Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Neocon Nuttery
See other Neocon Nuttery Articles

Title: Limbaugh Falls For A Hoax About The President's College Thesis
Source: Salon
URL Source: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/ ... /10/23/obama_thesis/index.html
Published: Oct 24, 2009
Author: Alex Koppelman
Post Date: 2009-10-24 12:45:41 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 20007
Comments: 199

On Friday, it seemed for a moment -- at least to Rush Limbaugh's listeners -- that the right had finally found the smoking gun to prove that President Obama secretly hates the U.S., its founders and even the Constitution.

Limbaugh read his radio audience an excerpt from what he said was Obama's senior thesis, which he wrote while at Columbia University. After more than a year shrouded in secrecy by the Obama campaign and a compliant media, the thesis had finally emerged, and it was even worse than some had feared.

The excerpt read by Limbaugh:

[T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.

Limbaugh was, naturally, up in arms about this, calling the college-aged Obama a "little boy," and saying, "he still shares those same feelings."

Only not so much. As a bit of basic research would have shown Limbaugh, Obama didn't technically write a thesis at Columbia -- at the time, Columbia didn't really have senior theses -- though he did write a thesis-length paper. But it was on Soviet nuclear disarmament, not the Constitution.

Limbaugh and many others -- including Fox News' FoxNation.com -- fell for a hoax, believing that a post put up by a conservative blogger in August as satire was the truth. Apparently, Pajamas Media's Michael Ledeen was the conduit, as he dug it up and posted it earlier this week, apparently believing it to be true. (Not the first time Ledeen and Pajamas Media have been embarrassed by something he posted -- back in January of 2007, he reported that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had died. Khamenei remains alive to this day.) Again, a bit of basic research would have prevented all this, as this isn't the first time conservatives have treated this particular blogger's satire as if it were true.

Limbaugh noted later on in his show that it seemed the excerpts were fake, though he said he didn't care, both because of a series of quotes falsely attributed to him recently and because, "I know Obama thinks it."

Update: Ledeen has put up a post noting that the excerpt is a fake, and that he fell for a satire.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 74.

#1. To: Brian S (#0)

As a bit of basic research would have shown Limbaugh,

Limbaugh doesn't research anything; he reads what his staff puts in front of his face each day when he stops in the studio on his way to the golf course.

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   13:02:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#1)

I research some things.

Tell me something, has Obama chosen some Maoists and Marxists as czars?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-10-24   13:06:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Jethro Tull (#2)

I research some things.

Tell me something, has Obama chosen some Maoists and Marxists as czars?

Why not start a new thread on that and I'll consider it?

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   13:10:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#3)

Because Nesters like yourself don't deserve new threads. Answer the question.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-10-24   13:12:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Jethro Tull (#4)

Answer the question.

When did you become the boss of me?

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   13:46:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#11)

Since when does the simple act of asking a question become a matter of who is being a boss? Given the history of this forum, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Is it that hard to answer, or is it more that you are a partisan and have trouble agreeing that Obama is surrounded by Maoists and Marxists?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-10-24   13:51:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Jethro Tull (#13)

Given the history of this forum, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Is it that hard to answer, or is it more that you are a partisan and have trouble agreeing that Obama is surrounded by Maoists and Marxists?

And I said ask it on another thread instead of hijacking this one.

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   14:13:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#18)

And I said ask it on another thread instead of hijacking this one

Don't you fret about threads being hijacked, ok? I'm more concerned with your fellow Obama fellators hijacking the forum.

Still no answer?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-10-24   14:22:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Jethro Tull (#22)

Don't you fret about threads being hijacked, ok? I'm more concerned with your fellow Obama fellators hijacking the forum.

Still no answer?

Well, as long as were asking questions, do you find having a small dick to be a problem?

Answer the question.

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   14:29:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#27)

Well, as long as were asking questions, do you find having a small dick to be a problem?

Answer the question.

Now is that nice? All I asked is if your hero Obama has appointed Maoists and Marxists to the position of czar (the answer is YES, was that hard?)

I know y'all have trouble being objective when it comes to Him, but man, you've really exposed yourself (no pun intended). Given time, all you leftists do.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-10-24   14:35:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Jethro Tull (#35)

Now is that nice? All I asked is if your hero Obama

Ah, so now he's my hero.

BTW, I'm sorry that you've got a small dick. On the positive side, it probably goes well with your tiny brain.

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   14:42:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#38)

Now is that nice? All I asked is if your hero Obama

Ah, so now he's my hero.

BTW, I'm sorry that you've got a small dick. On the positive side, it probably goes well with your tiny brain.

Another diversionary tactic.

Poor little Troll may be a paid and trained little troll.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-24   14:48:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Original_Intent (#48)

Another diversionary tactic.

Would that be similar to the diversionary tactic in post #2?

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   14:52:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: IDon'tThinkSo, Jethro Tull, Rotara, all (#53)

It was a legitimate question based upon your response given your comment in #1. It helps to illustrate the points under examination.

Of course you are again engaging in diversion and avoidance and such is duly noted.

And again the reference:

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-24   14:58:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Original_Intent (#60)

It was a legitimate question based upon your response given your comment in #1. It helps to illustrate the points under examination.

It has nothing whatever to do with my comment in #1.

Try reading it again.

Here, I'll help you. Limbaugh doesn't do research. He reads what his staff hands him to read, then heads to the golf course.

I fail to see what that has to do with Obama's czars because it has nothing at all to do with Obama's czars.

IDon'tThinkSo  posted on  2009-10-24   15:02:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: IDon'tThinkSo (#63)

It was a legitimate question based upon your response given your comment in #1. It helps to illustrate the points under examination.

It has nothing whatever to do with my comment in #1.

Try reading it again.

Here, I'll help you. Limbaugh doesn't do research. He reads what his staff hands him to read, then heads to the golf course.

I fail to see what that has to do with Obama's czars because it has nothing at all to do with Obama's czars.

Am I defending the Mahajunkie?

No.

Limbaugh does lots of research and so do his handlers at whatever PsyOp group he works for. Because he is dishonest and in the business of manipulating his audience he will make "slips" such as this. Likely it was an intentionaly "slip" with the reverse action to give his "opposition" a handle to hold on to.

Personally I don't listen to the bastard, grant him no credibility, and treat him with utter contempt and disdain.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-24   15:16:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 74.

#76. To: Original_Intent (#74)

Limbaugh does lots of research and so do his handlers at whatever PsyOp group he works for.

Yeah, Limbaugh begged for Iraq. And here you are, all twisted and grumpy that your leader is picked on.

His reported drug problems have hardly taken the edge off Rush Limbaugh. After his controversial suggestion last fall that the media were giving Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb a break because he's black, the conservative radio talker, 53, has lately drawn fire for remarks seeming to minimize Iraq's prison-abuse scandal. TIME's Richard Zoglin was last week's caller.

YOU'RE GETTING CRITICIZED FOR COMPARING THE PRISON ABUSE IN IRAQ WITH A COLLEGE PRANK. WERE YOU MISINTERPRETED?

I was totally misinterpreted and taken out of context. In a three-hour show, I would wager that two hours and 58 minutes were spent discussing the aspects of those photos that repulsed everybody, including me. The point I made was that this is not worth demeaning our entire war effort. And I think that these photos have been used as a political opportunity here by opponents and enemies of the President to discount the entire war in Iraq.

EVEN AL GORE JUMPED ON YOU LAST WEEK. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE NEW AL GORE?

I'm not convinced it's a new Gore. I think it's the same Gore that has always been around — unhinged. I'm sitting here, as a guy on the radio, and I'm listening to all of these different factions on the left do whatever they can to get me discredited, and I'm saying to myself, Why? I don't make policy. I am some guy on the radio, and I'm being targeted almost as much as the President is. I'm quite honored by it. I'm flattered.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED ABOUT HOW THINGS HAVE TURNED OUT IN IRAQ.

Ah, a typical trick question to get me to criticize policy so that the left can say even Rush Limbaugh has problems with whatever. I am willing to acknowledge that things could go better in certain areas. But I'd rather focus on the positive. I think this is a valiant effort. I think the vision that's involved here is very important. War is filled with unpredictable things. We lost over 1,000 soldiers in a training mission for D-day. A training mission! If we had had the kind of scrutiny in World War II that we have today, we wouldn't have won it.

AS DEMOCRATS GO, HOW BAD IS JOHN KERRY?

Actually, Kerry is quite fun as a candidate. The fact is, they have to keep him hidden. Let's put it this way: the less he's on television, the better his numbers get. He's a charismatic dud.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE AL FRANKEN LIBERAL RADIO NETWORK?

I have not heard them. I do not listen to anybody who does radio. I don't even listen to myself.

THE A.C.L.U. HAS SUPPORTED YOUR LEGAL FIGHT TO KEEP THE MEDICAL RECORDS IN YOUR DRUG CASE PRIVATE. THIS IS NOT A GROUP YOU'RE A FAN OF. DO YOU WELCOME ITS SUPPORT?

In a situation like this, I think it's safe to say I welcome its support, and I don't find it hypocritical at all, because I am not anti-A.C.L.U. If the A.C.L.U. wants to go after, say, Nativity scenes or this sort of thing, I may take issue, but there are other areas where I've supported things it has done.

THE FCC HAS CRACKED DOWN ON BROADCAST INDECENCY. DOES THAT BOTHER YOU?

I'm in the free-speech business, and indecency could be defined any number of ways, depending on who's in power. So it's a red flag to me. I am always concerned about it.

WHAT KIND OF SEASON IS DONOVAN MCNABB GONNA HAVE?

Let me just share with you what I read in a newspaper when the Eagles signed [receiver] Terrell Owens. They said now McNabb has no excuse. What happened after [my comments], I inoculated McNabb from any criticism the rest of the year because nobody, of course, could dare run the risk of agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. So whenever McNabb threw an interception, it was a receiver's fault or an offensive lineman's fault. He was incapable of making a mistake. He owes me a lot.

Concerning Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, the fucker bent the rules begging to be nabbed as a traitor without principles.

buckeroo  posted on  2009-10-24 15:22:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Original_Intent (#74)

I [Limbaugh] was totally misinterpreted and taken out of context.

What a crock of shit.

buckeroo  posted on  2009-10-24 15:25:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 74.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest