Mark Levin Tears A Liberal to Pieces
Asshole
Last edited:
Mark Levin Tears A Liberal to Pieces '09
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
I didn't know that thoughtone called in on Mark Levin???
His sort always do so well against random callers on their shows but look like buffoons against equally adept public figures which is why they stay in their conservative radio bubble.
do you mean "him" instead of "they"?
No democrat would ever want to get interviewed with Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity. They would crucify any "adept" public figure. Dave you know this dude. C'mon man!!!!
do you mean "him" instead of "they"?
No democrat would ever want to get interviewed with Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity. They would crucify any "adept" public figure. Dave you know this dude. C'mon man!!!!
You mean like how I crucify you on an on going basis?
do you mean "him" instead of "they"?
No democrat would ever want to get interviewed with Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity. They would crucify any "adept" public figure. Dave you know this dude. C'mon man!!!!
Really? Interesting that Bill O'Reilly never seems to have a problem interviewing prominent Democratic politicians so maybe the lack of such interviews with guys like Limbaugh and Levin is more a show that they don't seek out those interviews.
On the rare occasion Levin appears on other media, he's not so great a debater. That happens when so much of what you speak on your own show is based on lying.
Liberals always get killed in debates cause they debate based on their feelings and lies (sometimes there one and the same) and one or two examples where their boneheaded ideas haven't completed destroyed whichever poor political institution its implemented in. Live with it Red-heads. You subscribe to an inferior political ideology. You'll never publicly admit it though. So you'll probably come out with bluster and point to Rachel Madouw or Ed Schultz, but in the end you know the truth.
Limbaugh would destroy most of the Democrats in any debate. I can't speak for Levin because Levin can be a hot head. However, I know Limbaugh would. If anyone wanted to commit political suicide, they would push to debate Rush Limbaugh.
BTW, the only thing Thoughtone can do against me is post dumb shit faster. You post faster so it seems that you have the dominate point of view. Unlike thoughtone, I have a life outside of politics, and bgol as a whole. Just saying...
Liberals always get killed in debates cause they debate based on their feelings and lies (sometimes there one and the same) and one or two examples where their boneheaded ideas haven't completed destroyed whichever poor political institution its implemented in. Live with it Red-heads. You subscribe to an inferior political ideology. You'll never publicly admit it though. So you'll probably come out with bluster and point to Rachel Madouw or Ed Schultz, but in the end you know the truth.
, but in the end you know the truth.Rush Limbaugh is one of the biggest, most blatant liars in politics so there is no one he would defeat in a debate except the most incapable of opponents, you know, the type of people he screens to allow on his show.
Liberals always get killed in debates cause they debate based on their feelings and lies (sometimes there one and the same) and one or two examples where their boneheaded ideas haven't completed destroyed whichever poor political institution its implemented in. Live with it Red-heads. You subscribe to an inferior political ideology. You'll never publicly admit it though. So you'll probably come out with bluster and point to Rachel Madouw or Ed Schultz
Can you name one lie Rachel Maddow has ever told on her show? I've seen her get facts wrong and come back and correct the mistake on air. Schultz is the same.
Entire books have been written about Limbaugh lying and I've never heard of him making any corrections.
I know I'm probably the only person to get this but it's funny to me.
Not Mark Lewin, Mark Levin.
do you mean "him" instead of "they"?No democrat would ever want to get interviewed with Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity. They would crucify any "adept" public figure. Dave you know this dude. C'mon man!!!!
Rush and Hannity are liars. Chris Hedges would easily destroy them in a debate.
Now I know that y'all don't listen to Limbaugh, or Hannity. WHO the fuck is Chris Hedges?
I do not. I tried listening to his radio show a week or so ago and got fed up with the misinformation in a couple minutes.
The lies of both are often fodder for liberal outlets and comedy shows like "The Daily Show".
Hedges? Not sure myself.
Misinformation based from what you get from the basic media outlets *mainstream media*?
Just trying to clarify.
So Rush and Hannity aren't "mainstream"? How many listeners/viewers do you have to have to be considered "mainstream"?
The only misinformation put forth is from Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity and the like. They set the fact checking sites ablaze with their stories. It's so one sided less ethical sites like PolitiFact have to reach to the point of ruining their credibility to make it seem like it's "both sides".
There are perfectly credible Republican leaning presenters out there like Michael Smerconish that I would think smart Republicans who have souls and are actually patriots and don't just like to say they are would go toward them and dismiss the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd outright.
Mainstream means from the traditional, major news outlets. ABC, CBS, NBC.
So, you believe the only misinformation comes from those guys? Yet, you would not put Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or whoever on the left that criticize the right. It's cool, you're bias. The fact is, everyone is bias. Being bias is only human. The way you see "misinformation" is from your political lens. Like I said, it's cool. Believe in what you want to believe.
"Mainstream" means mainstream. Rush Limbaugh is mainstream. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly are mainstream. Trying to act like they aren't is part of the victimization game they play that they hate so badly when others, who truly are marginalized, claim.
Bill Maher is a comedian. Michael Moore, a documentarian. That is different from being a supposed source of "news" and information such as Fox News pretends it is.
At least Rush, a well documented liar that I see you don't actually defend, just deflect, is an island to himself who he can make up whatever nonsense he wants with no regards to journalistic standards or integrity.
This isn't something subjective (believe what you want to believe), this is objective. Conservative media sources have made a living distorting the truth to fit their agenda, sucking in the gullible and the cynical.
First of all, lying is a strong claim. A claim that I feel comes from you disagreeing with the side more than actual facts. Reason I feel that way is because everything Rush uses he cites the source he gets it from. If you actually listen to his show, you would hear all the newspapers/news channels he gets his material from. How is that lying?
Secondly, so now Rush is mainstream? I thought he was far right wing last year. It's funny how convenient labels become when you are trying to prove a point. BTW, so you think the Rush's, and Hannity's aren't hated? Really?
Third of all, since you believe Rush is a liar, do you believe that Maher is a liar as well? How about Michael Moore?
Finally, it is easy to talk about distorting the message when the message is against your political beliefs. Politics is all about distortion. The problem you have is that you don't see both sides. It's cool, you're in a large group that chooses not to. This is America, you can choose to feel however you want. Even if it's mistaken.
Hannity and Limbaugh don't out debate they out loud and talk over whoever their guest would be.
The don't rely on facts they rely on bullying and over talking.
Loud don't mean right.
Limbaugh in fact very seldom does anything but go on rants of misinformation and talking points and doesn't interview because he is not interested in facts and doesn't want to share his golden microphone.
Hannity likes to stick with people he can bully or who agree to go along with his bullshit.
Neither will talk to anyone who might call them on their lies.
The don't rely on facts they rely on bullying and over talking.
Loud don't mean right.
Limbaugh in fact very seldom does anything but go on rants of misinformation and talking points and doesn't interview because he is not interested in facts and doesn't want to share his golden microphone.
Hannity likes to stick with people he can bully or who agree to go along with his bullshit.
Neither will talk to anyone who might call them on their lies.
Lying is a strong word but it's accurate.
You say he cites his sources but have you checked them to make sure he's telling the truth? We had a local "conservative" commentator who liked to cite sources as well, often Heritage Foundation or other conservative media or organizations. I took the time to check and often those sources were either being taken out of context or themselves lies.
This is just a small example of how he lies and then lies about his sources on air
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008120026
Rush Limbaugh is a disciplined liar
August 12, 2010 1:41 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
I realize I'm not breaking any news here, and the point of this isn't just to call Limbaugh names. But sometimes it just amazes me how disciplined of a liar Limbaugh is, and how I assume he lies all the time on purpose.
The specific instance that re-affirmed my obvious conclusion centered around the lies Limbaugh told about Michelle Obama's vacation to Spain.
From his August 6th broadcast [emphasis added]:
Michelle has a beach closed down in Spain after taking 40 of her best friends and leasing 60 rooms in a 5 star hotel - paid for by you, because they deserve it -- but you have to pay, you have to pay up.
Rush was quite clear -- the First Lady traveled with "40 friends" in Spain.
Except that, of course, she didn't.
As the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet recently reported, the First Lady traveled with two friends, not 40:
First, some numbers. Mrs. Obama did not travel with 40 friends, a number used by some news outlets.
She vacationed with two women, one of them a longtime Chicago pal, Anita Blanchard, who is the obstetrician who delivered Sasha and Malia. Blanchard is married to Marty Nesbitt -- President Obama's buddy and the treasurer of Obama's presidential campaign fund.
There was one other woman. Total: four daughters among the three women. They paid for their hotel rooms and other personal and travel expenses.
The trip involved six White House advance staffers and two East Wing staffers, deputy Chief of Staff Melissa Winter and Mrs. Obama's personal assistant, Kristen Jarvis, according to Mrs. Obama's spokeswoman Catherine McCormick Lelyveld.
So if you do the math there (First Lady + friends + daughters + White House and East Wing staff), the total of people traveling, minus security, was 15 people. Not 40.
So what does Limbaugh do with that information that completely debunked the whopper he peddled told last week? Behold [ellipsis original to posted transcript]:
And have you heard, have you heard Lynn Sweet, the formerly respectable Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times she blogs for, said the real reason for the trip was that one of Michelle's friends was in pain. One of Michelle's friends was really suffering and Michelle had promised to spend some time with one of her friends. It was really some emotional disorders, emotional dysfunctions. Some very upsetting things happened in Michelle's friend's life, and Michelle had promised to spend some type with her. That's what Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times said. That's the real reason for the trip to Spain...with 40 people and a bunch of Secret Service people, and 60 rooms.
Limbaugh reads Sweets piece, references it on the air, and then lies about what's in the article. Rather than correct his "40 friends" falsehood (yeah, right), or at least have the decency to leave it alone, Limbaugh's cannot help himself and instead continues to push the falsehood by claiming the First Lady traveled "with 40 people and a bunch of Secret Service people."
Like I said, his dedication to fabrications is, if nothing else, impressive.
And that's just one lie about the First Lady, who has no power and isn't a politician.
Just one more example and this one about Sean, another charismatic liar
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200007#1
Myth: Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard
CLAIM: Kagan "defied" the law and banned military recruiters from Harvard. Phyllis Schlafly claimed in her March 31 syndicated column that Kagan "defied the Solomon Amendment" -- a statute requiring schools to provide the same access to military recruiters that they provide to other potential employers or lose federal funding. Fox News' Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Kagan led an effort to "kick military recruiters off of the college campus."
REALITY: Kagan consistently followed the law, and Harvard students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Indeed, the number of Harvard Law School students recruited by the military did not decrease during Kagan's tenure as dean. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters. Kagan briefly restricted (but did not eliminate) access to recruiters only after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could do so. As The New York Times explained in a May 6 article:
[Kagan's] management of the recruiting dispute shows her to have been, above all, a pragmatist, asserting her principles but all the while following the law, so that Harvard never lost its financing.
[...]
[E]ven when she ... briefly barred the military from using the law school's main recruitment office, she continued a policy of allowing the military recruiters access to students. [emphases added]
Moreover, during her confirmation hearing as solicitor general in 2009, Kagan pledged to defend the Solomon Amendment.
He can't be a far Right wing commentator and still mainstream? He claims to have 14 million listeners a week, that's pretty damn mainstream.
Did I say they weren't hated? Of course they are. They're intentionally polarizing so they have quarters that strongly despise them and they're hated by people that hate liars.
With Maher, no. I know he's gotten things wrong but Maher doesn't intentionally go out to misinform him audience.
Moore has shown he's willing to shade things to a degree so he qualifies as a liar at time. Of course he's not on tv and/or radio doing every day.
I don't see both sides? That's a distortion. I've voted for Republicans in the past and may do so again. If anything I work hard to see both sides. Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source of information so I don't listen to him. I pointed out Republican commentator Michael Smerconish but since he's not a comedian or liar like Rush, he's not as popular.
First of all, I expect the first lady to have an entourage of security around her. She's the first lady. I really don't like when Rush goes in on Michelle. That's where me and him differ. However, I'm not going to believe a Chicago Sun-Times reporter in any matter, yet alone a first lady that happens to be from Chicago. However, you decide on who you want to believe.
Secondly, you can obey the law, and protest it at the same time. Thus, does not seem like a lie to me. You post the facts that she acted on, not the facts of things she tried to act on. Sometimes the law comes before your beliefs.
Third of all, again lying is a strong word. In fact, I don't think the word lying goes with this debate. To say someone is lying is to say they know the truth by every detail, but decides to openly lie. There's no fucking way Limbaugh, or Hannity would know the full details of both the Kagan, and the Michelle situation to that point. It becomes a case of "he said, she said" you choose to believe the media. Thus, why you feel that Rush lies about everything. The media certainly cannot lie obviously.
And who that might be mr.scout? Who would put the great Rush in their place?
I'm curious...
If that last part is true, you are being willfully ignorant.
You can't use the "I don't believe he knew the full details" when he still insists on lying when the full details are exposed. Either you didn't read what I posted or you did and choose to stay in the dark.
I've seen Rachel Maddow state something on her show and come back the next night, and a few times later that same show and make a correction and an apology. That's what integrity looks like. That's what you do when you're not out to purposely lie and misinform your audience.
But here, here's a non Chicago reporter (because while we know Rush doesn't lie, just working for a Chicago newspaper means you do
) pointing out the many, many lies. Now you couldn't defend him by saying he doesn't know all the details but if he doesn't know anything about anything, what does he talk about for 3 hours a day and why do people listen to an ignoramus?http://mediamatters.org/research/200502180006
I figured it out. While typing this, I figured out the problem and why you choose to wear blindfolds when it comes to Rush and his deceptions. You're like a spouse who refuses to believe their partner is cheating despite a mountain of clear proof because it would make you question yourself and your judgement.
I got it and that is tough. But it's better to know and make informed decisions that to keep defending an asshole who's making a fool out of you.
And do better than "I don't believe that" next time. Show me where someone outs mediamatters as lying on Rush's or Hannity's lies.
Such is the direction of the Republican Party!
Truth and facts are now malleable to the circumstances.
If that last part is true, you are being willfully ignorant.
You can't use the "I don't believe he knew the full details" when he still insists on lying when the full details are exposed. Either you didn't read what I posted or you did and choose to stay in the dark.
I've seen Rachel Maddow state something on her show and come back the next night, and a few times later that same show and make a correction and an apology. That's what integrity looks like. That's what you do when you're not out to purposely lie and misinform your audience.
But here, here's a non Chicago reporter (because while we know Rush doesn't lie, just working for a Chicago newspaper means you do
http://mediamatters.org/research/200502180006
I figured it out. While typing this, I figured out the problem and why you choose to wear blindfolds when it comes to Rush and his deceptions. You're like a spouse who refuses to believe their partner is cheating despite a mountain of clear proof because it would make you question yourself and your judgement.
I got it and that is tough. But it's better to know and make informed decisions that to keep defending an asshole who's making a fool out of you.
And do better than "I don't believe that" next time. Show me where someone outs mediamatters as lying on Rush's or Hannity's lies.
Truth and facts are now malleable to the circumstances.
Again it's about what source do you want to believe. You choose to believe the media over anything else. Thus, why you feel that people, with opposing views, are lying. It's ok dude. You're bias.
Another thing is, you obviously think that I do not have a critical eye towards the programs I listen to. Did I just say I do not like it when Rush goes in on Michelle Obama? You're bias tend to overlook that sentence huh? Funny how that happens...
Yes, the modern media, on both sides, are bias. I said it, and I stand by it.
You're misstating my point and I think purposely.
I don't think people with opposing viewpoints are lying. Never said that. I think Rush is lying. I think Sean Hannity is a stone cold liar. Since it's been proven, I can stop saying "I think" and say "I know their liars". Not because someone says "They're liars" but with fact checking and comparing to what they said and their inability to make on air corrections when caught.
It's not a case of believing "the media". Rush and Sean are members of "the media" by virtue of having talk and television and webcam shows.
By contrast, last night Rachel Maddow made a correction on something she reported that was wrong. That gives her an air of credibility that she's not outted by Rush or The Daily Show. She does it herself and apologizes.
The sources you choose to believe have been proven to be consistently false. I see nowhere where you show that the instances in my links where they're misquoting Rush or Sean. Just more foolishness about the media and sources like everything is equal when it's not.
I'm always a little stunned when people defend indefensible positions and people.
What you are missing is the following fact. They *Rush and Hannity* get their material from the press, and the cable news stations *mostly cnn, and MSNBC*. To say that Rush is lying is to say that the press is lying. So, when the press comes with a story after Rush talks about the original story does not mean Rush is lying. It means that the press should of got the story right in the first place.
Rush, and Hannity is only using the stories that the press presents.
BTW, you cited mediamatters.org. Remember, Mediamatters was developed by the Clintons to combat Rush. I highly doubt they are "fair and Balanced" in their critique. The easiest way to make the right look like a bunch of liars is to always changing the perceived "truth", and "fact". Something the left are masters in.
There are words to describe that; but they probably violate Rule 1 of the Rules of the Board.
Similar threads
