Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 222

• 0%

  BronxBomber11 months ago

  I got them all right, but I was surprised as to who actually said them....scary!

  Reply

  57 Replies

  • 0%

    HannibalBarca11 months ago

    To me there is not enough to go on; who is she talking to or what about, is she going to take away from big business (doubt it but it doesn't say)is she just spouting off about some thing in another country, I don't trust her but these comments are ambiguous.

    Oh and I fluked but was surprised at the author

    Reply

    23 Replies

    • 0%

      jordan1111 months ago

      To me there is not enough to go on; who is she talking to or what about, is she going to take away from big business (doubt it but it doesn't say)is she just spouting off about some thing in another country, I don't trust her but these comments are ambiguous.>>>

      Exactly! I did a quick check on two of the remarks, found their context, and they don't mean at all what this 'list' tries to portray.

      Reply

      21 Replies

      • 0%

        Teagen11 months ago

        She was pandering to one of many lefty groups she speaks to. this doesn't surprise anyone other than the DNC.

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 0%

          jordan1111 months ago

          What are you talking about???

          Reply

          13 Replies

          • 0%

            capecoralM11 months ago

            In their quest to become Presidents Hillary and Bill will say anything. The latest being $5000 for every baby born and $1000 matching funds for your IRA. Now where do think that $1000 or $5000 comes from? It comes from 50% of Americans who pay taxes and is redistributed to 50% who don't pay taxes. It is called wealth redistribution and is a central theme of Marxism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ...or in this case from those that pay income taxes to those that don't for a vote.

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              capecoralM11 months ago

              Ms. Clinton's state of New York makes 46 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. The Federal government makes 18 cents a gallon in gas taxes.But that is just not enouph to fund her Marxist inspired agenda. Hillary has vowed to confiscate the shareholders of oil companies profits in the name of the US Federal Government. There is no out of context words here. She said it

              http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-vows...

              Exactly who is it that is vowing to exploit the "people"?

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                protoham11 months ago

                And this does not just affect the Rich, but most of the pension funds and 401K out there. It is just another trick to take $2000 from you and give you $1000. What a deal!!

                Reply
              • 0%

                ADAGUY11 months ago

                I would rather pay 1000 dollars to the IRA of a working citizen, than pay 1000 to the tax coffers to pay off the bush/reagan debt.

                Reply
            • 0%

              Shankari2511 months ago

              OOO. Giving kids money is evil, but taxing billionaires is good and patriotic. LOOK! That's the same thing Marx said! OOO

              We should all shut up and stop thinking about poor people and let corporations do what they want. Since Reagan they've just screwed the whole country up, that's all.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                capecoralM11 months ago

                Are you saying every baby that is being born, and every person with a Retirement fund is poor? And further more that it is OK for the US Government to take money from one person and give it to another is OK with you? Wealth redistribution is a Marxist theme is it not? Every single thing that Hillary And Bill say to become Presidents seems to involve confiscating through taxation and spending the American PEOPLES money. It is BIG government where the government becomes the Central planners of your life. How much you make, what doctor you can see, what business you can be in, what school the "kids" can go to, and on and on...Government spending on social welfare and pet projects is way out of control. Bill and Hillary just plan on spending even more and exerting even more control on everyday life through the use of the United States Government agencies.

                Reply
            • 0%

              jordan1111 months ago

              I'll tell you what. You vote for a CON. In fact, the whole damn country can vote for a CON. You see how far you get with your roads falling apart, your bridges falling down, your jobs going bye bye, your health failing & no place to go, your drugs so expensive you can't afford to buy them, your air turning brown, your food making you sick, and all those wonderful things that conservatives do for this nation. I've got mine. I think I'll just sit and watch while all you fools cut off your noses to spite your faces so you can 'think' you've got it all figured out. You want a country that doesn't give a f**k about one another, I hope you get it.

              Reply
          • 0%

            Teagen11 months ago

            In the first case, she's in front of a group of liberal doners who paid Boxer's camp. $10K to hear her talk. She's clearly pandering to them. Did you not read the whole speech? It's clear she's promising to level the playing fields by taxing people. Since she's talking to someone paying $ 10K, it's not the normal middle class people. It's the middle class again. The group that does all of the work and pays most of the taxes. That's what I'm talking about.

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              Justice4All11 months ago

              I know what it's like to be middle class and pay lots of taxes. Under Bush my taxes have gone up more than under any other president. And I have fewer freedoms. And taxes will stay high until the dept is paid off.

              How bad can Hilary be?

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                vettenut11 months ago

                Hey, J4A:

                A few comments:

                Under Bush, the tax rates have not increased. Actually, they have actually decreased slightly.

                Therefore, if your taxes have increased, it was because your taxable income increased. Period!

                The Dem's in Congress are said to be against renewing the slight tax decrease that we have enjoyed (?) for the past 5 years.

                The national debt will probably NEVER be paid off, because Congress LOVES to spend money. But take heart, because history shows that there is virtually no relationship between the national debt and tax rates.

                The bottom line for you if paying lower taxes is important to you, then you should NOT vote for Hillary!

                Now one question-- What freedoms have YOU personally lost?

                Or are you just listening too closely to MoveBackward (er, I mean MoveOn) .org????

                And if you want to know how bad Hilary will be, please review the quotes in the article!

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  ADAGUY11 months ago

                  "history shows that there is virtually no relationship between the national debt and tax rates"

                  BULL$HIT!

                  Do you recall Bush#1 saying "Read my lips! No new Taxes!"

                  Then after he got elected, he had to raise taxes? Well why do you think he had to raise them? I'll tell you why, because interest on the Reagan Debt ate up so much of the budget that taxes had to be raised to fund the government! Yet when your taxes are raised to pay interest on the current debt, will you blame Bush#2? Hell no! you will blame the congress and pres. that are in office at the time.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    injest11 months ago

                    "history shows that there is virtually no relationship between the national debt and tax rates"

                    BULL$HIT!

                    Do you recall Bush#1 saying "Read my lips! No new Taxes!"

                    Then after he got elected, he had to raise taxes? Well why do you think he had to raise them?

                    Because congress was spending more than it took in. And that is the fundamental root of debt and deficits always has been always will be. It's not left, right or center. Whatever party controls the house controls the spending.

                    BTW after "Read my lips! No new Taxes!" Bush raised taxes was he able to keep his job?

                    Reply
              • 0%

                pc2511 months ago

                it's debt

                Reply
      • 0%

        quiescence11 months ago

        jordan11 - Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of this whole thing. It's frightening that there are people on this board that actually take this story seriously.

        FYI, the entire story has already been debunked by Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist...

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Teagen11 months ago

          Okay, snopes didn't call her a maxist. I will. She supports the redistribution of wealth. It's clear when you read her whole speech, she's talking to the upper crust, folks who can afford to listen to her talk at $ 10K a plate. I can't afford that. I work for a living. What she clear states is that she wants to take back the tax cuts, but not on those people, other people. Well if she isn't taking money from the wealthy donors and the poor really don't have any money anyway, gee, I wonder who? That would be the middle class. Once again she's going after the folks who do most of the work and pay most of her taxes. Her what mine is mine and what yours is mine to sounds more communist. Strong leader, rarely listening to the common person, rules by using threats.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            quiescence11 months ago

            In an earlier post, you quoted Hillary as saying the following to the "upper crust" whom she was addressing: "We're not coming to you...and say 'we're going to give you more.' We're saying, 'you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you."

            Now you say "What she clear states is that she wants to take back the tax cuts, but not on those people, other people."

            Your analysis does not logically follow from the context. It's pretty obvious that you're not comprehending what Hillary said, or that you haven't thought it all the way through.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              JohnGault11 months ago

              You have to ask, define who is rich (income bracket). Why we accept or allow such vague answers is beyond me.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                quiescence11 months ago

                Why do you think a quantitative definition was needed in this context? Do you think any reasonable person would not define the 10K donors she was speaking to as being rich?

                Reply
        • 0%

          injest11 months ago

          So

          "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

          Was at a $10,000 a plate dinner put on by Norman Hsu.

          Is that the context you want?

          Reply
    • 0%

      StarLord11 months ago

      There is no context to any of these quotes. Given the lack of attributation, the lack of verifiability and the complete lack of context, I am certainly not taking this author's "dad's test" seriously.

      Reply
  • 0%

    jordan1111 months ago

    It really isn't scary, if people will take a few minutes to go hunt down the context in which remarks are made. They have a whole different meaning when not plucked out of context for the purposes of making someone look like who they aren't. Here is some of that on the subject of her 'free market' remark. And as usual, the media doesn't correct the errors.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200710090007?f=h_...

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      Endoscopy11 months ago

      Nice try to cover up. Your story has "Clinton's March 3, 1996" comments. This story has the quote dated "Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007".

      Try again with the correct date.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        jordan1111 months ago

        I was merely trying to show what happens when things get taken out of context. Went over your head, I see.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          mrbs11 months ago

          no context can justify them unless she was quoting someone else and then invalidating the quote.hillery is not bill.bill was a con artist and that was all.he was a nothing that did nothing and whos goal was to have nothing happen.hillery is a communist.she believes in from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

          Reply
  • 0%

    OncejesterwasI11 months ago

    And while we are at it, we should get the media to retract "out of context" acusations on her comments about phony soldiers... oh, wait that was a LEFT wing attack on RUSH. Never mind then. Just clear up the Hillary stuf.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      dunkirk11 months ago

      AHhh you see when the Libs/Dems offer up a whole clip of someone calling the military "phony soldiers", well thats taking things out of context because you have to have listened to EVERY ONE of his broadcasts to understand. BUT if you take a one sentence remark made by a Lib or Dem then context isn't neccessary, in fact most of the Bushbots claim its irrelevant.

      Reply
  • 0%

    GLee11 months ago

    Hillary Clinton is a classic socialist and is not good for the United States of America....... PERIOD!

    Reply

    22 Replies

    • 0%

      jordan1111 months ago

      How so? I heard the entire conversation. It's what he said. HE'S the one who changed it...afterward.

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.7 Replies

        • 0%

          jordan1111 months ago

          Well, you're wrong. Nothing more to say, really.

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.5 Replies

            • 0%

              injest11 months ago

              Rush Limbaugh, Vindicated

              I went over to George Soros lackey, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo love-me page and not a single mention of his "formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh" His latest news section covered time from Sep. 25 through Oct. 10 but no FORMAL congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh

              Humm I wonder why?

              Same thing over at Tom (TopGun, no really)Harkin love-me page. Sep. 21 through Oct. 11 not a peep about his infamous "just high on his drugs again" speech.

              George Soros meatpuppet Nancy Pelosi. Her official Gov. love-me page does not mention her "formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh" words, I wonder why?

              Pelosi: 'Crimes Motivated by Hate Will Not be Tolerated in Our Country' Thursday, September 27 2007. I guess she means unless her master George Soros says it's okay

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                injest11 months ago

                Harry Reid, the spineless gutless surrender monkey (AKA George Soros gift to the GOP) Also failed to mention his attempt to push this "formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh" through the House. Could point out he's got no huevos but that wouldn't be news would it.

                The Guttersnipes got a shot out under the wire, unfortunately they setoff rows of Claymores.

                Ain't that a bitch

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  icono111 months ago

                  A row of Claymores going off 'tis a real bitch.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              quiescence11 months ago

              AG - Your link points to an opinion piece authored by the president of the Conservative Communications Center. Do you really think that's an authoritative source to use to corroborate your opinion?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        mrbs11 months ago

        heard the whole thing too and knew who he was talking about by name before he got to it.he has used the term many times before on his show so those who listen to his show knew what and who he was talking about.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          injest11 months ago

          What uninformed idiot didn't know about phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth? Wasn't congress, they had just passed the "Stolen Valor Act" 6 months after the Jesse Macbeth Story blew up. Couldn't have been the MSM, ABC ran a story on Jesse Macbeth 2 days before Rush. Couldn't have been these groups that were exposed as partners in fraud with Jesse Macbeth ? IVAW, he was there posterboy, Vids and as a speaker. Afterdowningstreet, the daily Koz, VoteVets.org, ..

          So who was so stupid not to know about phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth.

          Check out this pic

          http://dyingwarriors.blogspot.com/2006/03/iraq-...

          Jesse Macbeth on the left holding the IVAW poster. Attention to detail, look at the feet in this pic.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            jumpmaster11 months ago

            injest,

            Thanks for the message. That IS some good marchin'.

            How does that go again? Left-right...

            Oh the heck with it. Bush lied!

            Reply
    • 0%

      RickyDawkins11 months ago

      She has my vote!

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        BronxBomber11 months ago

        (Lucy) Ohhhh RICKY!!!!

        Reply
      • 0%

        tkyrchncs11 months ago

        Mine, too, Ricky. Nobody else of presidential caliber is running.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          RickyDawkins11 months ago

          Obama comes to mind. But I haven't done my homework on either one.

          Reply
      • 0%

        Endoscopy11 months ago

        I submitted one and propeller put up two. ??

        Reply
      • 0%

        Endoscopy11 months ago

        You just confirmed that liberals are socialists. Thank you.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          MajJohn11 months ago

          Somewhat correct, but liberals do come in other stripes also. Only in the USA does the term "socialist" have such negative meaning. Social Democrats do quite well and are well thought of in Europe.

          I glanced at the "quiz" and was immediately able to discern the author. No surprise here. And whether or not in or out of context, we all know that Hillery has strong socialist leanings. So do some of us, so it comes as no surprise that she'll get some votes. She also appeals to other voter blocks and constituencies and will garner votes there also.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            xlegultx11 months ago

            If you say liberals are socialists you might as well say republicans are tyrants.

            Reply
    • 0%

      jordan1111 months ago

      Define 'socialist' by your understanding of it.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        mrbs11 months ago

        Marxist,communist,any one who wants me to pay for your health care.someone who says shes going to take profits from ANY company.

        Reply
  • 0%

    Blackacereturn11 months ago

    This is silly i can make a test like this of anyone in Government. Let's not talk about our friends who thinks it's ok to wiretap our phones without us knowing. I think both you and your dad are asses! This will only work on those who can't see through your silly attempt at calling Ms. Clinton something she isn't. Using all these historic tyrants as a measuring stick to Hill is just sad and childish!

    You and your dad needs to grow up i am voting to sink this!

    Reply
  • 0%

    not2needy11 months ago

    BB, they were statements taken out of context. She would never have said things like that and let them stand as they were quoted on the test.

    No where on the test (that i saw) did she say we should just ignore the Constitution and do as we please, which is what has been happening for the last 7 years.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      BronxBomber11 months ago

      I still wouldn't vote for her for dog catcher, much less a president N2N.

      Reply
  • 0%

    BronxBomber11 months ago

    Well FART-ROVER "atlas-shrugged" "deadlynightshade" or whatever you are in disguise, I see that you still have you're head embedded deep in you're anal cavity. What did they use to 'brainwash' you...robot? An eyedropper? BTW Crespi wants a date with you. Although I dunno for the life of me why! Now that's SCARY!

    I keep telling him that you're an inanimate object. I guess he likes odd things...lucky you. Now go F- off.

    ;o)

    Reply

• AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.44 Replies

  • 0%

    UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea11 months ago

    Now more than ever is right, AG.

    Hillary Clinto will take care of you just like Uncle Joe took care of the Russians.

    Hillary Clinton for President - Wrong Person, Wrong Time, Wrong Job

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

      • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    jordan1111 months ago

    Go find the context in which these remarks were pulled. You've been had.

    Reply

    40 Replies

    • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.39 Replies

      • 0%

        jordan1111 months ago

        Huh? That makes no sense. The point of this piece of propaganda isn't to take a 'test'. It's to shock people into thinking that Hillary Clinton made those remarks with the meaning implied by putting them there out of context. When you go look up the entire context of her remarks, the meaning is quite different. Is this over your your head, or what? Doesn't have a thing to do with making 'excuses.' Since when did facts become 'excuses?' My god, did no one ever show you how to think?

        Reply

        38 Replies

        • 0%

          Teagen11 months ago

          Gee, when someone on the right actually quotes someone on the left you call it propaganda. When the left creates false reports attacking the president's military record, that's free speech. When Moveon buys ads attacking a military general with lies and name calling, it called free speech. And you guys attack Fox news for being biased. Kettle/Black.

          Reply

          37 Replies

          • 0%

            jordan1111 months ago

            When you take a quote out of context with the intent to give it a meaning not found by reading the ENTIRE quote, what do you call that? I have to tell ya, at first I thought some were just being disingenuous or deflective with their excuses for this propaganda piece. But I no longer believe that. I now believe some people are actually dumb, and & can't help themselves.

            Reply

            14 Replies

            • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
            • 0%

              jordan1111 months ago

              cherry picking, so what's wrong with that?>>>>

              What's 'wrong' with it, is that it has led to people believing that hillary clinton said those things in a context she did NOT say them. You don't see the problem that causes, you have no integrity. So I guess you and I are too far apart to discuss this any further.

              Reply

              12 Replies

              • 0%

                jordan1111 months ago

                cherry picking, so what's wrong with that?>>>>

                What's 'wrong' with it, is that it has led to people believing that hillary clinton said those things in a context she did NOT say them. You don't see the problem that causes, you have no integrity. So I guess you and I are too far apart to discuss this any further.

                Reply
              • 0%

                jordan1111 months ago

                cherry picking, so what's wrong with that?>>>>

                What's 'wrong' with it, is that it has led to people believing that hillary clinton said those things in a context she did NOT say them. You don't see the problem that causes, you have no integrity. So I guess you and I are too far apart to discuss this any further.

                Reply
              • 0%

                jordan1111 months ago

                cherry picking, so what's wrong with that?>>>>

                What's 'wrong' with it, is that it has led to people believing that hillary clinton said those things in a context she did NOT say them. You don't see the problem that causes, you have no integrity. So I guess you and I are too far apart to discuss this any further.

                Reply

                4 Replies

                • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
                • 0%

                  MajJohn11 months ago

                  You're beginning to stutter! LOL

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  mrbs11 months ago

                  even in context ..putting up the whole speech ...scares me

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
              • 0%

                Teagen11 months ago

                Jordan, Her whole speech was rather damaging if you read the whole thing. She clearly implied supporting tax increases on the middle class to cover the costs.

                In her speech she also says, "We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say 'we're going to give you more.' We're saying, 'you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you." Anyone giving $10K to her will not be hurt by this suggested tax increase. That means bend over middle class again, the Dems want to help you.

                I think Hillary would do much better not talking at all.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  quiescence11 months ago

                  Judging from your comment above, and several others you've posted in this thread, it is clear that you didn't comprehend the quote you posted. The quote, directed at wealthy donors, is "We're not coming to you...and say 'we're going to give you more.' We're saying, 'you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you."

                  You seem to be misreading this quote as simply saying "We're not coming to you".

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  Teagen11 months ago

                  Again, that's one paragraph, she spoke for 20 min. Her message was rather loud and clear.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    quiescence11 months ago

                    Then why did you try to use that paragraph to support your contention?

                    Furthermore, for someone who has called Hillary a Marxist, I find it odd that you think she wants to tax the middle class and give to the wealthy. You do realize, I hope, that such a philosophy would be the precise antithesis of Marxism.

                    Reply
              • 0%

                injest11 months ago

                When you take a quote out of context with the intent to give it a meaning not found by reading the ENTIRE quote, what do you call that?

                MediaMatters. Moveon.org

                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.

                Note: the 3 words in context as reported by MediaMatters.

                Show me how a claim can be made that these 3 words are actually "service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are phony soldiers"?

                http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

                During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers."

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/27/limbau...

                Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers."

                Reply
          • 0%

            Blackacereturn11 months ago

            What "military record?" This is unreal, it's beyond me that people are this stupid!

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              Teagen11 months ago

              I'm talking about the Dan Rather and CBS team creating the GWB attack piece on his miliary records. They got caught because they didn't realize they didn't have printers back then.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Blackacereturn11 months ago

                I was making fun of your use of "military record" You would have to be in the Military to have a record and we all know that was not what he did.

                Reply
          • 0%

            dunkirk11 months ago

            ROFLMAO, it seems when the right does it they tend to take single statements and present them without the context in which the statement is made, i.e. the article above. When the reverse is done the entire context is presented. We had Lush clearly saying phony soldiers in reference to anyone who disagrees with fightin in Iraq YET somehow uysing an entire clip is taking it out of context. Yet the editted version Lush posts the NEXT day is clear evidence. Dumya posted his Natl Guard attendance sheet on the WEB and it clearly shows MONTHS of no appearances, his record, he posts it and its out of context. ROFLMAO.

            Reply

            18 Replies

            • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.12 Replies

              • 0%

                dunkirk11 months ago

                Really? yet we have the caller very clearly defining what he meant by phony soldier and Lushy Boy sitting agreeing with him wholeheartedly. Not denying thats what he meant, not correcting the caller for slurring the soldiers who think the war is phony. AGREEING with him that ANY soldier who voices displeasure over Iraq, who says the war is a mistake, who believes we should come home NOW is a PHONY soldier. ALL of that is very clear in the clip. Altho it is quite odd that Lushy had to EDIT the text of the clip and CHANGE it before he would release it. EDIT it and CHANGE it, kinda odd if he wasnt trying to change the meaning. ENjoy the Kool-Aid,

                Reply

                11 Replies

                • 0%

                  dunkirk11 months ago

                  ROFLMAO and the Rodent making his fly-bys again.

                  Reply

                  10 Replies

                  • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.8 Replies

                    • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

                      • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

                        • 0%

                          dunkirk11 months ago

                          ROFLMAO, usually its called the blind leading the blind.

                          Reply
                    • 0%

                      dunkirk11 months ago

                      ROFLMAO, maybe you should go back and look at the transcripts YOU posted. Seems the caller goes on a tirade AFTER Lushy says phony soldiers. Defining them as soldiers who say the war is wrong or velieve we should pull out IMMEDIATELY. Instead of saying No that isnt right, I dont agree, Lushy agrees totally. He adits right then and there phony soldiers are ANY soldiers who say the war is wrong and we should leave. AND then Lushy Boy triues a CYA and EDITS the transcript. EDITS it to remove the fact there was quite a long interval before he starts on the Jesse MacBeth story. Makes ther EDITTED transcript LOOK like he started right in on MacBeth when it was part of a totally different segment. Yeah to the BushBOts (like you LuvDaDork) that GAP means nothing. Altho there is something about REPUBLICANS and gaps in the evidence that seems to be part of their heritAGE. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

                      Reply

                      4 Replies

                      • 0%

                        injest11 months ago

                        Makes ther EDITTED transcript LOOK like he started right in on MacBeth when it was part of a totally different segment.

                        Actually it was the same segment with the same caller. After the "phony soldier" comment, the caller Mike continued on while Rush & Co looked for, found, loaded and setup the "morning update" (That's what was going on for that less than 2 Minutes) from some previous show. BTW why did mediamaters leave out all of that?

                        [begin Limbaugh edit]

                        LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

                        CALLER Mike: Exactly, sir. And, and my other comment was -- and the reason I was calling for --

                        Reply

                        3 Replies

                        • 0%

                          injest11 months ago

                          was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn't, didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.

                          I've done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of -- since [inaudible] not know what they're using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They're using mustard artillery rounds. The VX artillery rounds in their IEDs.

                          Reply

                          2 Replies

                          • 0%

                            injest11 months ago

                            Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it just kind of -- it, it didn't really hurt anybody but there are -- those munitions are over there, it's just -- it's a huge desert. If they've buried it somewhere, we're never gonna find it.

                            LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that's a moot point for me right now --

                            MIKE: Rush --

                            LIMBAUGH: -- the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're, we're there. What -- who cares if, if -- we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about -- talkin' about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people â;; but that, that's moot, right? What, 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,

                            Reply

                            1 Reply

                            • 0%

                              injest11 months ago

                              which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them.

                              [end Limbaugh edit]

                              LIMBAUGH: It's just, it's frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority.

                              (Notice it is still the same caller Mike. Not a different caller not a different segment. Why are you lying?)

                              Look, I want to thank you, "Mike", for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- 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. And they have their celebrities.

                              Reply

                  • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
            • 0%

              Teagen11 months ago

              I'm in Qatar. My team and I did find the comments made by Rush. It was not a story and we'd really like to hear Harry explain his mis quotes. I am not a fan of Rush but I do know he supports us here on the front lines. I also know Harry doesn't and his continued attempts to cut our funding supports that.

              As to anyone's National Guard status reports, who cares. Bill Clinton was in Moscow protesting USA during the Vietnam war. If that didn't matter to you, than Bush's records should both you.

              Oh, and thanks for the negatives, it tells me I'm doing a good job of annoying the liberal hipppies.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                dunkirk11 months ago

                ROFLMAO, sure you support Rush, why wouldn't you. Being a BUshBot Im pretty sure you would despite the fact he called each and every one of the soldiers who view the war as a mistake as phony. It goes along with your party over country philosophy.

                Really? Wow Natl Guard attendance reports DONT matter? The fact your hero claims to be a veteran (ROFLMAO) and from hois opwn records didnt even complete cush duty that kept him OUT of nam ameans nothing. Yet Clinton protesting the war is abominable. ROFLMAO. Yeah I can definetly understand why you would support Rush.

                Oh and Im glad that negging your posts gives you pleasure. Based on a lot of your posts Ive read you have to be one happy camper.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  Teagen11 months ago

                  As mentioned above, I'm not really a fan of Rush. I'm in a desert, do you really think I have the time to listen to some old fat guy? What I said was we found his statements on line, listened to then and realized Harry is a sake of crap along with his liberal anti American, moveon.org buddies. He lied about what was said and how it was said. But like most liberals you only do as you're told by the DNC.

                  As to the negs. Who cares. I'm sure it's the most action you've gotten in your mama's basement for years.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
                  • 0%

                    dunkirk11 months ago

                    ROFLMAO, sure your not you just happened to rush to his defense when he's caught red-handed slandering the troops (You know those guys YOU claim to be part of, altho kinda odd your stories never seem to quite jive with military life....how odd). Oh and of course YOU listened to Harry and out in the "desert" to boot. ROFLMAO. Yeah its all a moveon and lib plot, especially when it Lushy Boys clip. But then I guess things havent been going too well for your side lately, bring the troops hoe seems to be quite prevalent but hey you can always stay and keep reporting back how great it REALLY is.

                    Well Im very glad you can conrtradict yourself from one post to the next, First you take great pleasure in getting negs on your posts and NOW its who cares. ROFLMAO. Ahhhh cant keep your spin straight from one post to the next.

                    Reply
• 0%

  AnnieGUN11 months ago

  She parrots all the collectivist code phrases, doesn't she?

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    lizaveta11 months ago

    I think she means