By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - How many VG Chartz members listen to Rush Limbaugh and/or Shawn Hannity?

I don't have to play the liberal bias card against you, I only have to do so against Media Matters for America. Did you know that Hillary Clinton actually bragged that she helped found it? This disqualifies any source when talking about conservatives in the media or public space. Period.



At about 1:10 she admits this.



Around the Network
kazadoom said:
 

I could not agree with this more. The government should take care of military, roads and infrastructure, and upholding the constitution. That is where it should end. We have way too many people who are completely dependent on government. 


 It is great to see so many libertarians around here.



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

kazadoom said:
Kasz216 said:
luinil said:
^ Just curious, but what are you talking about? Any links?

Seriously? You need examlples?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120008

Not the best website, but considering they actually mention facts in opposition there isn't much to argue about.

That's not even remotely what I was talking about either since these are far far more recent.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803170002?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290014?f=s_search

He's not like most pundits who just twist stuff, guy just outright makes stuff up.

Here is an even better list. These also the ones I weren't thinking of. It ammusingly goes off topic immediatly because there i just outright no defense for it.

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-debate/355327-limbaugh-lies-thread.html

I mean, that's why he gets so much viewership. You've got people who believe what he's making up, People who can't believe he's making it up and are listening because of that are pissed off, and people who just laugh their asses off at it.

I used to be in the third category. Actually a registered republican for those who want to play the "liberal bias" card.


Read the first line in the last link stating the Rush lied about James Madison's quote about the 10 commandments. Sorry, but after that lie about Rush, nothing else had any credibility from this source. Here is the qoute from James Madison from 1778.

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

 

"We didn't find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent to us," David B. Mattern, the associate editor of The Madison Papers, told the Kansas City Star (1/16/94). "In addition, the idea is entirely inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government."

So where'd you find this? Me. I trust the Library of Congress.

Very few websites actually have that "quote." Most of which probably actually quoting from Rush, believeing madison actually said it.

Of course if you have something in the Madison Papers that contradicts this...

 



luinil said:
I don't have to play the liberal bias card against you, I only have to do so against Media Matters for America. Did you know that Hillary Clinton actually bragged that she helped found it? This disqualifies any source when talking about conservatives in the media or public space. Period.



At about 1:10 she admits this.


So... debate what they say then. That's the fun part. When you've got Liberals and Neo-conservatives argueing with each other it's easy to look at the actual facts.

I mean... Rush is as Ultra Neo-Conservative as any Liberal website is super Liberal. So if your disregarding them for being Liberal, then you should disregard Rush for being super conservative.

Me. I'll just sit back and wait till one of the two parties actually brings back fiscal conservatism.



The problem is Rush isn't super conservative. He is Conservative to be sure, but not a super-duper-ultra-far-right-wing-bible-thumping believer. The term Neo-Con... I have a problem associating them correctly... tell me aren't they the newer converts to Conservatism that believe that government can't be stopped so they might as well steer it in the direction of the right? Rush doesn't believe that as far as I know.

Me? I trust Michael Savage over anyone else in the Media.

Media Matters has a history of taking statements out of context and trying to frame the person for saying "inflammatory remarks." I don't trust a word they say.



Around the Network
luinil said:
The problem is Rush isn't super conservative. He is Conservative to be sure, but not a super-duper-ultra-far-right-wing-bible-thumping believer. The term Neo-Con... I have a problem associating them correctly... tell me aren't they the newer converts to Conservatism that believe that government can't be stopped so they might as well steer it in the direction of the right? Rush doesn't believe that as far as I know.

Me? I trust Michael Savage over anyone else in the Media.

Media Matters has a history of taking statements out of context and trying to frame the person for saying "inflammatory remarks." I don't trust a word they say.


See. I don't trust anyone in the Media. Also, if they're taking him out of context... explain how. Open debate, if you have proof, show it.

Show the proper context.

Neo Conservatives are the people who have been in power before the democrats had been. The ones who despite having a republican congress and a republican president thought it'd be great to start spending like drunken sailors. Despite the fact that they had all the power to not do so.

It's not that they figure they can't stop runaway budgets they just don't want too.... unless there are democrats in enough power to have funding bills.



You are running in circles.

See. I don't trust anyone in the Media.
if This is true how do you trust the people you quote? But I digress. I am not Rush-bot apologist. I appreciate his work in his field and enjoy his show, but I don't have to back him up. I am not wrong in this either. If you want your proof go look it up yourself and don't be lazily asking me to do it for you!



luinil said:
You are running in circles.
See. I don't trust anyone in the Media.
if This is true how do you trust the people you quote? But I digress. I am not Rush-bot apologist. I appreciate his work in his field and enjoy his show, but I don't have to back him up. I am not wrong in this either. If you want your proof go look it up yourself and don't be lazily asking me to do it for you!

In otherwords... you don't have any. The "look it up yourself" arguement is often used by people who have no proof because it's a win win ploy.


Either you are right, and they find the info.

Or you are wrong and they spend forever looking for info that doesn't exist.

That's why proof has to be brought by the person actually bringing the arguement.

I can "trust" them though because they actually have sources.  Though you really don't have to trust someone when they actually present facts.



LOLZ, you are bringing the argument, not me. You accuse him of lying then bring out the broken record that is Media Matters and don't take into account how they are a left-wing front group. I don't have to back Rush up because it will all shake out. Nothing they have ever said sticks to the guy, so he is either teflon or it is all fake!

Bring me a source that backs Media Matters up a CREDIBLE source for commentary on Conservative icons. See? I can do it too. Your arguments are half thought through, probably like my own, and don't prove anything. We are just two people ranting on opposite sides of an argument.



luinil said:
LOLZ, you are bringing the argument, not me. You accuse him of lying then bring out the broken record that is Media Matters and don't take into account how they are a left-wing front group. I don't have to back Rush up because it will all shake out. Nothing they have ever said sticks to the guy, so he is either teflon or it is all fake!

Bring me a source that backs Media Matters up a CREDIBLE source for commentary on Conservative icons. See? I can do it too. Your arguments are half thought through, probably like my own, and don't prove anything. We are just two people ranting on opposite sides of an argument.

In otherwords... you can't argue with their direct quotes and stated facts.

So you attack the site.

You admit he directly said it. So... the arguement is yours to explain why it's out of context.

After all you aren't denying he actually said what he said.  The current arguement is "He lies" vs "He's being taken out of context."

I showed proof of lies.  You've shown none on him being taken out of context.