Can you put this in context for me? Limbaugh: prisoner abuse "brilliant"

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
If I'm not mistaken, the entire transcript (at least a large chunk) was posted...yet the majority of people still think Rush's comments were out of line and insensitive.

Is it possible CAD, and I know it pains you to think it, but is it possible that you are mistaken here?

Actually only one maybe two sections were posted. And they have to be read in the correct context. You know - what the issue surrounding the abuses were actually being talked about. These comments were NOT made about the abuse itself -they were made about the issues surrounding the abuse.
So no - the website and the bleaters are wrong to take his statements out of context. However they can be "outraged" if they wish - it just shows they don't have enough insight into what was being said or they are just letting their ASSumptions and perceptions of who Rush is to blind them to what he really was saying.

So no - I'm not mistaken here. You can have your OPINION and I'll have mine. I know what he was talking about in the context in which it was presented - others here don't seem to have that knowledge and only get their "context" from a leftist website seemingly devoted to Rush's every word(which is hilarious).

IMO they weren't out of line because of the issue around the issue being discussed. If you are offended by his remarks - then it is you who has the problem and need to deal with it. If you don't like it - turn it off, but coming here and making this fake display of "outrage" is laughable.

Time for some of the so-called "open minded" people to actually open their mind for a moment to try to understand what was being said. $20 says that the "open minded" won't open their minds

CkG

Seems to me that I have seen a great deal of Kerry statements and actions taken out of context, or just a snippet here or there

"Voted against buying body armor for troops" Of course the REST of what was in many of those bills were ignored.

It was "Did he vote for or against it"

Well, did Rush say this or not? Yes or no. Don't bother us with context.

Goose = Gander

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Gaard



...yet the majority of people still think Rush's comments were out of line and insensitive.

Maybe the majority of people that replied to the topic, but even if the majority of all people think that Rush's comments were out of line and insensitive, that wouldn't in it self make Rush's comments wrong..

Even I am openminded enough to understand that, Gaard...

Agreed.

How do you stand on this issue Ozoned?

This one

And it is against forum rules to call someone out in the thread titles - we've been over that before.

Agree

This one

I've been asking in the other thread, but you keep ducking me

Disagree

This one

And, something else. These comments are a total abandonment by Limbaugh of the moral high ground he frequently claims

Disagree

This one

Those who can't understand what Rush said can wallow in their ignorance or go actually READ or listen to what the conversations were about, instead of letting some leftist website skew the context of statements.

Agree

this one

Anyone with any traditional moral values would be appalled, and in fact, most conservatives ARE appalled.

Only a strong opinion, Disagree



This one

Rush managed to get his ass all the way up on his shoulders this time.

disagree

This one

Fvck Rush.

I wanted to reach through my radio today and slap some fvcking sense into his bigoted mind.

Speaks to the merit that maybe there are some that want to make this an emotional issue, to be exploited by those that would have something to gain..In that extent, Rush is being brilliant

This one

I get it now. You guys are scared to death of Rush

Agree


This one

Everything in America is about sales and profit.

Disagree


This one

If people want to bash Rush for their ignorant perception of what was said - they will do so regardless of my attempts at educating them

Agree

This one

It doesn't pay to fight the rabid left on this or those who just don't like Rush for whatever reason. It is quite entertaining to see people get their panties in a bunch over him though

Agree


Now, if you are referring to my position on Iraq prisoner abuse, I am in the middle, waiting for more information to formulate an unbiased opinion.. Rush's views may or may not weigh in on that...

That is how openminded people come to these opinions, No?

 

[Gaard]

Actually Ozoned, I was merely asking if you thought Rush's comments were out of line and insensitive. But you knew that didn't you?

I don't believe you need to wait for more information to believe that Rush's comments were or weren't bullsh!t. Are you really as open-minded as you so playfully like to imply, or are you just a partisan who is defending another partisan.

*disclaimer*
being a partisan isn't necessarily a bad thing...it's the refusal to admit to being one that's a bad thing.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard


I don't believe you need to wait for more information to believe that Rush's comments were or weren't bullsh!t.

Thankfully, Your "set-in-stone" beliefs do not affect my flexibility in forming opinions.

 

[Gaard]

CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

There is nothing to reply to - I said I'm done trying to inform people on this subject. They have proven they do not wish to look at this with that "open mind" they claim they have and are always bleating about.

I've already addressed the "foragainst" bit too. You just don't like the answer you got - that is YOUR problem - not mine.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

There is nothing to reply to - I said I'm done trying to inform people on this subject. They have proven they do not wish to look at this with that "open mind" they claim they have and are always bleating about.

I've already addressed the "foragainst" bit too. You just don't like the answer you got - that is YOUR problem - not mine.

CkG

It appears that once your arguements are disproven, you are done commenting on those issues. (And where have I heard that done commenting phrase before? Was it in the last Rush thread? )

You arguement was that people were taking his comments out of context. Yet you, yourself, provided that context early on in the thread. You must've forgotten. How can you continue the taken out of context stuff, when it was provided early in the thread?

And, no, you haven't addressed 'foragainst' bit. Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? Why is it so hard for you and heartsurgeon to say the words?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

There is nothing to reply to - I said I'm done trying to inform people on this subject. They have proven they do not wish to look at this with that "open mind" they claim they have and are always bleating about.

I've already addressed the "foragainst" bit too. You just don't like the answer you got - that is YOUR problem - not mine.

CkG

It appears that once your arguements are disproven, you are done commenting on those issues. (And where have I heard that done commenting phrase before? Was it in the last Rush thread? )

You arguement was that people were taking his comments out of context. Yet you, yourself, provided that context early on in the thread. You must've forgotten. How can you continue the taken out of context stuff, when it was provided early in the thread?

And, no, you haven't addressed 'foragainst' bit. Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? Why is it so hard for you and heartsurgeon to say the words?

No, it does not appear disproven. The comments are still being taken out of context despite my posting a transcript of one of the discussions the bleaters are whining about.

Yes I did address it - you need to learn to read.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

There is nothing to reply to - I said I'm done trying to inform people on this subject. They have proven they do not wish to look at this with that "open mind" they claim they have and are always bleating about.

I've already addressed the "foragainst" bit too. You just don't like the answer you got - that is YOUR problem - not mine.

CkG

It appears that once your arguements are disproven, you are done commenting on those issues. (And where have I heard that done commenting phrase before? Was it in the last Rush thread? )

You arguement was that people were taking his comments out of context. Yet you, yourself, provided that context early on in the thread. You must've forgotten. How can you continue the taken out of context stuff, when it was provided early in the thread?

And, no, you haven't addressed 'foragainst' bit. Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? Why is it so hard for you and heartsurgeon to say the words?

No, it does not appear disproven. The comments are still being taken out of context despite my posting a transcript of one of the discussions the bleaters are whining about.

Yes I did address it - you need to learn to read.

CkG

The transcript was posted yet the comments were still being taken out of context? Is it possible that the bleaters read the transcript, yet still think the comments are bs?

No, you did not address it. But we can dispense with this easy enough...Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? A simple Yes or No will do.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

There is nothing to reply to - I said I'm done trying to inform people on this subject. They have proven they do not wish to look at this with that "open mind" they claim they have and are always bleating about.

I've already addressed the "foragainst" bit too. You just don't like the answer you got - that is YOUR problem - not mine.

CkG

It appears that once your arguements are disproven, you are done commenting on those issues. (And where have I heard that done commenting phrase before? Was it in the last Rush thread? )

You arguement was that people were taking his comments out of context. Yet you, yourself, provided that context early on in the thread. You must've forgotten. How can you continue the taken out of context stuff, when it was provided early in the thread?

And, no, you haven't addressed 'foragainst' bit. Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? Why is it so hard for you and heartsurgeon to say the words?

No, it does not appear disproven. The comments are still being taken out of context despite my posting a transcript of one of the discussions the bleaters are whining about.

Yes I did address it - you need to learn to read.

CkG

The transcript was posted yet the comments were still being taken out of context? Is it possible that the bleaters read the transcript, yet still think the comments are bs?

No, you did not address it. But we can dispense with this easy enough...Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? A simple Yes or No will do.

Yes, the comments are still not being looked at and comprehended in their context- despite me providing a transcript of one of the statements the bleaters are whining about.

I've already discussed the nature of the political posturing game in the kerry foragainst thread. I'm sorry you fail to see how I explained that both sides have issues and problems with it.
Your attempts at gaining a soundbite(quote) once again failed just like the left's attempts at getting a soundbite from Bush have failed.

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

I will be crushed if Gaard gets the "postbite" he drools for, If it were me, I would just tell him to get fvcked!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I will be crushed if Gaard gets the "postbite" he drools for, If it were me, I would just tell him to get fvcked!

hehe - exactly You have to be careful with gaard around - he'll save some quote and then try to insert it into a entirely different conversation or topic. The way he questions everyone and yet fails to regularly make his own statements is entertaining. I get a kick out of it.

CkG

 

[classy]

Rush is nothing but a drug addict. And the right just continues to support him. He's another Mayor Berry.

 

[Gaard]

Is it possible for one to read all the transcripts, listen to all the shows, put everything in the context you say it has to be put in...yet still think the comments are bs?

I'm asking a direct question. Do you, or do you not, think that Bush, himself, flip-flops? A simple Yes or No will do.

Ozoned, are you running interference for CAD?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it possible for one to read all the transcripts, listen to all the shows, put everything in the context you say it has to be put in...yet still think the comments are bs?

I'm asking a direct question. Do you, or do you not, think that Bush, himself, flip-flops? A simple Yes or No will do.

Ozoned, are you running interference for CAD?

I already answered your post -

Yes, the comments are still not being looked at and comprehended in their context- despite me providing a transcript of one of the statements the bleaters are whining about.

I've already discussed the nature of the political posturing game in the kerry foragainst thread. I'm sorry you fail to see how I explained that both sides have issues and problems with it.
Your attempts at gaining a soundbite(quote) once again failed just like the left's attempts at getting a soundbite from Bush have failed.

CkG

No Ozoned just happened to realize the same thing I've known since you tried to divert the kerry foragainst thread into a bush thread.

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard
.

Ozoned, are you running interference for CAD?

:Q:Q


Nope, just thoroughly enjoying my Saturday afternoon.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it possible for one to read all the transcripts, listen to all the shows, put everything in the context you say it has to be put in...yet still think the comments are bs?

I'm asking a direct question. Do you, or do you not, think that Bush, himself, flip-flops? A simple Yes or No will do.

Ozoned, are you running interference for CAD?

I already answered your post -

Yes, the comments are still not being looked at and comprehended in their context- despite me providing a transcript of one of the statements the bleaters are whining about.

I've already discussed the nature of the political posturing game in the kerry foragainst thread. I'm sorry you fail to see how I explained that both sides have issues and problems with it.
Your attempts at gaining a soundbite(quote) once again failed just like the left's attempts at getting a soundbite from Bush have failed.

CkG

No Ozoned just happened to realize the same thing I've known since you tried to divert the kerry foragainst thread into a bush thread.

CkG

Is it possible for one to read all the transcripts, listen to all the shows, put everything in the context you say it has to be put in...yet still think the comments are bs?

On the 'foragainst' issue, are you saying your refusal to answer is simply a personal issue...you would answer but you prefer not to give me the satisfaction?

 

[Ozoned]

Good decision on the op Anandtech mod..

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No Ozoned just happened to realize the same thing I've known since you tried to divert the kerry foragainst thread into a bush thread.

CkG

So it's because you feel I'm guilty of diverting? If there were a thread dealing specifically with whether or not Bush flip-flops, would you participate?

 

[earthman]

Rush Limbaugh is one of the most distortionist commentators there is. His statements about the incidents in Iraqi prisons being essentially no different than what happens at a Britney Spears or Madanna concert show show the appalling arrogance and insensitivity of this man. How anybody assigns any credibility to this obnoxious jackass is beyond me. I get a headache listening to him for 2 minutes...he's just unpalatable, no matter what he's talking about.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it possible for one to read all the transcripts, listen to all the shows, put everything in the context you say it has to be put in...yet still think the comments are bs?

Sure - people get offended if you look at them the wrong way sometimes - but that is their problem. If someone took a look at it from a totally "open minded" position and still felt it was "bs" then maybe i'd offer them some different angles to look at them from - but that is not the case here. If you can't get over your "sensitivities" then don't listen to him. He's just a commentator for pete's sake - you people act as if he is running for office or a leader in our gov't He's not - he's just a Conservative behind a (golden) microphone filling the airwaves You don't have to agree with him - but this attempt to vilify him for things because you don't understand what was being said is laughable, but it does give me quite a laugh when people get all worked up over it.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No Ozoned just happened to realize the same thing I've known since you tried to divert the kerry foragainst thread into a bush thread.

CkG

So it's because you feel I'm guilty of diverting? If there were a thread dealing specifically with whether or not Bush flip-flops, would you participate?

No, it's not only because it was an attempted diversion, it's also because you are looking for a sound bite and quote I said what I did about kerry in that thread in a way that talked about politicians in general and then specifically pointed out why kerry gets the label over others. He particularly sucks at nuance, mainly because it's hard to hide from 20 years of Senate votes and speeches.

CkG

********

Ozoned -the MOD changed the title - not phokus

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, once again you choose to ignore me/my questions/my points. Why? (referring to my 2:15 post) (also referring to your "Foragainst" thread)

There is nothing to reply to - I said I'm done trying to inform people on this subject. They have proven they do not wish to look at this with that "open mind" they claim they have and are always bleating about.

I've already addressed the "foragainst" bit too. You just don't like the answer you got - that is YOUR problem - not mine.

CkG

It appears that once your arguements are disproven, you are done commenting on those issues. (And where have I heard that done commenting phrase before? Was it in the last Rush thread? )

You arguement was that people were taking his comments out of context. Yet you, yourself, provided that context early on in the thread. You must've forgotten. How can you continue the taken out of context stuff, when it was provided early in the thread?

And, no, you haven't addressed 'foragainst' bit. Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? Why is it so hard for you and heartsurgeon to say the words?

No, it does not appear disproven. The comments are still being taken out of context despite my posting a transcript of one of the discussions the bleaters are whining about.

Yes I did address it - you need to learn to read.

CkG

The transcript was posted yet the comments were still being taken out of context? Is it possible that the bleaters read the transcript, yet still think the comments are bs?

No, you did not address it. But we can dispense with this easy enough...Do you, or do you not, believe Bush flip-flops? A simple Yes or No will do.

Yes, the comments are still not being looked at and comprehended in their context- despite me providing a transcript of one of the statements the bleaters are whining about.

I've already discussed the nature of the political posturing game in the kerry foragainst thread. I'm sorry you fail to see how I explained that both sides have issues and problems with it.
Your attempts at gaining a soundbite(quote) once again failed just like the left's attempts at getting a soundbite from Bush have failed.

CkG

BS Cad,

The Context you refer too is Twisted. Ol Rusbo is on Defence by Playing Offence. Is a Distraction on Rush's Part. I catch what he is Trying To Do. he is attempting to shift Blame on soceital problems or claiming its a great Example of "That Generation".


Again I say Rush and Your Beloved Context of Him, Are BS.

 

[NeoV]

I'm tired of people saying that we don't understand what Rush is saying, or that if we don't interpret it in a conservative-friendly way we are ignorant or extreme-leftist.

Cad, you are doing exactly what you claim the other side to be doing - ignoring the BLATANTLY obvious slant in Rush's comments. Where, at any point in time, did Rush "condem" the acts? I'll save you the time - nowhere - not once - he's never said he condem's the acts - and if he has, then he is clearly talking out of both sides, as the saying goes, as nothing he said in any of the articles linked in this post or on any other web site I've seen is even close to saying he condems them.

What is he going to say if/when video's & pictures come out of rape/torture/murder of prisoners/civilians? Will that be a 'really bad fraternity' prank gone bad?


And while we are on the topic, let me give Rummy his due - though he may very well lose his job over this, and if whether or not he should is another topic altogether, at least he had the stones to do something that NO ONE else in this administration has done - take responsibility for something.

Bad WMD intelligence? Not our fault. CIA? Not our fault? Rummy had far less influence over the actions in that prison than Tenet had over his department's failures, yet he gets a free ride....nice setup we have going here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I'm tired of people saying that we don't understand what Rush is saying, or that if we don't interpret it in a conservative-friendly way we are ignorant or extreme-leftist.

Cad, you are doing exactly what you claim the other side to be doing - ignoring the BLATANTLY obvious slant in Rush's comments. Where, at any point in time, did Rush "condem" the acts? I'll save you the time - nowhere - not once - he's never said he condem's the acts - and if he has, then he is clearly talking out of both sides, as the saying goes, as nothing he said in any of the articles linked in this post or on any other web site I've seen is even close to saying he condems them.

What is he going to say if/when video's & pictures come out of rape/torture/murder of prisoners/civilians? Will that be a 'really bad fraternity' prank gone bad?

More ignorance being spouted. I'll let you wallow in it.

CkG