Limbaugh tasteless comment

[kaufcom]

Re: Yes, it was made up.

> You are not being factual when you say you were right and I
> was wrong about Randi and Hannity. You posted. I was not
> persuaded. I challenged your sloppy "reporting." Someone
> else posted a credible version and I accepted it.

This is absolutely my last word on Randi/Hannity matter. In my post I stated that I heard Randi claim that she beat Hannity in New York. I was trying to get more information on this.

Here's what I said

"Randi Rhodes boasted during her show on Friday that the Fall ratings revealed that she had "beat Sean Hannity's butt." According to the Goddess, her show got an average share of from 2.9 to 3.3 and Hannity's average share was 2.0 over the three hours when their shows go head to head --i.e. from 3 pm to 6 pm. Rhodes' Show continues until 7 pm.

Then here was your testy reply

> Go away, kid, you are bothering people.

> Once again, you either don't know what you are talking about
> or you are willing to twist facts to fit how you want things
> to be. You come on here treating what you think you maybe
> heard Randi say as fact - but you can't even get that
> straight ("I don't recall" ... "I assume").

Then here was the item offered by the other poster

Before you rant and rave maybe you should have the facts. I cannot post numbers on here because I do know the rules. But I did just look at the NY Arbitron numbers and Randi Rhodes 3p-7p did beat Hannity Men 25-54.

In fact, my original post was correct Randi had beat Hannity in the 25-54 demo.


> Apparently, in this case, you did not even hear what Rush
> said, but you come on here anyway and tried to give the
> impression you actually did hear him. (That would be a lie.)

Not only did I hear Rush make his racist statement, but I posted the link so you could hear it too!

Once again here it is

Here's the link http://server2.whiterosesociety.org/content/rhodes/RhodesShow-(08-02-2006).mp3

Rush's racist statement is about a minute and half into the recording

> From your own later description, you heard your "goddess" do
> a bit - you probably weren't listening very carefully, as
> usual - and you were gullible enough to accept whatever she
> said as gospel.

Again I was commenting on what Rush said not what Randi said about his statement
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by barooosk on 02/10/06 07:38 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[mrcklw]

Good Reading On the Whole Phoney Phuneral "Outrage"

May I tastefully suggest you all read Peggy Noonan's (former speechwriter for Reagan AND wrote Dan Rather's commentaries for several years) piece in 2/10 Wall St. Journal (available free online at opinionjournal.com). As Republican partisan as she is, she realizes that the beauty of free speech in our country trumps all...

"... it was spirited and moving, rousing and respectful, pugnacious and loving...this is how a democracy ought to be... full of the joy of argument and marked by the moral certainty that here you can say what you think.."

"..There was nothing prissy, nothing sissy about it. A former president, a softly gray-haired and chronically dyspeptic gentleman who seems to have judged the world to be just barely deserving of his presence, pointed insulted a sitting president who was, in fact, sitting right behind him. The Clintons unveiled their 2008 campaign. A rhyming preacher, one of the old lions, a man of warmth and stature, freely used the occasion to verbally bop the sitting president on the head."

"So what? this was the authentic sound of a vibrant democracy doing its thing. It was the exact opposite of the frightened and pressy attitude that if you draw a picture I don't like, I'll have to kill you."

"It was: WE DO FREE SPEECH HERE."

www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007937

 

[Newshawk]

Re: What is Rush "Scoring"

> So it's okay for Rush to disrespect President Clinton and
> Rev. Jackson and Senator Kennedy, but President Carter can't
> speak about how the King family dealt with wiretapping by
> their government.

But who in the government ordered the wiretapping and surveilance of the King family? It was Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a DEMOCRAT, in the administration of President John F. Kennedy, a DEMOCRAT...

And these are the people the black community flocks to? <P ID="signature">______________
"Radio is like musical chairs. When the music stops, I sit down and say something."</P>

 

[mwebster]

Double secret Double standards

> That illustrates perfectly the amazing double standards
> coming from the morals crowd, and Rush Limbaugh, as so aptly
> illustrated in another thread, has no business making
> morality attacks after his own shameful indiscretions.

Talk about double-standards! You are a leading practitioner of the double standard.

> So let's get this straight. It's fine for the pill popper
> to bring out the stale bread on Ted Kennedy and Bill
> Clinton, but it's not okay to comment on anything related to
> President Bush.

And let's get this straight. It's OK to talk about Rush and pain killers. It's not OK to talk about Evan Cohen and a loan from a non-profit receiving tax-payer funding.

>
> I left out "unattributed" because unless it wasn't Rush
> speaking, what is unattributed about it.
>

Rush was not identified. Neither was the date, time and source of the clip. That's unattributed.

>
> What hotel is he staying at? What's on the room service
> menu? Honestly, who cares what he's doing this week. What
> matters is if he said it or not, not where he said it.
>

One poster had raised the question of whether Rush had been on the air last week. What matters is that he did his own show Monday and Tuesday (the day of the funeral) and did a TV interview at the golf tournement on Wednesday. Are being deliberately obtuse or don't you bother to read stuff before you reply?

>
> Rush is delusional. This has become the manufactured
> talking point for right wing talk radio and Fox News. Apply
> the litmus test however - would they be complaining if the
> funeral was politicized with positive comments about the
> president's Iraq endeavors? This wasn't Bush's funeral - it
> was Coretta Scott King. The King family, and her
> specifically, vehemently opposed the president's war
> policies and wiretapping. There is nothing wrong with being
> honest with the audience about what she felt just because
> Bush is sitting there and Laura is giving Carter and Lowery
> the evil eye. The Democrats don't have to pick up votes in
> the African-American community. The GOP's efforts to
> recruit black supporters washed out to see with the debris
> from Katrina. Buh bye.

As always, anybody with whom you disagree is "delusional." Apply the litmus test yourself. Would you be complaining if the funeral included unfavorable comments about Democrats? Yes, you would. Yes, you are. You are complaining about Rush's comments about Democrats attending the funeral.

> So it's okay for Rush to disrespect President Clinton and
> Rev. Jackson and Senator Kennedy, but President Carter can't
> speak about how the King family dealt with wiretapping by
> their government.

Also notice how Jimmy Carter was somewhat vague in his comments about wire-tapping to avoid pointing out that it was the Kennedy administration (Fat Boy's brothers) which wire-tapped Martin Luther King (without warrants).

>
> Actually, thank you for the full quote. It was even worse
> than the original purported quote. And it's still
> disrespectful of the funeral because just who will these
> three important leaders be sleeping with - why the "loose"
> women at the funeral of course.

The thing about loose women is something you added in your own head. He only said these three guys who have had trouble keeping it zipped during their careers would likely be on the prowl.

>
> So let's get this straight. It's fine for the pill popper
> to bring out the stale bread on Ted Kennedy and Bill
> Clinton, but it's not okay to comment on anything related to
> President Bush.
>

Again, double standard. You do the same thing. Your rule is: Criticize those I dislike. Don't you dare criticize those I like.

>
> "Score" definitely means something very different for Rush
> Limbaugh than it does for the three Democrats he wants to
> criticize.
>

Keep in mind, Rush is not a public official. He is accountable to his employers, not the voters. You are obsessed with this drug thing. Last time the Democratic party actually had a liberal candidate (1972), the platform supported legalization.

Also among American politicians who couldn't keep it zipped - lest we forget, thank you Jack and Bobby for making the tapes - was Martin Luther King. And now we have this national bathos for Coretta King who has done nothing but play the grieving widow for almost 40 years. Even Rose Kennedy wasn't in mourning that long, but of course Coretta started at a younger age. Both Rose and Coretta had husbands who get their needs met elsewhere, so they find fulfillment in mourning. Coretta's only accomplishment was she got a holiday passed which gives government workers another paid holiday.

And while we are it, let's talk about "Bishop" Eddie Long, cult leader of the mega-church where all this funeral happened, and who has personally profited from church funds and charitable donations in way that would make even Evan Cohen blush (See: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/28/05).

 

[dampier]

Re: What is Rush "Scoring"

> But who in the government ordered the wiretapping and
> surveilance of the King family? It was Attorney General
> Robert F. Kennedy, a DEMOCRAT, in the administration of
> President John F. Kennedy, a DEMOCRAT...

Actually it started with J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Anyone familiar with history (and the talking points crowd don't read books unless written by Ann Coulter) will know Hoover was also bugging and engaging in surveillance of the Kennedy clan as well, so he was the ultimate free agent.

The whole story here was that Hoover requested the surveillance because of fears the civil rights movement was being infiltrated by Communist agents.

The rest of the story was that the Kennedy family were major supporters of civil rights, so the story isn't as simple as you want to make it.

Bobby Kennedy was the victim of a Hoover smear when he handed the Kennedy wiretap files over to Roy Cohn (yes THAT Roy Cohn) who in turned handed them over to Jimmy Hoffa (yes THAT Jimmy Hoffa) who tried to blackmail Bobby with them in return for a suspended sentence.

Hmmm... passing confidential information as part of a smear campaign. Somehow that sounds familiar.

> And these are the people the black community flocks to?

Some of you guys writing this stuff really should brush up on American history before you embarrass yourselves as uninformed sheep willing to regurgitate talking points on command.

On the issue of civil rights, African Americans are wise enough to know the difference between a JFK and, say Trent Lott, who said America would not have as many problems if we had only elected Strom Thurmond (one of the most strident anti-civil rights senators in Washington) to the office of the presidency.

 

[dampier]

Re: Double secret Double standards

> Talk about double-standards! You are a leading practitioner
> of the double standard.

No you are.

> And let's get this straight. It's OK to talk about Rush and
> pain killers. It's not OK to talk about Evan Cohen and a
> loan from a non-profit receiving tax-payer funding.

It's perfectly acceptable to talk about it. You've been doing it for months and months now and nobody is stopping you.

> Rush was not identified. Neither was the date, time and
> source of the clip. That's unattributed.

Oh please... this was a stretch even for you. Should there have been cue tones and a countdown too? It's talk radio. Let's try and stay within the galaxy here at least.

> One poster had raised the question of whether Rush had been
> on the air last week. What matters is that he did his own
> show Monday and Tuesday (the day of the funeral) and did a
> TV interview at the golf tournement on Wednesday. Are being
> deliberately obtuse or don't you bother to read stuff before
> you reply?

None of this at all matters to the original point of what Rush said. The debate here is about that, not when and where he said it. Stop tapdancing around the real issue.

> As always, anybody with whom you disagree is "delusional."

I disagree with you but I don't think you're delusional. Just wrong.

> Apply the litmus test yourself. Would you be complaining if
> the funeral included unfavorable comments about Democrats?
> Yes, you would. Yes, you are. You are complaining about
> Rush's comments about Democrats attending the funeral.

I don't care what people say at funerals. I wouldn't have even known about this issue if the talking points machine didn't activate after it was over. I'm not complaining about Rush's comments about Democrats attending the funeral. Of course Democrats are going to that funeral.

I'm illustrating that even if we take everything you want to have taken into account, Rush is still a hypocritical piece of work to be making moral judgments about people considering his own history. The whole quote was worse than the partial quote.

> Also notice how Jimmy Carter was somewhat vague in his
> comments about wire-tapping to avoid pointing out that it
> was the Kennedy administration (Fat Boy's brothers) which
> wire-tapped Martin Luther King (without warrants).

Talking point -and- the kind of insult you were whining at other people making. Pot to kettle.

The guilty party Carter was referring to was actually J Edgar Hoover who abused his position and power and was a free agent at the FBI, unchecked, for DECADES.

> The thing about loose women is something you added in your
> own head. He only said these three guys who have had
> trouble keeping it zipped during their careers would likely
> be on the prowl.

While conveniently leaving out the part about babies born nine months later. Bill Clinton may be like the second coming to a lot of people, but I don't think he's capable of immaculate conception. Really, stop slapping your own credibility down when you post this kind of stuff, as if we never read any of the other messages in this thread.

> Again, double standard. You do the same thing. Your rule
> is: Criticize those I dislike. Don't you dare criticize
> those I like.

My rule is, post what you want, but don't be surprised if someone responds to you questioning your grand wisdom.

> Keep in mind, Rush is not a public official. He is
> accountable to his employers, not the voters. You are
> obsessed with this drug thing. Last time the Democratic
> party actually had a liberal candidate (1972), the platform
> supported legalization.

Now we're going back to 1972?

> Also among American politicians who couldn't keep it zipped
> - lest we forget, thank you Jack and Bobby for making the
> tapes - was Martin Luther King.

J Edgar Hoover requested the surveillance because of fears Communist agents were infiltrating the civil rights movement. The attorney general signed off on it. Hoover was also wiretapping the attorney general himself. The abuse wasn't in the office of the attorney general, it was at the FBI.

> And now we have this
> national bathos for Coretta King who has done nothing but
> play the grieving widow for almost 40 years.

So if someone took shots like that at Nancy Reagan, we'd not hear anything from you about it?

> Even Rose
> Kennedy wasn't in mourning that long, but of course Coretta
> started at a younger age. Both Rose and Coretta had
> husbands who get their needs met elsewhere, so they find
> fulfillment in mourning. Coretta's only accomplishment was
> she got a holiday passed which gives government workers
> another paid holiday.

Yeah, it's easy to say that if you're not a black guy living through the 1960s in the south. Pathetic.

> And while we are it, let's talk about "Bishop" Eddie Long,
> cult leader of the mega-church where all this funeral
> happened, and who has personally profited from church funds
> and charitable donations in way that would make even Evan
> Cohen blush (See: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/28/05).

A church leader involved in scandal? Say it isn't so! I'm an atheist so I have no problem with a long and healthy debate on the business of religion.

 

[mwebster]

Re: Double secret Double standards

>
> So if someone took shots like that at Nancy Reagan, we'd not
> hear anything from you about it?
>
Sure. Applause.

Ah yes, one of the more repulsive human beings in our lifetime. Ronnie's out of town and "Mommie" entertains Frank Sinatra in the family quarters with instructions to staff: Do Not Disturb (even if Ronnie calls). And then there are the stories about Nancy's adventures on the casting couch, which apparently were not impressive enough to get her good movie parts. Ronnie, when he first came to Hollywood, did nude (or almost nude) modelling for art students. How gay is that? You gotta wonder how straight someboy could be if they hooked up with Nancy.

Besides, look who was really running things during the Reagan administration. Hint: the same operatives from the Nixon era who are running things now. Only difference is back then they hired an actor to front for them; not some over-age rich kid frat boy with a taste for the sauce. (But Daddy thought he needed something to keep him busy. And Daddy told his "boys" to make sure to keep the war going this time.)

 

[kaufcom]

Re: FACT CHECK

In response to my post, you have made five posts containing over 2,500 words over two days during which you made the following claims:

- Rush was playing golf the day of funeral
- Rush was on Neil Cavuto's Show on Wednesday and said something else
- You brought up Evan Cohen's financial mismanagement when he was the head of AAR two years ago
- You brought up an old dispute between you and I about how Randi Rhodes "beat Sean Hannity's butt" in the NY ratings
- You criticized Jimmy Carter for not mentioning that it was Robert Kennedy not J Edgar Hoover who ordered wiretaps of Martin Luther King
- You reminded us that Rush is not public official
- You pointed out that the Bishop of the church where the Coretta Scott King's funeral was held "profited from church funds and charitable donations"
- That the recently deceased Mrs. King "has done nothing but play the grieving widow for almost 40 years." and that her "only accomplishment was she got a holiday passed which gives government workers another paid holiday"
- That Reagan "did nude (or almost nude) modelling for art students," when he first came to Hollywood.
- That Nancy Reagan apparently had an affair with Frank Sinatra
- That "picking up women is an activity which might more appropriately be used to commemorate Martin Luther King Day."
- That Oprah Winfrey still believes that the comments in James Frey's book still resonates with her
- That there are there are "people who do good Rush impersonations and several radio shows do hire them."
- That I am "the one posting garbage and some has to correct it."

Oh yes, contained within you 2500 reply was the following item that you took from Rush Limbaugh's archive (I assume you are a paying subscriber.)


> RUSH: We've got a little office pool going on here, folks,
> and I wanted to share it with you, regarding the funeral.
> First, when's it going to end? The other things that we're
> looking at -- who's in the house? You've got Bill Clinton,
> you've got the Reverend Jackson, and you have Teddy Kennedy,
> and those are just the known culprits. I'm sure that there
> are others who fit the mold. They're all in the House.

> So here's the little office pool that we have going here. Here
> you might want to have your own version of this in your
> office or your home today. The end of the funeral, when it's
> all over, how many women will be picked up? The next
> question we're asking ourselves, how many babies will be
> born nine months from today?

Thank you for all your research. I am glad that you were able to add the references to Clinton and Jackson. That makes Limbaugh's comment a little less tasteless.

I think you that you are spending a little too much time posting on this board. To paraphrase Barbara Bush, why would you want to "waste your beautiful mind" on this nonsense.

<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by barooosk on 02/12/06 12:14 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[tbetz]

Re: Double secret Double standards

> Also notice how Jimmy Carter was somewhat vague in his
> comments about wire-tapping to avoid pointing out that it
> was the Kennedy administration (Fat Boy's brothers) which
> wire-tapped Martin Luther King (without warrants).


Of course, you are pretending that J. Edgar Hoover didn't arm-twist Bobby Kennedy into approving that wiretap. In fact, Hoover initiated and forced that wiretap on Kennedy.

From The L.A. Times(http://gug.in/zdeqs):

The perils of unchecked power
A former attorney general remembers the bugging of Martin Luther King Jr.
By Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH served in senior Justice Department positions between 1961 and 1965. He was appointed attorney general by President Johnson in February 1965 and served until October 1966.

January 16, 2006

THE RECENT controversy over warrantless national security telephone taps, coupled with Martin Luther King's birthday, remind me of my time in the Department of Justice in the 1960s. It was a period of turbulent demonstrations, marches and sit-ins, many of them led by King in support of the constitutional rights denied by Southern law enforcement to black citizens. And it was a time of growing animosity between King and J. Edgar Hoover, who had created the Federal Bureau of Investigation and led it since 1924. That animosity created a growing problem for Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy and those of us on his staff.

Hoover had built a great institution in the FBI, essentially from nothing. In the public eye it stood for fair and decent law enforcement — the rule of law — and was a model of integrity and efficiency. Hoover was a national hero, responsible for putting killers like John Dillinger behind bars. Kids wore Junior G-Man badges. During World War II, he fought Nazi spies, and during the Cold War he went after members of the communist conspiracy.

But Hoover was getting old. He believed the world was questioning and rejecting the values he held out as fundamental — patriotism, respect for law and order, sexual mores grounded in marriage and family, the work ethic. He detested what he saw as a growing culture of permissiveness, and, as a conservative Southerner, he seriously questioned the idea of racial equality.

Hoover was troubled by the activities of King. He did not approve of the constant sit-ins and demonstrations that he saw more as breaking laws than as a protest against their unfairness. The FBI worked regularly with local law enforcement, and he wished to preserve that relationship.

What bothered him even more, however, was the frequent public criticism by King and his followers of the FBI for not protecting demonstrators from local sheriff's deputies. One did not have to be long in the Justice Department to learn that to criticize the FBI was an inexcusable sin in Hoover's eyes.

In October 1963, Hoover requested Atty. Gen. Kennedy to approve a wiretap on King's telephone. At that time, taps had to be approved by the attorney general and did not require court approval in the form of a warrant. The basis for the tap was King's close association with Stanley Levison, who Hoover said was a prominent member of the Communist Party with great influence over King in civil rights matters.

Bobby was furious. Hoover's charge that King was a pawn of the communists could potentially taint the whole movement and bring into question everything we were doing to vindicate the constitutional rights of black citizens. It was hard to think of an issue more explosive.

To understand just how explosive, one has to remember that Hoover was both popular and enormously powerful, with great support in Congress. Some of that support was based on admiration, some on fear that he had damaging personal information in his files. Much support came from conservative Southern Democrats, opposed to King, who chaired virtually every important congressional committee. Hoover was formally a subordinate of the attorney general who could, technically, fire and replace him. That's a big "technically." No attorney general, including RFK and myself when I succeeded him, could fully exercise control over him. And none did.

When Hoover asked for the wiretaps, Bobby consulted me (I was then his deputy) and Burke Marshall, head of the Civil Rights Division. Both of us agreed to the tap because we believed a refusal would lend credence to the allegation of communist influence, while permitting the tap, we hoped, would demonstrate the contrary. I think the decision was the right one, under the circumstances. But that doesn't mean that the tap was right. King was suspected of no crime, but the government invaded his privacy until I removed the tap two years later when I became attorney general. It also invaded the privacy of every person he talked to on that phone, not just Levinson.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[mwebster]

Re: Double secret Double standards

>
>
> Of course, you are pretending that J. Edgar Hoover didn't
> arm-twist Bobby Kennedy into approving that wiretap. In
> fact, Hoover initiated and forced that wiretap on Kennedy.
>

Read the constitution lately? The president is responsible for the executive branch of government.

The FBI Director is a presidential appointee and serves at the pleasure of the chief executive. The FBI director is subordinate to the Attorney General.

Whether or not Bobby got his arm twisted, he is responsible for the Justice Department. Just because he got his job through nepotism and was completely unqualified does not let him off the hook.

How did Mary Hoover twist little Bobby's arm. Did he say he'd play those tapes from World War II of Jack shacked up with a nazi spy?

"The buck stops here." - Harry Truman (a Democrat).

Amazing how willing you are to let Kennedy's off the hook. Double standards again. Rush's pain pills - bad. Jack's pain pills - no problem.

 

[k9ez]

Welcome to the "ALL POLITICAL RANT BOARD" <EOM>

> > Also notice how Jimmy Carter was somewhat vague in his
> > comments about wire-tapping to avoid pointing out that it
> > was the Kennedy administration (Fat Boy's brothers) which
> > wire-tapped Martin Luther King (without warrants).
>
>
> Of course, you are pretending that J. Edgar Hoover didn't
> arm-twist Bobby Kennedy into approving that wiretap. In
> fact, Hoover initiated and forced that wiretap on Kennedy.
>
> From The L.A. Times(http://gug.in/zdeqs):
>
> The perils of unchecked power
> A former attorney general remembers the bugging of Martin
> Luther King Jr.
> By Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
> NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH served in senior Justice Department
> positions between 1961 and 1965. He was appointed attorney
> general by President Johnson in February 1965 and served
> until October 1966.
>
> January 16, 2006
>
> THE RECENT controversy over warrantless national security
> telephone taps, coupled with Martin Luther King's birthday,
> remind me of my time in the Department of Justice in the
> 1960s. It was a period of turbulent demonstrations, marches
> and sit-ins, many of them led by King in support of the
> constitutional rights denied by Southern law enforcement to
> black citizens. And it was a time of growing animosity
> between King and J. Edgar Hoover, who had created the
> Federal Bureau of Investigation and led it since 1924. That
> animosity created a growing problem for Atty. Gen. Robert
> Kennedy and those of us on his staff.
>
> Hoover had built a great institution in the FBI, essentially
> from nothing. In the public eye it stood for fair and decent
> law enforcement — the rule of law — and was a model of
> integrity and efficiency. Hoover was a national hero,
> responsible for putting killers like John Dillinger behind
> bars. Kids wore Junior G-Man badges. During World War II, he
> fought Nazi spies, and during the Cold War he went after
> members of the communist conspiracy.
>
> But Hoover was getting old. He believed the world was
> questioning and rejecting the values he held out as
> fundamental — patriotism, respect for law and order, sexual
> mores grounded in marriage and family, the work ethic. He
> detested what he saw as a growing culture of permissiveness,
> and, as a conservative Southerner, he seriously questioned
> the idea of racial equality.
>
> Hoover was troubled by the activities of King. He did not
> approve of the constant sit-ins and demonstrations that he
> saw more as breaking laws than as a protest against their
> unfairness. The FBI worked regularly with local law
> enforcement, and he wished to preserve that relationship.
>
> What bothered him even more, however, was the frequent
> public criticism by King and his followers of the FBI for
> not protecting demonstrators from local sheriff's deputies.
> One did not have to be long in the Justice Department to
> learn that to criticize the FBI was an inexcusable sin in
> Hoover's eyes.
>
> In October 1963, Hoover requested Atty. Gen. Kennedy to
> approve a wiretap on King's telephone. At that time, taps
> had to be approved by the attorney general and did not
> require court approval in the form of a warrant. The basis
> for the tap was King's close association with Stanley
> Levison, who Hoover said was a prominent member of the
> Communist Party with great influence over King in civil
> rights matters.
>
> Bobby was furious. Hoover's charge that King was a pawn of
> the communists could potentially taint the whole movement
> and bring into question everything we were doing to
> vindicate the constitutional rights of black citizens. It
> was hard to think of an issue more explosive.
>
> To understand just how explosive, one has to remember that
> Hoover was both popular and enormously powerful, with great
> support in Congress. Some of that support was based on
> admiration, some on fear that he had damaging personal
> information in his files. Much support came from
> conservative Southern Democrats, opposed to King, who
> chaired virtually every important congressional committee.
> Hoover was formally a subordinate of the attorney general
> who could, technically, fire and replace him. That's a big
> "technically." No attorney general, including RFK and myself
> when I succeeded him, could fully exercise control over him.
> And none did.
>
> When Hoover asked for the wiretaps, Bobby consulted me (I
> was then his deputy) and Burke Marshall, head of the Civil
> Rights Division. Both of us agreed to the tap because we
> believed a refusal would lend credence to the allegation of
> communist influence, while permitting the tap, we hoped,
> would demonstrate the contrary. I think the decision was the
> right one, under the circumstances. But that doesn't mean
> that the tap was right. King was suspected of no crime, but
> the government invaded his privacy until I removed the tap
> two years later when I became attorney general. It also
> invaded the privacy of every person he talked to on that
> phone, not just Levinson.
>

 

[k9ez]

ANd to be fair: Political Rant board continues....

> >
> >
> > Of course, you are pretending that J. Edgar Hoover didn't
> > arm-twist Bobby Kennedy into approving that wiretap. In
> > fact, Hoover initiated and forced that wiretap on Kennedy.
>
> >
>
> Read the constitution lately? The president is responsible
> for the executive branch of government.
>
> The FBI Director is a presidential appointee and serves at
> the pleasure of the chief executive. The FBI director is
> subordinate to the Attorney General.
>
> Whether or not Bobby got his arm twisted, he is responsible
> for the Justice Department. Just because he got his job
> through nepotism and was completely unqualified does not let
> him off the hook.
>
> How did Mary Hoover twist little Bobby's arm. Did he say
> he'd play those tapes from World War II of Jack shacked up
> with a nazi spy?
>
> "The buck stops here." - Harry Truman (a Democrat).
>
> Amazing how willing you are to let Kennedy's off the hook.
> Double standards again. Rush's pain pills - bad. Jack's
> pain pills - no problem.
>

 

[mwebster]

Re: FACT CHECK

> In response to my post, you have made five posts containing
> over 2,500 words over two days during which you made the
> following claims:
>
>
> Oh yes, contained within you 2500 reply was the following
> item that you took from Rush Limbaugh's archive (I assume
> you are a paying subscriber.)
>

You assume wrongly.
>
>
> I think you that you are spending a little too much time
> posting on this board. To paraphrase Barbara Bush, why would
> you want to "waste your beautiful mind" on this nonsense.
>

You count words and you listen to Randi and say I am wasting time! How about you waste your time as you want to and I'll waste mine as I want to. I consider writing words a higher art than counting words.

And, oh yes, you paraphrase Barbara Bush. Did you actually hear Barbara Bush say this or did this come from Randi. I will say this about Phillip: When he slams Fox, he has actually listened to Fox. He does not, to my knowledge, criticize Fox after listening to Randi talk about them.

Please feel free to add this words in this post to my running total. Maybe Lance will start a frequent poster program and when I hit a million words I can get some kind of prize.

 

[mwebster]

Re: And to be fair:

If you know of anything going on in talk radio that we are missing here, please let us know.

 

[kaufcom]

Re: FACT CHECK

This is my last post on this thread which will soon be on page two. Counting words is actually quite easy. Just paste the posts on a Word document and they can be easily calculated. Don't get me wrong. I agree with you..."writing words is a higher art then counting words." I find most of your posts very informative. I just have a few problems with your polemics... especially when they become personal attacks. Keep posting.

> > In response to my post, you have made five posts
> containing
> > over 2,500 words over two days during which you made the
> > following claims:
> >
> >
> > Oh yes, contained within you 2500 reply was the following
> > item that you took from Rush Limbaugh's archive (I assume
> > you are a paying subscriber.)
> >
>
> You assume wrongly.
> >
> >
> > I think you that you are spending a little too much time
> > posting on this board. To paraphrase Barbara Bush, why
> would
> > you want to "waste your beautiful mind" on this nonsense.
> >
>
> You count words and you listen to Randi and say I am wasting
> time! How about you waste your time as you want to and I'll
> waste mine as I want to. I consider writing words a higher
> art than counting words.
>
> And, oh yes, you paraphrase Barbara Bush. Did you actually
> hear Barbara Bush say this or did this come from Randi. I
> will say this about Phillip: When he slams Fox, he has
> actually listened to Fox. He does not, to my knowledge,
> criticize Fox after listening to Randi talk about them.
>
> Please feel free to add this words in this post to my
> running total. Maybe Lance will start a frequent poster
> program and when I hit a million words I can get some kind
> of prize.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[EWF]

More Sexual Fantasies From Rush

Just another indication of how lonely "little red pill Rush" must be that he is has these fantasies. No wonder Marta dumped him.


> Here is what Rush Limbaugh said after Coretta Scott King’s
> funeral earlier this week.
>
> “Here’s the little office pool we have going here. You
> might want to have your own version of this in your office
> or home today.
>
> The end of the funeral, when it’s all over. How may women
> will be picked up? The next question we’re asking is how
> many babies will be born nine months from today?”
>
> Is this one twisted son of gun or what?
>

 

[dampier]

Re: FACT CHECK

> And, oh yes, you paraphrase Barbara Bush. Did you actually
> hear Barbara Bush say this or did this come from Randi. I
> will say this about Phillip: When he slams Fox, he has
> actually listened to Fox. He does not, to my knowledge,
> criticize Fox after listening to Randi talk about them.

This may come as a surprise, but Fox News is not my first choice when looking for real news. I channel flip. Unfortunately the evil cable news channels are getting better about timing their ads. When Wolf runs for a semi-annual "bathroom break," I might flip to MSNBC or Fox. It's the same on XM Radio. They have both Fox News TV audio and the news/talk channel. Typically when I write about something stupid one of them has said or done, it's because I heard it, but there is nothing wrong with downloading and listening to clips elsewhere.

Sometimes the people who attack Media Matters as the "far left extreme website" or shows like Randi and Stephanie do so when they are only quoting the host's words back at him. The next weak argument is to claim they are taken out of context, but more often than not, if you listen to the audio +/- five minutes, you'll find it's not out of context at all.

Almost all of the remarks that get noticed are usually attempts at humor which play with the base listeners but offend everyone else. That's what happened with Rush and Randi. Some comments are so stupid they cannot be defended without looking like a fool. Lots of stuff from Pat Robertson qualifies there.

Again, where the quote came from is not nearly as important as what was actually said. We've read the transcript and it turned out to be worse than what Randi was playing off of. It was classic Rush Humor that he normally gets away with with his own listeners but is now annoyed with the fact that other shows will replay those clips and expose the "wink, nudge" humor that passes on opinion talk radio these days and that can apply to Randi's "Fredo" comments or Rush doing Kennedy jokes.

 

[dampier]

Talking Points Twister

> Read the constitution lately? The president is responsible
> for the executive branch of government.

Uh oh, talking points twister. Stay out of the Off the Air forum where my critics are arguing precisely the opposite point of view.

> The FBI Director is a presidential appointee and serves at
> the pleasure of the chief executive. The FBI director is
> subordinate to the Attorney General.

Reality check. Hello! J. EDGAR HOOVER. Ding ding! Jesus returning couldn't dislodge Hoover from the FBI. Between his blackmail files and his political maneuvering, he was untouchable. He got appointed "for life" for a reason.

> Amazing how willing you are to let Kennedy's off the hook.
> Double standards again. Rush's pain pills - bad. Jack's
> pain pills - no problem.

This is a new one. I was unaware JFK was sending the maid out to a sleazy storefront parking lot looking to score meds.

 

[tbetz]

Re: Double secret Double standards

> Read the constitution lately?

Obiously, you prefer to remain ignorant of history.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>