• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Limbaugh gets sick of Beck getting all the attention, so...

Lurker said:
Both are plausible because both happened.
Click to expand...

You're sure of that? I'm not. I was a regular listener to Limbaugh at the time of the alleged incidents. I remember the '92 incident clearly. Rush talked about it a lot on his radio show, and media commentators had quite a bit to say about how insensitive he was when it happened. He took a lot of flack for showing the "cute dog" when he was supposed to be showing the "cute kid".

Then, six months later, allegedly, he creates a much more extreme version of this gaffe, in such a way that it could not possibly have been an innocent mistake, but then neither he nor anyone else comments about it until several months later when, in October, Molly Ivins wrote a piece about it?

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but it's also possible that Ivins didn't check her sources, and passed on a rumour that developed out of the first incident.
 
If it happened the way Rush says it did, all he needs to do is produce the video.

1992 was before we had YouTube and before more than a few people had video capture on their computers, so it is beyond the horizon for what you can find online.

I have to wonder why we have to look at Rush's explanations of what happened rather than actual video? Is he hiding something by not simply releasing it?
 
Meadmaker said:
You're sure of that? I'm not. I was a regular listener to Limbaugh at the time of the alleged incidents. I remember the '92 incident clearly. Rush talked about it a lot on his radio show, and media commentators had quite a bit to say about how insensitive he was when it happened. He took a lot of flack for showing the "cute dog" when he was supposed to be showing the "cute kid".
Click to expand...

It is possible. I have seen posts online from people who claim to have witnessed the '93 incident.

Then, six months later, allegedly, he creates a much more extreme version of this gaffe, in such a way that it could not possibly have been an innocent mistake, but then neither he nor anyone else comments about it until several months later when, in October, Molly Ivins wrote a piece about it?

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but it's also possible that Ivins didn't check her sources, and passed on a rumour that developed out of the first incident.
Click to expand...

Possible. I dimly recall seeing reports of it at the time but my memory could be playing tricks on me.
 
easycruise said:
Exactly how was he "joking about it", in your view? By spanking himself? That's more self-deprecating than anything else.

I'm not as much of a stickler as you. I would have let it go, since he apologized immediately.
Click to expand...

Here is the transcript of Rush's apology:
LIMBAUGH: David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog (actually Gore's dog))

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: But I--I apologize...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. I'm fatigued. I'm tired. I really don't--in fact, you know what I'll do? Let's pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I'm a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)

I'll do it with my left hand. I--I'm right-handed, so it won't hurt as much. Do it with my left hand.

(Rush spanks himself, screaming and crying; written on screen, Ouch!!!')

LIMBAUGH: There.

(Applause)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems like a real serious apology to me. As a father of a daughter (not yet a teen), I would not be satisfied with it. But I guess Easycruise is the sort of father that this sort of apology makes it OK for Rush not to have edited out humiliating Easycruise's daughter on national TV. Way to defend your daughter, Easycruise.
 
Lurker, do you have a source for that transcript? Because that's certainly a far cry from how Rush's "apology" has been represented previously in this thread.
 
If that's real (and it matches the description we were given earlier), then that wasn't an apology at all, but merely a set-up for another punchline.
 
Lurker said:
OK, not the most reliable of sources but the poster used Lexis-Nexis to get the transcript.

"I researched this on Lexis Nexis . . .
Apparently the tale grew in the telling a little bit.

Here's what the transcript shows from Nov 6, 1992. I could find nothing from 1993 as Franken claims."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5863476#5864508
Click to expand...

Not a reliable source (Democratic underground?) and that version of the transcript doesn't seem to be independently corroborated anywhere. And there doesn't seem to be any specific date for this mysterious 1993 incident. Looking more and more like an urban legend.
 
Lurker said:
Here is the transcript of Rush's apology:


Yeah, that seems like a real serious apology to me. As a father of a daughter (not yet a teen), I would not be satisfied with it. But I guess Easycruise is the sort of father that this sort of apology makes it OK for Rush not to have edited out humiliating Easycruise's daughter on national TV. Way to defend your daughter, Easycruise.
Click to expand...

Don't be so gullible as to believe that. Your bias is getting in the way of your critical thinking skills.
 
(Slight de-rail here; apologies for not having read the thread.)

I was reading about the Supreme Court yesterday; the salaries and perks; and was surprised to learn that the judges were allowed to use the building for private events.
Rush got married (third time) there, and Thomas presided over the nuptials.

I found this a bit stunning, and was surprised I hadn't heard it before.
 
BenBurch said:
I was a Republican until Watergate... This was underlined by Iran/Contra. And nothing since has convinced me I made the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Big deal. Watergate was a group of GOP guys breaking into a an democrat office looking for a list of hookers so they could recruit them to convey some pillow talk they would have with democrat politicians at the convention.

Iran/Contra was the opposite to me. It showed how the democrats were soft on communism. That and they also didn't seem as interested as getting the hostages back. Who cares if we, at the time, were selling arms to Iran. They were in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war and we were hoping they would kill each other as often as possible anyway.

But what really led me away from the Democrats is that at a young age, I learned that a Democrat President took approx. 100,000 American citizens and put them in concentration camps. And then, right after that, another Democrat President actually dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians! Unbelievable! I swore I would never vote for a Democrat after learning that. And this current corrupt administration just keep proving me right.
 
easycruise said:
Not a reliable source (Democratic underground?) and that version of the transcript doesn't seem to be independently corroborated anywhere. And there doesn't seem to be any specific date for this mysterious 1993 incident. Looking more and more like an urban legend.
Click to expand...

True, the source is suspect but the Baltimore Sun links provided a rough idea which corroborated certain elements and themes to the apology. You even admitted the spanking yourself! It looks more likely accurate than not IMO.

As to the 1993 incident, you are correct that it could be an urban legend. I guess we will never know.
 
easycruise said:
Big deal. Watergate was a group of GOP guys breaking into a an democrat office looking for a list of hookers so they could recruit them to convey some pillow talk they would have with democrat politicians at the convention.

Iran/Contra was the opposite to me. It showed how the democrats were soft on communism. That and they also didn't seem as interested as getting the hostages back. Who cares if we, at the time, were selling arms to Iran. They were in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war and we were hoping they would kill each other as often as possible anyway.

But what really led me away from the Democrats is that at a young age, I learned that a Democrat President took approx. 100,000 American citizens and put them in concentration camps. And then, right after that, another Democrat President actually dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians! Unbelievable! I swore I would never vote for a Democrat after learning that. And this current corrupt administration just keep proving me right.
Click to expand...

You certainly bend history to suit your ideology. Facts be damned!
 
easycruise said:
Big deal. Watergate was a group of GOP guys breaking into a an democrat office looking for a list of hookers so they could recruit them to convey some pillow talk they would have with democrat politicians at the convention.

Iran/Contra was the opposite to me. It showed how the democrats were soft on communism. That and they also didn't seem as interested as getting the hostages back. Who cares if we, at the time, were selling arms to Iran. They were in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war and we were hoping they would kill each other as often as possible anyway.

But what really led me away from the Democrats is that at a young age, I learned that a Democrat President took approx. 100,000 American citizens and put them in concentration camps. And then, right after that, another Democrat President actually dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians! Unbelievable! I swore I would never vote for a Democrat after learning that. And this current corrupt administration just keep proving me right.
Click to expand...
Hard on theft for political reasons = Whatever.
Soft on communism = Bad
Hard on Axis Powers = Bad

That about sum it up?
 
DavidJames said:
I was thinking he was trying to be sarcastic, at least I hope he was.
Click to expand...

He was joking around.

The real stupid crazies are the liberals listening to every word he says looking for a soundbyte they can exagerate. It is easy and a cheap trick. Find a sentence that sounds crazy standing alone out of its paragraph. That is called "taking something out of context". Liberals look for a sentence they can quote out of context to make Limbaugh look insane. THey do not want to believe the true things he says, so they invent conclusions from the things he says when he is joking around.

Dorian Gray said:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0417/limbaugh-volcanic-ash-cloud-gods-punishment-health-care/

Wow, that's Pat Robertson levels of insanity. Yeah, God is against health care in America, so he erupts a volcano in... Iceland, causing.... Europeans to be unable to.... fly in airplanes.



Brilliant.
Click to expand...

That is not what he said. His wording shows that he was joking and being hypothetical.

Limbaugh is on the radio roughly 3 hours daily. If Limbaugh was that much of an insane nut job, there would be more to take out of context to attack to satisify the Liberal Agenda.

Here, search youtube for bits were Billy Mayes is selling stuff to kill you. You can take words people say and arrange then any way you want. Why not go one step further and rearrange Limbaughs words?
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
It is easy and a cheap trick.
Click to expand...

You know what else is a cheap and easy trick? Saying controversial things that can be A) written off as a joke for the sake of those who don't take it seriously to begin with, and B) directed a certain segment of your audience that are just gullible enough to take you at your word.
 
johnny karate said:
B) directed a certain segment of your audience that are just gullible enough to take you at your word.
Click to expand...

You would have to sound serious to do that.

You are missing the fact that, here, Limbaugh does not even say what his critics accuse him of saying. He does not even say that he thinks that God made the Island Volcano erupt because of the health care bill. Go listen for yourself. He uses terms like "maybe" and "might have".

Nut cases like Pat would say "it is true that..." like Pat Robinson did about his Haiti fruitcake rant.
 
And do you honestly think that the segment of Rush's audience who believe in literal cause-and-effect Wrath of God would pick up on such subtle distinctions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom