The Institutionalism of Liberalism

Why is it that college campuses are such a hot bed for liberal activism and causes? Every time a spokesman for PETA, the anti-war movement, or an “environmental” group is featured on the airwaves it is almost invariably a fiercely dedicated, but none too bright, 22-year-old undergraduate.

These champions of bumper sticker slogans are the end result of the political correctness, speech codes, and the myriad of typical liberal policies and philosophy that now pervades most institutions of higher learning.

Drawing upon my own experiences at the university level there is no question that the institutional indoctrination in liberal speech and thought is apparent in nearly every aspect of the average students life. After a freshmans arrival on campus, he or she is immediately educated about the evils of homophobism, ageism, heterosexism, ableism, capitalism, and every other "ism" that is destroying the world. In the dorms there is a barrage of posters, sensitivity videos and speakers to correct the misguided teachings of their parents and culture.

The students are then properly prepared so that they can be infused (if you are white) with the guilt that you should carry for the rest of your life for Columbus' accidental discovery of the North American continent. The students are steered along this course by that ever-helpful Student Affairs staff, fresh from their sensitivity and multiculturalism training. During my college years the dorm staff, rather suspiciously, was disproportional composed of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and former drug and alcohol abusers. Multiple friends and acquaintances went through the application process and discovered that a personal life free from emotional problems, addictions and sexual dysfunction, let alone extreme leftist views, is the guarantee that you wont get the job.

On college campuses the agenda of the Left loses the face of moderation and respectability it promotes to the general public and the nakedness of its goals is exposed.

Sooner or later the average student will be further "educated" by the warmed over, 60s nostalgic professor or occasional open Marxist about the sole responsibility and blame white males and this nation must accept for all war, environmental problems, class conflicts, poverty, forms of racism and crime. I sat through several of these propaganda classes myself and was amazed at the blatant blame game and finger pointing at whites, males and Western civilization for the worlds problems. It is no exaggeration to state that college campuses exist in their own strange little world where right is wrong, perversity is praised, socialism is promoted, immorality celebrated, dissent stifled, traditional values mocked, Christianity ridiculed, patriotism abhorred and the foundations of our culture and society dismantled. It is sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant but the drumbeat of this philosophy is constant, pervasive and ever present.

If the young student has a little time on their hands there exists the endless variety of radical feminist, alternative lifestyle, pagan, Aztlan secessionist, hamster have rights too, save the earth the sky is falling student organizations in which to practice their newly instilled, politically correct ideologies.

Then, of course, every spring there is an assortment of "unofficially" sponsored replacement holidays to celebrate. These include the ever popular Earth "trash city park" Day, National Coming Out Day (my personal favorite), Take Back the Night (symbolism over substance) march, Stonewall Riot Day and, to round everything out, BGLAD (Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Days) week. Interspersed in between these is the never to be missed lesbian brown bag lunch groups and Vagina monologue performances. The fun never ceases.

God, grandma and apple pie have been replaced with protest marches, rainbow flag-raising ceremonies and lesbian literature lectures. This, my friends, is only a small look into the much larger radical culture that is trying to force itself onto both the student population and society as a whole.

The truth is often stranger than fiction. When I have shared my college experiences with my family and the community at large (everybody from state legislators to waitresses), the feedback is a combination of disgust and disbelief. Mainstream America and the average politician does not realize the intense indoctrination of a generation that is vigorously underway. Unopposed, the Left has captured the education system of this country and is shamelessly using it to promote and ingrain their program to steer our culture, institutions, and morality down the path of their choosing.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at September 27, 2007 1:26 AM
Comments
Comment #234516

“Every time a spokesman for PETA, the anti-war movement, or an “environmental” group is featured on the airwaves it is almost invariably a fiercely dedicated, but none too bright, 22-year-old undergraduate.”

I hate generalizations and am overly sick of age discrimination. I could care less about PETA and am not really that interested into the environmental movement. But I hate this age discrimination by the older generation on the younger generation. I am sick and tired of the older generation as portraying everyone in their young 20’s as a bunch of idiots who do not know anything and who either do not care about politics or who are these stupid mindless activists. I have seen it too many damned times. And enough is enough. I have had this conversation with Jack and many other commenters and writers on Watchblog, to Jack’s credit he was very reasonable.

But enough is enough for me. I will no longer read any of your articles. Any other of the older generation who continues to use this blatant generalization of the younger generation I will do the same.

I furthermore hope that other intelligent people in their early 20s will start to speak out about this. This arrogance of the older generation has got to stop. Just because you are older than me does not mean that you are smarter than me. And I for one have had enough.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at September 27, 2007 2:19 AM
Comment #234517

Yeah, it’s about time to round up all the liberals and put them in re-education camps!

I find it funny that you equate homosexuality with “sexual dysfunction”.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2007 2:31 AM
Comment #234518

Why are there so very many articles like this one written for the Red column?
I think of them as “Damn Liberal Articles.” Just a bunch of endless whinging and complaining that you all are forced to share your country with the likes of us. Boo hoo, the whole world is conspiring against Republicans/Conservatives!
It’s nothing but bogus victimhood.

Thank goodness the Blue Column doesn’t indulge in this kind of pathetic bunk on a regular basis.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 2:32 AM
Comment #234522

Richard:

While I agree the generalization is poor, I believe the exposure given to the collegiate activist crowd through various media outlets allows a modest proportion of the older generation to slap a handy label on 20-somethings. I don’t think it’s right, but I don’t understand why is surprising or frustrating. First, this label may be borne out my their experiences. They were once in the their 20’s and had a naive and narrow viewpoint of the world. Second, the label may simply be easy. There are a lot of people that care to not think about anything. Since the outspoken college activist is what people see and hear, the person represents the group. Just as people generalize that all Muslims are terrorists because a small community of extremists are what they see and hear. As a quiet, non-activist graduate student, I don’t see how to change this perception because there is no media coverage of people like myself. I create no sensation. The same goes Muslim community. Most people’s perception won’t change until that community speaks up and actively works against the extremists (as many are doing).

Either way, you can’t force people to think and act rationally, and so you will have many opinions based on perception not reality. For people who close the mental loop and base their opinion on at least some semblance of fact, I would expect a rational discussion on why a generalization is a fair characterization of a group. For example, what percentage of college students consider themselves liberal? Moderate? Conservative? Certainly, the reality is more balanced than David makes it out to be.

David:

First, I would like to agree the Richard. Your generalization is poor. There are a number of us out there who, like yourself, saw through the far left nonsense in college. Furthermore, as a graduate student, I realize that academia disconnects from reality in many ways and allows both the professors and the students to hold and/or form idealistic views. While the promotion of these ideologies is extremely troublesome, I contend that many of those in my generation who currently hold these believes will eventually be forced to abandon them when faced with reality. …if you want Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, you will have to pay a higher and higher percentage of your paycheck to pay for them. …if you try to placate terrorists and the states that sponsor them, they will try to kill you anyway (although you may buy yourself time). …and so on. I believe the political and economic landscape shows a hard road ahead for the current college crowd. Clearly, the superior morals set forth by our country’s founders will continue to be demeaned and degraded by the socialist-liberal ideology long before people are re-enlightened to their value and true intent.

Adrienne,

“Thank goodness the Blue Column doesn’t indulge in this kind of pathetic bunk on a regular basis.”

Yes, I agree. The Blue Column’s agenda is far to busy creating more real victims in the name fighting those evil Republican capitalists than to worry about complaints. Especially complaints about their agenda’s failure to produce positive results.

Posted by: mhoehne at September 27, 2007 4:33 AM
Comment #234523

mhoehne: As you I am a early 20 something graduate student. I am also a writer here at Watchblog. I have sat by and not commented so many times when I have seen so many of the older generation of writers, dismiss our generation. I am sick and tired of it. Period. I worked my ass off to get to where I am. And I am tired of the older generations ridiculing my generation. You go and read my posts and I do not ridicule them, and I could but I do not. So until they stop doing this I for one am going to stop posting comments and stop reading any article of any of them who do this starting with David M. Huntwork. It is just pure arrogance on their part, it really is. And we, the younger generation, never call them out on it. I never ever sink to this low when writing my articles. I never criticize them in such a general way. But they keep on doing it with such broad arrogance. I am sorry I am tired of these old folks thinking they I smarter than me just because of their age.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at September 27, 2007 4:47 AM
Comment #234524

In the last sentence I meant: I am sorry I am tired of these old folks thinking they are smarter than me just because of their age.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at September 27, 2007 4:51 AM
Comment #234525

Maybe college campuses are more liberal because they’re the only place where real, free discussion is allowed…

Posted by: Rachel at September 27, 2007 8:05 AM
Comment #234526

Richard Rhodes,

I am happy to see young people who have not conformed to the wing nut cloning process!!!!!!!

Myself like the Kansas Democrat, was raised by wolves in the deepest darkest part of the Midwest!!!!!

No matter what they did to me, I could not be assimilated by the wing nut collective!!!!!

Eventually I became what every wing nut fears the most!!!!!!!!

An angry white man who can think for himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 27, 2007 8:48 AM
Comment #234527

Richard,

“I have sat by and not commented so many times when I have seen so many of the older generation of writers, dismiss our generation.”

Every 20 something generation has been dismissed. I went through it in the ’70s. You’re going through it now.
When I reached my late ’30s I realized my dad was actually a lot smarter than I gave him credit for.
It’s not about intelligence, it’s about experience and maturity.
Intelligence is only as useful as your ability to apply that knowledge, and that only comes through experience and maturity.

In 10 years you will no longer be dismissed.
In 30 years you may be dismissing a 20 something generation yourself.

Posted by: Rocky at September 27, 2007 9:01 AM
Comment #234529
Sooner or later the average student will be further “educated” by the warmed over, 60s nostalgic professor or occasional open Marxist about the sole responsibility and blame white males and this nation must accept for all war, environmental problems, class conflicts, poverty, forms of racism and crime. I sat through several of these propaganda classes myself and was amazed at the blatant blame game and finger pointing at whites, males and Western civilization for the worlds problems. It is no exaggeration to state that college campuses exist in their own strange little world where right is wrong, perversity is praised, socialism is promoted, immorality celebrated, dissent stifled, traditional values mocked, Christianity ridiculed, patriotism abhorred and the foundations of our culture and society dismantled. It is sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant but the drumbeat of this philosophy is constant, pervasive and ever present.

Pardon the long quotation, but I attend a large state university in the 90’s and didn’t experience any of this. The only reference I remember to Marxism was a professor saying that Stalin was as bad as Hitler. In one class we did read a book that might be perceived as hostile to white people, but many students openly disagreed with the author. The only thing I could possibly recognize is the part about “immorality” being “celebrated”. But only if your idea of immorality is drunken debauchery by frat boys…

I know there are some private colleges that are very liberal-PC, but there are other that openly espouse right-wing Christian values. This is free country, and you can open a college that is as biased as you like.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 27, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #234532
Maybe college campuses are more liberal because they’re the only place where real, free discussion is allowed…


Uh, yeah, ok! Just look at how conservatives/independent speaker have been treated when they speak on college campus: ROTC (banned), Minutemen (mobbed), conservative speakers (assualted by pies). Some “free discussion” you have there.***

It speaks volumes when an Iranian President (tyrannt, thug, terrorist supporter, anti-gay/women, human rights abuser, etc.) gets more respect to voice his opinion than a conservative/independent in this country. The libs have to chill and stop this crap!! BDS is killing some of you!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2007 10:06 AM
Comment #234537

David Huntwork, sounds like you made a poor choice of university.

Rachel, good observation. And I will add the following, undergraduate programs are designed to introduce students previously under the tutelage of their parent’s biases and predispositions, to the panoply of knowledge and issues which face human beings on this planet and in this country. Before one can consider objectively what is wrong and in need of correction or better solutions, one must establish what the ideal would be. Not that ideals are achievable, but, they set a benchmark and backdrop for determining where reality falls short of the ideal.

That inevitably results in young people adopting ideals which their more life hardened and pragmatic parents left behind often before their kids were born or soon after. Anyone who has ever read a book on perfect parenting and raised a child, no longer has such a book, it was burned or sold to some other unsuspecting expectant parent.

It isn’t until students graduate from college and get a decade or two of experience in real politics, work environments, and engage in the power plays of relationships, values, and hardened viewpoints, that they are forced to temper the idealism standards they were introduced to in College, which were both necessary and important for education to take place.

What is difficult in America is for adults to retain uncompromised idealism as they learn to adopt the pragmatism of acknowledging what is incrementally doable. All roads to ideals must begin with steps that fall far short. It took 130 years from the onset of the Civil War to approximate racial tolerance in this country. The hard part is to keep the ideals after a life time of compromise.

America’s older generations need the idealism of youth refreshed in universities, public life, political office, and positions of leadership. And youth absolutely requires the assistance of more pragmatic and dogged elders to define, realize, and make doable incremental steps toward achieving ideals; as frustrating as such limited steps are for the younger up and comers.

Look at how far America and Americans have come in just 230 years. We made this incredible progress through the synergy of youth relearning and holding out front the ideals set forth at the birth of this country, and the experience and sagacity of older generations which insure the present is not sacrificed for an impatient future without a sound foundation to sustain it.

We must continue our proud and productive tradition of liberal arts degrees and education while insuring experience and wisdom preserve sound foundations and prevent youth from throwing out the baby with the bathwater, which is what our Founding Fathers and Children felt compelled to do with their idealism, through bloody and difficult Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

Nothing short of foundational collapse of economic and social order, warrants starting over again with anarchy and civil war and trying to build a new nation from the ashes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #234538

It speaks volumes when a smirking chimp President (tyrant, thug, terrorist supporter, anti-gay/women, human rights abuser, etc.) gets more respect to voice his opinion than a conservative/independent in this country. The wing nuts have to chill and stop this crap!! Liberal hate is killing some of you!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 27, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #234560

At Columbia, about fifty percent of class time was taken up bashing Bush - regardless of the subject being taught. You could be in math class, and half of that class would be the professor talking about how stupid Bush is. It was wrong, dumb, and enraged me.

Here’s the kicker - I’m a liberal. I agreed with everything that was said. I just didn’t want to have to listen to it in a classroom while I was suppossed to be learning about something else. There was a lot of talk about seperation of church and state, but these professors had no problem with subjecting students to their politics.

For the most part, no one cared. But there was always a student or two who had to sit there and take it. They never forgot it. Those classes radicalized these students, hardened them into hard core conservatives, in the same way anyone gets radicalized against an issue when it is shoved down their throats.

Recently, there was an article in the New York Times about when conservatives become conservative. Amazingly, many of them cited their college experiences, and their counter reaction to the liberal hegemony they experienced in academics.

So - I’m in total agreement with you. The circumstances in most schools, in my opinion, are engineered to shove liberal philosophy down people’s throats, but please try and make up your own mind about these issues. Don’t become a knee-jerk conservative.

Also, consider the whole picture. From my perspective, the conservative philosophy is shoved down my throat in almost every other sphere of life, and I resent it - big time. Newspapers are conservative, radio is mostly conservative. This country is incredibly conservative, much more so than any European country. Our left is far further right than England’s right.

The left here is, unfortunately, just a lot of windbag talk in schools. So, sure in school there is a left-wing bias, but in every day life the opposite’s true, at least for me.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #234564

Max, I live in a heavily Republican dominated community. My neighbors and friends are nearly all died in the wool Republicans. News flash, most of them are bashing Bush too! Worst thing to happen to the Republican Party one of them says.

I smile like a good neighbor, and wonder silently why my neighbors voted to reelect him in 2004? Party loyalty is the answer, of course. My smile comes recognizing their failure to realize Bush was their own doing. Bush is Bush. He was the same kind of governor as he is now President. My Republican Texan neighbors have only themselves, not Bush, to blame for what happened to their party. They put party first, and candidate qualification last. They got what they voted for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #234576

Max:

At Columbia, about fifty percent of class time was taken up bashing Bush - regardless of the subject being taught. You could be in math class, and half of that class would be the professor talking about how stupid Bush is. It was wrong, dumb, and enraged me.
Here’s the kicker - I’m a liberal. I agreed with everything that was said. I just didn’t want to have to listen to it in a classroom while I was suppossed to be learning about something else.

I have no sympathy for this, because clearly you could have spoken up and said that very thing. Either to the whole classroom, or privately to the professor. During my years in college, I never kept silent when I felt I wasn’t getting my time or money’s worth out of a class. Sometimes all it takes is one person making a comment, or having a private conversation, to get things right back on track.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #234580
It speaks volumes when an Iranian President (tyrannt, thug, terrorist supporter, anti-gay/women, human rights abuser, etc.) gets more respect to voice his opinion than a conservative/independent in this country. The libs have to chill and stop this crap!! BDS is killing some of you!!! Posted by rahdigly at September 27, 2007 10:06 AM
It speaks volumes when a smirking chimp President (tyrant, thug, terrorist supporter, anti-gay/women, human rights abuser, etc.) gets more respect to voice his opinion than a conservative/independent in this country. Posted by Outraged at September 27, 2007 10:35 AM


Now, why do I get the feeling that the “Chimp President” you are referring to is not the Iranian President like I referred to?! Hmmm!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #234585

Rahdigly,

I think you and I must have come from the same small town in the Midwest!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 27, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #234587
I think you and I must have come from the same small town in the Midwest!!!!!!!!


Nope! “Not even close, bud”…

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #234588

Gods, more stereotypical thinking. My many years of university experience resemble little the oft-repeated cliches. But keep on regurgitating the cliches; it’ll confirm some stereotypes and earn some thoughtless applause.

Posted by: Gerrold at September 27, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #234599

Other governments where major portions of the population despise Bush like Great Britain, Germany, France, and others, still allow Bush to speak in their countries. Guess their people are more tolerant than some Americans are of other nation’s leaders when it comes to public speaking. And I thought we were supposed to be the world leader in free and tolerant political speech. Thanks rahdigly, for showing me the error of my ways.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #234608

David,

I voted to reelect Bush because the alternative, John Kerry, was much worse. If the alternative had been Bill Richardson I might have had to think about it.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 27, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #234617

David,

What gets me was choosing Bush over Gore. Somehow, many people got the impression that there was no difference between these two, and that it basically didn’t matter who was elected. You’ve got to wonder how that impression was created and maintained. The choice was Albert Einstein or Alfred E. Neuman, and they chose Neuman.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #234619

I go to a 4-year New England private school, and I have to say that I’ve experienced very little of this. In the past year and some odd months (the sum of my time here) I cannot recall any discussions, either in lecture or in our smaller, problem-working class sessions, that have concerned recent day politics.

Even my humanities classes have never spent much time on questions of politics or morality (except in literature classes, when discussing what the author might be saying about them, or in history classes, in which current day politics are still rarely discussed, except as consequences of events we are studying).

In freshmen orientation we watched one short video on tolerance and respect, and had a short discussion about it. I’m not entirely sure, but I don’t think it was required. Similarly, there was one on-stage event, a collection of skits about college life about things like where to find counseling services, how to get in contact with the police/our school hospital, and how to get along well with your roommates. It included a sexual assault awareness lesson, and one skit about roommates of very different backgrounds.

At no point thus far in my admittedly limited college career have I ever been inundated by highly partisan information, or experienced any class being derailed by a discussion of politics. I’ve discussed this with many of my friends at other schools, and they have not (with the exception of one) experienced it either. Considering the comments already present, it obviously does happen, but it is disingenuous to claim that this is the norm throughout all of higher education.

Posted by: Webby at September 27, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #234622
You’ve got to wonder how that impression was created and maintained.

8 years of watching Gore and not wanting him anywhere near a leadership type of role?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #234626

Lee said: “I voted to reelect Bush because the alternative, John Kerry, was much worse.”

I find this a very illogical construction. Bush had a record of 4 years to assess, and a gubernatorial and private business ownership record, and the already highly contentious Iraq war with ever growing critics on the one hand, then there was Kerry whose record as a Senator but an unknown potential as president on the other hand.

I would have chosen a relatively unknown quantity like Kerry over Bush’s known record, if it hadn’t been for Ralph Nader needing my vote.

I see this as the American political melodrama, wherein voters prefer to keep bad performance in office than risk an untried challenger. A melodrama which is having dramatically ill effects on the future of our nation, and which Vote Out Incumbents Democracy and other political action groups are working to correct.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #234632

David Huntwork-
I would like to thank you. After years of hearing words just like yours, you’ve left many Americans unprepared for what Democrats and Liberals actually had to say, when we got angry enough to start saying it.

As a result, what we had to say came as a general surprise. That and the fact that people found out that rather than disagree on those subjects, they agreed with us.

So keep on pretending that we’re all marxist student radicals. Keep on asserting that we hate the soldiers, that we hate America, and so on and so forth. When we actually express our views, then, people will breath a sigh of relief and begin to wonder: how well do these people actually know their opponents?

Oh, and keep on being such radicals yourself. You had to scare generations of Americans into joining with you. We have mostly just had to tell people what you’ve been doing, and your party’s actions and hypocrisies have driven them to us. Now if we could only convince the Democrats in Washington that the Republicans are no longer in charge.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2007 5:15 PM
Comment #234651


My philosophy teacher was an evangelical preacher who on the first day in class pronounced that any student who believed in a womans right to choose was not a Christian. My cell biology professor was a Christian who taught intellegent design. I had liberal professors, Libertarians and even an Odinist history professor who was loonytoons and a lot of fun. But buy and large most of my professors left their politics at home.

By the way, in case you fellas on the right have’nt heard, Your chief chicken-hawk mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh just call all the soldiers who disagree with Bush phoney soldiers, even the ones who have died for their country. How’s that for supporting the troops. Are you going to demand that Congress condemn Rush or call on Fox to kick him off the air?

Posted by: jlw at September 27, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #234662

Erm, jlw, you know that Rush doesn’t work for Fox, right…?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #234663

LoL, It’s fun to be steretyped as old, I hope mid-thirties doesn’t count as that yet. If forty is the new twenty, I’m still a teenager.

College of ‘choice’(actually proximity):
Colorado State University.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 27, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #234669

Rhinehold-
But would you condemn him for what he’s said?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #234670

Me? Oh yeah, it was a moronic thing to say (not his first or last).

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #234671

It was the opposite, by the way, in my highschool. My sex education class started with teaching that homosexuality was wrong. This was a public school!

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2007 11:53 PM
Comment #234672

In my 5th grade class, once a week we walked out of the school, over to the local church, and had a ‘christian studies’ class.

If we didn’t want to attend the class, in a very small (42 in my class) mostly christian location, we could get our parents to sign a note. And then sit alone in a ‘study hall’ and get ridiculed mercilessly afterwards.

Now my state just transfers that ability to our license places (in god we trust my ass).

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #234685

I didn’t get the connection between a youth who intelligently writes opinions and a not so bright 22 year old who spews out liberal rhetoric.
Don’t waste time trying to qualify yourself Richard. Your postings will speak for themselves reguardless.
I recently had a person bash my belief in “floating men” and such. He claimed to be anti religion. Most of his postings he recommended that the world would be better if we just sat down and had a couple beers. Eventually his religion became evident. I call them “Bud’ists”
Those who think having a beer is the simple answer to life’s complex problems.

Posted by: Kruser at September 28, 2007 2:50 AM
Comment #234686


Rhinehold: I guess I may be wrong but I thought sure that I heard Rush on the Fox Radio Network the other night.

Posted by: jlw at September 28, 2007 3:12 AM
Comment #234693

Rhinehold-
Thank you. Also, your experience is what I’d call the best reason in the world to keep state and church separate in our schools.

Everyone-
Okay, folks, who else is going to join Rhinehold in condemning this?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2007 8:11 AM
Comment #234696

“Are you going to demand that Congress condemn Rush or call on Fox to kick him off the air?”

I think it was a stupid and incredibly disrespectful thing to say, but I don’t think we should be calling for people, especially congress, to condemn it. It’s not congress’ job to repudiate people for using their freedom of expression. (Yes, I disagreed with the MoveOn vote). Call it idiotic, call it callous, call it whatever you will, but calling for congress to condemn it, while fair in light of the circumstances, just exacerbates the problem.

Posted by: Webby at September 28, 2007 8:49 AM
Comment #234698

jlw,

He may have been on a Fox Radio Netowrk station, but the individual stations in such a network are able to go out of network to get independant and other network shows if they think it will help their ratings. So apparently the station you were listening to had made the decision to put Rush in their line-up because of his high ratings.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2007 8:58 AM
Comment #234703

I would like to see the actual Rush quote and the context.

Posted by: Kruser at September 28, 2007 9:13 AM
Comment #234709

“I call them “Bud’ists”
- Those who think having a beer is the simple answer to life’s complex problems”

I think I’ve finally found a religion I could believe in and follow.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #234710

Richard Rhodes:

Whoa, buddy,,,,,slow down. I may be wrong but I did not think DMH was saying that all 20 somethings are none to bright but just that the liberal activist on campus is usually the none to bright 20 something. I for one have never classified all 20 somethings as obtuse. To the contrary I know most of them are inteligent, thinking people, far more adept at making a synaptic connection than some my age. I see this in your postings and others on this blog and am heartened and encouraged that we will be eventually cede this great nation over to many brave young men and women who are smart, savy folks.

I know that there are too many places like Columbia that believe in free speech as long as you agree with them. It makes me angry and sad to hear of such places like we just heard from Max. But I am also glad that there are so many places where this is not the case as cited by Woody Mena and Webby. I am happy that there are people like Mhoehne who understand and see through the lefts intended indoctrination of our youth. He understands that because he “creates no sensation” that his point of view does not get the publicity.

Richard, take a deep breath, my friend. There is not a move going on to classify all young as blinded by leftist idology. If there is, I will be joining your fight to prove otherwise. It may be helpful to go back and re-read Rocky’s post #234527, it is right on the money. Trust me, at this computer you will be challenged on what you say, not how old you are. Put it behind you and keep blogging. Silencing yourself would be a greater wrong than being falsely grouped where you do not belong.

Kruser:

I too would like to see and hear the context of this alledged quote from Rush. I listen to him all the time and have not heard this. Many times he says things tongue in cheek and is taken out of context. This is quite common tactic of his detractors. They never listen to his show but take as gospel what other people say he said. Just because JLW says he said it does not make it true. I could say anything I want and attribute it to someone, but does that mean I am right?

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 28, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #234711

Max,

Al Gore, the guy who flunked out of divinity school, as Albert Einstein? Read this “Fundamental Ideas…in the Theory of Relativity”. Look at its philosophical clarity and depth and its resort to the analytical tools of rational thought. Now find anything, ANYTHING Al Gore has ever said that came even close! Whatever you think of George Bush Al Gore is a cigar store Indian compared to Albert Einstein.

David,
John Kerry had been a carbuncle on America’s political backside for twenty years before George Bush ever tripped out of his father’s shadow. He was as politically untried as prevarication.

JLW,
If Rush said the “phony soldiers” statement he has not repeated it in my hearing. He’s usually pretty good about letting callers call him down on his most controversial (and sometimes stupid) statements.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 28, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #234712

Lee:

“John Kerry had been a carbuncle on America’s political backside for twenty years”

That was pretty good. But I admit I had to look that one up….and the rest of the post was right on the mark

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 28, 2007 10:56 AM
Comment #234713

Kruser and Beirut Vet,

Media Matters has the transcript. I know Media Matters is liberal enough that some might want to follow the link, but it provides the entire segment, in context, at the bottom of the page.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #234714

I meant “might not want”

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #234716

Thanks for the link LB.

CALLER 1: See, I — I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but —

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: — you know, really — I want you to be saying how long it’s gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

In context, Limbaugh and Caller 2 did not believe Caller 1 was a Republican or a soldier. Seems they both thought he was a Dem acting as those.

They both believed this simply because Caller 1 wants us out of Iraq and coming to that assumption is nothing but narrowminded partisan BS.

If Caller 1 is a real soldier and was not playing games, then Limbaugh owes him a HUGE apology and every Republican should come out and let the troops know they do not agree with him.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #234725

JLW:
Stephen D:
Rhinehold:
Kctim:
Lawnboy:
et al:

Once again, leave it to a hit organization like Media Matters to get the context wrong, INTENTIONALLY! Isn’t it strange that the audio and transcript stop when they do?

Here is a continuation of the transcript that explain EXACTLY what Rush was talking about. He did NOT call every soldier who disagrees with him a phony soldier, even those who died, as JLW would have us believe.

If this pathetic attempt at a smear is what passes for intelligent political discourse in this country, you should all be ashamed of yourself. Although, one of the advantages of being a liberal is that you have no shame. Now who among you has the balls to call for the denunciation of Media Matters just like you called for it for Rush? I suspect none, you will ignore the fact that you were proven wrong and just try and divert attention to something else.

Here is the context you lack: ENJOY!

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that’s moot. What’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don’t look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material…
HotAir: Jesse Macbeth: I Admit It, I’m a Filthy Liar
Seattle Times: Man Who Posed as Military Hero Sentenced to 5 Months in Prison

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 28, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #234734

“JLW: Stephen D: Rhinehold: Kctim: Lawnboy:”
“you should all be ashamed of yourself. Although, one of the advantages of being a liberal is that you have no shame”

What do you know, I’m a liberal now Stephen. And to think I was just starting to get used to being the closeted Republican I’m said to be.

Would the Libertarian party allow me to have my own thoughts and beliefs Rhinehold? Or do they consider all who do not think and belief as they, to be the enemy too?

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #234741
you should all be ashamed of yourself. Although, one of the advantages of being a liberal is that you have no shame.

Hello, Mr. Pot? We have a Mr. Kettle on hold for you…

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #234780

As I predicted, here we are, over 8 hours later and nothing but a sophomoric reference to pots and pans. IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? What a joke.

Since you have been proven wrong, the only thing you have left are personal attacks, you can’t stand on an argument with no legs. I am so happy you have made my point for me.

Hey pot scrubber, I am not the hypocrite who smeared someone unjustifiably and then just walked away. Who is the hypocrite now, Lawn boy?

OK boys, you’ve taken enough hits to the head. You can move on to the next topic now and have your ass handed to you there, too

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 28, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #234783
As I predicted, here we are, over 8 hours later and nothing but a sophomoric reference to pots and pans. IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? What a joke.

I guess the problem is that your comment didn’t really disprove anything we were saying. He still called a previous caller a phony soldier because the caller had the temerity to disagree with him. That he later brought up a different story does not erase that he accused the first Mike of being a phony with no evidence other than disagreement on a political issue.

Are you really surprised that your abusive, irrelevant comment didn’t get much of a response?

Hey pot scrubber, I am not the hypocrite who smeared someone unjustifiably and then just walked away.

No. You’re the person who told me that you know my life history better than I do and dismissed me based on your incorrect assumptions about my life.

But I guess I’ll have to take your word that you have some shame on some level.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #234836

Lawn Boy,

You wrote-

He still called a previous caller a phony soldier because the caller had the temerity to disagree with him. That he later brought up a different story does not erase that he accused the first Mike of being a phony with no evidence other than disagreement on a political issue.
This is a complete misstatement of the facts of this story. The story on “corporal” Macbeth was NOT a later reference! Rush had used that story in his Morning Update segment, a 90 second blurb that is broadcast in drivetime on all the stations that carry his show.

In fact the caller Rush was talking to was referencing the subject of his update. Rush was not covering his tail. That you continue to get the simple facts wrong in your assessment of the situation merely proves you are not seeking the facts.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 29, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #234838

Lawn Boy,

Referencing the issue above seetheYouTube video Rush posted from his show yesterday. It’s about 8 minutes.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 29, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #234845

Lee,

The story on “corporal” Macbeth was NOT a later reference!

He brought up Jesse Macbeth a couple minutes after he first referred to “phony soldier” while the new caller was explicitly giving a “retort” to the first caller.

Theoretically, I’m reading the same transcript you are, but I’m using the context that existed at the time, not the content that Rush created later. I don’t know how on earth this “proves” that I am not seeking the facts.

In fact the caller Rush was talking to was referencing the subject of his update.

Really? This is what the caller said:

I have a retort to Mike in Chicago.

I’m not sure how you twist this direct quote into talking about something else. Maybe someone’s more into Rush’s spin than the facts.

Let’s look at the facts again.

Mike #1 called as a Republican and veteran who disagrees with Rush about the war. Rush tells him that he can’t be a Republican, basically calling him a phony to his face.

Mike #2 called in immediately afterwards and said “I have a retort to Mike in Chicago” and talked about how, as a member of the military, he is proud of the mission. Then Rush contrasted him with the “phony soldiers”. Since he already called Mike #1 a phony Republican and Mike #2 is explicitly retorting Mike #1, it seems pretty apparent to me that Rush was referring to Mike #1.

Almost two minutes later, Rush brought up a reference to an actual phony soldier that he had discussed previously.

Now, after the fact, Rush is defending himself with a replay of the conversation that actually edits out the part of the conversation between the words “phony soldiers” and his reference to Jesse Macbeth to make it seem as though they were directly connected. You, of course, accept this edited version that cuts out inconvenient facts and doesn’t provide the preceding conversation as the “entire transcript, in context” as Rush would have you believe. You instead decry those that look at the conversation in its actual context as not seeking the facts.

How sad.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 29, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #234846

Lawn boy:

It is very clear that you are still wrong and hopelessly ideologically blocked to admit you are wrong. But do not worry, I do not expect to get any kind of a retraction from you even in the face of overwhelming evidence of your mistakes. After all you are a liberal and that means never having to say you are sorry. You are right, though, my comments didn’t prove anything. Rush’s own comments proved you wrong.

No, I am not surprised that my comment did not get much of a response because I knew you would be unable to deal with the truth staring you in the face. What else could you possibly say besides your continued warping of known facts. I knew there was nothing else to be said, especially by you, after the truth is there for everyone to see.

Now it is time for you to go to the first post on this topic, THE INSTITUTIONALISM OF LIBERALISM, and see if you can figure out how for the last 5 or 6 of your own posts, you have been proving the point of the original author. Though I doubt you will be able to figure it out or will just deny it altogether. It does not matter. I just can’t figure out if you are on of the 20 somethings referred to or the aging hippie type you so deftly represent.

Lee Jamison:

You are right, these people are not seeking the facts, and they know it. They are seeking to uphold and defend a political ideology that must rely more on fiction than facts.

At this point in a conversation I would concede that no matter how much truth is clubbing them over the head, these people will never abandon the lunatic ravings of their beliefs. I would now suggest you and I go have a beer and discuss politics rationally, if it were not so dangerous that these people are going to get people killed. These people are a danger to our culture, economy and society……but lets go have the beer anyway.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 29, 2007 4:44 PM
Comment #234848
It is very clear that you are still wrong and hopelessly ideologically blocked to admit you are wrong. But do not worry, I do not expect to get any kind of a retraction from you even in the face of overwhelming evidence of your mistakes. After all you are a liberal and that means never having to say you are sorry. You are right, though, my comments didn’t prove anything. Rush’s own comments proved you wrong.

The arrogance and the irony.

Living in perfect harmony.

You are right, these people are not seeking the facts, and they know it. They are seeking to uphold and defend a political ideology that must rely more on fiction than facts.

You’re talking about Rush and his defenders here, right?

At this point in a conversation I would concede that no matter how much truth is clubbing them over the head, these people will never abandon the lunatic ravings of their beliefs.

Yep, I’m sure of it now.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 29, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #234865

Beirut Vet, your last comment CLEARLY violates our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger rule. Comply or lose your privilege to comment here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 29, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #234924

Beirut Vet: A simple question for you. If Rush was not implying that Caller 1 was not really in the military, and not really a republican, then to what was “And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!” a comment in response to?

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 30, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #234954


“These people are not seeking the facts, and they know it. They are seeking to uphold and defend a political ideology that must rely more of fiction than fact.”

Neocons: People who seek to uphold and defend a corporate political ideology by misrepresenting fiction as fact.

The definition of a phoney soldier is any soldier or veteran who challenges the neocons phoney facts.

Posted by: jlw at October 1, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #234962

“At no point thus far in my admittedly limited college career have I ever been inundated by highly partisan information, or experienced any class being derailed by a discussion of politics. I’ve discussed this with many of my friends at other schools, and they have not (with the exception of one) experienced it either. Considering the comments already present, it obviously does happen, but it is disingenuous to claim that this is the norm throughout all of higher education.”

\This is just a pattern I notice. A Republican pundit will assert how awful it is that colleges today have become hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, where being a Republican is seemingly outlawed, students must swear allegiance to the “gay agenda,” un-authorized viewpoints are censored, and in all classes the only thing taught is that white males are the source of everything bad in the world. Then actual students currently going to college point out that even if professors tend to be liberal and oppose Bush’s policies (like most of America), the actual college environment was nothing of the sort. Furthermore there are in fact conservative youth and Republican student organizations at universities; I guess the campus police are either pretty ineffective at rooting out conservatives or maybe conservatives aren’t that suppressed after all. Just like the rabid “liberal media,” liberal indoctrination at universities seems to be more present in the minds of conservatives than in actual universities.

Also, if Columbia university was overly-friendly to the Iranian president, I’d hate to see how they treat their enemies. The dean introducing him basically started the event by publicly insulting him and it looked to me like he was jeered and mocked quite a bit by the audience. There were more than a few protesters with angry signs against him as well.

Posted by: josh at October 1, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #234977

Josh, on the matter of Columbia and Bollinger. I would find it hard not to say that I was surprised at how he interacted with Akmdimijad. It is not how my mind played out Columbia and this event. In other words I was wrong in what I was thinking.

He asked hard questions, made accurate statements, and put an appropriate amount of pressure on Akmidimijad to answer … which he did not entirely.

I am proud that one of our universities hammered this nut case. Even if I disagree that he was invited in the first place.

Posted by: Edge at October 1, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #234987

Lee Jamison and Beirut Vet:

Where did you find the second part of the Limbaugh “transcript?”? I would like to see the more ‘conservative slanted’ article on it.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 2, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #234989

Linda H.

Just boldly go where no liberal dares to go.

www.rushlimbaugh.com

Do not trust what other people (with an agenda) say he said, go to the source and hear for yourself what he said.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at October 2, 2007 8:04 AM
Comment #234992
Do not trust what other people (with an agenda) say he said, go to the source and hear for yourself what he said.

Sadly, you can’t really trust that, either. While Rush publishes a full transcript in one part of his site, he’s also quite happy to lie to you by replaying what he calls the “entire transcript, in context” that actually has over a minute and a half cut out of the middle of it to change the meaning of the words. And Vet would have you believe both that Rush does not himself have an agenda (!?!?!?) and that the important context of a statement is not what is said directly around and directly before the statement, but what is said two minutes later.

So remember, you can either look at the transcript that Media Matters provides (that has all surrounding and previous context) and make up your own mind, or you can be like Beirut Vet and take the word of someone whose explanation of the situation includes lies (that the transcript is complete), hypocrisy (he lambastes Media Matters for allegedly doing exactly what he did), and insults.

Maybe Rush is right - it’s not possible to prove otherwise, but I personally prefer looking at the context of him talking about a previous caller who he already called a phony over giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who is, in this discussion, already a hypocritical liar.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 2, 2007 8:21 AM
Comment #235004

…because education opens minds.

That is why colleges and universities appear to be so liberal to some.

But, perahps one’s point off view when seeing these things is as note worthy as the colleges and universities themselves.

God Bless higher education!

Posted by: RGF at October 2, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #235012

Beirut Vet,

Thanks for the link.

I read it - and made an honest effort to read it and make sense of it. Frankly his version doesn’t make much sense. In fact it almost appears that there are two slightly different and disjointed transcripts. One near the top, and another toward the middle. Why would he need two transcripts for the same conversation?

Where in the transcripts did he actually mention - ah- Jesse whatever his name is? This young man’s name doesn’t seem to appear until the end of the conversation, and then I’m not really sure Rush actually commented on him during the time he was on the air. Was he just assuming the listeners would know he was referring to Jesse who ever? Assumption is one of Rush’s great talents.

As for hearing his comments for myself, well, sorry, I refuse to pay to hear his or anyone else’s opinions. They don’t pay to hear mine.
If he were really open and honest about what happened, wouldn’t he want everyone to be able to hear what he really said instead of seeking payment?

I know I would confront such an issue head-on and in public if someone mis-quoted me and I could prove it. Of course that’s just me.

Just wondering,who decided he was should a great opinionater (my word) anyway?

BTW- I love to listen to Rush when I’m driving. He keeps me awake with furry.

RGF,
My favorite and only bumper sticker reads ” Minds are like parachutes, both work only when opened.

I know who Senator John Kerry and Senator Durbin are, but who are the rest of these people?
And why should I care?

BREWER:

WEBB:

SCHAKOWSKY:

LANTOS:

CNN REPORTERETTE:

PERINO:

PALLONE:

Posted by: Linda H. at October 2, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #235058

linda H.:

I do not know what you mean by paying to hear it. I am not a subscriber and the audio and written transcript was right there for me to listen to and hear it for myself. just use the search box for phony soldier and it will come right up.

I think you just do not want to have that parachute of yours to be truly open. Typical

That you do not know who those people are is forgivable, but that you do not care is even more typical.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at October 2, 2007 10:55 PM
Comment #235100

BV,

First of all, thanks for the compliment above, I just try to call them as I see them.

That said, I have been listening to Rush since Bush Sr. was in office, and his shtick hasn’t changed a bit. What has changed is he now seems to believe the drivel he spews, and he now seems to think his opinion is fact.
I didn’t hear his latest gaff, yet it doesn’t seem out of character for him to be throwing yet another stink bomb into the mix, and it doesn’t seem out of character for those that oppose him to get their collective panties in a bunch.
I have listened to his “show” on stations all over the country, and there are two “truths” that are constant.

1) the stations that carry his show sell all manner of snake oil in the guise of supplements promising to cure everything from acne to male pattern baldness and impotency,
and,
2) Rush says or does nothing that hasn’t been calculated to the penny as to how much money it will make him.

The truly sad thing is there are far too many of his listeners that hang on his every word as if it were gospel, and when he goes into one of his tirades you can actually hear all of those empty heads nodding in agreement.

Rush Limbaugh is a salesman, and his only real product is Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Rocky at October 3, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #235121

Beirut Vet,
First of all, I DID NOT say I didn’t care, only who are they and why should I care. Are they important people, or simpletons? Also what do they have to do with the controversy at hand?

I went to the website you gave me, and it plainly stated ‘for subscribers only - and in order to subscribe I had to join at so and so cost. Actually this is exactly what I read:

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only — Join Now!

If you have another site I can listen to that is actually free with no hidden costs, or membership fees, I will gladly listen.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 3, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #235153

Linda H.:
Sorry, it was late. Maybe I was a little hasty. I went back and re-read your post and “upon further review” perhaps you should be commended for wanting to know more about things and people you do not recognize. You go girl and keep that parachute open!

Go to his web site.
Just under his photo in the upper left corner is the search box.
Type in phony soldiers.
Select; #8 “Rush Limbaugh.com home Friday September 28.”
Select; You Tube: opening monologue on phony “phony soldiers” story.

This will play for you the segment that you will be interested in without having to subscribe.

The previous posters complaints that this leaves out a minute or so that proves their point is disingenuois. The segment that was edited out is the caller still talking about WMD and does not relate to the controversy at hand. There are many transcripts afloat that support this. Anything else is distortion. He ends the call thanking Mike and then goes directly to defining what he meant by “phony soldiers”. To say he calls all who disagree with him phony soldiers is in itself phony. It is clearly a manufactured story.

You will not find a more strident supporter of the military on the radio than RL. He has been to Afghanistan. By and large the military love and adore him because he defends their ideals and he defends THEM. I have heard soldiers call in before who disagree with him and he still, always, and I think humbly (rare indeed for him) thanks them for their service.

Tell me what you think

Posted by: Beirut Vet at October 3, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #235156

Linda H.:

PS.

Webb: Senator (d) Va.
Schakowski: Congresswoman (d) IL.
Lantos: Congressman (d) Ca.
CNN reporterette: Female talking head on CNN.
Perino: new White house Press Secretary ( replaces Tony Snow).
Palonne: Congressman (d) N.J.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at October 3, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #235161

Linda H.

The video you get to by following the directions Beirut Vet is the one that Lee posted earlier. It’s also the exact clip in which Rush claims to be presenting the “entire transcript, in context”, even though he cuts out over a minute and a half of the previous show in order to make it appear that he directly referred to Jesse Macbeth while talking about “phony soldiers” instead of the reality, that it was about two minutes later.

So, Beirut Vet doesn’t lead you to anything new here but what we’ve already seen - the proof that Rush lies (claims it’s complete when a big part is cut out) and is a hypocrite (lambastes Media Matters for presenting only a portion of the show when he does the exact same thing).

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 3, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #235194

Lawn boy:

Once again, you just can’t listen, or don’t want to because reality does not conform to your distortions. Your argument does not stand up to the light of day.

Move on.org, a front group for hillary, stopped short of giving you the context. that has already been proven. READ my previous post. The edited portion of Rush’s show, still available I may add, was Mike continuing to talk about WMD’s which was the reason for his call in the first place. It was not pertaining to the discussion at hand and not critical. While Mike was talking about WMD’s Rush was telling his crew to print off the transcript from his morning update that he read immediately after he was finished with Mike. Did you think he had that update right there in front of him just waiting for the phony soldier opening so he could alienate his most loyal supporters, the Military? Read Rocky’s last post. If he does everything calculated on how much money he makes, would he jeapordize that magnificent income just to call a few soldiers phony?

You boys can’t have your cake and eat it, too. He is either the cold, calculating salesman as Rocky portrays or he is a man who will throw it all away to call someone phony. You can’t have it both ways.
Or perhaps you would care to once again have your WMD argument torn apart, just like in previous posts?

To suggest that Rush was calling all soldiers who disagreed with him phony, is a large stretch, even for you. I am disappointed that this is the best you can do.

Not even all democrats in the Senate feel as you do. I believe that there are 51 dems in the Senate, though only 41 of them would sign on to Reid’s condemnation travesty. And God knows there are enough liberal republicans and media hounds in the Senate that have no problem throwing one of there own under the bus for a little publicity. Where are they? Where are the other Senators on this? They are the smart ones running for cover from this sham.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at October 3, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #235226
Once again, you just can’t listen, or don’t want to because reality does not conform to your distortions.

Please let me know how Rush was not lying when he said that his edited part of the tape was the “entire transcript, in context”, and please let me know how he (and actually, you, by extension) is not being a hypocrite for decrying others presenting a subset of the segment when he does the exact same thing.

Or perhaps you would care to once again have your WMD argument torn apart, just like in previous posts?

??? Who are you talking to? I don’t think I’ve argued about WMD in years.

I am disappointed that this is the best you can do.

And I’m disappointed that you defend him despite his blatant and obvious lies and hypocrisy on the issue.

I know how you’ve parsed his words to support what he claims he said - that parse to me does not seem convincing. I know that to parse it as you do requires you to ignore that he and the caller were explicitly talking about the previous caller, who Rush had already called a phony. That’s the relevant context in my opinion, but I guess you just want to look at that. I’ll survive.

I’m content to leave it at that. It would be nice if you didn’t pretend that Rush reiterating his spin is proof of anything.

You’re willing to give the lying hypocrite the benefit of the doubt. I’m not. Can you live with that without insulting me once again?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 4, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #235227

BV,

“To suggest that Rush was calling all soldiers who disagreed with him phony, is a large stretch, even for you.”

Rush had no such problem using the “T” words to describe those that have dissented against the Bush policies in the war in Iraq.

Rush has reached the apex in the gendre of “confrontational” talk radio. A gendre pioneered by Joe Pyne in the ’60s.

Controversy and confrontation sells. Rush, and those like him in talk radio are mining a deep vein of polorization in this country that they themselves helped create.
Rush, and those like him, wrap themselves in the flag because they make vast sums of money doing so.

Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #235268

David,

“Why is it that college campuses are such a hot bed for liberal activism and causes?”

Unfortunately those same campuses have things called books. They have debates. Those hotbeds of Communism also encourage the sharing of ideas and open forums for discussion. Marxist bastards.

They should all be burned to the ground, except for the Bible colleges, they rely on one book and one idea.

Let us join together and march lockstep into greatness. Who needs all that thinking anyway?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 4, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #235289

Andre, would you agree that the college experience and educatio is majority (not all) liberal in nature?

Those books and debates are very important to education. I agree.

Would you agree then that colleges could do better and having representative debates and books?

I have to agree with David here, the evidence points towards many colleges pushing a liberal agenda. I never see facts disputing David’s point, I namely read posts that change the topic.

Posted by: Edge at October 4, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #235357


The criticism about the liberal bias on college campuses and in the MSM is coming from people who are conservatively biased.

If the criticism is true, what the hell happened? Have conservatives been asleep or are they just powerless?

Are liberal administrators and professors so powerful that they can control the hiring and the curriculum? Have they been discriminating against conservative professors or administrators by refusing to hire them? If so, why aren’t conservative professors and administrators suing in the tens, hundreds, or thousands?

Why do conservatives subject their childern to the liberal indoctrination at these universities? Why aren’t all conservatives sending their children to Liberty College, Bob Jones University or some other conservative institute instead of sending them to liberal dens of iniquity like Columbia or Harvard?

Posted by: jlw at October 5, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #235618

I call BS. The University of Saint Thomas in “liberal” Saint Paul, Minnesota recently cancelled Desmond Tutu’s speech because it might offend, but was happy to have Ann Coulter come and talk regardless of how many it offended. This is pretty much the norm these days, as the right wing echo chamber is highly organized and able to shout down any liberal expression, while touting their own brand of bolshevism.

Posted by: mental wimp at October 8, 2007 6:18 PM
Comment #264237

Age makes most people forget about what the world needs and care more about the smaller and smaller world they accustom themselves to. They find their most comfortable niche and work more and more toward ensuring that nothing disrupt “the way things are”… which is the definition of conservativism. “Mine is the only way”, they say, and hate of change and diversity often becomes a desirable state of mind that’s the most self-comforting. They wave their flags proudly, stick in the ground, and say “This is mine… stay away.”

Anyone can wave a flag and chant nationalism and “God Bless Us” and “Who cares about the rest of the world?” Look at Nazi Germany. North Korea. Those are great examples of that kind of pride and arrogance, by the way… aren’t they?

Liberals keep hoping for change, and seem to resort to the most bumper stickers on their old, beat up, humble cars. In these recent Bush administrations, about all a Liberal could do is hope that the Institution of Conservatism doesn’t destroy the whole fricken world for the sake of their self-satisfaction.

What powerful Institutions, indeed. Look at how screwed up we are now. All the flag-waving in the world won’t fix ourselves and the world, no matter how good and proud it makes the flag-waver feel.

It’s time for the “institutional backlash” to reverse course, before too many more of us fall off of the same cliff.


Posted by: acme name at September 24, 2008 9:44 PM
Comment #358751

My wife recently bought a pair of which she seems intent on wearing until they self destruct.coach outlet online She wanted to know how she could clean then so she set about researching the best ways and also tried a ugg canada of experimentation..this is the article she wrote following the reseach.You’ve now got your first pair of Ugg boots and after wearing them for a while you may find that they have started to lose that new look about them. In this article we are going to provide you with some tips on how to clean your uggs boots so that they stay looking as good as new.Yes these uggs canada are extremely comfortable to wear and because of this you may find yourself wearing them alot. Which is all well and good until they start to get dirty and start to smell. Certainly one way of making sure that your ugg boots canada remaining look good is by using a specialist cleaning coach outlet which has been designed for use on leather and suede items

Posted by: uggs canada at December 13, 2012 10:48 PM
Post a comment