Tim McDonald - Latest Comments on Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Steve [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Steve [Visitor] — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:16:25 +0000

Bill, I read every comment and didn't see one assertion about Rush backed up with even a quote. Not surprised that I saw plenty of name calling and inaccuracies, though.

Tim. As a journalist you should have a bit more respect for your reader than to refer to people in such immature tones. You assume your reader is as immature and will relate to you. I know you don't have all the time in the world to back up what you say... but just a quote or two would be helpful.

Bill [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Bill [Visitor] — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:49:45 +0000

hehehe,,,,,,tim just made my point for me, thank you tim.......dont ever say anything that can be checked........hehehe,,,,,,,,liberals are such fun

Tim McDonald [Member] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Tim McDonald [Member] — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:21:53 +0000

Bill, if I wanted to take the time and effort to point out all the things Limbaugh has said or implied that are either blatant lies, misperceptions or twisted half-truths, I would. But I don't. It wouldn't make any difference anyway to people like you who believe him because they want to believe him.

How about this in the way of examples of his distortions: Just about anything out of his mouth.

Bill [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Bill [Visitor] — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:08:31 +0000

Lets review the comments shall we? Dylan states Mr Limbaugh consumed 4350 pills in 47 days, how he knows this is beyond me but my information is Mr Limbaugh had the proper amount of pills for the time in question. The prosecution stated in open court that he has "no idea" if Mr Limbaugh has broken any laws, but after almost 3 years continues to attempt to find SOMETHING to charge him with. Then one putt repeats the exact number and resorts to what all liberals eventually do, namecalling, referring to Mr Limbaugh as a "slob"..Paul W says Mr Limbaugh critisized a black quarterback, apparently not bothering to actually read what Rush's remarks were. Then Tim starts with the liberal habit of namecalling rather than debating ideas, characterizing Mr Limbaugh as a "hatemonger" that "exploits peoples fears and prejudices" and "spews forth poison"-without once naming any instance or statement that might have to do with that. Then Dylan makes fun of two bloggers names, to what point i have no idea. Then kiel blathers on about Mr Limbaugh without once actually challenging anything Rush has ever said, again, to what point i dont know. Then Tim comes back saying Rush is "aggressive" in his attacks on liberals.------ahhhhhhhh, playing audio of liberals speaking and pointing out when they are lying i would not characterize as attacking. And no Tim, its Rush that is the response, the response to 50 years of the liberals having a stranglehold on the news outlets. Rush is the most listened to commentator in the WORLD because when people hear him they identify with what he is saying. So the point of all this is, if anyone cares to attack Mr Limbaugh, please feel free, but attack him in the arena of ideas, these attacks on Rush are the same used on Ann Coulter, NEVER on her ideas, always personal disparagement. Thats why liberals have lost the last 4 election cycles and will continue to lose until they are honest with the people about who they are and what they believe.

ToddCommish [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

ToddCommish [Visitor] — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:28:56 +0000

Bill's pretty perceptive. This thread has already gotten far, far from the original topic. No need to drag it further into the political sphere.

If one removes all of McDonald's political sniping (oddly similar to Baldwin's Wie sniping), the quote from Limbaugh refers to Wie being more of a triumph of marketing know-how than an actual triumph. And he's right.

For now.

Michelle Wie [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Michelle Wie [Visitor] — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:52:15 +0000

I'm not a man, Jay, so I would rather not act like one. No, I'm not Michelle Wie, but I am a girl. As such, I definitely won't use my real name (unsafe), but that's not the point. The point is what I said in my response, and I thought maybe Michelle wie's name might inspire people to tone down the political rhetoric/name-calling. This is a golf blog, remember? I will call Mr. McDonald what I called him because that is how he acted, and it's not really a bad word. I'm sure Ms. Wie would agree, when warranted. Anyway, why am I even responding to you, since you're one of the inconsequential bad-mouthers that I pay attention to? Moment of weakness, I uess. You're still a loser.

Ted [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Ted [Visitor] — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:19:49 +0000

Tim,

First of all, patriotism is not relevant. Attacking Bush or disagreeing with him is not relevant. "Dissent" is not relevant. Partisanship and a "polarized" nation are not relevant. The issue is the claim that Rush Limbaugh is a racist and a "hate-monger". My point is to say that he is definitely not either of these things. I would not listen to him if he was.

You wrote,

"And please don't try to tell me that Limbaugh does not attack people..."

I never said he didn't attack people. He does that, sure. But so does Al Franken. It comes with the territory. I don't begrudge anyone the right to make their case by "attacking" the opposition. The question is, is their case strengthened or weakened by such "attacks". In my opinion, Rush, more often than not, strengthens his case. His growing audience is proof of that. I do admit that he crosses the line when he makes fun of people on a personal level. I don't see this as "hate-mongering", though. I see it as lame humor. And I don't like it.

And what's this nonsense about being called "unpatriotic"? I never said that. In fact, I read something recently that people on the Left are far more likely to question a person's patriotism than a person on the right. My point was to show how optimistic and positive Rush was about our country, our people, our military and our ability to win. That's a fact. And I contrasted it with people on the left like Al Franken (or Richard Belzar who made some foul-mouthed attack on our American forces, characterizing them as uninformed idiots who were too stupid to get real jobs.) Is he being "unpatriotic"? No. Are his words clever and inspiring? Not to me. But when the Left comes out with that kind of rhetoric all the time, it seems pretty ridiculous that Rush is the one who gets accused of hate-mongering.

And as far as the divisive, polarized country is concerned, you can't be serious. When have we ever been of one mind? And even if it's worse than in the past, you can't pin it on one man or even one party. It takes two to tango. And why is it your side is always worried about polarization? People I agree with think it's fine. Form your opinions and defend them. And if you really are so upset by this polarization, there's a simple fix: just agree with me. There. Problem solved.

Bill [Visitor] in response to: Me? Agree with Rush Limbaugh? Never, except on Michelle Wie

Bill [Visitor] — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:58:03 +0000

notice how todd didnt specify what things mr limbaugh is wrong about?