|
Post by Onion on Jun 15, 2004 12:33:42 GMT -5
Jackson Thoreau: 'Did Limbaugh cheat on ANOTHER wife?' By Jackson Thoreau, DC Indymedia Rush Limbaugh once called me a liar on his show without giving me a chance to respond. I considered that remark part of the territory - a badge of honor - when you take on the right-wing machine in this country. So how should I respond to recent stories about this right-wing propagandist filing for divorce for the THIRD time? Calling Limbaugh a liar and a hypocrite doesn't begin to cover it. Here's a conservative who often harps on "family values," who once called himself "your epitome of morality of virtue, a man you could totally trust with your wife, your daughter, and even your son in a Motel 6 overnight." Then he goes through almost as many wives as the Gabor sisters did husbands, admits he watches pornography and doesn't even father a child. Would you trust Limbaugh with your son or daughter or wife in a Motel 6? I sure as hell wouldn't. For one thing, what is a multi-millionaire doing in a Motel 6 - besides watching porn? For another, why did he say "even your son?" That implies that Limbaugh considers your son more sexually tempting than your wife or daughter. How weird, and far from the typical conservative's vision of "family values," is that? Here's a conservative who once said, "If people are violating the law by doing drugs....they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," and "Too many whites are getting away with drug use. The answer is to....find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river." Then he admits to smoking marijuana and enters a drug rehabilitation program after saying he was addicted to painkillers. He also uses his show to lash out at prosecutors who are doing their jobs by investigating whether Limbaugh illegally bought prescription drugs. Here's a conservative who blasts the ACLU every chance he gets. Then he accepts the help of the ACLU after prosecutors seized his medical records to help them decide whether to file charges against him. Here's a conservative who raked Clinton over the coals about Monica. Then he allegedly cheats on his other two wives - see www.kerncountyinquisitor.com/Hobson.html and www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html. So the odds are that he cheated on Marta, his third one. Another odd fact about Limbaugh is that he owns a $24 million oceanfront mansion in Palm Beach, Fla., ground zero for the Republicans' heist of the 2000 presidential election. Is that just a coincidence? Look at some of Limbaugh's closest right-wing friends for some more odd fodder. There is Supreme Court Injustice Clarence Thomas, who officiated during the wedding of Limbaugh's third marriage. Thomas' fondness for pornography was confirmed by former right-wing operative David Brock in his revealing book. Another reported close Limbaugh friend is Bill Bennett, the so-called morals czar whose hypocrisy through gambling and possibly paying to see a dominatrix has been unearthed. The Bush men also are quite close to Limbaugh. After Limbaugh checked into rehab last fall, Bush Jr. called him a "great American," something Bush doesn't say about every American who buys drugs illegally off the street. And in 1992, Bush Sr. even bowed down to Limbaugh by personally carrying Limbaugh's bags into the White House when he stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom in 1992. Another hypocrisy alert - didn't Limbaugh criticize Clinton for some of his White House visitors? After a week of having to suffer through the Reagan propaganda, it's good to see a story that speaks to the sheer hypocrisy of Republicans so clearly that not even the mainstream media can ignore it. Jackson Thoreau is a Washington, D.C.-area journalist/writer. The latest book to which he contributed, Big Bush Lies, is available from RiverWood Books of Ashland, Ore., at www.riverwoodbooks.com/books/Big-Bush-Lies.html. He can be contacted at jacksonthor@yahoo.com or jacksonthor@justice.com. See also: www.geocities.com/jacksonthor
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 15, 2004 16:34:37 GMT -5
Oh, please. This diatribe is so ridiculous it almost isn't worth commenting on. Did this writer listen to Rush Limbaugh even once? Thoreau is so far off the mark that I can't think he has even a modicum of understanding regarding Limbaugh's message or style. What it looks like to me is someone who got his wings clipped now trying to point a finger and saying "See, he did it too! He's just a big MEANIE!" And to assume infidelity, homosexuality and pedophilia where there is no evidence of it is, in my opinion, a very unChristian way to go about doing things. It certainly doesn't go very far in proving the author's point. Really, if I wanted to make a convincing point, I wouldn't quote David Brock, an admitted liar, too often either. Further, can you point to any hypocrisy AT ALL regarding Bill Bennet? Regarding family values, what is "non-family values oriented" about a man who knows he doesn't want children and makes sure he doesn't have any? Is it the writer's contention that Limbaugh would be more "family values oriented" if he fathered children he didn't want and then ignored them? Who is it that doesn't understand family values here? Gosh, Onion, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were rejoicing at another person's pain. LJ
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 16, 2004 6:19:06 GMT -5
Oh, please. This diatribe is so ridiculous it almost isn't worth commenting on. Did this writer listen to Rush Limbaugh even once? Thoreau is so far off the mark that I can't think he has even a modicum of understanding regarding Limbaugh's message or style. What it looks like to me is someone who got his wings clipped now trying to point a finger and saying "See, he did it too! He's just a big MEANIE!" And to assume infidelity, homosexuality and pedophilia where there is no evidence of it is, in my opinion, a very unChristian way to go about doing things. It certainly doesn't go very far in proving the author's point. Really, if I wanted to make a convincing point, I wouldn't quote David Brock, an admitted liar, too often either. Further, can you point to any hypocrisy AT ALL regarding Bill Bennet? Regarding family values, what is "non-family values oriented" about a man who knows he doesn't want children and makes sure he doesn't have any? Is it the writer's contention that Limbaugh would be more "family values oriented" if he fathered children he didn't want and then ignored them? Who is it that doesn't understand family values here? Good post LJ. [/color] Gosh, Onion, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were rejoicing at another person's pain. LJ You're only now coming to that conclusion? I put him on "ignore" long ago because he has nothing useful to say. Entertaining his insults is foolish. He needs to go to "moveon.org" where he has friends who spew the same biased hatred that he does. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Jun 16, 2004 7:25:48 GMT -5
Oh, please. This diatribe is so ridiculous it almost isn't worth commenting on. Did this writer listen to Rush Limbaugh even once? Thoreau is so far off the mark that I can't think he has even a modicum of understanding regarding Limbaugh's message or style. What it looks like to me is someone who got his wings clipped now trying to point a finger and saying "See, he did it too! He's just a big MEANIE!" And to assume infidelity, homosexuality and pedophilia where there is no evidence of it is, in my opinion, a very unChristian way to go about doing things. It certainly doesn't go very far in proving the author's point. Really, if I wanted to make a convincing point, I wouldn't quote David Brock, an admitted liar, too often either. Further, can you point to any hypocrisy AT ALL regarding Bill Bennet? Regarding family values, what is "non-family values oriented" about a man who knows he doesn't want children and makes sure he doesn't have any? Is it the writer's contention that Limbaugh would be more "family values oriented" if he fathered children he didn't want and then ignored them? Who is it that doesn't understand family values here? Gosh, Onion, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were rejoicing at another person's pain. LJ yeah - just like she said!LauraJEan -- you took the words out of my mouth - thanks you said them better than i could have : )
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 16, 2004 9:33:17 GMT -5
Thomas' fondness for pornography was confirmed by former right-wing operative David Brock in his revealing book. Regarding the vaunted David Brock: From Byron York in the National Review: Other than a friendly interview by the Today show's Katie Couric, Brock has received far less attention for his new project than he received in 2002 when he published Blinded by the Right, the book in which he confessed to having lied in some of the stories he wrote for conservative publications in the 1990s.
The book did what many — even those on the left who share Brock's contempt for conservatives — consider fatal damage to Brock's credibility. When Blinded by the Right appeared, Timothy Noah, the liberal "Chatterbox" columnist for Slate, wrote that "Chatterbox yields to no one in his eagerness to believe the awful things Brock is now saying about himself and the conservative movement in America. But the more Brock insists that he has lied, and lied, and then lied again, the more one begins to suspect Brock of being, well, a liar." Some people will say anything to sell a book. LJ
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 16, 2004 9:59:26 GMT -5
Oh, please. This diatribe is so ridiculous it almost isn't worth commenting on. Did this writer listen to Rush Limbaugh even once? Thoreau is so far off the mark that I can't think he has even a modicum of understanding regarding Limbaugh's message or style. What it looks like to me is someone who got his wings clipped now trying to point a finger and saying "See, he did it too! He's just a big MEANIE!" And to assume infidelity, homosexuality and pedophilia where there is no evidence of it is, in my opinion, a very unChristian way to go about doing things. It certainly doesn't go very far in proving the author's point. Really, if I wanted to make a convincing point, I wouldn't quote David Brock, an admitted liar, too often either. Further, can you point to any hypocrisy AT ALL regarding Bill Bennet? Regarding family values, what is "non-family values oriented" about a man who knows he doesn't want children and makes sure he doesn't have any? Is it the writer's contention that Limbaugh would be more "family values oriented" if he fathered children he didn't want and then ignored them? Who is it that doesn't understand family values here? Gosh, Onion, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were rejoicing at another person's pain. LJ AS HAS BEEN POSTED, Rush-o Blimbaugh is the biggest lying hypocritical peice of crap ever. Whether you liek the author of the peice or not, he makes some very pointed remarks about Rush and his hypocrasy. Especially when he condemns those who have drug problems or broken marrioages and relationships as "unfamily". WAKE UP PEOPLE! No doubt Rush will be roasting and toasting in Hell. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 16, 2004 10:02:17 GMT -5
You're only now coming to that conclusion? I put him on "ignore" long ago because he has nothing useful to say. Entertaining his insults is foolish. He needs to go to "moveon.org" where he has friends who spew the same biased hatred that he does. [/color][/quote] Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha GENE is the hateful moniker around here who has called for geneside by using nuclear weapons. He also called for the abolishment of rights and freedoms. May God have mercy on Gene's soul. He'll need it. Oh he's alos a hypocrite too with spewing insults left, right and center. ha ha ha ha ha ha ah aha ha ha ah aha ha aha ha jihad ha ha ha ha ha
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Jun 16, 2004 10:49:37 GMT -5
I take it that you are not a Christian?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 17, 2004 6:27:08 GMT -5
I take it that you are not a Christian? At least he (Rush) doesn't have to resort to lies. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Jun 17, 2004 14:38:29 GMT -5
Oh, please. This diatribe is so ridiculous it almost isn't worth commenting on. Did this writer listen to Rush Limbaugh even once? Thoreau is so far off the mark that I can't think he has even a modicum of understanding regarding Limbaugh's message or style. What it looks like to me is someone who got his wings clipped now trying to point a finger and saying "See, he did it too! He's just a big MEANIE!" And to assume infidelity, homosexuality and pedophilia where there is no evidence of it is, in my opinion, a very unChristian way to go about doing things. It certainly doesn't go very far in proving the author's point. Really, if I wanted to make a convincing point, I wouldn't quote David Brock, an admitted liar, too often either. Further, can you point to any hypocrisy AT ALL regarding Bill Bennet? Regarding family values, what is "non-family values oriented" about a man who knows he doesn't want children and makes sure he doesn't have any? Is it the writer's contention that Limbaugh would be more "family values oriented" if he fathered children he didn't want and then ignored them? Who is it that doesn't understand family values here? Gosh, Onion, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were rejoicing at another person's pain. LJ Laura don't waste your time with this bottom-feeding little pr*ck. He is nothing but a trouble maker. He is not interested in serious debate. Just look at the childish nature of his post. "ha ha ha" after every sentence. He's not going to sway or convince anyone to see things his way with his 3rd grade response and inane babbleling. It's amazing that ANYONE here takes this dimwit seriously and even bothers to have any kind of intelligent conversation with him. He's not a serious person. He's full of hate and won't listen to any facts. He hates the president and has nothing better to do in his wasteful, pathetic little exsistence than to poison these boards with his whining and crying about Bush.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Jun 17, 2004 14:51:25 GMT -5
Oh, please. This diatribe is so ridiculous it almost isn't worth commenting on. Did this writer listen to Rush Limbaugh even once? Thoreau is so far off the mark that I can't think he has even a modicum of understanding regarding Limbaugh's message or style. What it looks like to me is someone who got his wings clipped now trying to point a finger and saying "See, he did it too! He's just a big MEANIE!" His message or style? I've barely heard the man, but I have read quite a few of his biased and ridiculous comentaries. Gosh Laura, it sounds like you greatly admire Limbaugh and I can't tell you how very suprised I am in hearing that!
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 17, 2004 14:56:50 GMT -5
He is not interested in serious debate. Just look at the childish nature of his post. "ha ha ha" after every sentence. He's not going to sway or convince anyone to see things his way with his 3rd grade response and inane babbleling.... He's not a serious person. He's full of hate and won't listen to any facts.... Yes I can see that having an adult, fact-based conversation with Onion isn't likely to happen any time soon, alas. I had seen enough to guess as much, but at the same time it irks me to sit idly by and let another human being's reputation be maligned in such a baseless way. Heaven knows there're enough REAL things going on to discuss/complain about that we don't have to resort to making stuff up. Thanks for the commentary. It made me smile. Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 17, 2004 15:07:35 GMT -5
His message or style? I've barely heard the man, but I have read quite a few of his biased and ridiculous comentaries. Hi Kee!! My point was that the writer's comments were so misrepresentative of Rush that he can't have listened to him much --else he wouldn't have been so far off the mark. Re commentaries, you are referring to Limbaugh's op-ed pieces, right? Aren't all opinion pieces biased? As for whether or not they are ridiculous, that's what I enjoy discussing. But it's important to stick with facts, not fantasy. The author quoted in the OP didn't do that. Really?? Heck, I'm as politically conservative as they come. Didn't you know that already? Limbaugh has done things that I wish he hadn't, (who of us hasn't?) but I do admire --and generally agree with-- his conservative message. Good to see you, Kee! Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Jun 17, 2004 15:22:38 GMT -5
Really?? Heck, I'm as politically conservative as they come. Didn't you know that already? Limbaugh has done things that I wish he hadn't, (who of us hasn't?) but I do admire --and generally agree with-- his conservative message. Good to see you, Kee! Blessings, LJ Nah....you are a "wild" woman at heart....LOL!! I guess I'd characterize his message as SO exaggerated and often such a "goodie two shoes" who loves to wag his finger that ultimately....I find him very disingenuous. Great to see you too!!!!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 18, 2004 7:35:15 GMT -5
His message or style? I've barely heard the man, but I have read quite a few of his biased and ridiculous comentaries. Gosh Laura, it sounds like you greatly admire Limbaugh and I can't tell you how very suprised I am in hearing that! Surprised? It takes intelligence to want to hear the truth about what's happening in our world. Rush does bring that truth that you DON'T get in the newspapers or the evening news. As you said, about few quotes ans his biased attitude. The difference between Rush and the liberals is that Rush ADMITS he's biased. Liberals won't! The talking heads on the evening news are liberal and biased but NEVER ADMIT it. The news is presented in the worst possible way and is often commentary presented as news. When was the last time you heard an anchor praising the booming economy we're having right now? When was the last time you've heard about the job growth rate being raipdly on the upswing? The truth is you don't because that might make Bush look good. The partisan media is trying to get Kerry elected and is hiding good news and plastering the nation with anything that would make Bush look bad or help Kerry. You never saw one picture of Kerry falling off of his bike because that might make him look clumbsy, but you know the partisan media was there because they reported his falling. You saw the pictures of what a few soldiers did in that Iraqi prison and it has been on the front page of newspapers for weeks as though it is still news. The impression is that there is a coverup, but the truth is that the investigation into this began months ago right after it was learned. The media has posted pictures daily of that, but when invited to see pictures of real torture by Saddam's men, almost no media persons showed up and those pictures haven't been shown in any paper. If the partisan media had gone to see the real torture, they might have had to write something on that, so they avoided writing about it by just not going. That might help Bush.
Rush has so many documented links to the real stories that are the real news today that makes your statement look silly and you're missing much truth with your attitude. The difference is that Rush does admit his bias and makes no bones about it, but he doesn't have to resort to lies to make his points. Liberals do have to lie and omit because they don't have the truth on their side.
The proof of an Iraqi connection to Al Qaeda is there from sattelite photos and other sources on his web site if anyone is interested in what the truth really is. You're not getting the tyruth on your evening news.
The 9/11 investigation shouild be properly called "the Kerry photo op" and campaign strategy session.
The partisan medai is doing everything they can to elect Kerry. That ought to tell you something.
The latest fro Kerry is that he's going to take the tax cut from those making over $200,000. and use that money for extending school hours so working parents don't have to worry about their kids until they get home. The problem with this is that he's already spent that tax money on another promise, but this won't get reported either. That would make Kerry look like he doesn't know what he's doing, which would be proper
I switched to Fox news long ago and don't even turn to the network news anymore.
[/color]
|
|