/dev/null Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 So an actual independent company rates him? Moodys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think it is 99.6 and I believe the company that rates him is owned by him... Link? Since I am right 100% of the time and you are left 100% of the time you have zero chance of being right on this issue or in fact, any issue. : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) If that were the case, it would be more like 100.4. he better be at least there to get to 99.4 from the half truths and worse cited here Edited February 10, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) he better be at least there to get to 99.4 from the half truths and worse cited here Youre citing a web app from the St. Petersburgh Times as your source about media accuracy? You idiot. Edited February 10, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 he better be at least there to get to 99.4 from the half truths and worse cited here Did you actually read what you linked to? If you read it you would presumably know that your link was disengenuous. If you didn't read it and just linked to it because you read the headlines you are just another Kool Aid drinking follower of Ed Schultz. Either way, you should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Did you actually read what you linked to? If you read it you would presumably know that your link was disengenuous. If you didn't read it and just linked to it because you read the headlines you are just another Kool Aid drinking follower of Ed Schultz. Either way, you should be ashamed. i read it. why is it disIngenuous? it's well researched and written...appears as tough on liberals and conservatives. found the link to it in the christian science monitior...suppose that's for kool aid drinkers too. not all of the quotes are from limbaugh on the page. that's what came up when i searched limbaugh on the site. what's disIngeuous are the outright lies and tortured bits of fact that the limp one regularly spews, som3e of which are documented here.. that's an appropriate source of shame but i don't think the man knows the meaning of the word. what the CSM and St. petersburg times have in common are pulitzers: 7 for the former and 1 for the latter. but i suppose that is considered an academic or scholarly distinction in far right circles and thus a negative characteristic. :wallbash: Edited February 10, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 i read it. why is it disIngenuous? it's well researched and written...appears as tough on liberals and conservatives. found the link to it in the christian science monitior...suppose that's for kool aid drinkers too. not all of the quotes are from limbaugh on the page. that's what came up when i searched limbaugh on the site. what's disIngeuous are the outright lies and tortured bits of fact that the limp one regularly spews, som3e of which are documented here.. that's an appropriate source of shame but i don't think the man knows the meaning of the word. what the CSM and St. petersburg times have in common are pulitzers: 7 for the former and 1 for the latter. but i suppose that is considered an academic or scholarly distinction in far right circles and thus a negative characteristic. :wallbash: Where they rated his comments as "half truth" they were basically true and where they rated them as "false" they had a good deal of truth to them. He's a radio talk show host and it's his job to get the message across without taking 30 minutes to explain why it's 90% correct rather than 100% correct. If you actually read the articles with an open mind you would understand what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Where they rated his comments as "half truth" they were basically true and where they rated them as "false" they had a good deal of truth to them. He's a radio talk show host and it's his job to get the message across without taking 30 minutes to explain why it's 90% correct rather than 100% correct. If you actually read the articles with an open mind you would understand what I am saying. i guess neither he nor his listeners have the time or the interest to obtain and disseminate the whole truth. and did you miss the "pants on fire" lies? they were as described. but, yes, there is some amount of subjectivity to "truth" at times. that's why they've included gradations in the appraisals. seems fair to me. a pattern of half truths points to your characterization of "disengenuous", however. Edited February 10, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 i guess neither he nor his listeners have the time or the interest to obtain and disseminate the whole truth. and did you miss the "pants on fire" lies? they were as described. but, yes, there is some amount of subjectivity to "truth" at times. that's why they've included gradations in the appraisals. seems fair to me. a pattern of half truths points to your characterization of "disengenuous", however. This is what they based the "pants on fire" tag on. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011310/content/01125106.guest.html Make sure you at least read the last paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 This is what they based the "pants on fire" tag on. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011310/content/01125106.guest.html Make sure you at least read the last paragraph. and you make sure you read limpy's transcript from 1/18/10 (linked to the st pete's appraisal) where he specifically notes the inefficiencies of donating through the gov't. turns out it was never an issue. the gov't wasn't accepting donations for haiti. they linked to the red cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 i read it. why is it disIngenuous? it's well researched and written...appears as tough on liberals and conservatives. found the link to it in the christian science monitior...suppose that's for kool aid drinkers too. not all of the quotes are from limbaugh on the page. that's what came up when i searched limbaugh on the site. what's disIngeuous are the outright lies and tortured bits of fact that the limp one regularly spews, som3e of which are documented here.. that's an appropriate source of shame but i don't think the man knows the meaning of the word. what the CSM and St. petersburg times have in common are pulitzers: 7 for the former and 1 for the latter. but i suppose that is considered an academic or scholarly distinction in far right circles and thus a negative characteristic. :wallbash: People getting "information" from Rush are like people getting housewife tips by watching I Love Lucy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 People getting "information" from Rush are like people getting housewife tips by watching I Love Lucy. so that's why the us divorce rate is so high!..... it's much easier to argue that he's a liar than a truth teller. imagine a debate team choosing which side to argue. can't imagine much happiness from the team chosen to defend him. assigned to almost certain failure....and the same holds for beck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 so that's why the us divorce rate is so high!..... it's much easier to argue that he's a liar than a truth teller. imagine a debate team choosing which side to argue. can't imagine much happiness from the team chosen to defend him. assigned to almost certain failure....and the same holds for beck. While Rush lies and spins things in a reprehensible manner and there is no way he is correct even 99.whatever% of the time (few could be who does nothing all day but express opinions), he is fed ammo by the far left daily. That is where he makes a living, because he usually has a point there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Just how much time in each day do you !@#$holes actually spend listening to talk radio anyway? It's frightening to think you actually tune into that pap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Just how much time in each day do you !@#$holes actually spend listening to talk radio anyway? It's frightening to think you actually tune into that pap. well, i'm not but lots of sheeple are. i occasionally look at limp's website to see what the enemy is up to but i can't listen to him....makes me nauseous to hear his arrogant propagandist voice. Edited February 11, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) i can't listen to him....makes me nauseous to hear his arrogant propagandist voice. I have the exact same problem. The difference is you can turn off the radio, but I still need to listen to what the president says. Edited February 11, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I have the exact same problem. The difference is you can turn off the radio, but I still need to listen to what the president says. can't sympathize much...had 8 years of dry heaves...nuculer, even when pronounced correctly, still makes me queasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 can't sympathize much...had 8 years of dry heaves...nuculer, even when pronounced correctly, still makes me queasy. Ok, how was your stomach during the Carter administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Why is it that Beck should feel free to criticize anyone on their choices in life when he has made so many poor ones? I actually appreciate Beck more then I dislike him, for what it is worth. As far as Rush, I do not listen to him except when my father has him on, and when I do I block him out so I cannot comment on him, but he is a fat dude who flys away to the Carribean to bang chicks on viagra while doing oxy's and roxy's. So we're going to bash the guy because he knows how to party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Ok, how was your stomach during the Carter administration? His stomach was a tad upset from the Ham and Malaise sandwich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts