Politifact: 93% of Rush Limbaugh's Claims are Half-True, Mostly False, False or Worse

[MachZer0]

This discussion is about Limbaugh, and I expanded my posts to touch upon conservative radio. If you feel like discussing Democrat-leaning commentators, maybe you can create a new thread for that discussion?

More to the point, the discussion is about the accuracy of Limbaugh's remarks. If you feel like discussing alleged hate speech or other references to hateful comments by Limbaugh, perhaps it is you who create a new thread

 

[JustOneWay]

More to the point, the discussion is about the accuracy of Limbaugh's remarks. If you feel like discussing alleged hate speech or other references to hateful comments by Limbaugh, perhaps it is you who create a new thread

I think not. His hatred speech is covered under the topic. He tosses out quite a bit of hatred toward the left, women and others and 93% of his hatred claims are half-true, mostly false or worse.

 

[MachZer0]

I think not. His hatred speech is covered under the topic. He tosses out quite a bit of hatred toward the left, women and others and 93% of his hatred claims are half-true, mostly false or worse.

Can you provide an example that fits the topic here, specifically, a comment that is both hateful and inaccurate? Noting that your previous example regarding Sandra Fluke fails since Limbaugh was right. She was exactly what he said

 

[AirPo]

More to the point, the discussion is about the accuracy of Limbaugh's remarks. If you feel like discussing alleged hate speech or other references to hateful comments by Limbaugh, perhaps it is you who create a new thread

Are the hateful comments by Limbaugh accurate?

 

[Sistrin]

I found it on Rush Limbaugh's website.

Then you should be able to post the context. Why is this so hard to understand?

It is mildly amusing that my points are countered with "the other side does it too".

I find it mildly amusing you would make this attempt to twist my words. The DU, the HuffPo, and Media Matters are all known for taking words out of context and using such to make the same type of claims you are making here. I have asked you twice to provide some context for your comments, and you have refused.

Of course, this does not diminish the hatred spewed by Limbaugh.

Right now the only hatred I am witnessing isn't coming from Limbaugh.

I got the definition from the uslegal.com, so I guess in your opinion the left has the law on their side.

Oh please. I don't care where you got the definition, you are misapplying that definition. Neither Limbaugh nor Hannity express ideals which carry no meaning other than an expression of hatred for some group. Your charges are based on a perversion of the very definition you posted.

My intent is not to insult anybody, just stating the facts about Limbaugh and those who may listen to him.

Then try stating some facts.

I guess you have not provided any solid evidence to counter my claims. I posted an in-depth study which shows that people are influenced by peddlers of hate.

A study which was shown to be flawed in its very design. Did you not read my post in response to that study?

I am sorry if my opinions bother you, but not once have I insulted you.

Don't flatter yourself.

Evidently you are are little sensitive to hearing the opinions of others? I don't know but it seems that way to me.

And you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Seriously, if you are going to make a backhanded attempt to belittle, at least try to be clever about it.

 

[Sistrin]

Can you provide an example that fits the topic here, specifically, a comment that is both hateful and inaccurate?

I have tried that approach already. Don't hold your breath.

 

[JustOneWay]

Then you should be able to post the context. Why is this so hard to understand?

google it. I know you can.

I have said all I need to say

No reason to beat the dead horse.

 

[JustOneWay]

Are the hateful comments by Limbaugh accurate?

According to the topic, very little of what he says is accurate, the hateful stuff and the not so hateful stuff. He is their entertainer, and it is odd that some of them find being led astray is entertaining.

 

[JustOneWay]

"Obamacare is going to increase the divorce rate."

 

[Sistrin]

google it. I know you can.

I have said all I need to say

No reason to beat the dead horse.

This is one of the best cut and run post I have ever seen.

 

[JustOneWay]

Rush Limbaugh
"Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world."

 

[MachZer0]

I have tried that approach already. Don't hold your breath.

The irony is that to find real hatred one must look at the speech directed at Limbaugh, not the speech that comes from him

 

[JustOneWay]

Pointing out another person's hatred is not hate.

 

[Audacious]

The irony is that to find real hatred one must look at the speech directed at Limbaugh, not the speech that comes from him

Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and a prostitute for wanting to have insurance cover women's contraceptive care. There's one example of him being a hateful bigot.

...a hateful bigot who, may I add, doesn't understand medicine at all.

 

[Albion]

Pointing out another person's hatred is not hate.

Labeling as "hate" a political POV simply because it disagrees with the speaker's views is the issue here, though.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Labeling as "hate" a political POV simply because it disagrees with the speaker's views is the issue here, though.

No, that's merely how certain conservatives would like to misconstrue things in order to make it look like those who complain about the tactics of Limbaugh et al are unable to separate the message from the way in which it's delivered.

Again, no one I'm aware of has called out George Will, Chris Wallace, and Peggy Noonan (I'd also add Tony Snow, RIP) for spreading anger and hatred, despite them all being pretty conservative.

The truth is that it's the people making the claim that you did who are either unwilling or unable to make the distinction between a POV and the manner in which it's delivered.

 

[Albion]

No, that's merely how certain conservatives would like to misconstrue things in order to make it look like those who complain about the tactics of Limbaugh et al are unable to separate the message from the way in which it's delivered.

No, that's just the rationalization that is sometimes used to try to justify character assassination.

Again, no one I'm aware of has called out George Will, Chris Wallace, and Peggy Noonan (I'd also add Tony Snow, RIP) for spreading anger and hatred, despite them all being pretty conservative.

That hardly makes right the attacks upon those who have been victimized.

 

[MachZer0]

Pointing out another person's hatred is not hate.

It is when the one doing the pointing is wrong and when the one doing the pointing name calls

 

[MachZer0]

Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a [redacted] and a prostitute for wanting to have insurance cover women's contraceptive care. There's one example of him being a hateful bigot.

...a hateful bigot who, may I add, doesn't understand medicine at all.

Rush was right about Sandra Fluke. Back in the day, women of her character were often times referred to in that manner. The sad thing is that so many no longer view her type in that manner

 

[Audacious]

Rush was right about Sandra Fluke. Back in the day, women of her character were often times referred to in that manner. The sad thing is that so many no longer view her type in that manner

So let me get this straight: somehow, having consensual sex with someone without exchanging money, using contraceptives paid for by insurance, is being a prostitute? That doesn't even make sense.

Also, how the hell can you judge her character based upon this one instance, which has nothing to do with someone's moral character?