Posted on 11/06/2009 6:06:35 PM PST by sushiman
Not sure if you're asking this straight or are being facetious, but he's the author of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0578013878/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257737290&sr=8-1
...which I have not read, but I do know about his claims and have not seen anything else that would corroborate his story.
And I will call Rush a "LIAR" since he LIED to his audience.It apears all listeners are not created with equal ability to listen and comprehend either; I heard that segment twice, did you?
Yep, that basically sums up what it was for me, just a bit of disappointment with somebody I greatly admire.
Not sure if you're asking this straight or areNot really even interested (as it now appears it may be a 'birther' related issue; we know the guy is unsuitable as a prez, but you need the sheeple exposed (via the MSM) to the stuff beginning with Rev. Wright which even HAnnity and Rus _did_ cover)
Are you lost regarding how you’re playing into their hands, or about how communists are starved for authenticity?
All I know is that you have to have one to do what he does.
That is a government function...
Therefore, Rush was right when he said they can shut him down anytime they want to.
Sorry, not getting into it with you, as I find the connection you are trying to make to be quite absurd.
Agreed; not really worth Rush’s time without solid corroborating evidence to back up this guy’s claims. Also I think Philip Berg is a bit of a nut and not really worth his time either.
The only small point being the following: If you were a wildly successful radio talk show host with a huge amount of visibility and a massive number of devoted listeners, and you got a call like the one Rush got, would you consider it to be more prudent, professional, honest and admirable to:
1. Tell the caller, “That is not what we are discussing today. You lied about what you were calling about, so goodbye. OK, next caller...”
OR
2. Tell the caller, “Who? Philip Berg and Larry Sinclair? I can’t discuss these people because I’ve never heard of them [even though obviously you clearly have]. I don’t know who they are.”
Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews both have their own shows and are running them they way they want to. By the logic of your previous post, then, I suppose they are both above any sort of criticism no matter how small, just like Rush, eh?
All I know is that you have to have one to do what he does.HOW do you know? (A feeling, a little birdie told you - what?)
Cite me the applicable law.
As in Part 2 or Part 90 (or whatever) of the FCC's applicable rules and regulations.
That's the point that many of us Freepers who either aren't birthers or those who might be but don't think it's worth going down that road. Obama is very vulnerable now without chasing after the birther nonsense. Why put effort into something that will yield no results? But given that, I doubt Rush or any of the other big name conservative talk show hosts believe in the birther theory. Neither are the other big names on the conservative team like Coulter, Malkin, or the people at the conservative mags and tv shows. They know it's a dead end. Or they'd be pushing it.
That’s fine—I’ll just continue posting to myself then.
Here’s what I meant about authenticity.
Leftists reject the notion of absolutes. Meaning truth can be anything or nothing, or it can transform from one thing to another—which is the same as saying truth doesn’t exist. If truth doesn’t exist, neither does falsehood. (This is an advantage to leftists because it means they can lie seemingly without conflict.)
But here’s the hard part. Absense of truth eliminates the rational method entirely. That is, leftists can only pretend to use reason—like the jailed man who tells himself the concrete above his head is really open skies. Or the mangy dog crouched in a downtown alley, trying to lick the contents of a discarded, empty can.
It’s the empty can of leftist ideology. There’s nothing there.
OK, that’s a nice non sequitur of a summation of leftist ideology and its concept of “truth” (or lack thereof). So what does any of that have to do with Rush’s decision not to speak truthfully about his knowledge of Berg and Sinclair?
This thread has sure gone off on some strange tangents...
Leftist ideology is a theme underlying any thread having to do with Rush Limbaugh or the birth certificate.
You’re going off on a sharper tangent by complaining that the thread is going off on tangents.
“WHO IS Larry Sinclair?”
Here. You can start with Free Republic’s archives:
>>> HOW do you know? (A feeling, a little birdie told you - what?) Cite me the applicable law.
LOL... I don’t know... ask Rush. He’s the one that is always talking about all the hoops, red tape, and audits he has to go through in order to keep his.
Here. You can start with Free Republic’s archives:Asked and answered; of no interest at this time given his subject matter (gleaned from a prev. post this thread).
Omama was condemned over a year ago AFAIAC on account of his relationship with whacko liberal (Marxist?) Rev. Wright as exposed by Hannity and Rush ...
LOL... I don’t know... ask Rush.Then you don't really know .. well thanks form being honest at least.
Just for the record Rush doesn't need to be 'licensed'.
If Rush personnaly owned an actual RF-radiating broadcast transmitter of any type, he would need a 'license' for those facilities (to transmit, not just owning the transmitter).
As it works, his show is syndicated -they sell his voice- to 'stations' that *own* broadcast facilities around the country; THEY have licenses granted by the FCC per the rules and regs in this section:
Radio and Television Broadcast Rules
Title 47 CFR Part 73
Accessable on this page:
Hell, leftist ideology underlies pretty much ANYTHING we talk about on this forum. But that doesn’t diminish the fact that I feel like this thread has gone off into looney-land more than a couple of times. Let’s get a few things straight here:
1. Rush Limbaugh is not Jesus; he is not above criticism.
2. A person who a small remark that one thinks that Rush goofed up a little bit this particular time does NOT mean that:
(a) one is an enemy of Rush
(b) one is a friend of the communists/liberals/etc or playing into their hands
(b) one thinks that he could do a better radio show than Rush
(c) one is telling Rush the way he should run his show and what he should say on it
(d) one thinks that this small remark about Rush eclipses other issues in terms of importance
(e) one is a birther
(f) one is a Sinclair supporter
(g) one is speaking out in support of the caller who lied to the screener
(h) one is a Daily Kos or DU operative posting under cover
(i) one wants to prosecute Rush for telling an on-air lie to the public
Let’s see, have I covered all of the tangents here? Probably missed a few.
It was just an expression of disappointment in a person who is otherwise admired. That’s it, period. Nothing more. Now can we get back to a little sanity here please? I mean really now.
Typo. That should read:
2. “One who makes a small remark that one thinks...” or “A person who makes a small remark that he/she thinks...”
Ugh, it’s late and my proofreading wasn’t too good...
Got two (b)’s in sequence there, oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.