Outrage - Rush Limbaugh on London

[doc9464]

Unlike the GOP and the VRMC, I know when an outrage has been committed....Rush Limbaugh said that the London Terrorist Bombing was not serious....and that is behavior worthy of suspension....if this was a liberal or democrat...the GOP would be crying like Karl Rove..that we are soft on terrorism or something else that is stupid...Rush said something that should be unforgivable.....wheres the outrage from the right...i mean people died ...so you righties should be completely outraged.....so where are the complaints....

Followup Background and Audio Clip (in full context) available at the following link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080004

Excerpt from the article link - site has full updates...im just posting the part that people should be mad about....Rush's site has the transcript as well so dont blame the messenger...here is Rush's stupid line....

It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks.

It was a successful attack...I don't think reasonable people would say that the terrorists will get them down or that we won't fight back but his minimalizing the attack is wrong and he should be punished.....

 

[cabradio]

He is sensationalizing himself. This will promp more listenership from people who disagree with him.

Of course the attack was "successful". It killed people. It halted the city, even the world, if but for a moment. If people fall in-step with Rush, they are idiots, whether they are conservatives or democrats.

Personally, I don't think anything should be made for what he said. Yes, pretend he didn't say it. Silence is the best indicator that something wrong was said. If people react, it's just what Rush, et al, wants.

So, let's continue on and not acknowledge the idiotic remarks, that will no doubt put more pressure on the US as being a non-compassionate Country. But wouldn't it be better to shut him up with our silence...so he'll think twice next time, if he wants to remain on top....? <P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[doc9464]

> So, let's continue on and not acknowledge the idiotic
> remarks, that will no doubt put more pressure on the US as
> being a non-compassionate Country. But wouldn't it be better
> to shut him up with our silence...so he'll think twice next
> time, if he wants to remain on top....?
>

Ok, lets go that way then

....then how come the GOP and its supporters get a free pass for saying every nasty bloody thing on radio, television, and print...

i wasnt going to go there but look at the horrible things said on fox.....in the past week..look at what Brit Hume said on the 7th....hmmmm, time to buy futures or stocks...or whatever....john king saying oh well maybe Paris should have won the olympics so they could get bombed...this is NOT sensationalism....its just WRONG

and look at today..where the GOP is supposedly attacking Hillary for correctly saying that this president has a alfred e neuman approach to handling things....by reducing the funding for subway/mass transit homeland security....by $50 million dollars....then running up and saying how good they are fighting the war on terror...yet she is villified by the media and the GOP...its getting old....and tiresome....

We can't keep having this one way (right ok, left always wrong) look at things forever.....either be outraged and consistent or like you say above pack it in and just ignore it......

 

[cabradio]

> like you say above pack it in and just ignore
> it......
>

The point is not to just blindly accept what he says...the point is to not give his ego any more reason to think he is right. The more people that acknowledge him in any way, makes his raison d'etre more true: "People are listening to me, buy advertising on my show".

I do not step in-line. I want the truth. I know BS when I hear it. Keep feeding me BS, lose my vote.

I also cannot stand power that is abused...and Stern, Rush, Franken, Hannity, "Insert Most BIG name Radio Host", and you get over inflated egos that abuse their position.

On my local show, I would say that I was "always right". But I would also ask for people to prove me wrong. My point in doing this is that EVERYONE thinks they are right...but who actually thinks for themself, or at least looks for the truth. The fact is NOT MANY - ON BOTH SIDES. People would call in with "their version" of the truth, but when you present them with an alternative, with factual information to back it up, no matter which side you are debating, they don't accept what you say...after all, they have their own "facts" for their version.

So..where do we go from here? did you read my blog about "Divided We Fall?" If not click my signature and find the entry on my blog.

<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[954]

Rush Limbaugh on London -- no Outrage

> Followup Background and Audio Clip (in full context)
> available at the following link:
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080004

If you look at the About section of that site, you'll find:

<blockquote>"Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation -- news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda -- every day, in real time."</blockquote>

Not exactly a no-spin unbiased site.

You probably didn't notice this either, from the Limbaugh quote (assuming it is accurate):

<blockquote>It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks. They didn't succeed in doing anything, and that's just what you just heard the mayor say: "You don't scare us. You didn't accomplish diddly-squat. We've been through this before, much worse than this.</blockquote>

Referring, of course, to WWII. I think that explains the context. He was right, and how many people are going to take it out of context this time?

If you want to criticize Rush, criticize him for saying so many things that can be misquoted and easily used out of context by his critics. He may do it on purpose, just for PR value.

My favorite criticism of Rush is Media Bias: Win v Mac v Warp / Limbaugh Emulates Streisand -- and he said some really dumb things there.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
* Randi Rhodes, before she became famous

* History of WGMA
</P>

 

[doc9464]

Re: Rush Limbaugh on London -- no Outrage

> You probably didn't notice this either, from the Limbaugh
> quote (assuming it is accurate):
>
> It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks. They didn't
> succeed in doing anything, and that's just what you just
> heard the mayor say: "You don't scare us. You didn't
> accomplish diddly-squat. We've been through this before,
> much worse than this.
>

I said in my post that I (that is me) was only quoting the part I thought should outrage ...and i pointed everyone to Rush's page...where the transcript is also available in the same context as media matters printed.... I was making it clear what I (that is me) thought was an outrage.....please read and comprehend.....i nor media matters tried to misquote Rush....i dont have to...his words ususally do my job for me....

 

[dampier]

This is heading away from radio and more into politics so I will avoid most of the political part of it.

As far as radio performance goes, Rush went a bit batty last week when he was screaming "Shut Up!" Bill O'Reilly style and telling liberals to go down into their ratholes. I don't recall ever hearing him sound so unglued.

This is, of course, ironic because the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity are the same ones accusing Air America hosts and liberals of coming unglued and just yelling, being negative, and engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

Stephanie Miller replayed the clip and started shaking her Advil bottle... noting that apparently the Oxycontin needs adjusting again.

Miller's show is probably the most comprehensive roundup of crazy "right wing world" sound clips out there. From John Gibson advocating that terrorists attack Paris because nobody cares, to Bill O'Reilly telling Greta that nobody cares what she thinks, to the Fox Fruit Loops morning show hosts telling viewers that the London attacks were a good thing (in context - to put terror back on the top of the agenda), Miller has the most fun by far of any of the talk show hosts.

It's sort of amusing that many talk shows are built around playing clips from other talk shows. What gets boring is when everyone whips out their talking points. The right wing talk shows have been doing this awhile now, typically building their show around the daily faxes from the GOP/White House. But now the left wing has started to do the same thing, and some talk shows are starting to sound the same too.

Soak in it yourself. On the right, how many times have you heard the line that the GOP supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court despite being a lawyer for the ACLU? That's right off the daily fax/e-mail. On the left, how many times have you heard stuff right off the Media Matters or John Conyers' websites. The former always ignores the fact that Orrin Hatch suggested Ginsburg, and the latter often relies on nitpicking a handful of words, sometimes out of context, to make a point.

The more formulaic it gets, the more listeners will eventually tire of the format and switch it off.

 

[954]

Re: Rush Limbaugh on London -- no Outrage

> > You probably didn't notice this either, from the Limbaugh
> > quote (assuming it is accurate):
> >
> > It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks. They didn't
> > succeed in doing anything, and that's just what you just
> > heard the mayor say: "You don't scare us. You didn't
> > accomplish diddly-squat. We've been through this before,
> > much worse than this.
>
> I said in my post that I (that is me) was only quoting the
> part I thought should outrage ...and i pointed everyone to
> Rush's page.

I just rechecked your original posting.
You did not link to Rush's site.

..where the transcript is also available in the
> same context as media matters printed.... I was making it
> clear what I (that is me) thought was an outrage.....please
> read and comprehend.....i nor media matters tried to
> misquote Rush....i dont have to...his words ususally do my
> job for me....

True.

But you quoted him out of context anyway. It doesn't take any talent to outrage people when quoting out of context. That was a cheap shot.

In context there is nothing outrageous about what Rush said at all. The Brits don't react to terrorism the way the Spaniards do. Fortunately.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
* Randi Rhodes, before she became famous

* History of WGMA
</P>

 

[doc9464]

Re: Rush Limbaugh on London -- no Outrage

> But you quoted him out of context anyway. It doesn't take
> any talent to outrage people when quoting out of context.
> That was a cheap shot.

If you think that i committed a "cheap shot" by specifically pointing out what I thought was wrong, then im not sure if you are prepared for a discussion on any issue or you are very blind to the obvious.....its out of context if i let it stand as truth...which i didn't do....and the quote on media matters site is in context (i actually went to Rush's site...have you?)...but im not here to teach debate...call it what you want....

> In context there is nothing outrageous about what Rush said
> at all. The Brits don't react to terrorism the way the
> Spaniards do. Fortunately.

Regardng your WWII reference you are trying to make...(if you want to see that way thats fine..thats your opinion) ....I do think and agree that the people of London like anyone who is attacked are not going to wimp out...although many conservatives dont agree with you ..they have been blaming london...

My main issue for pointing this out is that there is a clear lack of outrage on the right when one of their own says something stupid...and god knows what Rush said was stupid....people today have expressed various thoughts....to add or counter my thoughts...but what Rush said was wrong...no matter how one looks at it...and thats my view....

 

[954]

Re: Rush Limbaugh on London -- no Outrage

> My main issue for pointing this out is that there is a clear
> lack of outrage on the right when one of their own says
> something stupid...and god knows what Rush said was
> stupid....people today have expressed various thoughts....to
> add or counter my thoughts...but what Rush said was
> wrong...no matter how one looks at it...and thats my
> view....

Good for you. It's YOUR view, however; not everyone's.

I have never hesitated to criticize Rush's stupidity, when it manifests itself. This is not such a case. THERE IS NOTHING OUTRAGEOUS about what he said, in context. It is perfectly reasonable. What is your problem with that? Why am I not allowed to disagree with you?

In the link I mentioned previously in this thread, I criticized his ignorance of computers (while he posed as an expert) on Usenet and later the Media Bias Web Site, ELEVEN F****** YEARS AGO.

I couldn't stand to listen to him every day. I probably haven't in a month or more. And I change the station when he gets too far out. But I still consider myself a fan.

I have a lot of things to criticize about Rush (pomposity, pandering to the religious right, cute mis-pronunciations, etc.). But this is not one of them.
He's right this time.

73s from 954

http://www.univox.com/writer/rush.html

<P ID="signature">______________
* <A href="http://www.univox.com/radio/randi95.html">Randi Rhodes, before she became famous</A>

* <A href="http://www.univox.com/radio/mikewgma.html">History of WGMA</A>
</P>