Rush Was Punked: “Obama Thesis” Hoax "It must have seemed so perfect. An obscure blogger unearths some pages of President Obama's college thesis. The report supposedly comes from big-time journalist Joe Klein of Time magazine. And the thesis has some real gems: like Obama's disdain for the Constitution. The whole thing was nothing more than a satirical post on a humor blog. But Rush Limbaugh, who quoted from the supposed thesis on his radio show, sure wasn't laughing. Here's how it went down. An unknown blogger picked up on a made-up post meant as a joke, which claimed that Joe Klein had gotten his hands on 10 pages of student Obama's college thesis. Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, which immediately sparked Web searches on "obama thesis." Supposedly titled "Aristocracy Revisited," the excerpt revealed the president had "doubts" about the "so-called founders." Juicy. Except not true. Limbaugh discovered halfway through his show that he'd been had, but defended himself by saying basically the thesis felt true." The rest here: http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122?fp=1 "The thesis felt true." It's truthiness! Once again a Colbert/Daily Show gag becomes real life.
He needs to go away on the, much cited by the Right, "Dan Rather incompetence clause". The 'proof' that Bush evaded his National Guard service 'felt true' too because it is true. Rushes BS is just what he wants to be true. Will he resign or will the entire Winger-mic army sing a unison tune of 'its entirely different'? The Right wing has no consistency or sincerity of any kind. They care not what but whom.
Fool me once ... shame on you ... can't get fooled again Do we really need another Rush Limbaugh thread?
Re: Fool me once ... shame on you ... can't get fooled again He IS a large enough subject..... BTW, i mentioned this topic somewhere else.....
Fool me once ... shame on you ... can't get fooled again 3 threads of the twenty on the first page is two too many.
Re: Fool me once ... shame on you ... can't get fooled again It's three too many. But he is the leader of the GOP. Suck on that. It's true.
I just want to clarify here. The "kerning" issue had to do with faked proof that Bush had had strings pulled for him to get into the NG. I mean, everyone with a dozen firing brain cells "knew" it already. That was the nature of the NG at the time. But the faked letters provided proof. And it provided an excuse for the tradmed to cover a story that they'd neglected in 2000 because they hated Gore and were helping Bush. The whole incident was a trip through a sausage making factory in a libertarian wonderland.
Yet another device to avoid the truth,which is that glenn beck may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Don't let killers move the goalposts.
So it seems that it took Limbaugh about an hour or two to figure out the thesis was a hoax. How long did it take CBS to figure it out on the phony national guard memo? I forget now. That whole campaign in 2004 was pretty memorable - Kerry and his stooges trumping up that ANG story, then getting clobbered by the swift boat business. You libs were caterwauling and going insane. Alas, times change. But libs never stop dreaming that they can dish it out and not have to take it.
I guess its no different than Appoo starting a new thread every time a new anecdote surfaces about someone being denied health care.
But Limbaugh still thinks there is a kernel of truth to the hoax, so for him the hoax is not a hoax, but a statement of fact. Which is worse: to admit you're wrong, or to live in a fact-free world?
First lets find out if you're in a fact-free world. I don't monitor Limbaugh, but it seems you do. Is Rush saying that the thing is an actual document written by Obama? That's what you appear to be asserting, but you write in mellish and it's not easy to understand.
Do try to keep up. Your poor reading comprehension is no excuse. This is what Rush said about the hoax: So Rush admits that it's a hoax, but doesn't care that it's a hoax because he believes it might as well be true. That's what I call fact free. Rush proves himself to be a bigger idiot than possibly imaginable. He knows its a hoax, but still treats it as true. How pathetic.
---"So I shout from the mountaintops: 'It was satire!'" Limbaugh said on the program. "But we know he (Obama) thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth." Limbaugh said he has license to go with the fabrication because other members of the media have done this to him. "So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up," he said. "I know Obama thinks it.--- Therefore, it isnt important if Glenn Beck really raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. We know he wanted to.
If the hoax thesis was about wealth distribution, then Rush is correct in believing that there is truth to it. We've all heard Obama assert his desire for wealth ditribution. He caught himself, the rightly stated that there is truth to it, based on Obama's own words.
Aggressive wealth redistribution began in earnest during the Reagan admin. An attempt to reverse the deliberate concentration in Upper Class and corporate hands in order to reestablish the middle class isnt redistribution, it is correction. It is patriotic. One thing Ive noticed about 'trickle down' redistribution. When the trickle gets too close to the roots, that money is removed from the economy. Apparently the bulk of Americans having and spending money is 'inflationary' and reduces the value of the 98% which doesnt trickle. We cant have that now, can we GOP?
Wouldn't anything other that an equal head tax be redistribution? A percentage flat tax actually extracts more income from the wealthy and exempts non-earners.
Of course thats true. Id go farther. Every policy is an econimic policy to some extent. The trend has been to a concentration of benefits and a generalization of costs. The parties most professionally interested in a specific issue will make the most effort to influence that one thing. Everyone else is spread too thin. There is certainly no less Constitutional virtue is virtue in policies to the reverse economic benifit. Im pure on my credit cards. We gave the bastards trillions for their personal use and they are still allowed to charge usury interest to the very ones responsible for providing the funds they pretend to be using in the first place. Are there people STILL arguing for self -regulation of corporate behavior?? What do they consider their job descriptions?
What's so bad about wealth redistribution? From a purely sociological perspective, excessive wealth disparity leads to bad things. I'm sure there were rich folks in France 1780's and Russia 1910's that opposed policies that would redistribute wealth (ie, take from the rich minority and build a middle class). You could look to their memoirs - but once wealth disparity was too great - they didn't get a chance to write them I'm not saying they deserved it. I am saying that excessive disparity in wealth can lead to societal upheaval, and if the goal is to have a stable society...