Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Is Social Media Being Used to Spread MisInformation?
techvat.com — A few days ago, Rush Limbaugh called the soldiers fighting in Iraq - 'Phony Soldiers'. Media Matters quickly published a story on this and it was immediately picked up and submitted to social media sites, such as Digg and Propeller. But did Rush Limbaugh actually say that or was it misinterpreted by us Diggers?
Bukowsky- 1004 diggs
- digg it
- Bukowsky, on 10/10/2007, -22/+88And, for the record.... I HATE Rush Limbaugh, but I found this article very interesting and decided to post it.
- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -26/+17Is Social Media Being Used to Spread MisInformation?
All you need to do is look at the many many front page stories here on digg that are blatant pro-linux FUD factories and the answer is strikingly obvious!- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I haven't been on Digg for a while, but since Demoniod's been down I've looked out of boredom. What I've found on the front pages are some of the biggest piles of bull I've ever seen. Where do these stories come from? The National Enquirer would pay big bucks for this crap. What's worse is that these same stories are repeated again and again. I think whoever picks these stories must have ADD or something. I can't wait for Demonoid to get back online so I can get back to sanity. Give me sex, drugs or rock n roll; Tech if nothing else but enough of this political fiction.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Fixed: Is Communication Being Used to Spread Misinformation?
Can you think of any exceptions?
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -19/+26If you want to look at misinformation, consider the many counter-posts that are getting seriously dugg using Rush Limbaugh's EDITED transcript as corroboration. I submitted an article that MediaMatters.org wrote proving that Rush Limbaugh was lying about what he said, including the actual audio from his broadcast and his edited transcript. I did this last night. Now, an article posted 25 minutes ago is on the front page questioning the accuracy of the original MediaMatters.org article and the proof of what Limbaugh actually said is nowhere to be seen.
- mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -19/+23The entire transcript, showing the full context proves the hypothesis of the website to be false.
LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?
LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.
CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?
LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?
CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you --
CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong.
LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have --
CALLER 1: Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know --
LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.
CALLER 1: No, I'm not.
LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike.
CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.
[...]
CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that?
LIMBAUGH: Mike --
CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it?
LIMBAUGH: Mike --
CALLER 1: What is it?
LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.
CALLER 1: I am.
LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --
CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --
CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.
CALLER 1: No, but --
LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --
CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --
LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!
CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?
LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.
CALLER 1: And that is what?
LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --
LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --
CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.
LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.
CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.
CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --
LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.
CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.
LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!
CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?
LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --
LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.- elvenseven, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4fail
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Yep I heard it first hand, I don't know how you could say he didn't call Soldiers opposed to the war phony solders.
- pdrap, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8You're misunderstanding what the guy wrote. He said that the full transcript shows that Rush words were as bad as his critics say they are.
The hypothesis of the website was that Rush wasn't so bad, he was taken out of context. As the poster of the full context said, the full context proves that website wrong.
- pdrap, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8You're misunderstanding what the guy wrote. He said that the full transcript shows that Rush words were as bad as his critics say they are.
- EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Is it just me or doesn't Rushie sound like a 6 year old in the sandbox having just had his toys taken by a bigger boy?
He is such a petty little man, no scratch that, he is not even a man, he is a pussy! - tracydanger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Wow. This is not even close to the entire context. I was listening to Rush the day after this happened and he played the quote - in context - the portion for about 3 minutes AFTER using the term phony soldiers. He explained that he was talking specifically about a few instances where people claimed to be soldiers that never actually were. One guy in particular that never even made it out of bootcamp and then claimed to serve in Iraq and see a bunch of atrocities. That is who he was calling Phony Soldiers. The person that posted this portion of the transcript shows the exact bias that the article talked about.
- mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -19/+7The entire transcript, showing the full context proves the hypothesis of the website to be false.
LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?
LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.
CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?
LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?
CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you --
CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong.
LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have --
CALLER 1: Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know --
LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.
CALLER 1: No, I'm not.
LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike.
CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.
[...]
CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that?
LIMBAUGH: Mike --
CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it?
LIMBAUGH: Mike --
CALLER 1: What is it?
LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.
CALLER 1: I am.
LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --
CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --
CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.
CALLER 1: No, but --
LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --
CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --
LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!
CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?
LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.
CALLER 1: And that is what?
LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --
LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --
CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.
LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.
CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.
CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --
LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.
CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.
LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!
CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?
LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --
LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. - fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9"LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers."
Please note: The caller says that the media "never talk to real soldiers". Note the plural case, and the claim that the media has never talked with a real soldier - implicitly declaring that all soldiers who talk to the media are phony.
Further, "The phony soldiers" is also plural - he's NOT talking about one case, he's talking about *multiple cases*.
Limbaugh AGREED with that statement, hence the condemnation.- synarchy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Limbaugh has been complaining for months about the way the mainstream media will print just about anything, particularly claims of atrocities, from people claiming to be vets or active duty, without bothering to confirm the accuracy of the stories. And recently, thanks to the blog community, just like with the fake photos from the Lebanon war, the mainstream media is being called to account for printing *****. And Limbaugh has been doing what he does best: GLOATING about it, and talking about it and about how it proves what a genius he his for pointing it out. I've been listing to him gloat over it, and find it highly entertaining, since the only thing I can't stand more than the tool that is Limbaugh, is the tool that is the mainstream media. For anyone who's been listening to Limbaugh, you'd know the use of the term "phony soldiers" was a reference to the FACT that bloggers are revealing the ***** being crapped out by the mainstream media, and that he therefore has ONCE AGAIN been vindicated by as the media is exposed.
The knee-jerk lefties can scream bloody murder all they want, but it's a hollow cry. The only people that lie more than Republican tools are Liberal tools.
- synarchy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Limbaugh has been complaining for months about the way the mainstream media will print just about anything, particularly claims of atrocities, from people claiming to be vets or active duty, without bothering to confirm the accuracy of the stories. And recently, thanks to the blog community, just like with the fake photos from the Lebanon war, the mainstream media is being called to account for printing *****. And Limbaugh has been doing what he does best: GLOATING about it, and talking about it and about how it proves what a genius he his for pointing it out. I've been listing to him gloat over it, and find it highly entertaining, since the only thing I can't stand more than the tool that is Limbaugh, is the tool that is the mainstream media. For anyone who's been listening to Limbaugh, you'd know the use of the term "phony soldiers" was a reference to the FACT that bloggers are revealing the ***** being crapped out by the mainstream media, and that he therefore has ONCE AGAIN been vindicated by as the media is exposed.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -8/+30You want a guaranteed way to make the digg front page, follow the rules:
- anything that mocks Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh or Republicans
- include issues or companies that will destroy the world or country (Microsoft, big oil, AT&T, etc)
- include issues or companies that SAVE the world or country (Apple, iPhone, Linux, open source software, etc)
- bring up Ron Paul
- submit anything from MediaMatters, treehugger.com, etc
- anything related to how bad the Iraq war is going or how much it costs
- anything that brings up the impeachment of Bush or Cheney
- any article that CLARIFIES what "President" Ahmadinejad actually said and brings about "respect" of him- mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Looks like you got dugg down, guess diggers can't handle the truth. You forgot to mention anything pro atheist and anti-Christian. The more militant, the better. Digg has become a cesspool of the worst kind of people.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Oh yes...any articles containing the word "Dawkins" will make it to the front page as well...
- chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5You can go to Little Green Footballs or Free Republic and hang with the rest of the right wingers. They really hate liberals too so you'll feel all warm and cozy.
Have fun,
-a liberal- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Awww...what's the matter?? Is that how a liberal handles "dialogue?"
- mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Looks like you got dugg down, guess diggers can't handle the truth. You forgot to mention anything pro atheist and anti-Christian. The more militant, the better. Digg has become a cesspool of the worst kind of people.
- nplace1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Dude, I disagree with the vast majority of Digg commenters (troofers, people who think the police state is imminent, and MediaMatters/Raw Story/Keith Olbermann fanboys) say, but I read every day just so I can get a big taste of what it is I disagree with.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Guess what kids, your entire newsmedia is being used to spread misinformation, and for reasons far worse than what some ideological wackos on the internet are doing.
- Himself, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4that "entire" transcript has a few of these: [...]
hmmmm- brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think that's a pause in speech.
- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -26/+17Is Social Media Being Used to Spread MisInformation?
- verge, on 10/10/2007, -41/+13Great context into how neocons are attempting to harness the power of social media. Additional insight provided a week ago at a White House blogger meeting.
I'm all for balance. God knows, conspiracy theories without foundation proliferate on these internets quickly. Digg, reddit, et. al are gas to the conspiracy flame and it'd be disingenuous to say otherwise. Rational input from the right and left, if channeled properly, can be harnessed within social media to unite not divide.
The problem I see with the post is not as much what Rush said, but the caller - "...If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country." I see this as a blatant attempt to use the US military as a pawn in a political argument - not to mention, it's inaccurate. But where did the America's deep partisan division start? When did the dialog between the right and left become so dysfunctional that America is taken on these tangents?
The fault isn't with bloggers, social media or otherwise. If we weren't predisposed to accept radical ideas, we'd laugh at them, to be sure. I'll submit that the comment on Rush's show wouldn't be given the same attention without moveon.org's ad and the subsequent criticism. Moveon.org questioned Petraeus because, for the first time (to my knowledge), our President put a military commander in a political position suggesting what the United States military policy should be. So, Petraeus gets questioned (as anyone in that position would). Bush cries foul. Bush says you can attack him, but not Petraeus, not our military. Bush puts Petraeus' face on this war, on his own policy. Bush then doesn't have to answer to anyone and can attack anyone. And he does, as if on cue.
I have to ask who is Bush fighting? If not Iraq, then America (or at the very least Americans).
To Steve D,, the writer who obviously scans social media comment sections, feel free to quote anything written here. Until then ol chap, I'm going to have dinner.
One last thing... Steve, you know that you can contribute here as well as techvat.com, right? Our conversation can have fewer degrees of separation if you respond here.- dartmanx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23Hardly... "neocons" (aka anyone who doesn't share your opinion)... are losing BADLY on social media sites such as digg. I don't think I've seen any articles praising the current president here (and any story dugg to the front page gets hijacked in the comments about Ron Paul).
- FyberOptic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3When he does something worthy of being praised over, let me know.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4If you think there are no NeoCons you are not paying attention. The globalists have been around since before Wilson on both sides of the aisle. No, it's not just anyone who doesn't agree a particular world view. For some perhaps, party line liberal types, but not for those who choose to educate themselves on the matter. All you have to do is look at how both parties have changed, and neither really stands for what it used to in actions. Words perhaps, but not actions. However, you are right, they're not getting a good shake in the media.
- Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, to be fair, most conservatives I know hate the president now, including myself. I used to support him, but he's put so much into action i disagree with he's just not doing what the people who elected him, want him to do.
- RCourtney, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16From what I remember reading about the Vietnam war and how so many Americans took their anger with the government out on the troops I can't help but feel like we're falling down that same slippery slope today with the war in Iraq. People with no real message using the troops as their scapegoats/poster boys to further their ideology at the expense of those same troops. Leave the troops out of it - they are simply doing what they are told and required by uniform military code to do. Many are proud to be there... many don't want to be there. Each American is due their own opinion but the troops are just doing their job. I hope we do not end up in the same place, with the same attitudes, as happened towards the end of Vietnam because the way we, the American people, treated our soldiers as a whole then is still a huge stain on our history that should never be repeated.
- Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Great context into how neocons are attempting to harness the power of social media." What are you on crack? Yes the NEOCONS Have a plan it goes something like this,,,
Phase 1: Smear Rush with made up stories on left wing blogs as we find some way to post "Go Ron Paul" on Dig
Phase 2 :?
Phase 3: profit.
- dartmanx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23Hardly... "neocons" (aka anyone who doesn't share your opinion)... are losing BADLY on social media sites such as digg. I don't think I've seen any articles praising the current president here (and any story dugg to the front page gets hijacked in the comments about Ron Paul).
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Political parties make people stupid, because of the inherent prejudice, so it make sense they pass that stupidity onto social sites. It's any kind of prejudice but politics seems to be the biggest source. That's why politics on the Internet is generally ignored by people with brains.
- Grym11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Using the term "political parties" implies a certain intellectual aspect to this phenomenon. There is none. It is pure and basic TRIBALISM.
It's only funny because--in theory--we *should* be above this. Here we all are communicating through a highly technological, sophisticated medium and what do we do? We use it to fling ***** at eachother.
- Grym11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Using the term "political parties" implies a certain intellectual aspect to this phenomenon. There is none. It is pure and basic TRIBALISM.
- Digitalfilm43, on 10/10/2007, -10/+94Misinformation? Here? On Digg? No Way! That may be true for those "other" social media sites, but if it's on Digg then it has to be true!
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6We spread the truth, like the fact that goatse showed up in the YouTube debates.
- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Yep, totally 100% true. Why else would the lintards and their lame 101 ways linux is better than *** get to and then stay on the front page.
Of course they could just be the work of a very sad and lonely few... - innergeek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15You forgot to use the sarcasm tags on your comment. Oh, that's right, HTML tags aren't allowed in comments.
It's gotten to the point that I ignore anything political on Digg, because there is so much garbage being propagated as Truth.
- FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -14/+66A lot of digger hear what they WANT to hear.
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Like your silent 's'?
- davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -37/+32Answer: Yes. Just look at all the lies and misinformation the Ronbots are forcing down our throats.
Oh, and listen to the whole recording of Limpdick from that day. Also listen to his retort the following day when he re-iterates the Swift Boat thing in an effort to deflect. sad.
We did NOT over-react.- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13except the 'ronbots' are actual people.
- davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Don't you mean Sheeple?
- davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Wow...the ronbots must have awakened from their coffins...I mean slumber. I was at +18 an hour ago and now I am at a 2?
Fine, you want to play? Here is RP's real voting record:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC public schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)- prator, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5What does your list prove? Ron Paul is against abortion and does not pretend otherwise. I've never seen anyone try to say any differently. Most of the other items fall right into the category of either increasing Federal government spending and/or regulations which he is very much against.
The two votes on vouchers are a little confusing at first, but a quick search turned up this speech from Dr. Paul:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul132.html
He says that he believes that the 10th ammendment gives the states the right to have voucher programs but not at the Federal level.
So Nov 1997 (voted yes) seems to be about allowing the states to provide vouchers, but Aug 19 (voted no) is about using Federal funds for a DC voucher program.
- prator, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5What does your list prove? Ron Paul is against abortion and does not pretend otherwise. I've never seen anyone try to say any differently. Most of the other items fall right into the category of either increasing Federal government spending and/or regulations which he is very much against.
- Grym11, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I'm not going to disagree with you (I wouldn't dare), but I will say this: You, sir, are a part of the problem.
You (or the person who came up with this info) blasted through ten years of the guy's voting records, cherry-picking the data that matches your views. After that, you proceeded to present your results in a simplified YES/NO format (as if your predicate sentence was the entirety of the purpose/scope of the bill) and then draw sweeping conclusions based upon your cockamamie list and two arbitrary ratings from political action groups. And once you were finished, you proceeded to preemptively insult those who disagreed with you by calling them unthinking "robots."
I realize this is par for the course in our political culture, but there's no reason why that should be the case.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13except the 'ronbots' are actual people.
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32Never let facts get in the way of a good e-argument.
- dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So you've been to system wars on gamespot as well.
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -26/+10He said that. It was recorded. It was heard. He is an *****. get over yourself.
- jxs2151, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My gosh, a scathing rebuttal.....You completely changed my mind with your incredible rhetoric and stunning logic.
- jxs2151, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My gosh, a scathing rebuttal.....You completely changed my mind with your incredible rhetoric and stunning logic.
- Jimm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26you can hear the original clip here http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -9/+67Digg is a breeding ground for sensationalist, jumping-to-conclusions stories. It's not the individual's fault; it probably has to do with the whole group mentality. But people are REALLY quick to judge here.
- hcl40u, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I think I have to agree. Most people here just read the headline and description then immediately post here based on what they've read. Even a brief read of the article appears to be rare amongst the diggers here.
- mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31Yes, thank you. Digg is getting out of control. Even if you have a valid counter argument you get modded down and get responses using "lol" in them. The maturity of this site is rather lacking.
- Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's rare to see an even-handed intelligent post like this one.
- redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -19/+0if u dont like our websight then get the ***** OUT
u dont want us no more we dont want u no more GET OUT- reubencm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you are a sicko btw.
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What are you .......like 12?
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Digg is also a place controlled by a handful of people - if you actually do a statistical analysis of anti-Bush, anti-Republican stories that make it to the front page, you will notice that an overwhelming number of digs for all those stories come from the same group of users and/or a majority of similar usernames and individuals. Not a big surprise really.
- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Digg has become a cesspool of misinformation. I hope Kevin Rose unloads this very soon (I like him). I'm sure Digg could get big bucks from the likes of Soros and the other One Worlders. That way they could continue to fool all the immature digg kids and Kevin could invest in something more like what he started on Digg.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Kevin will likely sell the thing and move on. Smart kid...and he probably doesn't care about the politics of digg. And the small crowd of zit-poppers, mom's basement dwellers will continue to spend 23 hours a day posting anti-Bush articles and digging them up together with a group of friends. Who knows...maybe they are not yet aware that voting on digg doesn't actually count as a vote for or against a politician. :)
- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Digg has become a cesspool of misinformation. I hope Kevin Rose unloads this very soon (I like him). I'm sure Digg could get big bucks from the likes of Soros and the other One Worlders. That way they could continue to fool all the immature digg kids and Kevin could invest in something more like what he started on Digg.
- orelses, on 10/10/2007, -11/+24He WAS calling a FEW of the Soldiers Phony.
- mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -18/+8Who is that yellow coward Limbaugh think he is saying ANYTHING about ANY SOLDIER?
Didn't he blow out his eardrum to avoid service, IIRC? Nope it was Anal Cysts...- Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope, pilonidal cyst. They hurt like hell...jackass...
- lordmike, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2One too many...
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17No, he was calling this ONE person a phony. This person claimed to be a Ranger, he wasn't, a purple heart winner, he wasn't, an Iraq war vet, he wasn't. In FACT, he washed out of basic training! He was only in the military for less than 50 days!
- mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -18/+8Who is that yellow coward Limbaugh think he is saying ANYTHING about ANY SOLDIER?
- preisler, on 10/10/2007, -21/+11So inaccurate. He's just covering. That full transcript he played that made it sound like he was saying something else? 1½ minute was cut out. http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_lat ...
- mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -26/+16Oxycontin is a hell of a drug!
- polekitty, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0do dat be wat mr. limbough be taking or is dat 1st hand info. and whar do u get it?
- mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's old news, but I think you knew that and it looks like you might be the one supplying his habit.
- polekitty, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0do dat be wat mr. limbough be taking or is dat 1st hand info. and whar do u get it?
- betojf, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2iphones?
- earthtoandy, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6"There were some comments in Rush’s defense but most were quick to label Rush as a racist or propaganda man for the Bush administration."
Whether this particular story was accurately reported or not those labels are still true. - chriskzoo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+50Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There is a famous quote from an author used in Romania in reference to Communists coming to power in 1940s:
"Stupid...but many!"- WikiEasy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5aka. Digg users.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There is a famous quote from an author used in Romania in reference to Communists coming to power in 1940s:
- ninephoenixes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+56Why is there even a question mark in that title? It's an irrefutable fact that ***** of misinformation passes through digg's main page every day, and that an alarmingly high number of people will believe whatever's in the title and/or blurb without even reading TFA.
The information age is also the misinformation age, and I don't think humanity yet, as a whole, has adapted enough psychologically to cope with the fact that the internet can give ANYONE--be it a "common man" who doesn't know what he's talking about, or a less-common man with an agenda--a large platform where he or she will be believed if things are done the right way.
Misinformation is very dangerous. And the right isn't the only group who takes advantage of this...- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Digg......the new home for the dailykos/democraticunderground/huffingtonpost.com users
- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Digg has done one thing right. I found I was able to delete all the political crap except for the mislabeled stuff. What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be much left after you delete the propaganda from the list.
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Digg......the new home for the dailykos/democraticunderground/huffingtonpost.com users
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Steve D, dittohead.
- Rodao, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3You're playing into their hands by taking Rush Limbaugh too seriously.
- santaliqueur, on 10/10/2007, -17/+47If it was misinformation about a popular liberal, Digg would be crying bloody murder for the next year. Double standards rock.
- alacrity2005, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6Rush GIVES misinformation about popular liberals every minute of every hour of every day he's on the air. It's what he does. It's all he does. He's out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are a dittohead. Plus...he's a major tool.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8So even if that was true, your way of getting back at him is to lie?
- alacrity2005, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2It's not a lie when they quote EVERY SINGLE WORD HE SAID. The lie is the misinformation Rush is spinning now to save his ass and to get you to defend the indefensible. He said it and Media Matters quoted EVERY WORD OF IT. Rush's "defense" edits almost 2 minutes out. Who's lying?
- WikiEasy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Like liberals don't do this on a daily basis. You're really kidding yourself if you think one side is moral and the other side is a bunch of liars...
- alacrity2005, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2So you admit that Rush lies on a daily basis? And while we're at it, tell me which war liberals lied us into?
- AggieFalcon01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bosnia.
War on Poverty.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8So even if that was true, your way of getting back at him is to lie?
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11But you don't understand..........Liberals "ALWAYS" tell the truth.......you mean you didn't know that? LOL.
- alacrity2005, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6Rush GIVES misinformation about popular liberals every minute of every hour of every day he's on the air. It's what he does. It's all he does. He's out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are a dittohead. Plus...he's a major tool.
- hankus26, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6Pure right wing balderdash!
- redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -21/+12When will you libtards wake up and realize Digg is just another propaganda site?
Stop being oblivious as to how you're manipulated into complacency by liberals and conservatives alike.- Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I pretty much agree with you, just wish you left out the schoolyard insult "libtard".
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -18/+7Here is a quote from Limbaugh, 2004, in which he states that AIDS does not affect the heterosexual community.
"LIMBAUGH: And remember, back then in the '80s, one of the accompanying -- there -- there -- there -- there was a lot of fear-mongering going on around -- about AIDS, as a lot of people were scared about it. And one of the things that -- that the -- the AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh, this is only a matter of time before it spreads to the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time.
And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try to get people like Reagan to start talking about it from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't. It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa, and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by -- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that spreads this, if you want to know the truth. It's promiscuity."- redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11How is this relevant to his comments about phony soldiers?
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4He makes ***** up all the time. he has a consistent history of lying.
- redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11How is this relevant to his comments about phony soldiers?
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -17/+14According to Dan Rather he's sueing his former bosses because he WAS right. The story WAS true. Right now it is hard to say either way. I'm not saying the story is true or not, but the issue will undoubtedly be adressed during the suit.
Is digg sensationalist? Sure. Is this article biased? Absolutely. Truth is not needed for a story to be popular, only the belief that it is true. It is a lot harder to get the message across that it's not true, and oftentimes you are left with a certain percentage of people who still believe it's true. This is basically how the entire Republican propoganda machine works. You say things that are either untrue or a distortion of the facts, you keep on repeating it bringing people's emotions to your side. When the truth comes out it often gets far less coverage, leaving you with a net gain. And yes, I am being biased as well.- K1BJF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5One edit needs to go here. "This is basically how the entire Republican AND Democratic propoganda machine works." Wasn't it Bill Clinton's group that started faxing around the daily talking points that were repeated and repeated on news show after news show until it became the truth, whether it was or not? Both sides do it.
- WraithTDK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+44I've said it before, and I'll say it again: NEVER trust a "controversial quote" from ANY media source, unless you can get a copy of the ENTIRE speech/article/debate/etc. I've seen this time and time again from both Dems and Repubs. I remember a while back there listening to a live broadcast of a Senate debate that lasted AT LEAST an hour (I listened while driving to work and had to stop when I go there), and then later reading a Washington post article about it, which included all of five lines of actual dialogue, followed by "paraphrasing" and "summaries" of what was said, all of which was WAAAAAY off. It was hideously skewed, and it made me realize why it is that so many people seem so clueless in the world. They choose one side (liberal/Dem or conservative/Repub), find a newspaper/news show/website that seems to support that side, and then just completely rely on those sources to decide what is important, what they need to know, and then just spoon feed it to them. This gives theese sources a truly dangerous level of control over how these people think, because when you do this, you're handing over control of your mind and your opinions to people with a clear-cut agenda, instead of looking for the unbiased truth.
I realize that it's nearly impossible these day to find truly unbiased news. But there ARE things you can do to more reliably get the truth, and I think you owe it to both yourself and your fellow man to do so, at LEAST before you decide to get all angry and up-in-arms about something. And, as I said before, my biggest piece of advice is simply this: if something says "during an inteview [person X] said [quote Y], BEFORE you get all pissed off, schedule a protest, or spread the quote to digg/stumble/del, look around, and try to get the ENTIRE interview. The ENTIRE speech. Don't trust what you hear second-hand untill you can see it IN CONTEXT.- WikiEasy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Best comment so far. Most of us are guilty of laziness and bias ourselves. We just want to hear what we WANT to hear.
The othe way bias occurs is in the ommission or emphasis on something. For instance here on Digg, all you ever get are sensationalist topics about how the neo-cons are the devil's incarnate, etc etc. The crap never stops.
- WikiEasy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Best comment so far. Most of us are guilty of laziness and bias ourselves. We just want to hear what we WANT to hear.
- DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10I've seen plenty of misinformation on Digg, but I'm torn as to whether Media Matters really acted too badly in this case. Contrary to this article, the Media Matters story didn't accuse Limbaugh of calling *all* soldiers phonies. That obviously wouldn't make much sense.
The Media Matters story accuses Rush of calling all soldiers *who speak out against the war* phonies, which he technically did.
But did Rush really mean it that way? Probably not. While the original quote wasn't taken as badly out of context as this story alleges, it's still dumb for Media Matters to jump on something so trivial. - prophet5, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34Why is this a surprise? Most digg policitcal postings are HIGHLY biased trash. Sites like MediaMatters, alternet, rawstory... these things shouldn't even been allowed on here. It's more propoganda than a speech at Columbia University from an Iranian diplomat.
- mlfoley, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Limbaugh is the king of piss-poor "explanations" after he's done or said something stupid. I remember on his old TV show, when he had a picture of Chelsea put up just as he was mentioning the "White House Dog." He got slammed, rightly so, and later said that the quote was taken out of context, that one of the guys behind the scenes put up the wrong picture, etc, etc.
Wraith is right that we need to find original sources - but when it comes to outright liars (and really bad ones, at that) like Limbaugh and Bill O, it's pretty safe to assume that they actually did say something stupid and are covering up for it now. It's what they do. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Full disclosure:
The guy who runs "TechVat" has some distinctly partisan political rants on his old blog, so if reading this bit on Limbaugh by itself isn't enough to convince you of his own biases, here you go:
http://www.hmtk.com/archives/category/politics- indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Possible biases notwithstanding, the point being made in the article that people online are fed a lot of sensationalist and/or partisan misinformation is still true. The point that many people online tend to exercise little critical thinking of the subject matter and simply follow where their own biases lead them is also true.
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Which begs the question of who's being sensationalist here - a notoriously loud-mouthed fool on the radio or the people pointing out what he's saying?
- indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'll agree that Limbaugh and his ilk are notoriously sensationalist, but that doesn't absolve other parties from blame of similar actions either. I'd say both Limbaugh and those that were too eager to cast or refute blame should be criticized. It's because of cases like these that, although I think any "news" commentator or politician should have their words closely scrutinized simply due to the nature of their job (especially the latter), I'd prefer foul only to be called when truly appropriate. I'm the type of person that, regardless of idealogical associations, when I see a logical fallacy, it bothers me to no end. In this day and age, as you might imagine, I'm bothered quite a bit by the "news" and "facts" I'm fed.
Quite frankly, I think news outlets could benefit from a lot less entertainment and that the viewers could use a bit more education in critical thinking. I personally hate the notion that news and entertainment should be combined and desperately wish for a reliably objective source regardless of how dry and boring it may be. I just want the facts, not opinions. I'm sorry if I rambled a bit. I'm just tired of all of this sort of mess.
- indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'll agree that Limbaugh and his ilk are notoriously sensationalist, but that doesn't absolve other parties from blame of similar actions either. I'd say both Limbaugh and those that were too eager to cast or refute blame should be criticized. It's because of cases like these that, although I think any "news" commentator or politician should have their words closely scrutinized simply due to the nature of their job (especially the latter), I'd prefer foul only to be called when truly appropriate. I'm the type of person that, regardless of idealogical associations, when I see a logical fallacy, it bothers me to no end. In this day and age, as you might imagine, I'm bothered quite a bit by the "news" and "facts" I'm fed.
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Which begs the question of who's being sensationalist here - a notoriously loud-mouthed fool on the radio or the people pointing out what he's saying?
- Himself, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Show us a person without bias... and of you two there'll be a liar and a fool.
- indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Possible biases notwithstanding, the point being made in the article that people online are fed a lot of sensationalist and/or partisan misinformation is still true. The point that many people online tend to exercise little critical thinking of the subject matter and simply follow where their own biases lead them is also true.
- IamZed, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Oh *****. Next we will hear God really could exist.
- Oomsoup, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I agree with DivisibleByZero here.
Also, after reading this article I still see only the caller speaking of one particular soldier. Still looks to me like Rush meant "all soldiers who speak out against the war."
*shrug* - draken77, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11I am glad to see someone post the truth about what he said out there. I am sick of reading Digg articles that are complete b.s. Just because some idiot made a website that supposedly is a news outlet doesn't make it factual. When will critical thinking and reading comprehension become common place again? Maybe I should create a site called mediaiscrap.com --- I could spend most of my time proving that mediamatters is full of crap.
- RonaldLewis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19It doesn't matter -- The mainstream spreads misinformation ALL THE TIME.
- Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Nice, the "two wrongs make a right" defense. Very mature.
- RonaldLewis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nevermind.
- Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Nice, the "two wrongs make a right" defense. Very mature.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -19/+24What people here ignore is that MediaMatters.org has the ENTIRE audio as well as Rush Limbaugh's edited transcript. All of the proof is there. The irony of an article defending Rush and wondering if social news sites spread misinformation is that the article itself is spreading misinformation while the truth is readily accessible to anyone who just bothers to look. How's that for a little irony through the looking glass?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Notice how I've only had my post up for 1 minute and I'm already being dugg down regardless of the fact that this link has Rush Limbaugh's actual audio. To this I say, "Congratulations, you have forfeited the right to complain about bias in the media. You, who outright deny reality and the facts in order to defend the indefensible, have forfeited any facade of truth. I have no idea who you are, but I know what you are."
That said, it is worth noting that the person who wrote the article that this thread is about uses as his only quote from the Rush Limbaugh speech a section several minutes after what MediaMatters.org is quoting. In other words, he is purposefully spreading misinformation himself.- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3the neo-cons are just pissed that two if their spokesmen, orally and limbaugh have stuck their feet in their mouths.
- WikiEasy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The problem is Mediamatters ONLY bashes conservative views, and emphasizes them.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Notice how I've only had my post up for 1 minute and I'm already being dugg down regardless of the fact that this link has Rush Limbaugh's actual audio. To this I say, "Congratulations, you have forfeited the right to complain about bias in the media. You, who outright deny reality and the facts in order to defend the indefensible, have forfeited any facade of truth. I have no idea who you are, but I know what you are."
- froalskiner, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15I thought he was talking about one soldier that only lasted 45 days from the time he signed up to the time he quit...Either way this was totally out of context.
- zegron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6He was, He was talking about a bitter washed out army wanna be that couldn't even make it through boot camp. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet ...
- grendel59, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9Looks like I'm a "Phony Soldier." While I am very proud to have served in 2 'wars,' 3 combat zones and risked my life countless times for my country. I NEVER want to go back to Iraq. Never.
So Rush: ***** you, you pathetic, never served in the military, never put your life on the line for anything, fat ass.
That about covers it.- redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2rush has done more to help our country than anyone else other than bush u idiot
if u dont like OUR country and OUR patriotism and OUR troops u can LEAVE NOW- TantrooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Irony, telling a soldier if he hates the troops to leave the country, because the one yelling at him hates the opinion of a troop.
God Bless our troops, but Lord have mercy on our hypocritical politcians. - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4some patriot you are, blasting someone who did serve to protect two who didn't. two who want to send more of our troops there to die. ***** you.
- TantrooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Irony, telling a soldier if he hates the troops to leave the country, because the one yelling at him hates the opinion of a troop.
- zegron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Oh, so because you say so on the internet that you were in the Army we are just supposed to accept that? The proof is in the pudding I say. So until I see some evidence from you Mr. Grendel I'm going to consider you a "Phony Soldier" too.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If you say on digg that you are a soldier, it must be true!
- redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2rush has done more to help our country than anyone else other than bush u idiot
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6except that rush didn't mention that person's name until after the "phony soldiers" rant. yes, soldiers plural. then he went on to attack other veterans. he's just backpedaling.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Jesse MacBeth and Scott Bauchamp were both mentioned several days before the "phony soldiers" comment was made.
By the way, it's patently obvious that you're incapable of original thought; you're only the fourth person to have trumpeted this exact lie since Media Matters sent out their email yesterday morning. Try not being a drone your entire life.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Jesse MacBeth and Scott Bauchamp were both mentioned several days before the "phony soldiers" comment was made.
- akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9Funny how this story gives it's own synopsis on the conversation and the other site gives the entire transcription and audio. Someone is being manipulative and spreading misinformation.......and it's not the one being accused of here in this story......
Dugg down - Threlly, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6"Doesn't Rush Limbaugh remind you of one of those gay guys thats likes to lie in a tub while other gay guys pee on him ?"
Bill Hicks - R.I.P.- akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Did Hicks really say that?
That man was a genius.........why do all the heroes die young?
- akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Did Hicks really say that?
- drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Always good to do some perception checking
- LogicAJV, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Well Rush did imply that Every soldier that speaks against the war is a "phony soldier". But it was just 4 or 5 words that imply that. Its just like how the Right made Kerry look like he didn't support the troops, when he improperly delivered his "Stuck in Iraq" joke. I see what it really is, mud slinging from miss worded phrase. Its really funny how people can support this type of mudslinging. The same as the right supported the mudslinging from the "Stuck in Iraq" joke. Maybe when both sides become intelligent and start discussing the real issues we can finally get stuff done, instead of mudslinging.
- gavinrobinson, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0uh, yeah
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Social networking sites almost certainly spread misinformation but they spread the truth equally or moreso.
There will always be stories from all sides of an argument. Some will contain the truth some will not.
Your perception is what is important.
I noticed someone further up saying something about pro linux stories. There are just as many pro Apple stories. If you are impartial you would be fairer about how you count them up. I'll admit with the exception of xbox stories there aren't nearly as many pro MS stories, but isn't it hard to find good things to say about them. That is just one example, you can apply that in tech, science, and politics too.
It is very easy to default to call anything which challenges your position misinformation, but that doesn't make it so. If you are unwilling to be swayed in the first place you are not entitled to comment. Well actually you are, but you shouldn't expect people to listen to without thinking about it. - TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Digg is just as bad as any other form of media. The different being that some people here actually think their opinion matters.
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8Well it is a proven fact that redstaters and Rush listeners hate our troops, and their families.
- zegron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4A Proven Fact? Ok, and how are you going about to prove this fact? "Oh, because I know" isn't going to work, you try that crap in a college paper your going to get laughed at and you walk out of the classroom after being marked down a letter grade.
I'm an avid Rush listener and I FULLY support the troops! I have many friends that are in the military and I am incredibly supportive and grateful that they are out there keeping us safe.
- zegron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4A Proven Fact? Ok, and how are you going about to prove this fact? "Oh, because I know" isn't going to work, you try that crap in a college paper your going to get laughed at and you walk out of the classroom after being marked down a letter grade.
- ChaoticCheez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7DUH...Don't believe everything you read? This isn't news unless you're like five years old and believe everything anyone says.
- punkrock4life, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1i do think that social media spreads misinformation and this story is one great example of it. buried as inaccurate.
- zegron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you care to acutally explain yourself or present some evidence that this article is inaccurate? Perhaps spouting angry random incomplete sentences is enough for you?
- shroominbal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Having you thinking that this idiot has anything to do with right informing the public is a wrong use of the digg media this is not the first time that this chicken pig is talking like that only he touched solders this time so you are all jumpy so much . lol. He is a pig and way more then Aimos ever been and not a one person try to make him lose his ***** up place in the media.
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes and that made huge chunks of sense.
- DrThunder, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4He called any soldier that speaks out about the war a Phony soldier. This article said he was talking about one particular soldier and that is ***** because the soldier the article referred to was not mention and he said "soldiers" not soldier. Because apparently those soldiers that don't agree them him their service does not count. Rush is a chicken hawk piece of ***** that bashes people that have served their country while he sits on his fat and pops pill and saying support the troops, apparently he only supports the ones that keep their mouths shut. This article is standard Republican revisionist history.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Limbaugh spoke about two phony soldiers in the days before that caller came up; Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp and Recruit Jesse MacBeth. He also discussed all the phonies who lie about thier service in order to smear and defame the US military. Stop trumpeting the Media Matters talking points, drone.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Limbaugh spoke about two phony soldiers in the days before that caller came up; Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp and Recruit Jesse MacBeth. He also discussed all the phonies who lie about thier service in order to smear and defame the US military. Stop trumpeting the Media Matters talking points, drone.
- sloppychris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"I don't do this, but everyone else does"
-Each one of us- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Admitting it is half the battle
-
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by