How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Be   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


0 posted 10-13-2009 08:58 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

A few things on my mind:

- Why Rush Limbaugh is constantly demonized: The Left obviously feels he is a threat.  No-one spends that much time and effort on someone they deem is not worthy of 'said' effort.

- Why Rush Limbaugh is NOT a threat:  simply put, he is not elected.  His views are his own and have no direct effect on anything in the government.

- The Republicans are so bland that ....
...so bland that Limbaugh symbolizes the party for many people, simply because there is no-one who upstages him.

- many of his comments are said 'for effect' - kind of like teasers that he'll throw out, and then go to commercial.

- Limbaugh got popular when Conservatives got tired of hearing EVERY talking head on network news being liberal.  

- Think for a moment:  when was the last time you saw a CONSERVATIVE news anchor on network news?  20, 30 years ago? Ever?

- For a conversative, seeing Dan Rather deliver the news, having to listen to his rhetoric and stressed vocal inflictions was kind of like having to listen to Rosanne Barr's grating voice deliver it.  They were anxious for another Delivery Man.
They got it in Limbaugh.

- Who is more arrogant: O'Reilly, Limbaugh or Olbermann?  Tough call, huh?  LOL

- Why Glenn Beck is different than Rush Limbaugh (at least for now)  OR
(WHY Beck's base seems to grow exponentially)
a) he's a geniune goofball when he's nonpolitical- probably more like you and I than we would care to admit- Limbaugh is too stiff
b) Beck doesn't trumpet his strong points hourly like Limbaugh, and has humility that Limbaugh or O'Reilly doesn't have.
c) Limbaugh is bombastic - Beck is drastic
d) Beck has actually started several movements toward getting people motivated in politics.  Limbaugh stays in the comfort of his studio.
e) While both are writers, Beck mostly writes about others, while Limbaugh refers to himself almost as much as Obama does (once every 13 words according to news sources on count.)
f) Beck is a Libertarian
   Limbaugh is a Conservative Republican
and YES, Virginia, there IS a difference.
g) Beck trumpets & admits his OWN faults
   Limbaugh hides his and only recently granted his first interview request in a year
h) for all his faults, Beck has precognicent radar on predicting certain political events (ie fall of the dollar, stimulus being a joke, ACORN, Czars, etc.)  Limbaugh hasn't really broken any new ground since the election.
h) Beck seems to have a strong moral compass
   I'm not sure Limbaugh is at all religiously motivated.

Amazing isn't it?  We are talking about Limbaugh who is basically NOT on TV or FM, still on the outdated AM dial almost exclusively, and he is still called the King of the Conservatives by many in both political persuasions.  And both him and Glenn Beck are still just glorified DJ's, yet the Dem's fear them like cancer.

- As surely as Glenn Beck's popularity has risen astronomically, his burnout will be just as rapid.  No man can keep up the pace he's set for himself (books, radio, tv, appearances, interviews) and, sorry, Glenn: as sincere as you may truly be, I also think you are not emotionally stable enough to handle the pressure and fame.  
D*mn!  I could say the say thing to Obama!  

I apologize for my absence: my rented body gave out on me for an extended time.

PS...Tonight, Tuesday at 8PM on PBS is the Frontline special:  "Obama's War".  It actually embeds a reporter right on the front line (you see a shell explode next to him in the promo spot for it.)  It's focus is how the war looks EXACTLY to the front line soldiers, and that's a rare look on Afghanistan.  I have said for months to friends that the news refuses to show actual war footage of Afghanistan beyond 5 second clips.  Here is finally a touch/smell/taste glimpse of what it's really like to be a soldier there and 20 years old.

If I'm offbase on this post, sound off!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 10-13-2009 03:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The Left obviously feels he is a threat.

Obviously...and with good reason. They don't like people who raise points they don't want  raised or ask questions they don't want asked.

When Obama calls them out by name, he is elevating their status and giving credence to their views.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


2 posted 10-13-2009 04:08 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The Left obviously feels he is a threat. No-one spends that much time and effort on someone they deem is not worthy of 'said' effort.

A threat? Or just really, really irritating?

I would put Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and author Dan Brown just about on a par with each other, though they clearly sit in very different camps. Each is just this side of absurd while still somehow avoiding the mantle of clown. I suspect what makes them irritating to rational people is the irrational appeal they seem to have for so many. They would be honestly funny if they didn't take themselves so seriously.

quote:
The Republicans are so bland that ....
...so bland that Limbaugh symbolizes the party for many people, simply because there is no-one who upstages him.

And Republicans don't find that scary?

quote:
Why Rush Limbaugh is NOT a threat: simply put, he is not elected. His views are his own and have no direct effect on anything in the government.

Jesus was never elected to office, either. Nor, I believe was Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Norma McCorvey. Indeed, I suspect we could list a fairly large number of people who, in spite of never holding public office, managed to visit a great and lasting effect on society and culture, either through circumstance or force of character.

I tend to agree Limbaugh is no threat (except perhaps to those he represents). Nonetheless, I remain convinced that words have power, power often much greater than that of votes. We can always impeach an elected official; there's not a damn thing you can do to someone who -- right or wrong -- is admired and loved for what he says.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 10-13-2009 04:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A  mosquito is simply irritating when it bites you. It's a threat when it carries malaria.

When a president of the United States calls out antagonists by name (something I have never seen done in presidential history) they are a threat, not merely irritants, unless of course the president can't handle simple irritants, either...in which case, he is DEFINITELY in the wrong job!
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


4 posted 10-13-2009 04:45 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Hey, Mike, hate to call you out, but
the last time the WH called out the media in a major way was Nixon vs. the Press.

He had words for just about anyone who opposed his policies; he held nothing back.  The press promptly waited until a perfect storm scandal occured by the Nixton administration.  

A press friend of mine once said something astute: that all Presidential scandals are basically the same- the only difference is how much the press crucifies them.  EVERY president since then has had their own scandal.  When you think about it, compared to today's political scandals, a simple breakin to a Political HQ office is really small potatoes.  Looking back, I'm amazed it got the press it did.  Nixon hated them - they hated Nixon.  

  I felt that both instances of scandal, Clinton and Nixon were both hugely exagerrated in importance, mostly for political gain.    Iran/Contra scandal, for instance, is much more serious in my mind, and somehow Reagan weathered it.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


5 posted 10-13-2009 05:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
(something I have never seen done in presidential history)

LOL. And is that the only thing in recent history you never saw done before, Mike? After the election, I would think you'd be getting used to it.

quote:
... the last time the WH called out the media in a major way was Nixon vs. the Press.

Rush Limbaugh is NOT the press. He's an entertainer. Like Oprah, only not as rich. (In retrospect, that comparison probably isn't fair to Oprah. Limbaugh is more like Jerry Springer, I suppose. Except I hear Springer can dance?)
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 10-13-2009 09:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And is that the only thing in recent history you never saw done before, Mike?

LOL! No, we have a lot of firsts here, Ron but that one is pretty extraordinary.

Look att he Bush bashers, from the press, from talk shows, from fellow politicians...they had some extremely nasty things to say about him, even to the point of making movies blasing him in the worst possible light. Anyone see Bush call out any one of them, personally? Clinton had his share, too, during the Monica munch. Did he call out anyone by name? It just isn't done. It's not  presidential. Nixon called out "the press". I don't recall him pointing out any one individual.

As you have said in the past, Ron, it's what goes with the job. Challenging individuals like Obama has would relate to Chicago politics, perhaps, but is really our of line in the White House. Maybe some should tell Obama how big of a favor he is doing Limbaugh and Hannity by elevating them to the status of personal antagonists. I'm sure they appreciate his building up their audiences
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


7 posted 10-14-2009 01:19 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Sorry to interrupt again, Mike, but you're a bit factually distracted about Nixon not calling out the Press by name:
He personally named the attack dogs of the time-era: The Washington Post.  Remember the two houndogs Woodward and Bernstein?  Even before the Watergate story broke, the Post was piling on stories that questioned Nixon's moral reasoning and 'go-it-alone' strategies.   Nixon also verbally alienated the 'Hippies' (that was me at the time, and No Sir, I didn't like it. )

"Verbally alienated"  - euphemism for cussing someone out in Obama-speak

But I get your point.  Clinton DID call out the media, too:  he was convinced that there was a vast Right-Wing conspiracy that piloted the news organizations into hating him.  Hillary's auto-biography devoted multiple-pages on this subject.  They both obviously still believe it because Bill Clinton brought it up just last week in an interview.

The media is always in the tank for Dem's right off the bat, but toward the end of each Dem's administration, the press seems to turn on the Dem's: Kennedy, Carter, Johnson, Clinton.   Remember the media's reaction to each of them at the end?  

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


8 posted 10-14-2009 01:25 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

To Ron:  You hit the nail on the head with your first line about the blandness of the Repubs.  My point, too.  They are waaaay too quiet, offering too simple of solutions, and seem to take a backseat approach to driving right now.  My guess is that they are waiting for the youth in Obama to self-destruct so they won't have to be seen as the villians when reelection time comes.  

Notice how the cable news is shifting to the specific elections coming up, and how the health quagmire bill has negatively impacted some of the Dem's chances for reelection?  This health care bill, good or bad, will be a voting referendum for Dem's, and they better get it right.   The people wanted a Cadallic, and they are settling for a Khia, but paying a Cadillac tax (er..penalty) for it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


9 posted 10-14-2009 03:25 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Dan Brown never pretended he was writing other than fiction.  The research makes it entertaining, but is clearly somewhat slanted.  He still uses all of it in a fictional fashion; that's why there is a disclaimer at the beginning of each book.

     Limbaugh and Beck make no such claims...

     Mr. O'Reilly, like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Beck frequently colors the truth heavily and then denies it, despite being on tape.

     If all these gentlemen were acknowledging the amount of fiction they were passing off as reality, as Dan Brown does — plainly labeling each of his books a novel — I would have no quarrel.  Each of them claims to be telling the truth, however.

     Some of them are actually committing an assault against the language.  I consider Mr. Limbaugh's use of the word Fascist to be an insult to the English language and to the attempt to attach reality to language in writing.  I believe he in particular is fond of preempting charges that might well be leveled against him by using them against others first, regardless of the amount of truth involved.  He has attempted to do the same thing by calling feminists feminazis as catchy, clever and loathsome coinage as I have ever heard.

     The man and his like are dangerous because of the damage he is attempting to do to the language and the thinking of the nation.  It is unfortunate that the majority of the damage that has been done at this point appears to have been done to the center right Republicans, which have been virtually expunged as a viable political entity in favor of either hard right zealots or independents.

     I believe that this country actually needs a good Republican alternative that can take a position from the center and the near right, where a large part of the electorate feels a loyalty.  Mine is much further to the left; but I'm not talking about what's specifically good for me here.  I'm talking about what I believe is good for the country.

     The sort of wide split generated by these far right folks, who have actively gone to war against their more centrist Republican former allies by running far right Republicans against them with heavy funding from the RNC, have done their own party little good.  In my highly idiosyncratic estimation.

     Threadbare, it's good to see you back.  I'm glad to hear that you're feeling somewhat better.  Welcome.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


10 posted 10-14-2009 04:28 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Bob
I gotta say this, 'cause it's been laying heavy on my mind:  Media Matters and others fact-check Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ad nauseum.  

I used to have a late-night AM talk show: it was four-six hours long, and it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to talk that long without making a couple of factual errors, let alone have some with assumptive logic misinterpret an ironic statement as fact.

Here is what Glenn Beck is complaining about: let's say Nancy Pelosi in a red dress is caught in back of the Kremlin kissing Putin and exchanging documents.  If Glenn Beck says the possibility exists that they have some kind of secret deal and mentions that Pelosi wore a pink dress...guess what fact will be used to call Beck a liar?  The dress of course! and the whole context of the statement and how important it was won't even be commented on.  Worthless fact checking, and sophmoric proof of inaccuracy.

You think I'm kidding?  Much was made of Glenn Beck getting the Olympic city wrong (Calgary vs. Vancouver), and nobody commented on his overall point on how it bankrupted the city funds.  Let's pick another example:  quick, off the top of your head: name the Senator from Virginia, or the Governor.  That's what you have to do when you are a radio/tv personality and it's practically impossible to be right 100% of the time.  

It's good to be back, and thanks, Bob, for your kindness.  That was nice of you.
Jeff
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


11 posted 10-14-2009 09:40 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

I dunno, the two of them? It's quite like hearing men square off with their drunken team spirit about who's the "DADDY" on game day...

They are "chesting" their passions which is awesome. Though I often hear them speaking through other men's bodies as if they have been possessed by the full grain of right or left aural moonshine, which makes one say and do crazy things, but nevertheless the essence is as American as....boots & legs??

It's scary, but oddly entertaining, as they each have an agenda: Who can out-rooster the other and stay on the air.

Rush is rich enough to afford no health care insurance from his air-time and Beck is rich enough to spend most of his time trying to gain air on Rush. Good for them. The schisms of life and what we love about life in good ol' America.

BUT throw Ann Coulter in there....and the effects of ingested turpentine become too clear to me, and for some reason I feel the need for a rabies shot when she speaks.

"The perfection of Jews"...Oh, yes, Ann. You do polemicize the pot.

"The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men." [John Stuart Mill, 1806-73]

so to avoid the possibility of being a polemic pot calling the kettle black, I'll just pole the cat and say her statement stunk, whereas she, as a person, has all the morals a woman might tend for her perfect heaven.



  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


12 posted 10-14-2009 09:53 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Dan Brown never pretended he was writing other than fiction. The research makes it entertaining, but is clearly somewhat slanted. He still uses all of it in a fictional fashion; that's why there is a disclaimer at the beginning of each book.

There is indeed a disclaimer on the copyright page, Bob. It's the usual "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental" verbiage.

On the very next page, however, you'll find Brown's very non-standard claims to historical accuracy, including:

"FACT: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization." Yada yada yada.

Brown's so-called "fact," of course, didn't exist until about 1956, when convicted conman Pierre Plantard invented it.

Brown, on that same page of the book, further claimed, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Never mind that Brown's claim is disputed by almost all academic scholars in the fields the book discusses; the sheer chutzpah of including "secret rituals" in his list of alleged accuracies struck me as incredible.

I don't have a problem with Dan Brown's fiction. While promoting the book, however, in interview after interview, Brown continued to claim that the foundations of the novel were seemingly undisputed historical facts. Asked in one such interview what he would change in the book if he were writing it as non-fiction, Brown was reported to have said, "Not one thing."

Like I said, Bob. Limbaugh, Moore, and Dan Brown are from the same mold. I believe people like them don't make simple mistakes of error, as threadbear appears to contend. They are liars, pure and simple, knowingly stretching truth until it fits their agenda.

quote:
I used to have a late-night AM talk show: it was four-six hours long, and it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to talk that long without making a couple of factual errors

Maybe they should shut up after three?

quote:
If Glenn Beck says the possibility exists that they have some kind of secret deal and mentions that Pelosi wore a pink dress...guess what fact will be used to call Beck a liar?

If the color of the dress is unimportant, perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned?

Personally, I think every fact should be carefully investigated on its own merit. The secret deals should be held apart from the dresses. Realistically, however, I just don't have time to pursue every wild claim made by every human being with a pen or microphone. I have to make judgments, I have to filter out the obvious garbage. How to do that? In large part, I'm going to depend on a person's perceived reliability. A person who can't get the little things right is probably going to be perceived as someone who doesn't get the big things right either. Occasional mistakes, of course, can be overlooked. Repeated sloppiness, however, can not.

A reporter's dependability is always going to be a reflection of their attention to detail. While no one is perfect, I just don't have time to waste on people who won't at least try to be right.

When push comes to shove, if you don't actually know the color of the dress, don't pretend you do.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


13 posted 10-14-2009 02:02 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I wish I would shut up after three.  

Hi everybody!
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


14 posted 10-14-2009 02:16 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Ron, I guess my point is waaaay too much time and energy is spent scrutinzing Right Wing Talk Show hosts and virtually NO TIME fact checking Pelosi's dumb claims or Biden CONSTANTLY getting things wrong.  No-one since Dan Quayle has been more consistently wrong in talking facts.

I just don't get it.  Here are talk show hosts getting 100times the scrutiny of Obama, Pelosi or Biden, any of which has errored 100 times more severely than Beck.  Why do I say that?  Because Beck and Limbaugh are talking heads, nothing more.

Pelosi Reid, Biden: these are lawmakers in active power, being wrong almost every time they speak.  

Get it right- focus the attention where it is deserved.  When Obama says in 2003 to the AFL-CIO that he is 100% support of the Public Health Option,  by God: hold him to account for it.  His sissy attempts to pin the donkey on Fox news comes off a basement-blogger level complaint.

When in Obama's book he said his most influential mentors were communists:  Believe it!  and hold him accountable.  "Judge me by the company I keep."  Ok, but when Fox does, quit lobbing ad hominems at them simply because they are the ONLY news group holding Mr. Transparency accountable.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 10-14-2009 02:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sorry to interrupt again, Mike, but you're a bit factually distracted about Nixon not calling out the Press by name:

Clinton DID call out the media, too

I see no real reason for belaboring this point,  threadbare. I'll leave it with Ron's comment which says it all..

Rush Limbaugh is NOT the press.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


16 posted 10-14-2009 03:02 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

cool cool...I was just saying it's a bit of interesting history of how each President handles the press.  It's a whole story in itself.  The tide is turning however, for this administration:  NBC owns Saturday Night Live, and the most accurate skewering of Obama happened on their own skit.  NBC!  Obama's personal network.

and this, Mike:  I have to give GW Bush props for being such a gentleman in NOT responding to attacks.  He is not thin-skinned like this Admin, nor feel the need to retaliate for every skewer.  Bush stayed above the fray of media frenzy, somehow, and I think he should be commended for his maturity, at least in this topic of discussion.  

One last thing:  Limbaugh (or FOX news' Beck/Hannity)  IS sort-of the press:  they are Political-Commentary.  It's quasi-press for sure.  For example: Limbaugh is in the media, and he's doing Op-ED commentary, same as newspapers.  I'm saying he is more the press, than not.

[This message has been edited by threadbear (10-14-2009 03:43 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 10-14-2009 03:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Pelosi Reid, Biden: these are lawmakers in active power, being wrong almost every time they speak.



Such as?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 10-14-2009 05:56 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

   1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

    2. AHMADINEJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

    3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

    4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

    5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

    6. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

    7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

    8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

    9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

    10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

    11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

    12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

    13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

    14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/03/biden-lies-on-obama-meeting-ahmedinijad-without-conditions-and-13-other-lies/


...and let's not forget his beautiful campaign trail whopper....


Remember during the campaign when Democrat Biden said, “I’m just a regular guy, come have breakfast with me sometime at Rosies on Main St in my home town I’m there most mornings.”
Turns out ole Rosies had been shuttered for about 4 years.

Let's go back....

"Joseph Biden's Plagiarism; Michael Dukakis's 'Attack Video' – 1988

Feeding Frenzy Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr., a U.S. senator from Delaware, was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden's withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden's speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm
Here's a despicable one....

"Biden's most disgusting falsehood is his story, repeated over many years, that his first wife and daughter were killed in 1972 in an auto accident caused by a truck driver, Mr. Curtis C. Dunn, who was impaired by alcohol. That story is a lie.

Last September, as the vice-presidential debate neared, I wrote about Biden as a chronic prevaricator and self-aborbed windbag. Right after the column appeared, I received the following note from Mr. Dunn's daughter, Pamela Hamill.

"Steve, Please research Joe Biden's false account of the 1972 accident that tragically took the lives of his first wife Neilia and baby daughter Amy. Vice President Biden says "A guy who drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch" killed them. This urban legend he has created has been accepted by the media as the truth. My father [Mr. Dunn] passed in 1999 and is not here to defend his honor.We have to be his voice and set the record straight. We are certainly not trying to equate Biden's loss to our father's heartache but this untruth is a character assassination."

No DUI in crash that killed Biden's 1st wife, but he's implied otherwise
By RACHEL KIPP
The News Journal

Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.

Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."

The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing.

"To see it coming from [Biden's] mouth, I just burst into tears," Dunn's daughter, Glasgow resident Pamela Hamill, 44, said Wednesday. "My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

Herlihy said investigators discussed several possible causes for the crash, including that Biden's first wife, Neilia, turned her head and didn't see the oncoming truck as she exited the intersection of Limestone and Valley roads on Dec. 18, 1972.

Neither Biden's book nor his campaign Web site directly addresses the alcohol issue, but the senator has done so publicly on at least two occasions.

The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries."

Biden told a similar story when addressing an audience at the Bob Carpenter Center at the University of Delaware a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them," Biden said, according to a transcript archived on his Senate Web site.

Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/2009/04/bidens-lies-about-wifes-death.html


That's just a quick scratch of Biden's surface (which sounds repulsive!)

I imagine Pelosi will be a lot jucier
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


19 posted 10-14-2009 08:47 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm not going to go through your list point by point Mike because it isn't necessary.  To say that some are correct and some aren't correct is beside the point.  

In order for threadbear to substantiate his position, even if I were to stipulate your list, an equal comparison of ALL statements ever made by Joe Biden is required.  There is no human, or politician, that has never lied -- even Colin Powell lied (whether or not he knew it is the question), and of course George Washington's cherry tree incident.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/joe-biden/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/nancy-pelosi/
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


20 posted 10-14-2009 09:09 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Wonderful post Mike!  I don't know how you assembled that that fast.  I am doing my own in three installmentens, one for #2 most powerful Pelosi, 3rd most powerful Joe Biden, and 4th most powerful man in the country: Harry Reid.  

Is it really too much to ask for #1,2, &3 to be a little less partisan and more specific on their talking points?  Dems hold Limbaugh accountable for EVERYTHING he says, and he's just a grunt.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 10-14-2009 09:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, according to your politifact, Colin didn't lie. Pelosi, om the other hand, seems to bear out Threadbare's statement pretty well.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 10-14-2009 09:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Interesting....according to politifact, out of 208 comments by Obama, 104 of them range from half-true to pants on fire. That's a pretty sad percentage, wouldn't you say? Maybe we should just believe him half the time?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/

(One of his "true" statements was that Chicago could mathematically make the playoffs)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


23 posted 10-14-2009 09:37 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Pelosi, om the other hand, seems to bear out Threadbare's statement pretty well.



Not really, because it's a selective comparison.  If we're to look at Beck and Limbaugh's files we should listen to them 0% of the time!

That's the fallacy of threadbear's statement.  

Should we factcheck?  Yes.  But what should we factcheck?  Should commentators and politicians alike be factchecked? Yes.  

Should Saturday Night Live be factchecked?  Probably not.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 10-14-2009 09:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm beginning to see why you tout factcheck...

Promise Broken rulings on the Obameter


Promise Broken
No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."


Promise Broken
No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."


Promise Broken
No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."


Promise Broken
No. 505: Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
"During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired."


Promise Broken
No. 508: Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
"Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009."


Promise Broken
No. 511: Recognize the Armenian genocide
"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."


Promise Broken
No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Be   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors