"I know Obama thinks it."

[foxpaws]

Ah... perhaps he Rush(ed) to a conclusion a little too fast...

From Salon...

Shocker for conservatives: Obama may not hate the Constitution
The right, including Rush Limbaugh, falls for a hoax about the president's college thesis
By Alex Koppelman

On Friday, it seemed for a moment -- at least to Rush Limbaugh's listeners -- that the right had finally found the smoking gun to prove that President Obama secretly hates the U.S., its founders and even the Constitution.

Limbaugh read his radio audience an excerpt from what he said was Obama's senior thesis, which he wrote while at Columbia University. After more than a year shrouded in secrecy by the Obama campaign and a compliant media, the thesis had finally emerged, and it was even worse than some had feared.

The excerpt read by Limbaugh:

[T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.​

Limbaugh was, naturally, up in arms about this, calling the college-aged Obama a "little boy," and saying, "he still shares those same feelings."

Only not so much. As a bit of basic research would have shown Limbaugh, Obama didn't technically write a thesis at Columbia -- at the time, Columbia didn't really have senior theses -- though he did write a thesis-length paper. But it was on Soviet nuclear disarmament, not the Constitution.

Limbaugh and many others -- including Fox News' FoxNation.com -- fell for a hoax, believing that a post put up by a conservative blogger in August as satire was the truth. Apparently, Pajamas Media's Michael Ledeen was the conduit, as he dug it up and posted it earlier this week, apparently believing it to be true. (Not the first time Ledeen and Pajamas Media have been embarrassed by something he posted -- back in January of 2007, he reported that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had died. Khamenei remains alive to this day.) Again, a bit of basic research would have prevented all this, as this isn't the first time conservatives have treated this particular blogger's satire as if it were true.

Limbaugh noted later on in his show that it seemed the excerpts were fake, though he said he didn't care, both because of a series of quotes falsely attributed to him recently and because, "I know Obama thinks it."

Update: Ledeen has put up a post noting that the excerpt is a fake, and that he fell for a satire.

 

[fossten]

We do know that Obama thinks it.

Rush is correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature

OBAMA 2001: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and -- and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

 

[04SCTLS]

Hey

Rush is just returning the favor after getting blindsided and torpedoed by bogus quotes in his bid to become an NFL owner.

What goes around comes around.

 

[foxpaws]

So, those who were using bogus quotes attributed to Rush should also be able to say "I know Rush thinks it." and use that logic when they tie him with racism? That is what Rush did - use a bogus thesis and then say "I know Obama thinks it."

There are plenty of verifiable quotes (such as the Crips/Bloods quotes and comparing football teams to black gangs) that would make black players in the NFL uncomfortable. So obviously Rush 'thinks' those racist thoughts.

 

[shagdrum]

So, those who were using bogus quotes attributed to Rush should also be able to say "I know Rush thinks it." and use that logic when they tie him with racism? That is what Rush did - use a bogus thesis and then say "I know Obama thinks it."

There are plenty of verifiable quotes (such as the Crips/Bloods quotes and comparing football teams to black gangs) that would make black players in the NFL uncomfortable. So obviously Rush 'thinks' those racist thoughts.

Of course you are oversimplifying and misleading to draw a false equivalence. Again.

First, Rush corrected himself by the end of that very same show. You seem to conveniently overlook that fact.
Second, he did point out comments made by Obama that, when taken in context were, in no uncertain terms, consistent with the bogus passage tied to Obama.

However, when it comes to the "racist" quotes attributed to Limbaugh, you can not reasonably conclude the quotes he did say are racist when taken in context. You also cannot reasonably conclude that the quotes show some underlying racist sentiment.

In fact, AFAIK Limbaugh never identified the Bloods and Crips with a specific race. Only you and other liberals opportunistically looking to smear and marginalize him seem to have made that connection.

The fact that you would engage in this type of character assassination is very revealing. You should be ashamed of yourself...

 

[foxpaws]

Of course you are oversimplifying and misleading to draw a false equivalence. Again.

First, Rush corrected himself by the end of that very same show. You seem to conveniently overlook that fact.
Second, he did point out comments made by Obama that, when taken in context were, in no uncertain terms, consistent with the bogus passage tied to Obama.

Rush said it was from a satire piece at the end of the show - but that it really didn't matter - that he would stand by the fabricated piece - because "I know Obama thinks it".

However, when it comes to the "racist" quotes attributed to Limbaugh, you can not reasonably conclude the quotes he did say are racist when taken in context. You also cannot reasonably conclude that the quotes show some underlying racist sentiment.

In fact, AFAIK Limbaugh never identified the Bloods and Crips with a specific race. Only you and other liberals opportunistically looking to smear and marginalize him seem to have made that connection.

I am taking Rush's comments in context - certainly far more than what Rush did- he didn't even see the made up thesis - and used one paragraph from that made up piece of satire... How could he be keeping it in 'context' when there isn't any context to be had...

And Blood and Crips, here in the US - they are almost always black gangs. You might have a pocket of another race here or there. But, when you state Bloods and Crips it means black gangs who wear red (Bloods) or black gangs who wear blue (Crips)... You don't have to specify a race - it is like saying Navajo, they are always Indians... Plus, what other race are you really talking about when it comes to the NFL? Are there a lot of Asians, Hispanics, Indians? Are you saying that Bloods and Crips refers to whites?

The fact that you would engage in this type of character assassination is very revealing. You should be ashamed of yourself...

Ah, shag - gosh, I don't think there could ever be a tremendous amount of shame when it comes to Limbaugh. The subject matter alone dictates the amount of shame involved...

 

[04SCTLS]

In fact, AFAIK Limbaugh never identified the Bloods and Crips with a specific race. Only you and other liberals opportunistically looking to smear and marginalize him seem to have made that connection.

LOL!
And you're saying this with a straight face.
Are you that unaware or are you just making an outrageous statement.
Then you use that on your dubious moral hobby horse to lecture that it is shameful behavior.
I'd say it's shameful you are unaware that the Crips and Bloods are a primarily African American Gang.
When they are mentioned that is what informed people think.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips

The Crips are a primarily, but not exclusively, an African American Gang.

 

[shagdrum]

Rush said it was from a satire piece at the end of the show - but that it really didn't matter - that he would stand by the fabricated piece - because "I know Obama thinks it".

And if you actually listened to him say that, and were familiar with his sense of humor, you would know that he was simply saying that as a means of pointing out the absurdity in the logic used to justify the smears of him. From here:

I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, "It doesn't matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." Sort of like Dan Rather said, "I don't care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don't care if the documents are forged." I don't care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it." Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois.​

So, Limbaugh is not allowed to illustrate absurdity by being absurd? Is that another one of these double standards you love to apply?

I am taking Rush's comments in context

Saying that does not make it true. You know what you are doing and so do we. Stop insulting out intelligence.

If you were taking his quotes "in context" then you could provide those quotes in context and defend your reasoning (instead of simply referencing a quote without giving the actual quote).

Since you thrive off of vagueness to facilitate your distortions, I will clear this up. You can find the original quote in context at this link. And, yes, there is a definite context which the comment has to be placed in. It was made right after a program break in response to something he had discussed from an earlier segment. If you ignore what was discussed in the earlier segment, you are taking the comment out of context.

Fortunately, Limbaugh himself put that quote in context on October 14th of this year:
YouTube - Rush Limbaugh - NFL Bloods and Crips, Explained: It Was All About Love of the Game - 10/14/09

...I believe the comment's from 2007, and I believe the comments were made to a phone call, I had a phone call -- I think -- I'd have to check the transcript of that date, which I've not done, but my memory is, it was a playoff game in San Diego between the Chargers and the Patriots, and the Patriots had a fourth down with a very few seconds left in the game, fourth and ball game, and the Chargers held 'em. Chargers win. Chargers were leading. Then all of a sudden a ref throws a flag, 15 yards or something for taunting, unsportsmanlike conduct, some Chargers DB had gotten in the face of some Patriots player, was doing a "you can't diss me" act and so forth, and it lost the game for the Chargers. And I praised the official for throwing the flag. See, I love the game. I love the National Football League.

We all have Walter Mitty in us. We all wish we could do something that we can't. Some people get paralyzed by those desires and continue to try to do things they can't. A man has got to know his limitations. But at the same time, you gotta have a never-quit attitude. But at some point, I mean if you're not qualified to play in the NFL, you shouldn't ruin your life dreaming about it. Go do what you're good at. I would love to be able to do it. Now, I've always wanted to be able to do it. I admire and respect the talent that those few Americans have to qualify for the National Football League, and the game is about what happens on the field. The NFL is like any other business, it's got off-field problems. Every business has employees that have problems and troubles when they're away from the office. NFL's no different there. But the NFL wants to keep control of the game. It's the product on the field. And they cannot allow the tendency, the integrity of the game to be blown up by whatever cultural trends are going on. So the Bloods and Crips comment I think I said sometimes the game looks like Bloods and Crips without the weapons.​

certainly far more than what Rush did- he didn't even see the made up thesis - and used one paragraph from that made up piece of satire... How could he be keeping it in 'context' when there isn't any context to be had...

Again, he CORRECTED HIMSELF!!!! You keep ignoring that point.

Also, I was referring to the clip from the 2001 that Limbaugh cited. STOP DISTORTING WHAT I SAID!

And Blood and Crips, here in the US - they are almost always black gangs.

Apparently you have never heard of using absurdity to illustrate absurdity. Notice the little smiley?

 

[shagdrum]

LOL!
And you're saying this with a straight face.
Are you that unaware or are you just making an outrageous statement.
Then you use that on your dubious moral hobby horse to lecture that it is shameful behavior.
I'd say it's shameful you are unaware that the Crips and Bloods are a primarily African American Gang.
When they are mentioned that is what informed people think.

Again, illustrating absurdity with absurdity. The only way to claim what Limbaugh said is conclusively racist is to view anything acknowledging a difference between races as indicative of racism. By that absurd standard, simply identifying Bloods and Crips as primarily black would have to be considered racist as well.

 

[04SCTLS]

One can differenciate between racial and racist comments.
But if you make too many racial comments and observations together even without perjorative you will still be considered a probable racist.
On the other hand, stereotypes and cliche's exist because there's a grain of truth in them.
To some the racial comments and observations come across as baiting.

Rush is too candid and successful as a commentater to be an NFL owner.
He may speak some hard truths but football is big time business entertainment that publicly puts race aside for the glory of pure competition
and making tons of money.
Didn't they just open a 1.2 billion dollar stadium in Dallas.
And we're in hard economic times.
That's a lot of money for the frivolous worship of sports and competition.
The NFL owners are a quiet bunch.
They're not controvercial. They don't say anything so as to not interfere with and take attention away from the enjoyment of the game.

It doesn't matter much if this was bogus for Obama.
Now that these words have been attributed to him they will stick in the minds of those predisposed to believe this even though they were written by a conservative provocateur saboteaur.
It's exactly what they want to hear and just reinforces their preconceived notions.
Everyone else will shrug just it off as more fear and paranoia from the usual suspects.

But then in politics all is fair.

 

[foxpaws]

Saying that does not make it true. You know what you are doing and so do we. Stop insulting out intelligence.

If you were taking his quotes "in context" then you could provide those quotes in context and defend your reasoning (instead of simply referencing a quote without giving the actual quote).

Shag - if you look at the smears and lies thread you can see where I referenced the whole blood and crips thing (in context)... I didn't think I had to do it again here shag... I certainly am not insulting your intelligence, however, I might be questioning your rather short, and selective memory...

Here is what I said...

you can find the transcript on Rush's site...

And it is hard to tell what the 'context' was - the transcript shows "break" on either side of this quote...

Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.
​

He also used crips and bloods again this year...

Ladies and gentlemen, I was fortunate yesterday: I had the privilege of treading the hallowed ground at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, where the Pittsburgh Steelers at least maintained sanity in an NFL season as a home team winning a playoff game. Go Steelers! They're up next against the Crips and the Bloods, the Baltimore Ravens next Sunday at 6:30 in Pittsburgh at Heinz Field.​

Maybe if he really wanted to own a team, he might want to not compare teams in the NFL to black gangs. Especially since the majority of the players in the NFL are black.​

Again, he CORRECTED HIMSELF!!!! You keep ignoring that point.

He backhanded corrected himself - here is what he said...

I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today. ​

He stands by the fabricated quote- that isn't correcting anything - he stands by a fabrication - really, wow I am glad that it is now considered good form to stand by a complete fabrication.

Apparently you have never heard of using absurdity to illustrate absurdity. Notice the little smiley?

And there is a whole lists of absurdities here, and they don't even need little smileys - The absurdity that Rush once again is caught with his pants down - your 'rush' to defend someone who obviously will say anything or do anything to put Obama in a bad light.

I agree with 04CTLS - more fear and paranoia from the usual suspects.

 

[shagdrum]

I might be questioning your rather short, and selective memory...

I remember exactly what you said, especially this part

...it is hard to tell what the 'context' was - the transcript shows "break" on either side of this quote...
​

This is an outright distortion given the actual link and the context of the show. As I pointed out in my previous post, he was simply responding to something said in the previous show segment. To ignore that fact (which you conveniently did) is to take him out of context.

He also used crips and bloods again this year...

Again, referencing that earlier show because he know it, as he puts it, "tweaks the media".

Maybe if he really wanted to own a team, he might want to not compare teams in the NFL to black gangs. Especially since the majority of the players in the NFL are black.

This statement is ignorant of two facts. First, those statements were made long before the bid. Second, he was not looking to own an NFL team. He was approached by and outside group headed by Dave Checketts.

In other words, he was not looking to own a team when those statements were made. Others approached him about owning a team after those statements were made.

He backhanded corrected himself...

In other words, you choose to downplay the fact that he DID correct himself so you can maintain your false stereotype of Limbaugh as a racist. Ignore the fact that he corrected himself within two hours of making the original statement, unlike the media who smeared him. They stood by the story until long after the damage had been done.

I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today.

Note that last line. That points out where he is going with that. He is simply applying the same standard to this as was being applied to the smears against him. Ignoring that point distorts what he said.

 

[shagdrum]

One can differenciate between racial and racist comments.
But if you make too many racial comments and observations together even without perjorative you will still be considered a probable racist.

The comments are only "racial" when they are taken out of context, judged by an absurd racially hypersensitive standard, and/or flat out made up. If the charge of racist can be legitimately ascribed through those misleading means, then anyone can be made to be a racist and the claim of racism is without meaning.

The NFL owners are a quiet bunch.

And Limbaugh would've been as well had someone not leaked his name.

It doesn't matter much if this was bogus for Obama.
Now that these words have been attributed to him they will stick in the minds of those predisposed to believe this even though they were written by a conservative provocateur saboteaur.
It's exactly what they want to hear and just reinforces their preconceived notions.

It isn't simply that. The passage is consistent with what Obama has actually said; Both in the radio clip above and in his second autobiography, The Audacity Of Hope. He promotes the fiction of "economic (redistributive) liberties" or "positive rights" as well as the ideal of "social (or 'economic') justice", etc. all of which are incompatible with the basic philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution including Natural Law, Natural Rights and the Rule Of Law. In fact, in his own words Obama admits that the Constitution is a "constraint" that must be overcome in order to enact those ideas.

That isn't to say that it is justified to attribute the bogus passage to Obama, but to claim that these were somehow "preconceived notions" on the part of his detractors and not reasonable conclusion based on Obama's own words is to miss certain facts. If the passage in question was attributable to Obama it would simply serve as more confirmation of something already known.

 

[foxpaws]

I remember exactly what you said, especially this part

...it is hard to tell what the 'context' was - the transcript shows "break" on either side of this quote...
​

This is an outright distortion given the actual link and the context of the show. As I pointed out in my previous post, he was simply responding to something said in the previous show segment. To ignore that fact (which you conveniently did) is to take him out of context.

He still compares players in the NFL and teams in the NFL to Bloods and Crips, in context - read the whole thing Shag. No matter what context you take it in, the comparison is still there. Especially with my second quote - he is comparing even a specific team-the Ravens-to black gangs. I guess he wouldn't have gotten in with a group to buy them...

This statement is ignorant of two facts. First, those statements were made long before the bid. Second, he was not looking to own an NFL team. He was approached by and outside group headed by Dave Checketts.

In other words, he was not looking to own a team when those statements were made. Others approached him about owning a team after those statements were made.

You never know what the future will bring - so you should watch what you say. Using that logic you could excuse Obama if he really did write a thesis where in one paragraph he questioned the idea that the government should or shouldn't control the economy - heck, he wasn't looking to be the president when that (hypothetically) was written.

That is just silly shag - you personally use past statements against people all the time - you use past associations, etc... you condemn on the past - heck, here the same exact thing is being done to Limbaugh and suddenly you cry 'foul'... wow - talk about a double standard.

In other words, you choose to downplay the fact that he DID correct himself so you can maintain your false stereotype of Limbaugh as a racist. Ignore the fact that he corrected himself within two hours of making the original statement, unlike the media who smeared him. They stood by the story until long after the damage had been done.

I am not ignoring his 'correction' - it wasn't a 'correction' at all, he continued to use the fabrication as 'truth' because we all know 'he thinks it'.

Note that last line. That points out where he is going with that. He is simply applying the same standard to this as was being applied to the smears against him. Ignoring that point distorts what he said.

So, lets apply the same standard to Rush that people did with Dan Rather - same type of scenario - should achieve the same results. Dan Rather was basically drummed out of broadcasting (and I think he should have been). Will Rush's large syndicated network suddenly not be renewing their contracts - I doubt it...

 

[shagdrum]

He still compares players in the NFL and teams in the NFL to Bloods and Crips

Did I ever suggest otherwise?

You never know what the future will bring - so you should watch what you say.

But you shouldn't have to worry about people actively and constantly working to distort what you say and smear you. However, Limbaugh (and most other conservative commentators) have to put up with constant lies by smear merchants like Media Matters and those who parrot those lies like Johnny and you. At that point, to concern yourself with how what you say can be construed is to stifle yourself. So you are suggesting that Limbaugh should cave to the intimidation and marginalization tactics of the left and STFU. Let them control the debate through shear dishonesty and vitriol. In other words, not challenge the type of dishonest tactics that you (and many others on the left) habitually employ. Another double standard it seems...

Using that logic you could excuse Obama if he really did write a thesis where in one paragraph he questioned the idea that the government should or shouldn't control the economy - heck, he wasn't looking to be the president when that (hypothetically) was written.

The MSM already has excused him for making those type of statements.

Besides, I wasn't making an argument, so there is no "logic" to be applied or not applied. I was simply correcting your distortion with the truth. You seem pretty desperate to CYA.

That is just silly shag - you personally use past statements against people all the time - you use past associations, etc... you condemn on the past - heck, here the same exact thing is being done to Limbaugh and suddenly you cry 'foul'... wow - talk about a double standard.

I make reasonable conclusions from statements, in context, a person makes about that person's character, views, credibility...basically things that are relevant to the debate. That is not what you are doing and you know it. More false equivalence.

I am not ignoring his 'correction' - it wasn't a 'correction' at all, he continued to use the fabrication as 'truth' because we all know 'he thinks it'.

It is clear you are refusing to see reality here. Have to maintain your illusions...

So, lets apply the same standard to Rush that people did with Dan Rather - same type of scenario - should achieve the same results. Dan Rather was basically drummed out of broadcasting (and I think he should have been). Will Rush's large syndicated network suddenly not be renewing their contracts - I doubt it...

Again, Rush corrected himself (something I don't remember Rather doing and definately not within two hours of the original incident) and then used that to make a point about liberal double standards. A point that you are reinforcing by working to mislead here and brand him a racist.

The more you try to defend and legitimize your misconceptions about Limbaugh the more you demonstrate the point he made about double standards.

We all know that if Olberman or Matthews had said what Limbaugh had said you would not be trying to distort his words and smear him. In fact, you would be one of the first defending him.

 

[foxpaws]

I make reasonable conclusions from statements, in context, about a persons character, views, credibility...basically things that are relevant to the debate. That is not what you are doing and you know it. More false equivalence.

And when Rush over and over again uses 'black' gangs and equates them to the NFL, or when he specifically draws attention to a 'black' quarterback, saying that the media wants him to succeed just because he is black, Rush obviously views a big racial distinction between black players in the NFL and the rest... he is saying that they are 'different'. He isn't viewing all the players in the NFL equal according to race. That is quite obvious from his past comments. That is his viewpoint. He never draws a distinction about Samoa players or white players - it is always black players.

And Rush 'backhanded' his correction - if you don't understand that Shag - perhaps I should give you a backhanded compliment - which isn't a compliment at all.. but rather the opposite...

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

You are not offering anything new. Simply repeating the same tired distortions that you have been trying to sell constantly in this thread. Repetition does not turn your lies into truth.

Limbaugh did not "backhand" his correction. I saw him say it (he has a webcam for his show). It was sincere. What you are doing is utterly shameful; actively engaging in character assassination.

 

[foxpaws]

You are not offering anything new. Simply repeating the same tired distortions that you have been trying to sell constantly in this thread. Repetition does not turn your lies into truth.

Limbaugh did not "backhand" his correction. I saw him say it (he has a webcam for his show). It was sincere. What you are doing is utterly shameful; actively engaging in character assassination.

So we are speaking about the same thing... this is the 'correction' he gave for the Obama gaff... or do you have another one Shag?

I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today. ​

"It was satire!" and the next sentence "But we know he thinks it." That is not a "sincere" (your words Shag) correction...

Oh, let's see - have I ever defended Olberman or Matthews - nope...

 

[shagdrum]

So we are speaking about the same thing... this is the 'correction' he gave for the Obama gaff... or do you have another one Shag?

I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today. ​

"It was satire!" and the next sentence "But we know he thinks it." That is not a "sincere" (your words Shag) correction...

Oh, let's see - have I ever defended Olberman or Matthews - nope...

Apparently you didn't listen to his show today (he was off Monday). He explains why he did what he did and how his "media tweak" worked. I will post the transcript when it becomes available.

But I should point out the pattern here. Liberals lower the bar on civility and integrity then when a conservative stoops to their level, they cry foul. It makes it real easy to show the inherent hypocritical double standard liberals hold. All you have to do is bait 'em. You fell for it. Now go wash the egg off your face...

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently you didn't listen to his show today (he was off Monday). He explains why he did what he did and how his "media tweak" worked. I will post the transcript when it becomes available.

But I should point out the pattern here. Liberals lower the bar on civility and integrity then when a conservative stoops to their level, they cry foul. It makes it real easy to show the inherent hypocritical double standard liberals hold. All you have to do is bait 'em. You fell for it. Now go wash the egg off your face...

Nope - haven't heard Rush today...

However, unless he can prove that he knew that the thesis was a satire piece before he used it as 'fact' on his show - than any explanation that it was 'media tweak' would be bogus...

Is that bit of evidence out there - if he indeed used the phony thesis as a 'set-up' because he knew before he aired it on Friday that it was merely a bad satire piece from over 2 months ago?

Is it shag?

I think claiming media tweak after the fact is easy - Rush would have had to label it as media tweak somewhere before he did it.

It follows the War of the Worlds radio broadcast - you have to say before you do it that it is phony-otherwise any claim after the fact is extremely suspect.

Rush was fooled, and now he is trying to cover that enormous a$$ of his... Probably egg...

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

So you have to have your demon to hate. Regardless of the facts and regardless of the context in which things were said. Try and rationalize it all you want, it is abundantly clear that you are ignoring the truth.

If you are at all familiar with Limbaugh (and not the misleading, straw man characature perpetuated by the MSM) it was clear from the start that he was setting up one of his "media tweaks". I pointed that out earlier today, before his show even aired. Yet you simply refuse to believe that, without any rational basis, so you can maintain your own illusions and misperceptions about him.

 

[foxpaws]

So you have to have your demon to hate. Regardless of the facts and regardless of the context in which things were said. Try and rationalize it all you want, it is abundantly clear that you are ignoring the truth.

I don't 'hate' Limbaugh - I don't know the man personally - how could I hate him? However I do think he is a media genius.

If you are at all familiar with Limbaugh (and not the misleading, straw man characature perpetuated by the MSM) it was clear from the start that he was setting up one of his "media tweaks". I pointed that out earlier today, before his show even aired. Yet you simply refuse to believe that, without any rational basis, so you can maintain your own illusions and misperceptions about him.

So, where is that hard evidence that Rush knew it was a satire piece that he was quoting... There isn't any hard evidence that he was setting up a 'media tweak'... Without that time line, that Rush knew about the true nature of the piece before his show aired last Friday, and was using it to 'tweak' then his current claim that it was media tweak is false. Without the 'prior knowledge' evidence 'media tweak' is just a couple of meaningless words.

You won't find that time line - because Rush was taken in by the satire piece - it was just what he wanted - the smoking gun... Well, now he is picking bird shot out of his butt.

Heck, this weekend various right wing blogs were speculating media tweak - So, Rush reads the blogs that write about him (you might read them too - huh Shag), and voila - a convenient excuse.

 

[shagdrum]

So, where is that hard evidence that Rush knew it was a satire piece that he was quoting

"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion."

Your attempts to defend your blatant character assassination are shameful

 

[foxpaws]

"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion."

Your attempts to defend your blatant character assassination are shameful

All I asked for was evidence that Rush had prior knowledge, and purposefully set up the media... otherwise he is claiming this ex post facto ... which you fully know is bogus.

Oh, I guess asking for evidence is asking for too much - raising the goalposts?

So, I say that he is a racist pig. What hard evidence do I need, according to you Shag, none. So if asked, I will drag out 'raising the goalposts', just as you are doing...

Rush saying it was media tweak 4 days after the event... come on shag, quit defending the indefensible...

Heck, I would give you entrapment on the other side - if, the piece that was used hadn't been posted in August.... Doesn't work in the time line... ah, but that seems to be a bit beyond your understanding... time line...

 

[shagdrum]

Here ya go...

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, as always, it is up to me to provide context for the people who claim to be professional journalists and are aware of everything. Now, the setup for this, of course, is that I was libeled and slandered by countless members of the media, fabricated quotes, made-up quotes I never stated, never uttered, never wrote, nothing, were repeated all over this country by sportswriters, television cable hosts and so forth. After we proved to them that I didn't do it they retracted it a week later, after the damage, and many of them said, "It still doesn't matter, we know Limbaugh thinks it anyway."

So last Friday, I get a note from a friend who says, "You ought to see what's on this blog." I looked at it, and it was Obama, his thesis from Columbia, "so-called Founders," didn't like what they did with the Constitution, there wasn't enough talk about distribution of wealth and so forth. I said, "Well, this has a ring of truth to it," because we've got Obama on radio from Chicago 2001 complaining about the Supreme Court not doing enough about redistribution. So we ran with it, made a big deal out of it in the first hour. In the second hour, I got a note saying, "Hey, Rush, we looked at this, we can't back this up, we can't find any actual sourcing for this." So at that point I warned the audience that it may not be true, that we are still checking it.

Shortly thereafter I learned that the whole thing was made up, it was a satire piece on an obscure website. Then I said, "Okay, folks, I have to tell you, it's satire, there's no evidence that Obama ever wrote this, but, Media Tweak of the Day, I don't care, I know he thinks it anyway because I've got audio of Obama saying it, talking about the Supreme Court." And we all got a great laugh about it because I corrected it immediately, I explained that it was a hoax, or was satire and then to tweak the media I said, "But I don't care, I'm sticking with it because I know he thinks it anyway." So I dished out to Obama what the whole media did to me and I dished it back at the media as well. And Koko at the website called me on Friday here, e-mailed me, said, "Look, you want me to leave this thing up?" I said "Yes, leave it on the website as is, so these idiot media people who want to find out what actually happened can go in and take the time to read it and see it. And leave the original piece up where I got the first information that this was something he had written in his thesis." So here is yesterday morning, Monday morning, 1010 WINS in New York, a montage of correspondent Alice Stockton-Rossini's report about this.

ROSSINI: When Rush Limbaugh discovers a hoax, he corrects it immediately. So what he spent a good part of his Friday broadcast gloating over an Internet story about how a TIME Magazine reporter got a hold of the president's college thesis, and in it he disses the Constitution? So what the story was fake? When Limbaugh realized the report was fake he didn't say sorry, not even oops. He insisted the fabricated theses is still in line with what the president thinks. How does he know? Because, says Limbaugh, he's heard Obama say it. A transcript of the Friday broadcast is still at the top of Limbaugh's Web page. The headline: "Obama's Disdain for the Constitution. We know he thinks it, don't we?" But being Rush Limbaugh means never having to say you're sorry. When Limbaugh realized the story was satire, he admitted the report was a fake, then added, "For good comedy to be comedy, it must contain an element of truth."

RUSH: I continue to be amazed, and I marvel at how easy it is to make these people look like fools. She even says she went to my website. All of this 'cause I didn't say I'm sorry. I don't know that I've gotten one apology from anybody in the media about using fabricated quotes attributed to me. They live in such a narrow world; they are so unaware of what is really going on. I continue to be marveling at the fact that they don't really know what happens in our world, folks, but we know everything about their world because we study 'em and we research 'em, and we don't read fake websites quoting what media said. We listen to them. It pains us, it's frustrating as hell, but we do it. Here's Chris Matthews last night on Hardball.

MATTHEWS: Rush didn't realize that it was a joke and broadcast the thesis story Friday as evidence that the president is, quote, anti-constitutionalist. Later in that same show Rushbo was told that the story was a hoax. Did he correct the record? Not exactly.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I shout from the mountaintops, "It was satire." But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth so we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway.

MATTHEWS: You can't beat that, did you hear that? Rush stands by the hoax because he told his dittoheads a hoax contains truth. Well, it takes a true Dittohead to register on that one.

RUSH: These people! He has no clue that I'm parodying what happened to me, that he participated in. I don't think I've gotten an apology from Matthews on this. So we stand by the fabricated quote? (laughing) I don't know, folks. It's fun. Did he correct the record? I shout from the mountaintops, element of truth, we know how he feels about distribution -- We do know how he feels about it, so we stand by the fabricated quote. (laughing) Which is exactly what happened to me. I'm out of words to describe the insular world and the utter, utter lack of a sense of humor that these people have, particularly where Obama is concerned.
END TRANSCRIPT​