And if Rush Limbaugh had told the truth about the time he was arrested in the company of that male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s (when he was working under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie", all the dittoheads would have stopped listening to him years ago...

Where is your link and your proof for this story?

So you are cool with Rush being a racist and a liar - just so long as he isn't gay?

WZWRITER has no link and no proof.  He is a LIAR and a JERK and proves it repeatedly with his comments on this site.

Why doesn't Rush just come OUT and say that all of these stories are lies? If he has nothing to hide, what is he afraid of?  Oh NO, I sound like a swaggering Republican. I feel dirty asking the same question over and over even if the person answers it. (For example, Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama). For you RITO posters defending Rush The Magic Druggie and, that is a truism, why don't you do some research and show WZ that he is wrong. Til that time, I hope he continues to post this over and over. Go ahead, prove the Druggie wasn't arrested as WZ says. Of course, you will not deny that Rush the Pig is a druggie.

WZ, keep up the good work.

If he is required to answer dumb comments provided by wingnuts it would take more hours than a day holds.

Do you also require all democrats to answer for every stupid comment?

How many times has Sen. Obama been asked about Rev. Wright and who does the asking? How many times has Sen. Kerry been asked about his military record? I think you answered your own question but didn't think it through. You made my point THANK YOU.

If the Druggie can't take the heat, he should just keep hiding behind the radio....

Still waiting for your point. Your equating the acusation of Limbaughs stories to Obama and Rev Wright is meaningless; apples to oranges.

How is it apples to oranges? Obama has answered all questions about Rev. Wright (just because the answer wasn't what YOUR MIND believes makes you the dumbwingnut).

Why can't Rush just answer the question? I am sure his little interns are forced to read this site? Is he afraid, is it true? He is the leader of the RITO movement. Please call his show and ask him. You seem to know everything he rants so you must be on his dinner list.

Just kidding with you. I am just using the Righties lunatic line of reasoning. Asking you to prove a negative which you cannot. It is done far more often by the Right. Hell, they even asked Kerry to prove what the US Government knew. But that is okay isn't it?

The apple to oranges comparison is true here. Rush is a "public" figure accused in this thread of being someone else. Obama is a public "official" running for the Presidency of the United States linked through his own admission to his previous pastor. Without discussing the worthiness of criticism of his pastor, these two are not parallels at all. Any linking of "he should because he did" argument is indeed baseless.The rest of your retort is rhetoric that deserves no response.

 

"How many times has Sen. Obama been asked about Rev. Wright and who does the asking?"

   I'll bet he's been asked about Wright a LOT!  However, since this article is about how stupid Obama is: how many states are in the US?

  Answer:  (most people)--- 50,  Obama--- 58

   I think a presidential CANDIDATE ought to know a LITTLE American history. So, you support a candidate who has judgmental issues (attends racist church for 20 years), and he's a sexist (sweetie) and he knows nothing of American history (unless it's what was taught to him by Wright).  Good luck with your nominee.

   Can you people have picked a more worthless candidate?

 

You know what Phil, I don't post on here very often, but I do frequently check in and read the articles and comments, and I gotta say you have got to be the most disingenuous poster that has visited this site in a long time. I think someone on another thread referred to you as Phony. I think that fits...

Good luck with your life...

"I gotta say you have got to be the most disingenuous poster that has visited this site in a long time"

   In what way? Because I put the truth out there? Or because I don't drink the kool-aid liberals drink in order to make the determination that Obama is a worthy candidate to run the US? IMHO, you're just whining because you can't argue any of the points I brought up about the 'problems' with Obama.

   How many states are there? If you went around calling women "sweetie" during professional situations, what would YOU be called? If you attended a church, for 20 years, whose mission statement and pastor are un-arguably racist, what would you expect me to think of your judgmental ability??  

   "Phony"?  Hey, I've been called a lot worse than that. How do you feel about posts by solon? Answer that and we'll see who the phony is.

 

Phony would be a nice word for Philbie.

 

Phony would be a nice word for Philbie.

"Mentally deficient" would be far more accurate.

The fundamental assumption that it is the president's job is to 'run' the country is anti-democratic. You are trying to force your view of CEO style government onto our representative democracy, it doesn't fly.

Government belongs to and takes it direction from we the people, not the president.

"Government belongs to and takes it direction from we the people, not the president."

   What?! You cannot be serious with THAT statement!!  What "direction" was given to the state of california by "we the people" when they voted against gay marriage? Which activist judges decided NOT to follow "we the people" or the constitution and decided gay marriage is ok.

   Only a moron would believe government takes it direction from "we the people".

Suit yourself, Phil. Conservatives have tried make us all accustomed to the notion of the unitary executive but the majority of people still understand that our collective voice is the source of real power in this country.

The simple fact is more people accept equal rights for gay couples than not.

I don't mind tusslin', I'm a course indiviual on this site. Heck we know it feels good to reel off insults but you know what, Phil? You can keep your finger mashed on these politically divisive hot buttons all night and all day but it's stale, friend.

The country is in bad shape right now. We have a completely out of touch president sniping at fellow countrymen fom abroad. That's ugly and dangerous and I frankly cannot find a good reason confer that unaccountable unitary status to any such person, ever again. That's why I reject that model of CEO style government.

What needs to happen is for all of us to come together, find a common goal, in common language and start progressing toward solutions from that common ground. At this point, I don't have answers I only have a broad vision of peace and well-being for the country and the world. But together we need to put some agreeable meaning into those visions so the material policy can be crafted to meet our conserderable needs as a civil society. And this partisan bickering is decidedly uncivil.

It all starts right here at the grassroots level with you and I and everybody here.

We have a completely out of touch president sniping at fellow countrymen fom abroad.

When Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made her comment about Bush from England, it set off an uproar?  Where is the uproar over Bush speaking ill of our next president from a fortign country.  Where is the uproar over ANYTHING Bush has done?  Why hasn't this little creep been impeached and thrown in prison yet?

"The simple fact is more people accept equal rights for gay couples than not."

   Another simple fact is that you ignore that people have voted over and over again refusing to give gays the "marriage" label. Of course, no one would refuse gays equal "rights", that would be unfair. But, you are giving missinformation (gasp!) when you state "more people accept equal rights". That isn't the issue, marriage is. Go back to the people who are telling you what to say and ask them how to respond to that issue. They will tell you to change the subject and talk about something else.

Ok, Phil.

You're offensive. Always on the offensive. It probably stems from an insecurity over the rightness of your beliefs. So afraid you are that your defenses won't suffice that you constantly attack.

The simple fact is that gay marriage is about equal rights. I want my neighbors to enjoy, equally, the same rights to marry the one they love that I enjoy. And since you agree nobody would deny equal rights to any American, that's the kind of common ground we can start making policies around to create a more perfect union.

"The simple fact is that gay marriage is about equal rights."

   I guess it isn't as simple as that. They get the equal rights they seek. However, the FACT is that the majority of people in EVERY election choose NOT to allow gays to deface the sanctity of marriage. Whether you agree or not does not come into play. Civil unions are created to give the same rights as everyone else. NO state election has agreed to give the title "marriage" to gays seeking to be married. So, when the people choose to give them the right to "marry" they can and you would have a point. Until then, YOU have no point and gays have equal rights. Time to quit your whining about "no fair to gays". They have what they sought after, why aren't they happy?

 

That is a warmed up argument from the civil rights battle.  This idea that one group can strip away another's God given equal right simply because they are the majority and (electoral) might makes right.  That is why the Founders built in protections.  They figured arguments and laws like this would be attempted.

Sorry, this is about equal rights. Whether or not you believe married gay couples threaten your marriage really, really doesn't come into play this, either.

You're ideological entrenchment is making this issue a matter of fearful anger. The core of your argument is based on the fear of losing something sacred. My argument has at its core the hope of sharing something sacred with all God's chilren.

Now. The question is, which America do we want to live in? One afraid? Or one joyful in giving?

Let's let people have a chance to talk about it without the serpentine language of irrationality.

Only a moron would believe government takes it direction from "we the people".

Congratulations.  That was the most idiotic statement I have ever seen on this website.  And that includes all the arguments from evolution deniers.  

I suggest you retire now and go out on top.   

Only a moron would believe government takes it direction from "we the people".

So the Founding fathers who WROTE the Constitution were morons....

Drem on, moron.

PHILIB, as stated before ....DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA....If you don't believe him DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM. Can your all-knowing truthful brain absorb that? Also, do you think Obama misspoke or that he doesn't know how many states there are? You must answer this question...if you are to be taken seriously about being truthful...I'll wait.

"Also, do you think Obama misspoke or that he doesn't know how many states there are?"

   I think he probably misspoke. I also think he isn't very smart for misspeaking like that and not 'immediately' correcting himself, which could certainly lead someone to believe he really doesn't know much about the government and history of the USA.

   Is that gonna be the common tactic for liberals when Obama wins? They will say "he misspoke" every time Obama gives a speach? Well, I guess you've had a lot of practice using that line in just the several months of primaries.  Are you gonna allow McCain to use the same excuse whenever he says something ignorant? Or, is this a one-sided excuse-use-coin?

Bush has been using the "mispoke" stuff for almost eight years now and the media and most people laugh it off. I mean "58 states" hardly compares to "they are always thinking of ways to harm our country, and so are we". Only one of a long list of "Bushisms"

" In what way? Because I put the truth out there?"

Yeah Phil, because the most logical conclusion that one can come to regarding

"58 states" is that despite graduating with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard, the man is a complete moron and didn't just misspeak. Right. Real truthful there.

The whole sweetie thing? I 'm guilty of the same thing. No harm ment. People I don't know call me sweetie too. No biggie. Was it inappropriate? Maybe. But he did the proper thing and called to apologise to her- a concept alien to alot of Righties.

As far as Wright goes, whatever. Frankly, I'm sick of it. You either agree or you don't. No amount of debating, at this point, is going to change anyones mind. Dead issue (for me anyway).

You know, I'm not even sure it was misspeak.  I've only heard about this once before (the 58 states thing), but when I heard about it the first time, it occured to me that Obama has more than likely visited some states more than others (he's visited most of the states, some of them twice or three times).  I believe that's what he was trying to say.

The point is, Obama is an extremely intelligent man - saying that he's an idiot because of the 58 states comment is just, well, stupid.  People who push such a notion are just as stupid.  That includes you, Phil.

That's an interesting take on the states thing. I'd be curious to hear the statement in context.

But yeah, it is pretty foolish to suggest that he doesn't know how many freakin states there are.

The fact is that since the Wright stuff has finally petered out, the Obama haters are grasping at anything they can to smear him. It really makes them look petty, desperate, and down right idiotic. Not to mention the fact that alot of them that are trying to make Obama look like a moron probably voted for Bush. Twice. Now if BUSH said "58 states"...

How many states are there? If you went around calling women "sweetie" during professional situations, what would YOU be called? If you attended a church, for 20 years, whose mission statement and pastor are un-arguably racist, what would you expect me to think of your judgmental ability??-Phil

I've heard doctors and lawyers call patients, clients and others sweetie, first off.  What are you the 40-year old Virgin?  Its a term of endearment when used with tact.  Second of all, the church's mission statement isn't arguably racist the same way Barack wasn't arguably Muslim.  YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE BS TO JUSTIFY YOUR RACIST VIEWS AND OPINIONS AND THE WHOLE WORLD SEES THROUGH YOU. 

Furthermore, Reverend Wright is sooo racist he went and served in a military that is majority white.  He's sooo racist he has caucasian Americans sitting in his pews on Sunday. 

Believe what you want. Newt Gingrich himself said he believes republicans are going to suffer come November because the average American is sick of your Republican/conservative/separatist/racist/homophobic/wasp bias.   

How many states are there?

Everybody knows there are 50, Phil.  But in the Democratic party, there are at least 57 different contests durig the primary season - 51 state primaries and/or caucuses (including a promary and a caucus here in Texas), one for the District of Columbia, one for Puerto Rico, one for Guam, one for American Samoa, one for the US Virgin Islands, and one for "Democrats Abroad".

 

If you went around calling women "sweetie" during professional situations, what would YOU be called?

Here in Texas where people constantly refer to members of the opposite sex in all settings as "hon" or "darlin'", you'd be called "perfectly normal".

If you attended a church, for 20 years, whose mission statement and pastor are un-arguably racist, what would you expect me to think of your judgmental ability?? 

I'd say that your judgmental ability was no different than that of the millions of Catholics who chose not to leave their church after finding out what their priests were doing to their kids.  And that was a lot worse than anything Rev. Wright could have said fromt he pulpit.

Hey, Philib. Nothing about the Rev. Wright is racist. I think he's off the wall with his idea that the government started AIDS; that strays a little too far from the truth of previous racist government experiments, such as the  syphilis experiments on black men. But other than that, what the heck are you talking about? The church's Web site and mission statement aren't racist one iota. They simply hold up the African experience in the face of centuries of violent racism. PROVE something, man. ANYTHING. 

In what way? Because I put the truth out there? Or because I don't drink the kool-aid liberals drink in order to make the determination that Obama is a worthy candidate to run the US

And George W Bush was, is, or has been since!

Philib....... are you stupid or something?

Yes...the left could have picked a more worthless candidate than Obama. We could have picked McCain. Oh, right, you guys did that already.

Obama's 58 states comment, while odd, isn't impossible to figure out. Obama was counting REPEATED visits to states. For example, if I visited Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio then Wisconsin again, I visited five states, as in the number of TRIPS to states, not the absolute number of states in the union. Is it convoluted? Sure. But not incomprehensible.

Funny how conservatives will tolerate incomprehensible gibberish from Bush for 8 years but jump all over Obama or Clinton for their minor mental hiccups.

It's all par for the course in the GOD (Grand Old Doublestandard)

Randy

"Do you also require all democrats to answer for every stupid comment?"--mike

Do you even see the irony in that question?  You guys do that all of the freaking time.  That is usually Hannity's first question.  Limbaugh usually answers the question for every Democrat - reading their minds perfectly.

Limbaugh drug Obama through the mud on many occasions with much less than what WZ has written.

I like that "Limbuagh drug" secret message in there.

"You guys do that all of the freaking time"There goes the blanket toss...include everyone. Please address specifics. As far as the "irony", thanks for getting the point, how ludicrous a suggestion to begin with.

 

Fair enough.  Here are a few quick ones from Hannity:

HANNITY: I don't want his resume. I don't care about his resume. He just talked about exterminating. The only conclusion I can draw is we need to exterminate white people. I asked you a simple yes or no question. Do you support this garbage, yes or no?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234789,00.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HANNITY: That's not what he's saying. I know what he said. I'm reading it. "He's a terrorist." Are you proud of that as the owner of the Web site?

HUFFINGTON: You know what, Sean? It's not a matter of being proud. I don't have to agree with every word that Alec Baldwin or anybody on the Web site says.

The bottom line, though, is that the essence of what he's saying is that this administration's policies have made us less safe, they have inflamed terrorism everywhere in the world. Even Don Rumsfeld said that. Do you remember, in that famous memo, he said, "Are we creating more terrorists than we are destroying?"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185560,00.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HANNITY: I don't want to talk about that. I want to go to Dee Dee Myers. Dee Dee, first of all, would you attend a church where your pastor traveled to Tripoli with Louis Farrakhan, that your church gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan? And would you call yourself friendly with a man from the Weather Underground who admits to bombing the Pentagon and the capital building, and said in 2001 he wished he had done more?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337515,00.html

Limbaugh's archive is not so accessible to search, but if I have some time, I will try to see where others have posted his transcripts if you really need more evidence.

The main point is that you are of course, right that it is stupid to ask you to comment on stupid things other conservatives say, I just wish you could tell your fellow conservatives not to do it so much as they are much worse offenders, IMO.

Why doesn't Rush just come OUT and say that all of these stories are lies? If he has nothing to hide, what is he afraid of?

Maybe it was time that El Rushbo and others of his ilk were asked some worthwhile questions for once.

The undocumanted rumor of Limbaugh's alleged arrest under his radio name, Jeff Christie, in Pittsburgh for gay pandering has followed Limbaugh since 1973. Limbaugh/Christie was fired from station KQV in Pittsburgh and the story that circulated Pittsburgh was that he had been fired because he had been arrested at a notrious gay pickup area. The story follwed him to Richmond, Virginia where he next worked, so the story has been following Limbaugh long before he became the famous personality he is today.

Adding fuel to the stories about Limbaugh's sexuality is that his mentor, Norm Woodruff, was gay and died of AIDS. Limbaugh also allegedly frequented gay bars when he worked in California.

So, Limbaugh's alleged arrest for homosexual activity has never been documented, but the rumor started long before he was famous. Look it up on the internets... 

So in other words you have nothing. Thanks for being honest.

None of the following counts as proof, but it does do a pretty good job of outlining what we DO know about Rush Limbaugh/Jeff Christie.  It was posted at www.americanpolitics.com:

* * * * *

The point here isn't that his mentor was a gay man, the point is that it is another dot to connect to a pattern.

We have;

1. The rumor about DJ Jeff Christie being fired from KQV in 1973 after an arrest on Winthrop Street for gay pandering. This rumor supposedly circulated on the UPitt campus for weeks following the firing. Verified parts are that Christie was fired by KQV, that Winthrop Street was a gay pickup spot in that era, and several people have confirmed hearing that same rumor at the time. One person confirmed having heard the rumor a couple of years later in water-cooler gossip at the Richmond VA radio station where he worked. At this time, nobody knew who Jeff Christie was.

2. Verification that KQV's Jeff Christie went on to become the man behind the Golden EIB Microphone, Rush Limbaugh.

3. Verification that the fellow who helped him get his second start in radio, and who taught him how to dress, was a gay man. Not that significant in itself. but you know, it is rather odd for a guy to be going clothes shopping with another guy.

4. The mysterious "cyst" that kept him out of 'Nam. One cause of anal cysts can be receptive anal sex, but of course we have no way of knowing in this case. We do know that this was on his draft deferrment documents, and that he now denies that he ever had an anal cyst. (He did so on the air just the other day.)

5. He keeps getting divorced. Not a lot in itself, but one wonders why? And we hear exactly nothing from him about his current wife.

6. The hearsay from a posting elsewhere on this forum that Rush used to go drinking at gay bars in in CA. Mind you, I do know that some open-minded people who are not gay go drinking with friends at gay bars. Rush has never struck me as an open-minded person. Or do I mis-read him?

7. In spite of the sexual preference of his mentor, and in spite of having socialized with gay people in the past, Rush has spared no effort to trash "the gay agenda" on his program. He has been especially nasty to Rep. Barny Frank.

None of these things by itself constitute evidence that Rush is gay (or, more likely, bisexual), but all of them together form a growing pattern. This leads me, and others, to the conclusion that it is possible that Rush really was arrested in 1973, as the rumors indicated, and suggest that it would warrent the time and money of somebody to run down the leads, check official records, and talk to people from Rush's past. None of this is proof, but it does suggest that the proof may be out there, if only it can be collected.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030103Letters.html

"5. He keeps getting divorced. Not a lot in itself, but one wonders why? And we hear exactly nothing from him about his current wife."

   So, by your theory, Liz Taylor is gay.  But, being the 'good liberal' that you are, I suspect you believe every line that is told to you. Do you want another cracker, sweetie?

Why is it you apparently cannot conceive of treating people as individuals?  I am sure many liberals - like myself extend Rush the benefit of the doubt.  I don't believe in these sorts of attacks - whether they be on Obama regarding Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers or even the lowly Rush Limbaugh.

It is interesting that I never noticed a single Bush Republican with the decency to denounce the similar attacks on Obama.  Maybe I missed it.

So, by your theory, Liz Taylor is gay.  But, being the 'good liberal' that you are, I suspect you believe every line that is told to you. Do you want another cracker, sweetie?

No - Liz Taylor is a mother and grandmother.  Limbaugh is childless.  Amazing how you zero in on one item on the list to dispute, and ignore the others...

" gay pandering has followed Limbaugh since 1973"

  Translation:  hypocritical liberals have been trying to discredit Rush for 35 years. Using homosexuality as a tool of evil, while demanding rights for those who follow that immoral lifestyle.

   Hypocrits!

Translation:  hypocritical liberals have been trying to discredit Rush for 35 years. Using homosexuality as a tool of evil, while demanding rights for those who follow that immoral lifestyle.

Wrong-o, Phil - as usual.  It is LIMBAUGH who is being hypocritical for speaking out against gay rights while apparantly secretly living the gay lifestyle for many years.

   Is this another one of those situations where YOU claim a fact, but I have to prove it not true? Where's your proof of him being gay?

   I guess a similar situation would be if I said that YOU are gay, now you have to prove you are not? So, until you prove you are not gay, I'm going to refer to you as 'gaywriter'. Since everyone seems to have fun changing letters in our names around to insinuate snide conditions, I'll do as ya'll do..... (when in rome, do as the romans do).

This is hilarious.  Don't you guys realize what is going on here?  You're flapping all around throwing a hissy fit about nasty rumors and unproven allegations when that is what Rush does every time he opens his oxycontin hole.  

Turnabout's fair play.  Enjoy a taste of Rush's own medicine.  

   Then why is mmfa or anyone else complaining about what Rush says, if you KNOW all he does is for show? Let me answer, since you will probably ignore the question. Because liberals are hypocrits who start rumors to destroy the career of someone they fear. But, when faced with proving the rumors they started, they claim; "he did it first" (in their best 1st grader voice) as their only defense.

Your hatred of "liberals'' seems to run deep. Tell me, Phil; you claimed to be an Independent on another thread, do you spend as much time on Right wing web sites

defending Liberals against baseless smears snd pointing out the hypocrisy from the Right.

No need to respond. I already know the answer.

Independent. Sure...

"Tell me, Phil; you claimed to be an Independent on another thread, do you spend as much time on Right wing web sites "

   Yes, I do. Probably not one you've heard of. It is shared by thinkers of every aspect. I certainly won't divulge what site it is, because we already have plenty of liberals on the site. However, they THINK. Something you may want to try.

Ironic.  You take exception at a story that has no evidence to back it up, but you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your own claim.  Why should anyone believe you?

"You take exception at a story that has no evidence to back it up, but you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your own claim.  Why should anyone believe you?"

  #1; You're assuming I care whether any hypocritical liberals believe me. #2; Would you let a child molester baby sit your kids so that he could prove he doesn't molest children any more? Same reason I wouldn't tell any hypocritical liberals what other chat forums I participate in. The last thing that company needs is a virus. Liberals are so jealous and destructive, they would immediately try to destroy a good chat site because they aren't the only ones allowed to speak their minds. Similar to talk radio.

   So, if you speak the truth and believe a liberal would believe me, then you must take my word for it....just like I'm supposed to take your word for it that Rush is gay.

"So, if you speak the truth and believe a liberal would believe me, then you must take my word for it....just like I'm supposed to take your word for it that Rush is gay."--philib

Lol.  Where did I argue Rush was gay?  I see why you often draw the ire of Solon.  Thanks for answering my question.  You seem to expect more from liberals than you do from yourself.

; )

"Where did I argue Rush was gay?"

   I'm having a discussion with 5 different liberals, all saying the same thing---Rush has been gay for years, started by gaywriter. If you want to join in the discussion then you should expect that I consider you have the opinion that Rush is gay. So being in the arguement means you make the arguement.

Yes, I do. Probably not one you've heard of. It is shared by thinkers of every aspect.

Looks like you wouldn't fit it there, either.  Guess the only place left for non-thinkers like yourself is FreeRepubliKKK.

HaHaHaHaHa!!

I've never seen so many conservative posters on the opening page of discussion before.  Media matters must have really ruptured a nerve for a lot of you conservative posters here. LOL.

Say what you want about Obama.  We all know he is no where close to the lying, low life scum Rush is.  Furthermore, we all know if the rumors circulating Rush were circulating around Obama you'd believe it in a second without any varification.  Seriously, this one thread has brought out more conservative posters than I've ever seen together.  I thought I was on the wrong website for a second. 

Hey August,

Well I was too busy to weigh in on MMFA yesterday, but I figured as a Conservative poster I'd better join in...I always miss all the fun ;-)

I could care less about unsubstantiated rumors about Rush, Obama, or any political figure. No doubt it's fun to speculate, but it's pretty pointless.

Actually about a month or so ago there was some guy from Chicago claiming he gave Obama some cocaine & a BJ in the back of a limo a few years ago. The guy's story was all over the internet & YouTube. No one bothered Obama about it because it couldn't be proven.

If Rush has some dirt in his background, let those that are spreading it, prove it.

Actually, I don't have to discredit blimbo , he does a fine job all by himself

take care tony and guidedog lido

No. 1: Learn to spell.

No. 2: Learn to think. Liberals haven't been TRYING to discredit Mr. Limbaugh. That pathetic, racist, homophobic, unpatriotic, self-aggrandizing, drug addled hypocrite (you're welcome for the spelling lesson) discredited himself forever with anyone capable of basic thought about 2 minutes into his first broadcast, and it has been downhill from there. Mr. Limbaugh is either gay or he (and not Sen. Clinton) is the most cheated on woman in America.  

What? You mean I should trust all of that "information" flowing through those "pipes"? ;)

Where is your link and your proof for this story?

I've posted it before, POV.  I'm not gonna post it again.

WZ brings this up so often, I beginning to wonder if he were 20 year old "midnight cowboy" in Pittsburg about 1973.

So what if he were? WZ isn't a homophobe so your attempt at a point is the stuff of childish barbs.

He may not be, but certainly seems obsessed about an alleged incident in Pittsburg in 1973. 

And?

You still have no point.

WZ doesn't crap up unrelated threads (as some truly obsessed do with Keith Olberman do) with his Jeff Christie reference, he just puts it up on Limbaugh threads.

I suggest you save the obsession tag for someone who has earned it.

And apparently WZ has no proof, but the same post keeps coming up in every RashL post. Makes little difference to me, but it makes me wonder why, when it is not relevant to the post.

Alrighty then. If proof is what you desire, why then do you deal in the kind baseless speculation you puport to disdain in your accusation of WZ?

No offense but you come across as a bit of a phony on this point.

Weird Zombie writer simply comes here and attacks others without offering anything of substance. He doesn't deserve any defense from you or anybody else.

Oh? And you are to be trusted, why?

I don't have to be trusted. But at least I don't personally attack prominent liberals with baseless allegations.

Sure. You simply personally attack a poster on this board and act innocent.

Forgive me if I do not take you seriously.

By making a joke about his user name? WZ writer personally attacks me all the time without trying to refute a single thing I say. The fact that you are standing up for him says a lot about you.

Oh, baloney. You get your butt handed to you every time you show up. You go off and lick your wounds, then come back with the same delusions abour your superior arguments and hallucinations about how people abuse you unfairly. It's lame and ridiculous.

 

Have you read posts by WZ"writer"?

I hate to agree with you, but you are right about that.  WZwriter has been really bad at times.  He/She really needs to control the anger.

maybe writer is another name that solon uses. He was the king of posting hateful statements. I think maybe 10% of solon's posts were acceptable by MMFA's terms of use policy, yet he's been doing it for ... how many years?? Perhaps mmfa needs to revisite they TOU policy and change the wording to mean, 'only those who disagree with mmfa or it's liberal users are restricted from using hateful speach'. Since that is the running policy, they may as well make it official, don't you think? 

Dude, every single one of your posts dripps with hostility and you have the nerve to criticize other posters about their "hateful comments". You get what you give, ok?

There are plenty of people from the Right who visit this board and are treated with respect, just as there are some that come on her with a chip on thier shoulder about "liberals" and start antagonizing and tweaking. Now ask yourself; which one are you?

You claim to be Christian, right? Hows that "Golden Rule" go again????

WZwriter is nothing at all like solon.  While Solon is known for attacking ad hominem at times - of which I generally philosophically disagree, I will say Solon ONLY does it when he believes he has been provoked or insulted himself.  Whenever he has been called on his behavior Solon has almost always been able to point to a post of the other person that justified his response.  In a few instances Solon admitted misinterpretting remarks and apologized for it.  I trust Solon's judgement and sense of honor as do many on both sides of the debate here from what I have seen. 

If you want intelligent debate with Solon, you should show him some respect to begin with.

I can only say that if Solon insulted you and apparently made you upset, odds are you probably deserved it at the time.

"I generally philosophically disagree, I will say Solon ONLY does it when he believes he has been provoked or insulted himself. "

   So, what you're saying is that as long as I show a liberal disrespecting a conservative 'before' I go on a tirade, then you would consider it acceptable (although you "generally philosophically disagree" with that tactic) ? But, it would be acceptable?

   I've seen solon's method. He does NOT wait for self provocation. He does not even carry an on-topic conversation. Like I said, you might be able to find 10% of his comments to be either 'on topic' and/or 'non-insulting'. Sure, he will use the excuse of 'fighting back', but you know that is NOT the truth. To say otherwise would be disingenuious and a lie to all those involved.

   To be fair, in the first 3 posts of this thread you have 2 posters insulting (without provocation) Rush and people who have listened to him. Using solon's methodology, I can simply say I was "fighting back" for insults thrown at me. Because 5 or 6 times back in 1988 I listened to Rush's show. So, these posters are insulting me and I am allowed to defend myself, correct??

   The fact is solon is a punk who hides behind the computer, with the largest of chips on his shoulder. I certainly won't deny my distaste for liberals, but aren't individual opinions welcome here? Solon states his opinion the only way he knows how and you defend him. I state mine the only way I know how and I'm chastised. Do you ever wonder why I developed the impression that liberals are hypocrits? Well, that is a perfect example.

 

"So, what you're saying is that as long as I show a liberal disrespecting a conservative 'before' I go on a tirade, then you would consider it acceptable (although you "generally philosophically disagree" with that tactic) ? But, it would be acceptable? -- Philib

No.  But if a liberal insults you specifically or conservatives generally, then you have every right to do the same to that particular liberal.  We are not all the same person you know.

"I've seen solon's method. He does NOT wait for self provocation. He does not even carry an on-topic conversation. Like I said, you might be able to find 10% of his comments to be either 'on topic' and/or 'non-insulting'. Sure, he will use the excuse of 'fighting back', but you know that is NOT the truth. To say otherwise would be disingenuious and a lie to all those involved. --Philib

We simply have a difference of opinion.  Perhaps you can point to a thread you find particularly good at demonstrating your point better.

"To be fair, in the first 3 posts of this thread you have 2 posters insulting (without provocation) Rush and people who have listened to him. Using solon's methodology, I can simply say I was "fighting back" for insults thrown at me. Because 5 or 6 times back in 1988 I listened to Rush's show. So, these posters are insulting me and I am allowed to defend myself, correct?? --Philib

You are welcome to attack those posters as individuals - and that would be entirely fair.  Just understand when (as I have seen you do) you broaden your attack to include all liberals, you have opened yourself up for counterattack from nearly everyone here.  That is one of the main reasons I have usually tried to avoid such using such tactics.  It usually (if not always) degrades the conversation and escalates the hostilities.

"The fact is solon is a punk who hides behind the computer, with the largest of chips on his shoulder. I certainly won't deny my distaste for liberals, but aren't individual opinions welcome here? Solon states his opinion the only way he knows how and you defend him. I state mine the only way I know how and I'm chastised. Do you ever wonder why I developed the impression that liberals are hypocrits? Well, that is a perfect example. --Philib

Perhaps you might get further with people if you examine your own approach.  You just engaged in name-calling of solon (who isn't here to defend himself) and broad generalizations against liberals in cas you didn't notice.  Do you really think you are innocent here?  It doesn't seem so.

I think you realize (and we can agree) that the visitors to this page are largely liberal. Your posts seem designed to provoke, insult and antagonize liberals.  I just can't understand your surprise that your approach leads to retribution and escalation.  I would think that if you were genuinely concerned you would change what you control - your own actions.

WZwriter has been really bad at times.  He/She really needs to control the anger.

I acknowledged that about a week ago.  I now reserve my anger for those who call me a liar and/or a hypocrit.

It's pretty silly to assume that I am familiar with the history of you and WZ. Then to use that assumption as some kind backhanded slap at my character is just pessimistic, peevish.

Still, I have seen your game and I'm reluctant to take your word on most any matter.

But whatever. You just keep standing up for Rush's honor as if he were some innocent lamb of truth.

RH,

You were comparing all of us yesterday who were against drilling in ANWR to Hitler.  Whatever floats your boat, man. 

Forgive me if I do not take you seriously.

No one takes Rino Hunter seriously.....

"I don't have to be trusted. But at least I don't personally attack prominent liberals with baseless allegations."--rino hunter

That is true.  Usually you are logged in as AnotherAmerican when you are doing that.

; )

That's not fair, Openmind. While AnotherAmerican has admitted to being Rinohunter, RH vehemently denies being AA. Apparently, one of the multiple personalities is embarrassed of the other, and that should be respected.

While AnotherAmerican has admitted to being Rinohunter, RH vehemently denies being AA. Apparently, one of the multiple personalities is embarrassed of the other, and that should be respected.

Not only that, they kidnapped their inner child and are holding him for ransom.....   :-)

[WZWriter] doesn't deserve any defense from you or anybody else.- RINO Hunter

WZ doesn't require any defense, but that won't stop me from mentioning that WZ has offered more substance in one line of his average posts than you have in your hundreds of piles of nonsense I've seen here over the time I've been reading the site.

The Jeff Christie bit is just a fun sideline. If you don't understand the point, and how it's meant to lampoon The Oxymoron's entire career, then you probably have an EIB BBQ apron

Mmm. Meat!

Rino, Rush Limbaugh is a junkie and somebody on this thread is proud that the Drug Addict makes millions.  I must therefore think that an idiot who would believe that Rush the Druggie deserves the millions also must think that drug sellers and dealers are also men of honor. Throw in pimps if you like..and Rush is a pimp also. He sends his dittowhores out everyday to sell his wares. And they gladly do it so that thier MAN is happy.

Rino, I read further and it was YOU who seemed thrilled that the Drug One is rich.  Now I understand.

WZ doesn't require any defense, but that won't stop me from mentioning that WZ has offered more substance in one line of his average posts than you have in your hundreds of piles of nonsense I've seen here over the time I've been reading the site.

Thanks, Colonel!!!  :-)

Weird Zombie writer simply comes here and attacks others without offering anything of substance.

You wouldn't recognize anything of substance if it slapped you upside your head, Rino Hunter.  It's hilarious that you accuse others of coming here to attack when that's all you ever do here.  Aren't you needed back at Free RepubliKKK? 

Remember when RINO claimed that he never personally attacked anyone?  "Weird Zombie," indeed.

Limbaugh has been rumored to be a closet homosexual long before he became ElRushbo, the darling of the GOP and right wing nutjobs. It has never been proven or disproven. The only relevance this bears to anything is that Limbaugh has on his radio show has expressed disdain for homosexuals...to put it kindly.

He may not be, but certainly seems obsessed about an alleged incident in Pittsburg in 1973. 

No - I'm obsessed about exposing Rush Limbaugh for the lying hypocrite that he is.

I'm obsessed about exposing Rush Limbaugh for the lying hypocrite that he is

I would like to see you succeed at doing this however you will need more than accusations an innuendo to accomplish your goal.  I have seen the links you posted before and they were nothing but internet fodder form someone who had an ax to grind.  Until you can provide something of real substance you come off as nothing more than a whiner. 

I have noticed that no one here as addressed Limbaugh's point, and in "channeling Geraldine Ferraro" the more I hear Obama speak the more I am inclined to agree her assessment.  If indeed Obama were Dan Quale, and I am old enough to remember those days,  he would have been run out of town by now.

 

"I would like to see you succeed at doing this however you will need more than accusations an innuendo to accomplish your goal."

Yeah. Poor, sweet, innocent, victimized Rush. He never, ever indulges in accusation and innuendo.

Whether he does or not is not the point.  He has the ears of millions listening to him every day and is very influential with his ability to communicate.  If WZ or anyone else is going to try to accopmlish the stated goal it's going to take more than whining.

Turn about is fair play.

Yeah. Poor, sweet, innocent, victimized Rush

...and where do you come off painting Rush as a victim?

He's a whiny victim. It's plain as day to anybody who listens with a drop of integrity.

Round - are you actually admitting to being a "dittohead"? 

I'm saying I sometimes listen to the guy nowadays. I used to listen to the 3 hours about 2 or 3 times a week back in about 93-94. I also listened to G. Gordon Liddy because he had Hannity's current spot in the area I lived. I was mostly apolitical in those days but Rush and Liddy wound up unintentionally persuading me to become a dedicated liberal.

All the while, though, I did want to hear sound, intelligent counter-arguments to those guys but sednsible rebuttals were not forthcoming, not because they didn't exist but because A.M. radio was an airtight vauum in those days. Which is understandable since the left didn't recognize the cultural relevance of the interpersonl nature of talk radio. The right did and had been nurturing their cognitive infrastruture within a captured niche for decades. The left were truly out of touch with us in those days.

Thank goodness for computers. Today I am free to hear counterarguments to Rush on talk radio that are strong and resonate with the majority of Americans. Life is good. Hartmann, Rhodes and Miller are taking not insignificant chunks of listeners out of the clutches of the radio Goliaths with simple words of hope.

Mmm, mmm, mmm. The power of truth.

I think its interesting the the righties on this thread are going on about how old the limbaugh/gay strory is (1973), but the right doesn't hesitate to bring up stories from the past. (Chappiquidick, any Bill Clinton story, etc.)

I think its interesting the the righties on this thread are going on about how old the limbaugh/gay strory is (1973), but the right doesn't hesitate to bring up stories from the past. (Chappiquidick, any Bill Clinton story, etc.)

<<<» Political commentator, radio host, college drop-out, alleged
closet homosexual, and, as recently revealed, synthetic heroin
drug addict, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III is probably the best
known neocon personality in American radio.>>>

 

fine background to be judging levels of ignorance upon others

You forgot to mention that he's a racist, draft dodging, mysogenistic, lying, aledged pedophile, and a bad comedian who is fat.

And yet he makes millions and puts far left radicals like yourself to shame.

I could take him in a real debate, without his staff feeding him info, and I'm not even that smart. Imagine what a really smart person could do with Limbaugh on a neutral field.

I could take him in a real debate, without his staff feeding him info, and I'm not