Rush Limbaugh, he's alright, or he's a nazi (split thread)

Limbaugh's all right? That Nazi used to spit fire on the subject of illegal drug users and advocate they "get lined up and taken care of by firing squad for the sake of America's stability'' - while meanwhile . . . . .

You admire hypocrisy do you? And thats just what get got *caught* at - likely the tip of the iceberg. He is a total scumbag.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kinda like Michael Moore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really, Michael Moore advocated death for drug users and then was caught using them? I didn't know!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Blah blah - relax stud. We are just talking here.

Damn right I'm insulting about folks like Limbaugh - I honestly fear for the safety of myself and my children in a world where that mentality (or lack of) gains more political power over our lives. I'm not pretending to be polite and even-handed about the dirtbag.

And who the hell said he "claims that he is a Nazi"? HE doesn't admit it. Its his actions/words which betray him -- many people think his views lean in that direction - or at least towards facism.

Lighten up - here, get a laugh at this: its a song about Rush being a Nazi for you - and its all him talking (cleverly rearranged though): http://www.bartcop.com/rushnazi.mp3

 

What Rush did say about drugs:

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)
http://www.fair.org/extra/0311/limbaugh-drugs.html

Rush Limbaugh is a professional bully who "entertains" his fans with an endless stream of logical fallacies. For someone who is constantly exhorting people to take responsibility for their actions, he has certainly done everything possible to avoid taking responsibility for his own drug abuse.

A man who would refer to the presidents 13 year old daughter as the "whitehouse dog" is too low for comment.

 

We are quite off topic, and HS is going to blow an artery! I agree we should get on topic - we can start a new thread to discuss out anybody on the left *must* be a dirtbag by HS's rational. Though . . . your discussion, HS, sounds less rooted in compassion and rationality than *idiology*. Perhaps its all actually rooted in religious views for you? Should we take it to the religious section? I'd be fine with that if you wish.

 

That's always a classic. Someone has a problem with a drug, and wants to keep others from using it.

Yes, I think Rush is a hypocrite about drugs. He certainly has never preached anything but "tough love", and no excuses allowed. Yet he has had nothing but excuses since he was finally forced to go public.

The whitehouse dog story is documented here:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html

Before you try to dig up some right wing story about how it is untrue, or a distortion of what happened (they are out there, and Al Franken reported in Lying Liars that he almost came to blows with Sean Hannity when Hannity got in his face insisting it wasn't true) I saw that episode of Limbaugh's show with my own eyes, and that is exactly how it happened. It was at the very end of the show, and the photos appeared on a large monitor in the background. Ha ha, very funny, attacking a young teenage girl at her most awkward stage (smiling to reveal a mouthful of braces).

 

PHP:

The whitehouse dog story is documented here:
“ MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.  ” 

[url]http://www.fair.org/press-releases/...es-reality.html[/url]

Before you try to dig up some right wing story about how it is untrue, or a distortion of what happened (they are out there, and Al Franken reported in Lying Liars that he almost came to blows with Sean Hannity when Hannity got in his face insisting it wasn't true) I saw that episode of Limbaugh's show with my own eyes, and that is exactly how it happened. It was at the very end of the show, and the photos appeared on a large monitor in the background. 

If that is your claim, then in reality you saw nothing. (For the record, I did see it. Unlike you.). It was not at the very end of the show, it was in the middle. And Rush did not have any monitors in the background. Ever. Neither large or small. He had the monitor off to his left side, at an angle so that he and the audience can see it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/CigarAficionado1rushtv.jpg

This photo shows an episode from later seasons, and the set was updated, but the monitors will give an idea of where the monitor was during the incident in question.

And by the way, Molly Ivins lied about what happened (Franken, as I understand it, cites Ivins as his source too. Either her or FAIR). Well, either she lied outright, or she is just a victim of a faulty memory. Either way, her description of events are completely inaccurate.

But there is no mistaking your claim for a lie. You see Molly's version of events on the internet, assumed it was true, and invented this phony tale about having seen the episode yourself, adding in those couple of phony details (monitor in the bakground, very end of the show) for good measure in order to make your (phony) version of events sound a little more plausible.

Transcript from lexis nexis (neither a left wing or right wing source). Rush was doing a segment on In/Out lists that were in print at the time:

______________________________

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at- -see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

_______________________________________

Yes, it was a mistake. Rush apologized on that show and a few other subsequent shows, and the guy responsible for the mistake was fired.

 

Add this one to the list:

http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html

 

Rush is a blowhard. But funny. He's the exact equivalent of Moore.

 

That transcript is not from the show in question. What I saw was exactly as I said. That transcript is from a different episode. I didn't know who Molly Ivins was back in the early 90's, and I didn't know she had mentioned it in her column until I went looking for references for my post.
It was not a mistake, it was not funny, and it did happen exactly as I said it did. He can use the semantic dodge of saying that he didn't actually call her the "whitehouse dog", because the photo did it for him. I very clearly remember the pause as he waited for his audience to laugh.

Saying that I'm a liar, or remembering a distorted version of the truth changes nothing. It is interesting to me how Ms. Ivin's column is the only reference I can find. I suppose the actual footage has been destroyed. My memory is very good, but not perfect. But there is no way I could have mentally distorted that transcript into what I remember. There is no mention of Socks the cat there, and that was the set up. There were only two photos shown, the cat, and Chelsea Clinton, at her most awkward stage, with a mouth full of braces.

Monitor to stage left? Could be, on the show they were shown full screen in succession after he set them up. If it had been a mistake, no big deal, it wasn't a live show. He could have edited it. The fact that it was shown as is, and his reaction to it, tells me that he meant it exactly as it happened.

I didn't think much of Limbaugh prior to that, but he really lost my respect forever there.

 

Do you dittoheads just try to bomb all available forums with this revisionist version of the story?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2416

This is all over the place.

How about a transcript of the apology?

Once again, while fallible, my memory did not distort that transcript into what I saw back in either late 92, or very early 93.

Even after all of this time, I distinctly remember the picture of Chelsea. The poor kid wasn't too pretty, especially in that picture. Which made it that much worse. The lovely young woman she has since grown into more than made up for it though.

It's true I don't remember much else of his TV show. I only saw it a few times, and I doubt I ever watched all of a single episode. I think I mostly flipped to it during commercials for another show I was watching. I do remember when someone sent him a pointer with a large caliber rifle shell on the tip. He was showing it to the studio audience, and asked, "What is that, a shotgun shell?" I was stunned. Here was Mr. Pro gun republican, but he was so ignorant about guns that he could mistake a large rifle shell for a shotgun shell. Anyone who knows anything about guns wouldn't make that mistake. His support for gun rights was just a ploy, go figure.

Edit: On further reflection, it had to have been from early '93. The Clinton's weren't in the Whitehouse until January, so it was probably February or early March. If I had Lexis Nexis access, I'd find out for sure.

 

Why doesn't FAIR go after Howard Stern? He's a liberal blow hard. As for Rush's "drug policy", ever think that maybe he was talking about illegal drugs? Like meth, pot, crack... Not viagra or depression medicine.

 

As a Schedule II narcotic, oxycodone is just as illegal as heroin or cocaine. All three are still used in tightly controlled circumstances as pain killers, and all three are highly illegal when purchased on the street.

http://billmon.org/archives/000717.html

As for Howard Stern and FAIR, how's this:

http://www.fair.org/activism/stern.html

Now that he has turned against the Bush administration, his biggest problems stem from Clear Channel, and the FCC.

 

Huh? You out for any excuse to judge Rush as superior? Wake up: Prescription medication used illegally is JUST as illegal as illegal drugs used illegally. And just because its prescription doesn't mean its ANY less powerful or dangerous than illegal drugs, in fact - our pharmaceutical companies are *GOOD* - they make very powerful and clean drugs. Oxycontin is very much in the Opiate class just like morphine and heroin.

And there are lots more: Adderall isn't "like'' speed, it IS speed. It IS methamphetamines -- and its a prescription drug mostly given to children in the USA.

Trying to minimize Rush's lying, cheating and illegal drug use because of the *kind* of drugs they were is idiotic.

 

Gravity, I'm not making excuses for him. I'm saying that there is a difference between heroin and oxycontin. Oxy happens to be regulated and clean. Whereas heroin can have arsenic and other undesirable contents within it.

 

Not pharmaceutical grade Heroin. Yes, it really ought to be capitalized, because it was originally Bayer's trademarked name for diacetylmorphine, first synthesized in 1874.

 

IMO, abuse of Oxycontin may actually be worse than the abuse of Heroin. Oxcontin is a very effective pain reliever. It makes life bearable for many people with chronic debilitating pain. If doctors start feeling political pressure to not prescribe it because of bozos like Rush abusing it and getting headlines, it may become difficult or impossible to obtain for those who really do need it.

Remember, we live in a country where many physicians are hesitant to prescribe Heroin to the terminally ill for pain, becuse they are afraid they will become addicted! Who cares, they're terminally ill!

 

"That transcript is not from the show in question."

Yes it is. If I'm wrong, then try to find the right transcript (or better yet the video)from the right show. I dare you. I double dare you. I triple dare you. TRY to prove me wrong. You wont because you cant because your version of events simply did not happen.

"What I saw was exactly as I said."

You saw nothing.

"That transcript is from a different episode."

No. It's from the correct episode. You're just citing an incident that did not happen.

"I didn't know who Molly Ivins was back in the early 90's, and I didn't know she had mentioned it in her column until I went looking for references for my post."

In either case, this urban legend started with her. She wrote this phony verison of events that has since taken on a life of its own. Back then there was no such thing a a blogosphere to provide a balance to her lie. Today, irf she were to pull that stunt, the right video would be posted on the internet, and she would be forced to print a retraction of some sort. But too many years have passed.


"It was not a mistake,"

Yes it was.

:it was not funny, and it did happen exactly as I said it did. He can use the semantic dodge of saying that he didn't actually call her the "whitehouse dog", because the photo did it for him. I very clearly remember the pause as he waited for his audience to laugh."

How you mange to remember these events that did not happen is totally mind boggling.

"Saying that I'm a liar, or remembering a distorted version of the truth changes nothing. It is interesting to me how Ms. Ivin's column is the only reference I can find. I suppose the actual footage has been destroyed."

No. Each and every sepisode of Rush's program, at the end of it would offer a videotape of each program for sale (about 20-25 dollars per episode, and that didnt include postage). Plus in the past I have seen a couple of people on the internet who claim to have the episode on tape.

"My memory is very good, but not perfect. But there is no way I could have mentally distorted that transcript into what I remember."

I believe that is possible. I believe that is what happened here. Either that or you lied.

"There is no mention of Socks the cat there, and that was the set up. There were only two photos shown, the cat, and Chelsea Clinton, at her most awkward stage, with a mouth full of braces."

No. There were photos shown of almost every item on the in/out list. This is television. He showed pics of the Bushes, the Clinton's, Millie the dog, etc.

"Monitor to stage left? Could be, on the show they were shown full screen in succession after he set them up. If it had been a mistake, no big deal, it wasn't a live show. He could have edited it. The fact that it was shown as is, and his reaction to it, tells me that he meant it exactly as it happened."

Rush did not edit his shows because he didnt have the time to redo segments, nor did he want to. The whole show was a big drain on his time as it was. This wasnt the first on air mistake that would be made, nor would it be the last, but all on air mistakes went out as is.

As for his "reactions", anyone can read into that what they WANT to. He is after all, a performer.

_______________________________________


“ False.

Transcript from lexis nexis:

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. RUSH LIMBAUGH
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at- -see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

_________________________

Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized. ”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt...i?entry_id=2416

This is all over the place."

I realize that version of events is all over the place. But so are tons of other urban legends. Doesnt make it true.

"How about a transcript of the apology?"

There are a couple of apologies. He apologized on that show. A sort of half smart assed apology, and hten a more sincere apology on the next days show.

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance.

LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away.

etc, etc.

"Once again, while fallible, my memory did not distort that transcript into what I saw back in either late 92, or very early 93."

I'm afraid it did.

"Even after all of this time, I distinctly remember the picture of Chelsea."

Well, that much is true. There was a photo of Chelsea. Go to lexis. It costs nothing to register and search (It only costs money to pull an article. Just a few bucks). You will find that your version of events didnt happen. And the one I have illustrated for you did.

 

So I'm lying, Al Franken is lying, and Molly Ivins is lying. And all of the people on various internet forums are as well. Yes, it would be so out of character for a man who has made a career out of ad hominem attacks to have said (more accurately, to have made this photo comparison) this about Chelsea Clinton.

When I find a primary source, I'll cite it. Using Lexis isn't like using Google. I can't just go to the Rush Limbaugh transcripts section until I find the one where he did it.

The transcript you are citing is not the episode I saw. And I have no way of knowing if that is an actual transcript of the show. And as I said before, the episode I saw was aired in 1993, not 1992. At this time, anyone interested will have to take my word, and the word of Al Franken and Molly Ivins for it. I know I'm not convincing you. But as you are obviously a fan of the man, I don't care what you think.