed his sons. We took his country. We put him in jail. He is still calmer and more rational than Howard Dean after he lost Iowa. He's calmer and more rational than Gore after he lost his mind. He's calmer and more rational than George Soros is.

[LeeTom]

one political show! Apparently your ignoring NPR which is that left wing broadcast that has mostly a monopoly on armed forces radio

You must be really far on the right, if you see NPR to be on the left. From where I'm standing, it's pretty conservative.

Lee Tom

[Dale Sorel]

We killed his sons. We took his country. We put him in jail. He is still calmer and more rational than Howard Dean after he lost Iowa. He's calmer and more rational than Gore after he lost his mind. He's calmer and more rational than George Soros is.

LOL :p

I guess the truth sometimes hurts :D

[skunk]

LOL :p

I guess the truth sometimes hurts :D
Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh?

[IJ Reilly]

Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh?

You don't seriously expect a straight answer to this question, do you?

[skunk]

You don't seriously expect a straight answer to this question, do you?
Well, I thought it was worth a try... :rolleyes: