The Right Attitude

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:18 pm

You're being dishonest with yourselves if you honestly believe he's lying 100% of the time.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:14 pm

Fantastique wrote:

Yuratuhl wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone listens to (and believes more than 0% of) Rush Limbaugh in this century.

this.

Listen to the show for six weeks and I won't have to explain it. Everything you know about Rush Limbaugh is coming through someone else's filters.

Aestu wrote:

You'll really believe whatever you're told.

At least what I'm being told has a point of origin outside of the voices in my head.

Aestu wrote:

He's NOT talking about people who aren't enlisted, because he says "these soldiers".

"These [phony] soldiers," (it was the "phony" part pissing people off, right?) because he's referring to...

Aestu wrote:

He's NOT talking about this ONE person, because he uses the plural.

...a rash of fakes aside from MacBeth who had come to light after the passage of Stolen Valor Act of 2005, including (but not limited to) Michael O'Brien, Lawrence Hammer, Gilbert Velasquez, Larry Porter, Merrick Hersey, Michael Heit, Carlos Valle Rios, Preston Garris, Glenn Marshall, and Tim DeBusk...and if I research those there is probably more than one who made anti-war comments, though maybe not so strongly as MacBeth.

Aestu wrote:

He's talking about people who joined, served, and then opposed the war.

If that's what the voices keep telling you...we all know that no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, the sky is purple in your little world.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:57 pm

I read the "Stolen Valor Act" brief you listed the names from. In every case except one those individuals were motivated by greed and not political leanings.

So, no, Rush's claim to be speaking about a class of frauds in a political context is unsubstantiated.

How many well-publicized, political frauds can you name?

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:27 pm

Aestu wrote:

I don't think the sky is purple, it really is. Only an idiot would say it's blue.

Captain Obvious wrote:

"On May 18, 2007, a criminal complaint was unsealed in the United States District Court in Seattle, Washington, charging Macbeth with one count of using or possessing a forged or altered military discharge certificate and one count of making false statements in seeking benefits from the Veterans Administration.[34] The complaint alleged that Macbeth posed as an Iraq war veteran and illicitly collected more than $10,400 in benefits."

Yeah, sounds like they're completely different from MacBeth.

Your purple sky must be purple because it's missing its ozone layer, and the radiation has fried you brain.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:28 pm

That's my point. The "phony soldiers" did it for the money and not for political reasons, so Rush's comment cannot be interpreted to refer to them in a political context.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:08 am

Aestu wrote:

That's my point. The "phony soldiers" did it for the money and not for political reasons, so Rush's comment cannot be interpreted to refer to them in a political context.

Macbeth did it for both, and he is what blurs the distinction.

First it was "there was just the one guy," so I find the other guys. Then it's "well, they didn't do exactly what Macbeth did," though it's clear they were all committing fraud for money. Now if I look the others up and find they were making political comments, it'll be, "well, they weren't talking about the same thing." As usual, it doesn't matter because you're incapable of admitting that you were talking out of your ass. Just how wrong do you have to be before you feel like it's acceptable to admit that you were mistaken?

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:49 am

Burden of proof is on party making contention. Show me the people whom you believe did it for political reasons and not to mooch off the VA.

thegodslayer · **Posted:** Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:55 am

Aestu wrote:

Quote:

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

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.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

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 2: Exactly, sir.

You'll really believe whatever you're told.

He's NOT talking about people who aren't enlisted, because he says "these soldiers".
He's NOT talking about this ONE person, because he uses the plural.
He's NOT talking about frauds, because he's talking in the context of people who "know where they're going".

He's talking about people who joined, served, and then opposed the war.

Did you actually read that? Or just skim?

Because he refers to 'phony soldiers' as:

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.

How does that allude to him calling people who were really in the war and then opposed to it phony? I guess if you stretch far enough you could say because he didn't mention people who opposed the war after being in it as real soldiers he must be grouping them in with the phony ones?

He references that real soldiers aka the ones who have really enlisted and really served, know where they are going. I'd say it is pretty hard not to figure out if you are fresh in the military and we have an active warzone that you'll probably end up there at least once. But Limbaugh can't say that because he's an idiot? For stating the obvious?

I do disagree that they want to be in Iraq, most people join the military because a) they want the government money for school and to live off of b)extremely patriotic ( I am sure they are there somewhere) c) have no where else to go. Yes I am genralizing but that probably takes care of a huge chunk of our military.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:44 am

Aestu wrote:

Burden of proof is on party making contention. Show me the people whom you believe did it for political reasons and not to mooch off the VA.

Even if I could find one or more and send them to your doorstep with documentation, you'd keep obstinately refusing to admit that you were wrong (which, obviously, you are), because you're a daft git. The point is more than made, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't a delusional narcissist what the man was talking about when he made that statement.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:13 am

I don't understand why there needs to be a distinction between those who do it for fame, political reasons or for siphoning money from the VA. In all accounts, they're the 'phonies' that Rush is talking about; soldiers/people that say they've served time or earned decorations when they didn't.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

The Right Attitude

Who is online