NationStates Jolt Archive

Rush is E-Baying the smear letter written by Reid and his Gang of 40 Senate Democrats:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZViewItem

As of this posting, the high bid is over $850,000!

Reid & Co. (to their credit, some Senate Dems did not sign the letter) thus have unwittingly done more to help the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers than they have probably ever done in their collective lives.

And note: Rush is not only paying all of the expenses associated with this auction (every cent bid by the winner will go to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation), but has pledged to match the winning bid.

Whatever you might think of Rush, you have to give him props for turning the bad intentions of Senate Democrats to good use.

I'm not even going to ask... I probably shouldn't even comment, but what the hell.

Ha, "phony soldiers" my ass.

Rush is E-Baying the smear letter written by Reid and his Gang of 40 Senate Democrats:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZViewItem

As of this posting, the high bid is over $850,000!

Reid & Co. (to their credit, some Senate Dems did not sign the letter) thus have unwittingly done more to help the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers than they have probably ever done in their collective lives.

And note: Rush is not only paying all of the expenses associated with this auction (every cent bid by the winner will go to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation), but has pledged to match the winning bid.

Whatever you might think of Rush, you have to give him props for turning the bad intentions of Senate Democrats to good use.
let me get this straight: a letter signed by 41 Democrat senators chiding Rush about him calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony' is appalling, and now we must applaud the man who openly insulted and abused said military personnel because he's selling said letter off and donating the monies to charity. Oh, and milking this opportunity for every last bit of exposure he can get while he's at it, like the little media whore he is.
Oh my, what a nice man that Rush is. What a wonderful, wonderful man. Unlike those appalling, awful Democrats who do nothing else but stand up for those soldiers who are fighting and dying but at the same time using their right to free speech to voice their concerns about the point of this war.
such terrible bad intentions there.

Taking all bets on Rush defaulting and blaming it on "liberal Democrats exploiting the system to jack up the price."

let me get this straight: a letter signed by 41 Democrat senators chiding Rush about him calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony'

You are 100% factually wrong. Rush did nothing of the sort. That issue is beyond dispute. Anyone maintaining the contrary is misinformed, dishonest or both.

and now we must applaud the man who openly insulted and abused said military personnel

See above.


Unlike those appalling, awful Democrats who do nothing else but stand up for those soldiers

They are doing nothing of the kind. They are in fact trying to silence one of their most prominent critics. And theSOLDIER who was the primary subject of the original broadcast was in fact "phony".

And in case you haven't heard, Rush was aware of more than one "phony soldier" when he originally broadcast the phony Jessie Macbeth story. Several other cases of "phony soldiers" (note: not phony Iraq war vets, but phonies nonetheless, all of whom damaged the image of honorable veterans) had been the subject of a press release by the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html

Rush haters, you've been pwn'd.

good for rush!

i hope it ends up going for a million and he has to match it.

win/win

let me get this straight: a letter signed by 41 Democrat senators chiding Rush about him calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony' is appalling, and now we must applaud the man who openly insulted and abused said military personnel because he's selling said letter off and donating the monies to charity. Oh, and milking this opportunity for every last bit of exposure he can get while he's at it, like the little media whore he is.
Oh my, what a nice man that Rush is. What a wonderful, wonderful man. Unlike those appalling, awful Democrats who do nothing else but stand up for those soldiers who are fighting and dying but at the same time using their right to free speech to voice their concerns about the point of this war.
such terrible bad intentions there.

Get your facts straight, please.

At no time did Rush ever say that 'calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony''. Never. Read in context, if you dare. He was talking about a specific individual who was proven to be a liar. This link is to the transcript of the show where this is clarified.

Linky (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html)

Don't take my word for it, read for yourself.

Or not. It would be tragic to let facts get in the way of a good smear.

Taking all bets on Rush defaulting and blaming it on "liberal Democrats exploiting the system to jack up the price."

You're on, Hero. Put your money where your mouth is.

You can pay me after Rush pays up. I accept PayPal :D

good for rush!

i hope it ends up going for a million and he has to match it.

win/win

On Hannity & Colmes tonight, he predicted it would go over a million. That's where he pledged to match the high bid.

To those of you who buy the propaganda against Rush and his comments, let's see some consistency. Will you also come out and denounce Congressman John Murtha for his remarks about the Marines whom he said slaughtered innocent civilians before the investigation even began? Will you denounce him for not apologizing to those men after they were exhonorated?

If not, your words mean nothing.

You are 100% factually wrong. Rush did nothing of the sort. That issue is beyond dispute. Anyone maintaining the contrary is misinformed, dishonest or both.

Kind of like how he never made fun of Michael J. Fox and, despite having it explained to him numerous times, asserted over and over again that he must have skipped his meds?

You're on, Hero. Put your money where your mouth is.

You can pay me after Rush pays up. I accept PayPal :D

I'll take a piece of that. Let's start a pool and see how many haters have the 'nads to step up. I'm on the side that says Rush keeps his word.

2nd thought: And they say liberals throw money at the problem. . .

Kind of like how he never made fun of Michael J. Fox and, despite having it explained to him numerous times, asserted over and over again that he must have skipped his meds?

No, it's not "kind of like" any such thing. Nice attempted diversion, though.

Here's another question for those who want to defend the writers of the letter: Are you sure you're comfortable with the idea of the United States Senate acting against a private citizen who has committed no crime? Are you sure you're comfortable with that?

Because last time I checked, the role of the Congress was to create laws, and not police the words of private citizens.

So be careful what you're trying to defend here.

Get your facts straight, please.

At no time did Rush ever say that 'calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony''. Never. Read in context, if you dare. He was talking about a specific individual who was proven to be a liar. This link is to the transcript of the show where this is clarified.

Linky (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html)

Don't take my word for it, read for yourself.

Or not. It would be tragic to let facts get in the way of a good smear.

Given Rush's way of pretending he said something different, I wouldn't really go with his website as a reliable source on what was said. And this isn't even a transcript of the show under question. It's a transcript of a later show in which he goes on and on and on about it, much like he did when he was called out on mocking Michael J. Fox.

Anyone have a recording/video?

good for rush!

i hope it ends up going for a million and he has to match it.

win/win

Hear Hear!

Here's another question for those who want to defend the writers of the letter: Are you sure you're comfortable with the idea of the United States Senate acting against a private citizen who has committed no crime? Are you sure you're comfortable with that?

Because last time I checked, the role of the Congress was to create laws, and not police the words of private citizens.

So be careful what you're trying to defend here.

"Act against"? It isn't as if they were trying to throw him in jail. They pointed out that they find his words detestable.

If they were signing a letter calling a private citizen a hero, would you complain?

2nd thought: And they say liberals throw money at the problem. . .


Libs throw taxpayers' money at problems. Conservatives throw private money. Big difference.

Given Rush's way of pretending he said something different, I wouldn't really go with his website as a reliable source on what was said. And this isn't even a transcript of the show under question. It's a transcript of a later show in which he goes on and on and on about it, much like he did when he was called out on mocking Michael J. Fox.

Anyone have a recording/video?

Have a link. Give Mr. Fox a rest.

Here ya go (http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/09/30/rush-and-the-phony-soldiers-the-truth-emerges/)

"Act against"? It isn't as if they were trying to throw him in jail. They pointed out that they find his words detestable.

If they were signing a letter calling a private citizen a hero, would you complain?

It's acting against when they want a business partner to override him and pressure him to apologize. Again, are you comfortable with the Congress policing private citizen's words?

Let me ask you: Why wasn't John Murtha given this level of heat for his comments, which were VASTLY more inflammatory and which have since been proven wrong?

Libs throw taxpayers' money at problems. Conservatives throw private money. Big difference.

Especially in the results! :)

Libs throw taxpayers' money at problems. Conservatives throw private money. Big difference.

Which "Conservatives" are you talking about... the "conservative" party that Rush defends that Rush Limbaugh pretends to be a part of has thrown as much tax payer money out the window as any Liberal

Especially in the results! :)

What results are those?

Have a link. Give Mr. Fox a rest.

Here ya go (http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/09/30/rush-and-the-phony-soldiers-the-truth-emerges/)

Ok, so the caller says that those who are anti-war never talk to "real soldiers". Rush basically agrees and says they talk to "phony soldiers." Unless he's going to claim that he didn't know about the seven soldiers who wrote their own op-ed (the ones referenced in the letter), which I highly doubt, he would know this to be untrue. Unless he doesn't know about the anti-war veterans who are running for office, he would know this to be untrue. And so on...

The caller then says that any "real soldier" who is "proud to serve" wants to be in Iraq. Again, Rush agrees, even stating that they specifically joined to go to Iraq.

So Rush has agreed to the statements that those who are anti-war never talk to "real soldiers" and that any "real soldier" will be all for the war in Iraq and really wants to go.


Later on, he brings up someone who is apparently the "poster child" of the left or something like that - but is a name that I've never heard, despite seeing a lot of anti-war propaganda as if he represents all of the anti-war soldiers that "the left" has talked to.

Looks to me like, once again, Rush needed to stick his foot in his mouth and decided to try and spin his comments instead.


It's acting against when they want a business partner to override him and pressure him to apologize. Again, are you comfortable with the Congress policing private citizen's words?

Policing them? No. Speaking out as citizens when they have something to say? Not at all.

Once again, it isn't as if they were threatening any type of Congressional action against the company. This wasn't a legally binding document in any way.

Let me ask you: Why wasn't John Murtha given this level of heat for his comments, which were VASTLY more inflammatory and which have since been proven wrong?

Beats me. I never said that Congress was consistent and I'm not really familiar enough with Murtha's comments to make a call on that.

Let me ask you: Why wasn't John Murtha given this level of heat for his comments, which were VASTLY more inflammatory and which have since been proven wrong?

Um which ones?

Um which ones?

Looking it up, I'm guessing the ones in which he pre-assumed that the killings of Iraqi civilians by a small group of marines was "cold-blooded murder".

Either that, or these:
The military had no problem recruiting directly after 9/11 because everyone understood that we had been attacked. But now the military’s ability to attract recruits is being hampered by the prospect of prolonged, extended and repeated deployments; inadequate equipment; shortened home stays; the lack of any connection between Iraq and the brutal attacks of 9/11; and — most importantly — the administration’s constantly changing, undefined, open-ended military mission in Iraq.

But probably the first.

Looking it up, Murtha seems to have gone wrong by presuming guilt and that the soldiers committed acts of "cold-blooded murder" specifically. Charges seem to have been dropped against 4 of 8 soldiers originally charged because of the confusion in the fighting and inability to differentiate friendly from hostile targets.

Especially in the results! :)

So true.

BTW: as of this posting, the high bid is over TWO MILLION DOLLARS!!!

Just think of it: over $4,000,000 raised for charity from the sale of one letter. And all because 41 Democrat Senators thought they could bully a private company into changing how a private citizen exercises his First Amentment rights.

I'm reminded of the passage from Tolkien's Silmarillion,, in which Manwe reflects that "Evil may yet be good to have been," to which Mandos replies, "And yet remain evil."

Which "Conservatives" are you talking about... the "conservative" party that Rush defends that Rush Limbaugh pretends to be a part of has thrown as much tax payer money out the window as any Liberal

But there's a difference, lie-bruls waste tax-payer money on silly communist things like Socialist Heathcare, conservatives know how to wisely invest taxpayer's money on the important things, like leaving third world countries full of brown people bombed out craters. Libruls have no priorities. Conservatives know, intellectually, the things that are important.

Maybe moveon should sell whatever they got for the patreaus ad, on ebay, and use the money to fight corruption among high ranking military members.

Maybe moveon should sell whatever they got for the patreaus ad, on ebay, and use the money to fight corruption among high ranking military members.

They won't.

I'm glad someone benefits from this debacle.

Rush is a douchbag. Plain and simple.

Calling Marty McFly a faker simply crossed the line for me.

Anyone have a recording/video?

Wasn't that on Colbert?

As is, given Rush's prominent girth and fondness for Bush Administration fellatio, i don't think i can really be too interested without being hideously repulsed by the idea of where his oxycontin-suckin' mouth is going to go.
Although he has a history of trying to suck down the democrats' blood, he usually only gets other fluids and liquids out of them. No doubt, he'll continue to suck anyway.

http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20070926-soldiers.mp3

Jesse Adam Macbeth (b. Jesse Adam Al-Zaid,[1] in 1984) is a civilian anti-war protester who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq War. He lied in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq. [2][3] Transcripts of the video were made in English and Arabic.[4] According to the U.S. Army, there is no record of Macbeth being a Ranger,[5][6] or serving in a combat unit: he was discharged from the service after having been declared unfit or unsuitable for the Army, or both,[7] before he could complete basic training.[8]

After his release from the Army in 2004, Macbeth purported himself to be a veteran, telling war stories and garnering attention from mainstream,[9] alternative[10] and student media outlets. He joined Iraq Veterans Against the War in January of 2006,[11] and represented, or was scheduled to represent them publicly at various events throughout the country;[12][13][14] the organization has since said it does not endorse Macbeth or his accounts of military service.[11] Accounts in Macbeth's name appear on Military.com and Myspace.com, and both were used to post claims about military service in Iraq.[15] On September 21, 2007 Macbeth admitted in federal court that he had faked his war record. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan declared that Macbeth had been in the Army for just 44 days and had been kicked out as unfit.[16]

Phony sodlier all right.

Whatever you might think of Rush, you have to give him props for turning the bad intentions of Senate Democrats to good use.


(A) No.
(B) Who said they were "bad intentions"? Limblaugh. His cred? =0.
(C) Its great to see how the US government looks after those who do its dirty work,seeing as they require public donations......

Rush is E-Baying the smear letter written by Reid and his Gang of 40 Senate Democrats:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZViewItem

As of this posting, the high bid is over $850,000!

Reid & Co. (to their credit, some Senate Dems did not sign the letter) thus have unwittingly done more to help the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers than they have probably ever done in their collective lives.

And note: Rush is not only paying all of the expenses associated with this auction (every cent bid by the winner will go to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation), but has pledged to match the winning bid.

Whatever you might think of Rush, you have to give him props for turning the bad intentions of Senate Democrats to good use.

You know what's nice about mixing the topic of soldiers and Rush Limbaugh?
How honest he is about why and how he skipped out on service.
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp
http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/

You know what's nice about mixing the topic of soldiers and Rush Limbaugh?
How honest he is about why and how he skipped out on service.
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp
http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/

The Draft is slavery. I blame none for dodging it.

What's funny about this whole thread is that the NS conservative goon squad has obviously gotten the comedic thought in the brain they share that this will in some mysterious way get the GOoP some kind of mysterious traction in the coming election. Even more funny, is that this one isn't even their A game. You're all getting lazy, it's like you don't even care anymore, and are just phoning it in.

I can't believe someone actually linked to Flush's own website as if that is some kind of fact repository (more like suppository). I read the real transcript (i.e. the unedited one, you know the one that still has the, now missing, minute-and-a-half), and even listened to the audio. It was obvious that he was referring to the seven soldiers who co-wrote the op-ed that was published mere days before (two of which, to my knowledge, are now dead). Get over it. Rush is a total dick, and now it's quite obvious that you really like that about him. Just admit it and move on.

And remember...

**Friends don't let friends vote republican!**

The Draft is slavery.That's one POV, i guess. Careful who you say that too, eh? ;)
I blame none for dodging it.Well you should keep in mind, maybe, who has the biggest mouths about war then, as compared to their measures to avoid their own personal sacrifices?

Well you should keep in mind, maybe, who has the biggest mouths about war then, as compared to their measures to avoid their own personal sacrifices?

I don't see how that's relevant.

The whole point of democracy is that soldiers are subordinate to civilians.

Civilians stay at home and send soldiers to die in wars.

That's precisely why military service is voluntary in most decent countries.

Here's another question for those who want to defend the writers of the letter: Are you sure you're comfortable with the idea of the United States Senate acting against a private citizen who has committed no crime? Are you sure you're comfortable with that?

Because last time I checked, the role of the Congress was to create laws, and not police the words of private citizens.

So be careful what you're trying to defend here.

Hmm... Are you, then, comfortable with Congress acting against a private organisation, namely MoveOn, and policing their words? If not, you maybe oughtter have mentioned the Petraeus advertisement, too, to show your lack of bias in the matter. :) After all, it was a) recent, b) similar, and c) resulted in stronger action taken by Congress than Limbaugh's words.

I don't see how that's relevant.

The whole point of democracy is that soldiers are subordinate to civilians.

Civilians stay at home and send soldiers to die in wars.

That's precisely why military service is voluntary in most decent countries.

I don't think The Brevious' point requires that military service be optional to be valid. Whether or not you agree with the idea of a draft, the fact remains that, though he's never served in the military, Rush is more than willing to send others overseas to kill and be killed--and for, I would submit, reasons that are rather less obvious and compelling than those that drew us into World War II. The issue is whether or not he's earned the right to hold that position without hypocrisy.

And, to the topic creator: As Rush has done rather more harm than good, including lying to millions of people just about every day on his show, I reserve the right to withhold my kudos from him.

Ok, so the caller says that those who are anti-war never talk to "real soldiers". Rush basically agrees and says they talk to "phony soldiers." Unless he's going to claim that he didn't know about the seven soldiers who wrote their own op-ed (the ones referenced in the letter), which I highly doubt, he would know this to be untrue. Unless he doesn't know about the anti-war veterans who are running for office, he would know this to be untrue. And so on...

The caller then says that any "real soldier" who is "proud to serve" wants to be in Iraq. Again, Rush agrees, even stating that they specifically joined to go to Iraq.

So Rush has agreed to the statements that those who are anti-war never talk to "real soldiers" and that any "real soldier" will be all for the war in Iraq and really wants to go.


Later on, he brings up someone who is apparently the "poster child" of the left or something like that - but is a name that I've never heard, despite seeing a lot of anti-war propaganda as if he represents all of the anti-war soldiers that "the left" has talked to.

Looks to me like, once again, Rush needed to stick his foot in his mouth and decided to try and spin his comments instead.


I think you're reading into it a lot more than what was there, but we'll get nowhere arguing that but I am going to take what you said here and use it later, because I want to see if you're at least consistent. More on that in a moment.



Policing them? No. Speaking out as citizens when they have something to say? Not at all.

They were doing more than simply speaking out. Hold that thought a moment, too.


Once again, it isn't as if they were threatening any type of Congressional action against the company. This wasn't a legally binding document in any way.


A lot of what the Congress has been trying to do lately isn't legally "binding." Just what the hell are they doing? Is this what we elected them for?


Beats me. I never said that Congress was consistent and I'm not really familiar enough with Murtha's comments to make a call on that.
Well that figures. But the media isn't liberal, right?

Allow me to direct you to the comments in question:

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.
———-
“It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

So far, half the Marines involved in the incident have need cleared of wrongdoing by that panel. The rest remain to be seen.

So now I ask you:

1)Even IF your interpretation of Rush's comments are accurate, will you acknowledge that Murtha's comments were more insulting to the miltary than Rush's are claimed to be?

2)Would you support a Congressional "speaking out" against Murtha?

3)Would you demand an apology from Congressman John Murtha to the marines he rolled under the bus?

In short, will you hold a Democrat Congressman to the same standard you demand of a radio jockey? (Frankly he should be held to a higher one.)

Those are yes/no questions.

Hmm... Are you, then, comfortable with Congress acting against a private organisation, namely MoveOn, and policing their words? If not, you maybe oughtter have mentioned the Petraeus advertisement, too, to show your lack of bias in the matter. :) After all, it was a) recent, b) similar, and c) resulted in stronger action taken by Congress than Limbaugh's words.

Do tell.


I don't think The Brevious' point requires that military service be optional to be valid. Whether or not you agree with the idea of a draft, the fact remains that, though he's never served in the military, Rush is more than willing to send others overseas to kill and be killed--and for, I would submit, reasons that are rather less obvious and compelling than those that drew us into World War II. The issue is whether or not he's earned the right to hold that position without hypocrisy.

But if Clinton does it...

And the fallacy of this paragraph is in the fact that Rush, or any other radio jock, never sends soldiers anywhere. That's the President's job. We all have opinions on whether or not that should happen, but are you suggesting that in order to be entitled to an opinion on whether the troops should go one would have to have fought in a war?

Get your facts straight, please.

At no time did Rush ever say that 'calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony''. Never. Read in context, if you dare. He was talking about a specific individual who was proven to be a liar. This link is to the transcript of the show where this is clarified.

Linky (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html)

Don't take my word for it, read for yourself.

Or not. It would be tragic to let facts get in the way of a good smear.

You know he altered that transcript to make himself look good, right? Part of what he said was about the one guy, but as he continued his statements were about all veteran critics of the war.

You know he altered that transcript to make himself look good, right? Part of what he said was about the one guy, but as he continued his statements were about all veteran critics of the war.

And that's how I know you didn't look at the link. The link was to a subsequent show, not to the original where the remarks were made.

The Draft is slavery. I blame none for dodging it.

But you see, Rush Limbaugh does.

He blames Clinton for accepting the most prestigious scholarship in the world and Al Gore for actually going to Iraq, but carrying a camera.

He praises Bush for serving his country by getting drunk and skipping what paltry service he did sign up for, though he leaves out that last bit.

Dodging being drafted into a war that you believe is wrong is not blameworthy. Dodging being drafted into a war that you support, just don't want to help in, is hypocrisy and cowardice.

The issue is whether or not he's earned the right to hold that position without hypocrisy.



I don't feel rights have to be earned. It's hypocritical to say right have to be earned.

Do tell.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPBHO80&show_article=1
The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal.

The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill. The ad was headlined: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Quite a bit more than just sending a letter telling a person they think his comments were inappropriate and asking him to apologise, doncha think?


But if Clinton does it...
ahh...the neo-con's last ditch defense: "buh...buh...but...Clinton!"
Like John said: Whatever gets you through the night, s'alright, s'alright.

But you see, Rush Limbaugh does.

He blames Clinton for accepting the most prestigious scholarship in the world and Al Gore for actually going to Iraq, but carrying a camera.
Vietnam, not Iraq. Wrong war there, soldier.

And the fallacy of this paragraph is in the fact that Rush, or any other radio jock, never sends soldiers anywhere. That's the President's job. We all have opinions on whether or not that should happen, but are you suggesting that in order to be entitled to an opinion on whether the troops should go one would have to have fought in a war?

Whether or not he's entitled to have an opinion is not in question. Its the vociferous and rabid nature of both his pro-war, (supposedly) pro-"the troops" stance and his attacks on those against the war, juxtaposed with his actions when it was his turn to get his bloated ass 'in the grass'. It removes credibility on the issue. Were he to tone down the former and ditch the latter, he'd be on far firmer ground.

Whether or not he's entitled to have an opinion is not in question. Its the vociferous and rabid nature of both his pro-war, (supposedly) pro-"the troops" stance and his attacks on those against the war, juxtaposed with his actions when it was his turn to get his bloated ass 'in the grass'. It removes credibility on the issue. Were he to tone down the former and ditch the latter, he'd be on far firmer ground.

So "wusses" who oppose the war because they are afraid to fight in it = credible,

"wusses" who support the war = not credible?

Bee ess.

Rush is E-Baying the smear letter written by Reid and his Gang of 40 Senate Democrats:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZViewItem

As of this posting, the high bid is over $850,000!

Reid & Co. (to their credit, some Senate Dems did not sign the letter) thus have unwittingly done more to help the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers than they have probably ever done in their collective lives.

And note: Rush is not only paying all of the expenses associated with this auction (every cent bid by the winner will go to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation), but has pledged to match the winning bid.

Whatever you might think of Rush, you have to give him props for turning the bad intentions of Senate Democrats to good use.

Well done Mr. Limbaugh.

To those of you who buy the propaganda against Rush and his comments, let's see some consistency. Will you also come out and denounce Congressman John Murtha for his remarks about the Marines whom he said slaughtered innocent civilians before the investigation even began? Will you denounce him for not apologizing to those men after they were exhonorated?

If not, your words mean nothing.

And last I heard, Murtha is being sued for defamation. :D Oh and let us not forget that ABC News did a "Phoney Soldiers" story before Rush did and no one jumped up and condemned them when they did.

Phony sodlier all right.

Indeed. And hence the comments made by Limbaugh.

You know he altered that transcript to make himself look good, right? Part of what he said was about the one guy, but as he continued his statements were about all veteran critics of the war.

Please prove that the transcript was altered.

So "wusses" who oppose the war because they are afraid to fight in it = credible,

"wusses" who support the war = not credible?

Bee ess.

To alot of posters, thats pretty much accurate

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010

The audio here is a good thing. The link has a lot of information of how Rush is FOS, but listen to the audio. He already said that "Mike" was not a Republican and was not a soldier. "And I used to walk on the moon." Just listen to the audio if ou don't like the site.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010

The audio here is a good thing. The link has a lot of information of how Rush is FOS, but listen to the audio. He already said that "Mike" was not a Republican and was not a soldier. "And I used to walk on the moon." Just listen to the audio if ou don't like the site.

I listened to it on his website. I will admit he crossed a line by saying the dude was not a republican but I am still waiting on proof that he was talking about actual soldiers when he gave the "phoney soldiers" comment.

Oh and nothing on Mediamatters about the ABC News story on PHoney soldiers either.

Hmm... Are you, then, comfortable with Congress acting against a private organisation, namely MoveOn, and policing their words? If not, you maybe oughtter have mentioned the Petraeus advertisement, too, to show your lack of bias in the matter. :) After all, it was a) recent, b) similar, and c) resulted in stronger action taken by Congress than Limbaugh's words.

So glad you mentioned MoveOn, Sparky. Let's see:

a) MoveOn falsely accuses an active-duty US general leading our forces in war of being a traitor. Congress rightly denounces this lie.

b) Rush exposes an actual "phony soldier" for what he is.

c) MoveOn actively serves to advance the interests of the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular. After taking a publicity beating, Senate Democrats think they've found a way to divert public attention away from their malicious allies. Instead, they find themselves exposed to even more well-earned public opprobrium and ridicule.

Advantage Limbaugh.


I don't think The Brevious' point requires that military service be optional to be valid. Whether or not you agree with the idea of a draft, the fact remains that, though he's never served in the military, Rush is more than willing to send others overseas to kill and be killed--and for, I would submit, reasons that are rather less obvious and compelling than those that drew us into World War II. The issue is whether or not he's earned the right to hold that position without hypocrisy.

Nobody needs to "earn" the right to comment on or advocate positions pertaining to military matters, national defense, foreign policy or any other issue. In particular, there is absolutely no requirement that one have served in the armed forces in order to advocate the use of the armed forces. There certainly isn't any such requirement for Presidential candidates, or Hillary Clinton would be out of luck.

And, to the topic creator: As Rush has done rather more harm than good, including lying to millions of people just about every day on his show, I reserve the right to withhold my kudos from him.

A breathtakingly ignorant statement. But keep your kudos if you feel you must. I'm sure the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers will do just fine without your approval but with $4,000,000+ in scholarships thanks to Rush ;)

What's funny about this whole thread is that the NS conservative goon squad has obviously gotten the comedic thought in the brain they share that this will in some mysterious way get the GOoP some kind of mysterious traction in the coming election. Even more funny, is that this one isn't even their A game. You're all getting lazy, it's like you don't even care anymore, and are just phoning it in.

I can't believe someone actually linked to Flush's own website as if that is some kind of fact repository (more like suppository). I read the real transcript (i.e. the unedited one, you know the one that still has the, now missing, minute-and-a-half), and even listened to the audio. It was obvious that he was referring to the seven soldiers who co-wrote the op-ed that was published mere days before (two of which, to my knowledge, are now dead). Get over it. Rush is a total dick, and now it's quite obvious that you really like that about him. Just admit it and move on.

And remember...

**Friends don't let friends vote republican!**

Come January 2009, Hillary and the rest of the Dems will be watching the inauguration of yet another GOP President. Enjoy ;)

And remember ...

**If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans"

Come January 2009, Hillary and the rest of the Dems will be watching the inauguration of yet another GOP President. Enjoy ;)

And remember ...

**If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans"

ROFL

You cad. I like a good joke as much as the rest of us. The artistry in this one is that you're speaking as if you actually believe what you're saying. ROFL!!

let me get this straight: a letter signed by 41 Democrat senators chiding Rush about him calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony' is appalling, and now we must applaud the man who openly insulted and abused said military personnel because he's selling said letter off and donating the monies to charity. Oh, and milking this opportunity for every last bit of exposure he can get while he's at it, like the little media whore he is.
Oh my, what a nice man that Rush is. What a wonderful, wonderful man. Unlike those appalling, awful Democrats who do nothing else but stand up for those soldiers who are fighting and dying but at the same time using their right to free speech to voice their concerns about the point of this war.
such terrible bad intentions there.

All this spinning...it's giving me a headache...:confused::rolleyes:

Nobody needs to "earn" the right to comment on or advocate positions pertaining to military matters, national defense, foreign policy or any other issue. In particular, there is absolutely no requirement that one have served in the armed forces in order to advocate the use of the armed forces.

And once a-fucking-gain, nobody said he had no 'right to comment'. However to rant in such a partisan, militant and indeed hawkish fashion, while being quite rabid towards the "anti-war" camp would require at least the absence of a questionable evasion of military service on ones own record. We aren't talking about the 'considered thoughts' delivered in diplomatic tones here after all, but essentially a "shock jock" catering to the right wing.

Who cares? Rush is a complete and utter asshole. This does not change that. *Shrugs*

ROFL

You cad. I like a good joke as much as the rest of us. The artistry in this one is that you're speaking as if you actually believe what you're saying. ROFL!!

Serious as a heart attack, my friend ;)

And props to bettyc588 for the winning bid of $2,100,100.

BTW: a caller on Rush's show this morning suggested that he make 1000 copies of the original letter, autograph them and sell them for $1000 each, to raise another $1,000,000 for the charity and enable people who don't have two mil lying around to participate. He's considering the suggestion. Great idea IMO.

How about all of the Republicans that want to do something good with their money in support of the war do this: pay for the fucking war yourselves as well as all of the care wounded soldiers need. Volunteer to let the debt rest on your own children's head.


You people who voted for Bush should put every last dollar of savings into helping out wounded soldiers and their families whose lives you've ruined by supporting this cluster fuck.

Put YOUR money where your mouth is.

So now I ask you:

1)Even IF your interpretation of Rush's comments are accurate, will you acknowledge that Murtha's comments were more insulting to the miltary than Rush's are claimed to be?

No. His comments are certainly more insulting to the specific members of the military at which they were directed, but not to the military itself.

2)Would you support a Congressional "speaking out" against Murtha?

Not really. But then again, I don't support them speaking out against Rush, nor did I support them speaking out against Moveon.org. I just don't think it's the end of the world.

Now, I would come down just as hard on Murtha if they did speak out against him and he took the Rush mentality of "Oh, poor poor me, I'm such a victim! They're all out to get me and pretend I said something I didn't!"

Note: If they do it on their own time, I could care less. It is the use of time meant to be dealing with Congressional matters for this type of thing that bothers me.


3)Would you demand an apology from Congressman John Murtha to the marines he rolled under the bus?

No, I don't demand an apology from anyone. It would certainly be nice to see one, however.

In short, will you hold a Democrat Congressman to the same standard you demand of a radio jockey? (Frankly he should be held to a higher one.)

Erm...you're trying really hard to put words into my mouth, aren't you? Where did I demand an apology from Rush? I would neither demand one nor expect one. Where did I say I supported this action? All I said is that I don't condemn it or think it is something to get up in arms over.

Those are yes/no questions.

Perhaps. But given your obvious misinterpretation of what I've already been saying, I provided a bit more explanation.

How about all of the Republicans that want to do something good with their money in support of the war do this: pay for the fucking war yourselves as well as all of the care wounded soldiers need. Volunteer to let the debt rest on your own children's head.


You people who voted for Bush should put every last dollar of savings into helping out wounded soldiers and their families whose lives you've ruined by supporting this cluster fuck.

Put YOUR money where your mouth is.

I guess you must have missed the day in civics class when they taught about how the US government works, so let me explain it to you: In the United States, we have elections. Some people run for President. The one who gets the most votes for President becomes President. That means he's the President of the whole United States. Not just the President of those who voted for him. Some other people run for Senator and Representative. The ones who get the most votes get to be Senators and Representatives. They join the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Those bodies also count for the whole United States, not just the people who voted for them.

Are you following me?

So, the President of the United States, and the Senate, and the House of Representatives, make the decisions for everyone in the United States. And they get tax money from everybody, whether or not everybody would have voted to spend that money the same way.

Now, there used to be a President named Bill Clinton. And he decided to take military action in a place called Kosovo. And we all got to pay for that. And he did some other things that we all got to pay for too. And I'm guessing that you were OK with that, because I'm guessing that you liked Bill Clinton. And you don't like President Bush, so what he does isn't OK with you.

Oh, and another thing you might have missed in school: we have an all-volunteer military. That means people who become soldiers and sailors and Marines do so because they want to, not because the President is making them do so. And you know what else? They know the job's dangerous, and they do it anyway. And I'm guessing a lot of them don't like it when you make it sound like they're poor little innocent children who go off and get killed without knowing why.

Now, for your homework, go to the library and find a Latin dictionary, and try to figure out what "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" means. A gold star for you if you do :)

Well, I should have seen this coming, but it seems that the distinguished Senator from Nevada is now trying to horn in and get some credit for himself and his Gang of 40 for all the money raised by the sale of the smear letter. Note his use of "we":

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6938.html

People, you can't make this up.

Harry, you are owned. Face it and MoveOn. :D

Now, there used to be a President named Bill Clinton. And he decided to take military action in a place called Kosovo. And we all got to pay for that. And he did some other things that we all got to pay for too. And I'm guessing that you were OK with that, because I'm guessing that you liked Bill Clinton. And you don't like President Bush, so what he does isn't OK with you.


Would you be good enough to explain the similarities between Kosovo and Iraq to us poor benighted souls incapable of seeing them for ourselves?

Or are you just going to try and rant on, having "set up" the "caller" as your ass-holed idol Limblaugh would?

I guess you must have missed the day in civics class when they taught about how the US government works, so let me explain it to you: In the United States, we have elections. Some people run for President. The one who gets the most votes for President becomes President.

Actually...no. The person with the most votes DOES NOT become President of the United States. The person that wins the most ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES becomes President of the United States.

*snip stuff that had nothing to do with my post*


So I guess I'll take that as a "fuck you, I'm just a hypocrite"

Would you be good enough to explain the similarities between Kosovo and Iraq to us poor benighted souls incapable of seeing them for ourselves?

Or are you just going to try and rant on, having "set up" the "caller" as your ass-holed idol Limblaugh would?

Both were military actions. Both were long-term military actions. In fact, we're still in Kosovo. That makes eight years:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071018/lf_nm/kosovo_usa_military_dc;_ylt=Aiad_xmyOMf_caMdapGr9yMHcggF

Both involved vital US interests . . . er, no, not in Kosovo they didn't.

Both operations were authorized by Congress after the President sought approval for them . . . oops, not Kosovo.

Both were the subject of constant attack by the political left . . . what, oh yeah, not Kosovo.

Both were initiated by Republican administrations . . . no, not Kosovo either.

Both involved collateral damage to civilians . . . well, there's that.

Hmmm. Maybe they're not all that similar after all.

Oh well, there's always that "glowing coalition" that Clinton sent to Haiti!

Actually...no. The person with the most votes DOES NOT become President of the United States. The person that wins the most ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES becomes President of the United States.

:eek: I stand corrected. You are right, of course.

So I guess I'll take that as a "fuck you, I'm just a hypocrite"

"Quod scripsi, scripsi."

Oh, and I would never call you a hypocrite. Misguided, uninformed, embittered, maybe, but not a hypocrite ;)

Both (.....Wank snipped...)sent to Haiti!

So you maintain that a low key, relatively casualty light action is comparable to something that has destabilised the middle east, killed hundreds of thousands, exiled two million, and may well reverberate down through the next 50-100 years....Hmmmm.

Did the US lose international credibility after Kosovo?
Did the US find itself facing increased terrorist threats because of Kosovo?
Did the balkan region destabilise to a worse state of civil conflict?
Were/are neighbouring states being dragged in?
How much did it cost?
Was there a complete failure to initiate a post-conflict plan?
Was the internal infrastructure of the region dismantled by a US imposed governing body?
Was it based on a complete lie?

So you maintain that a low key, relatively casualty light action is comparable to something that has destabilised the middle east, killed hundreds of thousands, exiled two million, and may well reverberate down through the next 50-100 years....Hmmmm.

Did the US lose international credibility after Kosovo?
Did the US find itself facing increased terrorist threats because of Kosovo?
Did the balkan region destabilise to a worse state of civil conflict?
Were/are neighbouring states being dragged in?
How much did it cost?
Was there a complete failure to initiate a post-conflict plan?
Was the internal infrastructure of the region dismantled by a US imposed governing body?
Was it based on a complete lie?

Before this thread is diverted too much farther, the point of the comparison was to criticize SB's argument that the liberation of Iraq and its attendant costs should be paid for only by those who support it. Doesn't work that way, never has, never will.

Now as to your critique:

Did the US lose international credibility after Kosovo? Depends on who you ask. Did NATO deploy out of area without any good reason? Arguably.

Did the US find itself facing increased terrorist threats because of Kosovo?
At least as far as Fort Dix is concerned, yes. Fortunately, not successfully:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18577915/

Did the balkan region destabilise to a worse state of civil conflict?
If Kosovo tries to declare independence, you bet it will.

Were/are neighbouring states being dragged in?
See above.

How much did it cost?
Too much to justify the mission.

Was there a complete failure to initiate a post-conflict plan?
We're still there eight years later. Where's your "exit strategy"?

Was the internal infrastructure of the region dismantled by a US imposed governing body?
Maybe not.

Was it based on a complete lie?
Neither was Iraq. To repeat what's been said many times before, MWD's were not the sole justification for taking out the Saddamite regime. Nor was any alleged connection to al-Qaeda.

Serious as a heart attack, my friend ;)

And props to bettyc588 for the winning bid of $2,100,100.

BTW: a caller on Rush's show this morning suggested that he make 1000 copies of the original letter, autograph them and sell them for $1000 each, to raise another $1,000,000 for the charity and enable people who don't have two mil lying around to participate. He's considering the suggestion. Great idea IMO.
Perhaps bettyc588 is Rush's wife or good friend, who won't have to cough up the 2 Million? Note: I love a good conspiracy. :D

And Rush's 2 million matching offer, if indeed he made such an offer, would be fully tax deductible, offsetting his $45 million a year salary?

Bottom line is that Rush is a "phony"!! :p

Perhaps bettyc588 is Rush's wife or good friend, who won't have to cough up the 2 Million? Note: I love a good conspiracy. :D

And Rush's 2 million matching offer, if indeed he made such an offer, would be fully tax deductible, offsetting his $45 million a year salary?

Bottom line is that Rush is a "phony"!! :p

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101907/content/01125110.guest.html

He made such an offer.

Oh, I love this one:

Rush Apologizes for "Phony Soldier" Insult (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/19/123618/99)

To know who Rush Limbaugh is, you'd need to listen to AM Radio (an older form of entertainment outdated by FM Radio, and now the Internet, mp3 players and other technologies). If you had been listening on September 26th you would have heard him call all veterans of war who do not support George W. Bush and his failed Iraq invasion "Phony Soldiers."

Following a heated debate as to whether Rush should be permitted to speak in such a manner, the Senate of the United States sent Rush's boss a letter condemning the remarks.

Americans have long since stopped talking about Rush's "Phony Soldiers" insult, so it would have seemed like he could have just let it go. But for some reason, every show since he made the insult ... has been about the insult.

Now, in an apparent attempt to atone for his dispicable lack of judgment, Rush has offered the sale of the actual document on a popular website. It appears as though it will sell for a lot of money, and the proceeds are said to be headed for a good cause.
:D

Perhaps bettyc588 is Rush's wife or good friend, who won't have to cough up the 2 Million? Note: I love a good conspiracy. :D

Wrong again: her name is Betty Casey, and she's the widow of Eugene B. Casey, who died in 1986 and had worked for the FDR Administration.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

And Rush's 2 million matching offer, if indeed he made such an offer, would be fully tax deductible, offsetting his $45 million a year salary?

Yes, he made the offer. And so what?! IT'S TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO CHARITY!!!

When you donate two million dollars to charity, let us know and you'll get your props, regardless of my opinion of your politics or character.

Bottom line is that Rush is a "phony"!! :p

Such hatred. Shame on you.

:confused:?!?!?!:confused:

I don't know

Yes, he made the offer. And so what?! IT'S TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO CHARITY!!!
Yeah, and he will get more out of that with residual spin.

When you donate two million dollars to charity, let us know and you'll get your props, regardless of my opinion of your politics or character.
I wish I was in such a position, and I would gladly do so. In reality, I think Rush is trying to deflect his idiotic statement about "phony soldiers". I hope that they, the soldiers, don't buy it.

Such hatred. Shame on you.
Contrary to your opinion, the fact is that I hate no one. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to you. :p

let me get this straight: a letter signed by 41 Democrat senators chiding Rush about him calling anyone in the military who opposes this pointless war, 'phony' is appalling, and now we must applaud the man who openly insulted and abused said military personnel because he's selling said letter off and donating the monies to charity. Oh, and milking this opportunity for every last bit of exposure he can get while he's at it, like the little media whore he is.
Oh my, what a nice man that Rush is. What a wonderful, wonderful man. Unlike those appalling, awful Democrats who do nothing else but stand up for those soldiers who are fighting and dying but at the same time using their right to free speech to voice their concerns about the point of this war.
such terrible bad intentions there.

I salute you, sir.

I don't see how that's relevant.Well, that's why i provided links, non?


The whole point of democracy is that soldiers are subordinate to civilians.That's not the point of democracy. Not to say that the position of soldiers is not subordinate to civilians (except, obviously, when it has to do with policy decisions, like, say, Iraq or Vietnam, where civilians are ignored and even chided, castigated, lambasted and made villain).

Civilians stay at home and send soldiers to die in wars.[/quote]Or, presidents do it, at no real benefit to the soldiers OR the civilians.

That's precisely why military service is voluntary in most decent countries.Agreed.
As i'd intimated, this is a problem with Rush, hence the links, et cetera.

I don't think The Brevious' point requires that military service be optional to be valid. Whether or not you agree with the idea of a draft, the fact remains that, though he's never served in the military, Rush is more than willing to send others overseas to kill and be killed--and for, I would submit, reasons that are rather less obvious and compelling than those that drew us into World War II. The issue is whether or not he's earned the right to hold that position without hypocrisy.

Yes, exactly!
Thank you. *bows*

...Neither was Iraq. To repeat what's been said many times before, MWD's were not the sole justification for taking out the Saddamite regime. Nor was any alleged connection to al-Qaeda.

Yes, they weren't the sole justifications, but they were the major ones! Before we invaded Iraq there was all that hype about inspectors searching for chemical weapons and all that crap. We said to Saddam that he had to disarm, and for all we know he did, but we invaded him anyway. And there was no fucking connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Did the US lose international credibility after Kosovo? Depends on who you ask. .

No then.


Did the US find itself facing increased terrorist threats because of Kosovo?
At least as far as Fort Dix is concerned, yes. Fortunately, not successfully:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18577915/.

They aren't Serbs. Any attack they might have had in mind was more than likely due to whats perceived as US aggression against muslims - something that was clearly obvious had you bothered your arse to read your own article.
However as it underlines my point, thanks anyway.


Did the balkan region destabilise to a worse state of civil conflict?
If Kosovo tries to declare independence, you bet it will.

Were/are neighbouring states being dragged in?
See above..

'No' and 'maybe if' then.


How much did it cost?
Too much to justify the mission...

Evasion.


Was there a complete failure to initiate a post-conflict plan?
We're still there eight years later. Where's your "exit strategy"?...

Its peacekeeping. It takes decades. As there arent a regular supply of bodys going to Arlington from there, its little odds, is it? Not like theres a war going on.......

Was the internal infrastructure of the region dismantled by a US imposed governing body?
Maybe not...

'No' as that would have been a really, really fucking stupid thing to do.


Was it based on a complete lie?
Neither was Iraq. To repeat what's been said many times before, MWD's were not the sole justification for taking out the Saddamite regime. Nor was any alleged connection to al-Qaeda.

No threat to its neighbours, no direct or indirect threat to the US, no mutant ninja monkeys in labs underground......Having a population fond of mustaches was never given as a reason, btw, so don't try pulling a fast one.

Yeah, and he will get more out of that with residual spin.


Please explain the mechanics of how this residual spin garners Rush more then 2 Million dollars. If you could break down the numbers and show me where how and why this is possible it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Please explain the mechanics of how this residual spin garners Rush more then 2 Million dollars. If you could break down the numbers and show me where how and why this is possible it would be appreciated. Thanks.
Well besides the fact that his contribution is tax deductible, he gets tons of publicity. Publicity = money.

Well besides the fact that his contribution is tax deductible, he gets tons of publicity. Publicity = money.

If I remember right, even the winner's bid goes to charity as well so legally...that is also tax deductable.

Please explain the mechanics of how this residual spin garners Rush more then 2 Million dollars. If you could break down the numbers and show me where how and why this is possible it would be appreciated. Thanks.

He made at least that much out of his being in the public eye already ... with this stunt being harped by him for the next 5 years I am sure he will probably make in that neighborhood if not more over that period of time as long as he can keep himself in the public eye.

Well besides the fact that his contribution is tax deductible, he gets tons of publicity. Publicity = money.

This isnt a discussion of tax deductions. That this was a tax deduction was clearly established long before you posted. You made a much different claim. You claim his spin, not a tax deduction would create more then 2 million dollars of value. You have made a claim that somehow publicity = + 2 million dollars. The Unibomber had all sorts of publicity, does that mean hes now somehow worth over 2 million dollars more then he was before the publicity? In what magical way does publicity get Rush more then 2 million dollars? Inquiring minds want to know. Do you think that in 5 years, after his next contract is up, the radio station owners are going to say, "hey remember that letter from 4 years ago? Yea we barely do as well but heres another 3 million for that."

Well besides the fact that his contribution is tax deductible, he gets tons of publicity. Publicity = money.
Exactly!!

If I remember right, even the winner's bid goes to charity as well so legally...that is also tax deductable.
Bingo!!

This isnt a discussion of tax deductions. That this was a tax deduction was clearly established long before you posted. You made a much different claim. You claim his spin, not a tax deduction would create more then 2 million dollars of value. You have made a claim that somehow publicity = + 2 million dollars. The Unibomber had all sorts of publicity, does that mean hes now somehow worth over 2 million dollars more then he was before the publicity? In what magical way does publicity get Rush more then 2 million dollars? Inquiring minds want to know. Do you think that in 5 years, after his next contract is up, the radio station owners are going to say, "hey remember that letter from 4 years ago? Yea we barely do as well but heres another 3 million for that."

If he had a radio show, publicity certainly would earn him more money because he could sell more advertisements.

If he had a radio show, publicity certainly would earn him more money because he could sell more advertisements.

Do you have any reason to believe that the timeslots that are availible during his show are going unsold? Or that this letter will have any long term impact on viewership numbers that could justify MILLIONS in extra revenue? And would those increases in revenue be enough for the radio stations to be willing to pass down all those profits to Rush by giving him millions more in his next contract years from now? Soley from one letter that everyone will forget about in a week? Come on now.

Do you have any reason to believe that the timeslots that are availible during his show are going unsold? Or that this letter will have any long term impact on viewership numbers that could justify MILLIONS in extra revenue? And would those increases in revenue be enough for the radio stations to be willing to pass down all those profits to Rush by giving him millions more in his next contract years from now? Soley from one letter that everyone will forget about in a week? Come on now.

I didn't claim that he'd recoup the entirety of the $2 Million, but you seemed to be claiming--based on your comparison to the Unibomber-- that publicity can't earn people money, which is a stupid claim to make.

Honestly, I think the publicity is an end in and of itself for him, he has plenty of money. It's just a "hey, look at me! See how great and awesome I am?"

I didn't claim that he'd recoup the entirety of the $2 Million, but you seemed to be claiming--based on your comparison to the Unibomber-- that publicity can't earn people money, which is a stupid claim to make.


Its a minor point and not a big deal but to clear the record i claimed no such thing. I said that publicity didnt automatically mean money and gave an example. People were making definitive claims such as "publicity= money" and this is simply wrong. It certianly can but there are many situations where publicity =/= money and thus this is the reason i asked for specifics as to how this particular publicity would turn into money.

Its a minor point and not a big deal but to clear the record i claimed no such thing. I said that publicity didnt automatically mean money and gave an example. People were making definitive claims such as "publicity= money" and this is simply wrong. It certianly can but there are many situations where publicity =/= money and thus this is the reason i asked for specifics as to how this particular publicity would turn into money.

Well, I certainly think it will get him some money (after all, even if they already fill the advertisement slots, an increased audience would make those slots more expensive.), but that's not his motivation. He has a dual purpose:
1) Look at me! I'm an amazing person, doing good things for people.
2) Look at those evil liberals! Aren't they bad, unlike me, who is good?

I guess you must have missed the day in civics class when they taught about how the US government works, so let me explain it to you: In the United States, we have elections. Some people run for President. The one who gets the most votes for President becomes President. That means he's the President of the whole United States. Not just the President of those who voted for him. Some other people run for Senator and Representative. The ones who get the most votes get to be Senators and Representatives. They join the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Those bodies also count for the whole United States, not just the people who voted for them.

Are you following me?

So, the President of the United States, and the Senate, and the House of Representatives, make the decisions for everyone in the United States. And they get tax money from everybody, whether or not everybody would have voted to spend that money the same way.


Oh, and another thing you might have missed in school: we have an all-volunteer military. That means people who become soldiers and sailors and Marines do so because they want to, not because the President is making them do so. And you know what else? They know the job's dangerous, and they do it anyway. And I'm guessing a lot of them don't like it when you make it sound like they're poor little innocent children who go off and get killed without knowing why.

I am going to save this. I am going to save it and repeat it back in your little rat face when a Republican is NOT elected for President next November, because you're going to be whining and moaning and complaining and we'll be laughing it up while tossing your words in your face. Enjoy your happiness while you still can.

Apparently you think people make money in ones. Doing this will probably get Rush going around the TV circuit and probably more speeches. All so he can lombast Democrats and talk about this bullshit he's doing. That is probably a cool mil at least.