Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (520970)	10/15/2009 9:05:19 PM
From: one_less	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579694

"Thanks!" You are welcome. "Sure wish I had a full transcript of a show. " There is nothing apparent that would stop you from producing one for yourself if that is genuine. You said you could find 10-15 by listening to any random short segment. You lied and got caught. You don't need a transcript. That diversion is an obvious attempt to deflect attention from your mistake. "Do they exist?" How should I know. I never watch the show and I don't follow his presentations except as commentary turns up here. "Beginning to wonder if he allows that." Any one who wanted to could produce a transcript by recording his show, then typing it up. 'Allowing' is inapplicable and the whole transcript detour is irrelevant to the fact that you got caught lying. "None of you guys can produce one." I am not a member of a guy group. However, there is no inherent obligation or good reason for anyone here to produce one, nor is there any evidence that posters here could not do it.

To: Road Walker who wrote (520970)	10/15/2009 10:20:48 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579694

None of you guys can produce one. Actually it is your problem. You made a accusation and need to do discovery to have a chance of prevailing in your case. The fact that your fishing expedition has been fruitless in asking everyone else to help you defend your own character is irrelevant. Your character is on the line and nobody else's. I am willing to allow you to defend yourself before assessing the likelihood that your character is reflected by making false accusations. Do you know how to record using a cassette recorder? Can you listen and type at the same time? Hint, the pause button will be your friend. If you threw away all of yours just ask anyone, I bet you could borrow dozens from clients or friends, if you have any. Good luck. Rush Limbaugh is amazingly accurate even in his predictions. Warning though, unlike the liberal TV partisans masquerading as news reporters Rush is honest about being an editorialist. You may not like his spin on events, but that makes him no more a liar than Kaite Couric. Are you calling Olberman, King and Couric liars too?

To: Road Walker who wrote (520970)	10/16/2009 7:00:27 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579694

On Limbaugh: Can The Pot Call the Kettle...um... The Czar would stay out of the Rush Limbaugh story, thank you. The Czar cares little for Mr. Limbaugh’s style of broadcasting, but unlike every one of his critics, the Czar has actually heard Rush Limbaugh’s show in its entirety many, many times. It isn’t that bad of a show. In fact, the Czar can tell if you have never really listened to the show because you would tend to use words like blowhard, bloviate, loudmouth, and so on. Critics of Limbaugh tend to dismiss his fans as “dittoheads,” when in fact it is they who repeat what they think they should say about him. Take a critic and make him listen to the show. He will discover that contrary to liberal portrayals, Limbaugh is a fairly soft speaker, who takes callers of all shapes and sizes, and backs up his editorials with quite a bit of research. He can be scathing, but the facts almost invariably bear him out. Indeed, the Czar’s criticisms are that he tends to appropriate other people’s words and phrases as his own without paying respects to the source, and he spends too much time with callers who heap praise upon him. Rush Limbaugh of course is the biggest boogie man the liberals have ever found. They have nearly unanimously declared him to be the de facto head of the Republican Party, and know full well that conservatives take their marching orders from him. Why? Because most liberals take their marching orders from someone, so therefore conservatives do as well. The liberal mind has a terrible time understanding that Limbaugh is an entertainer, an engaging speaker, and a witty historian—not a politician, pundit, or seer. He is just an entertainer. The Czar very much doubts Limbaugh has ever described himself otherwise. As you know, Limbaugh announced he would like to be a part owner of the Rams. Suddenly, the NFL grew a conscience (apparently overnight), and said that his type of personality is unwelcome in the NFL. Why? He made two horribly racial comments on his radio show. What were they? Well, now it gets murky. Turns out the quotes were pulled off a quotation website that requires no verification or fact-checking. In fact, it turns out the quotes were invented by a liberal goon and posted with the intention of trashing Limbaugh’s reputation—knowing full well the quotes would go viral and people would believe them for years. Finally, someone found a verified quote from him cracking wise about a particular player being popular with the media, and that he would not be nearly as popular were he white. The Czar read the quote and thought, well, that was a dumb thing to joke about because it lacked a clear punchline. That alone was enough for the NFL, who forced Limbaugh out of the candidacy, and who also endured the hilarious irony of Al Sharpton calling Limbaugh out for being racially divisive, and a protest from Jesse Jackson who accused Limbaugh of using racial slurs and hate speech—less than a year after Jackson was caught using a forbidden word on air, right around the time he advocated openly castrating the President. Let us play the usual game we play against liberal psychology. Let us agree for the sake of argument that all cultures are equal in the eyes of liberals. Imagine now an NFL ownership candidate was discovered to say the following objectionable comments: —A white boy that makes C's in college can make it to the White House. —Black people dominate sports in the United States. 20% of the population and 90% of the final four. —Every town has the same two malls: the one white people go to and the one white people used to go to. —School shootings were invented by blacks. These are actual quotes made by an entertainer equally as popular and well-compensated as Rush Limbaugh. However, the Czar predicts that if Chris Rock, the speaker of the above quotes, announced he was interested in buying the LA Rams, the NFL owners would climb over each other to fellate him into the club. Why? Because Chris Rock is black, and Rush Limbaugh is white. Rock’s comments are a little better worded that Limbaugh’s, but there is no doubt they are dripping with racial divisiveness, whereas Limbaugh’s quote was just unfunny. Rock did make these comments, but he made them in an entertainment context, the same as Rush. So how does the typical liberal feel about this? How does he explain away the hurtfully divisive comments made by Rock? Ahem—that is, without saying that Rock gets a pass because he is black...which means that multicultural sensitivity has no meaning for liberals, since it implies that one culture is exceptional over others. gormogons.com

To: Road Walker who wrote (520970)	10/16/2009 8:12:03 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579694

CNN Anchor Rick Sanchez Is Assembling a Pile of Retractions RED STATE By Tim Graham on Rush Limbaugh Rich Noyes noted earlier that CNN's Rick Sanchez stated via Twitter what he couldn't say on the air because of the overdone "Balloon Boy" fracas. He was sorry he aired fabricated Rush Limbaugh quotes: >>> i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.<<< Our bad? How about "I was inexcusably reckless in airing fabricated quotes?" But this is at least the third time in the last year that Sanchez has required a retraction when attacking a conservative or Republican. Two months ago, Matthew Balan of NewsBusters forced Sanchez to retract his claim that Sen. John McCain said Republicans needed to recruit "competent" Hispanics, which inflamed CNN analyst Roland Martin. McCain never used that word. It might go without saying, but "competent" Hispanic anchors don't require regular retractions. (That came days after Sanchez suggested on Twitter that he couldn't be a sellout and work at Fox News: "do u know how much money i'd make if i'd sold out as hispanic and worked at fox news, r u kidding, one problem, looking in mirror". Fox's Julie Banderas fought back: "As a wise Latina woman, I have no comment other than to say... if I were Rick Sanchez, I wouldn't look in the mirror, period.") Noel Sheppard reported last November that CNN reporter Jeanne Moos was assigned to correct Sanchez, who showed a video of President Bush not shaking hands at a G-20 summit: "And he seems like the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked. You know, the one with cooties." Moos corrected: "It turns out the president had already shaken everybody's hand earlier that same day. In fact, he had shaken most of their hands twice starting the day before." After all this unfairness, here's another claim Sanchez ought to retract: "I play it down the middle." PS: Sanchez loves bringing on pundits from the liberal group Media Matters for America, the one Hillary boasted she created. In a story on Fox's Special Report tonight (a story I appeared in briefly), reporter Molly Henneberg said liberal author Jack Huberman claimed he got fabricated Limbaugh quotes from Media Matters, including Limbaugh's alleged praise for assassin James Earl Ray. Henneberg solicited this comment in reply: "We are unsure where that quote came from, as well. We have never posted them." -- Doug Stauffer, Media Matters, 10/15/09. Let's hope Media Matters wasn't claiming they never posted the "Slavery had its merits" quote -- because they did, on their "County Fair" blog. They jumped on it early, on October 7. Karl Frisch hailed Bryan Burwell for "one hell of a column" -- which included the fake slavery quote. So much for the foes of "misinformation." MMFA later updated the item with Burwell's cocky so-what response when confronted with the fake quote, as well as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's announcement that they will "continue to research the origin" of the quote, and not yet admit it was a fake. h/t lindybill

To: Road Walker who wrote (520970)	10/16/2009 8:16:16 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1579694

Reich claims his truths were out of context Robert Reich Responds to VS Video… Morgen on October 15, 2009 I had a feeling he would…and sure enough here is Reich’s response: Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Rush, and the right-wing blogosphere seem interested in a talk I gave in September, 2007 to students in a political science class here at Berkeley, in which I played the role of a presidential candidate so politically incorrect and tone-deaf as to pummel every sacred cow in sight — including the notion that our society could afford and would continue forever to pay whatever amount of money was required to keep everyone alive forever. The whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth because they’ll be taken apart by the Right or the Left. I slew many other sacred cows in that mock exercise, some of which are held dearly by the Left. Nonetheless, two years later the Right has exhumed the lecture and taken my words completely out of context purportedly to show that Obama and the Democrats plan death panels. If their desperation weren’t so pathetic it would be funny. After all, they have proven the whole point of my lecture. UC Berkeley maintains an archive of webcasts and my speech is available there verbatim, should you wish to listen to it in its entirety. I’m shocked…the claim is that his words have been taken “out of context”. In fact, “completely” out of context. This is becoming a familiar refrain, to the point where the word “context” seems to be losing all meaning. Now I’m sure somewhere out there in the blogosphere, or even on talk radio or TV, portions of our original clip have been played without the full set-up that we provided in the video. But I will say that I have read dozens of blog posts discussing this clip, and have watched or listened to the coverage on Fox and Hannity, Rush, and Mark Levin on the radio. And by and large everyone seems to be either playing or quoting the entire thing, or at least setting it up by saying that it was a mock speech given by Reich at Berkeley where he was saying what an honest President would say about health reform (along with the other issues discussed in the full speech). And let me be clear…we posted a link to the entire speech at Berkeley as well, and encouraged people to listen to it . So considering that Reich even now concedes that “the whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth“, I’m not sure I’m grasping how this is out of context. (Except perhaps in the bizarro universe where certain truths are only “in context” when they are spoken to an educated and enlightened audience.) The truth is the truth – and these were Reich’s own words. And if it’s so self-evident that these in fact are truths, why has Reich been front and center in accusing opponents of reform of propagating the very same truths as…”myths”? Look, I don’t have a problem with the speech Reich gave at Berkeley. I admire his honesty, and understand the value of using controversy to provoke academic discussion. Of course there are serious trade-offs to consider when reforming something as large as our healthcare system. And a political campaign is not the place to look if you are searching for uncomfortable truths. But in choosing to leverage his credibility as an economic and political expert to advocate for reform, Reich is asking for the public’s trust. And it’s ultimately for the public to decide whether they trust what he has to say now in support of reform compared to his words from 2007. Words which even now he admits are the “truth”. John Adds: Media Matters has labeled this a “lie” that won’t go away, at least that’s the headline they put it under. They note that Rush Limbaugh played it on air but, strangely, they don’t ever bother to explain why it’s a lie. As Morgen noted above, it seems Reich has just admitted it was “the truth.” Will Media Matters correct the record? Holding breath…turning blue…*gasp! verumserum.com