25 Examples That Prove Rush Limbaugh Is A "Low-Information" Radio Host

[daveman]

Could be because "impeach" has two different meanings.

Welcome to our country. Watch your back.

"Impeach" has only one meaning.

If you drooling idiot leftists could win an argument on the strength of your positions, you wouldn't need to re-define words.

Denseman strikes again. No shame.

Definition of IMPEACH
1
a : to bring an accusation against
b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
c : to remove from office especially for misconduct

I put them in different colors. You know, for you younger readers. You like colors, right?

Andrew Johnson was "impeached" (b). Bill Clinton was "impeached" (b). Richard Nixon would have been "impeached" (b and c), which is why he resigned.

None of them were "impeached" (c).

Welcome to our country. Might be worth it to learn our language, especially if you're going to comment on government.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, doesn't it?



Meanwhile, thanks for proving that Ed Schultz, noted liberal commentator, was completely wrong when he said Clinton wasn't impeached.

 

[Pogo]

"Impeach" has only one meaning.

If you drooling idiot leftists could win an argument on the strength of your positions, you wouldn't need to re-define words.

Denseman strikes again. No shame.

Definition of IMPEACH
1
a : to bring an accusation against
b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
c : to remove from office especially for misconduct

I put them in different colors. You know, for you younger readers. You like colors, right?

Andrew Johnson was "impeached" (b). Bill Clinton was "impeached" (b). Richard Nixon would have been "impeached" (b and c), which is why he resigned.

None of them were "impeached" (c).

Welcome to our country. Might be worth it to learn our language, especially if you're going to comment on government.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, doesn't it?



Meanwhile, thanks for proving that Ed Schultz, noted liberal commentator, was completely wrong when he said Clinton wasn't impeached.

No. It has nothing to do with is; it depends on which one you mean. It's two different meanings for the same word. A lexicographical flaw. It's not possible to "prove" anything with a word that means two different things. In other words, "were Johnson and Clinton impeached? Yes, they were not".

 

[Wicked Jester]

Denseman strikes again. No shame.

Definition of IMPEACH
1
a : to bring an accusation against
b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
c : to remove from office especially for misconduct

I put them in different colors. You know, for you younger readers. You like colors, right?

Andrew Johnson was "impeached" (b). Bill Clinton was "impeached" (b). Richard Nixon would have been "impeached" (b and c), which is why he resigned.

None of them were "impeached" (c).

Welcome to our country. Might be worth it to learn our language, especially if you're going to comment on government.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, doesn't it?



Meanwhile, thanks for proving that Ed Schultz, noted liberal commentator, was completely wrong when he said Clinton wasn't impeached.

No. It has nothing to do with is; it depends on which one you mean. It's two different meanings for the same word. A lexicographical flaw. It's not possible to "prove" anything with a word that means two different things. In other words, "were Johnson and Clinton impeached? Yes, they were not".

^^^In the ARMY, that would be considered a, "NoGo.^^^

 

[Stephanie]

Mediamatters judging others, that is rich..

who made them the judge and jury of the people in this country?

And people actually post their shit here.

 

[daveman]

Denseman strikes again. No shame.

Definition of IMPEACH
1
a : to bring an accusation against
b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
c : to remove from office especially for misconduct

I put them in different colors. You know, for you younger readers. You like colors, right?

Andrew Johnson was "impeached" (b). Bill Clinton was "impeached" (b). Richard Nixon would have been "impeached" (b and c), which is why he resigned.

None of them were "impeached" (c).

Welcome to our country. Might be worth it to learn our language, especially if you're going to comment on government.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, doesn't it?



Meanwhile, thanks for proving that Ed Schultz, noted liberal commentator, was completely wrong when he said Clinton wasn't impeached.

No. It has nothing to do with is; it depends on which one you mean. It's two different meanings for the same word. A lexicographical flaw. It's not possible to "prove" anything with a word that means two different things. In other words, "were Johnson and Clinton impeached? Yes, they were not".

Well, that's certainly one weaselly way of not having to admit a fellow dumbass prog is wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

Let's get back to MessiahRushie being the MISinformation host for the MISinformation Voter.

November 6, 2012
RUSH:*Will more Republicans vote for Romney than voted for McCain in 2008?* Yes.

 

[Yurt]

Limbaugh Falsely Claims Union Members Have No Say In How Dues Are Spent

^ limbaugh is actually correct

there are other bogus claims in hazlenuts link, but i thought i would start here

 

[Yurt]

Let's get back to MessiahRushie being the MISinformation host for the MISinformation Voter.

November 6, 2012
RUSH:*Will more Republicans vote for Romney than voted for McCain in 2008?* Yes.

an opinion is not misinformation

 

[edthecynic]

Let's get back to MessiahRushie being the MISinformation host for the MISinformation Voter.

November 6, 2012
RUSH:*Will more Republicans vote for Romney than voted for McCain in 2008?* Yes.

an opinion is not misinformation

According to your MessiahRushie it was not opinion but "direct pure analysis."

November 6, 2012
RUSH: Now, as you know, I have been making a big deal about 2010 as a turnout model as opposed to 2008.* I don't think there's any similarity in this election to 2008.* Let me repeat again why.* I mean, this is not wishful thinking.* This is direct, pure analysis.

 

[Yurt]

Let's get back to MessiahRushie being the MISinformation host for the MISinformation Voter.

November 6, 2012
RUSH:*Will more Republicans vote for Romney than voted for McCain in 2008?* Yes.

an opinion is not misinformation

According to your MessiahRushie it was not opinion but "direct pure analysis."

November 6, 2012
RUSH: Now, as you know, I have been making a big deal about 2010 as a turnout model as opposed to 2008.* I don't think there's any similarity in this election to 2008.* Let me repeat again why.* I mean, this is not wishful thinking.* This is direct, pure analysis.

i can't stand rushbo. you should count to 10 before you post a response.

and really, you can put lipstick on - "direct pure analysis" - but it is still opinion.

 

[Oddball]

Limbaugh Falsely Claims Union Members Have No Say In How Dues Are Spent

^ limbaugh is actually correct

there are other bogus claims in hazlenuts link, but i thought i would start here

hazelnutbar is a no-information poster.

 

[Zoom]

And Rush matters how?? Matters more than any other entertainer??

And go figure.. Media Matters.. LOL

Almost as bad as Bush Derangement Syndrome

The right actually makes it so someone like rush to be the leader if the party. The year of the republican party apologized to rush. To rush! The right is sickening.

 

[edthecynic]

an opinion is not misinformation

According to your MessiahRushie it was not opinion but "direct pure analysis."

November 6, 2012
RUSH: Now, as you know, I have been making a big deal about 2010 as a turnout model as opposed to 2008.* I don't think there's any similarity in this election to 2008.* Let me repeat again why.* I mean, this is not wishful thinking.* This is direct, pure analysis.

i can't stand rushbo. you should count to 10 before you post a response.

and really, you can put lipstick on - "direct pure analysis" - but it is still opinion.

You say now, after the fact, that it was opinion, but at the time of delivery the MISinformation was given as factual "evidence!"

November 5, 2012
RUSH: Independents are what define a swing state. Am I right about that? I mean, a swing state is called a swing state because they're independent people who go either way. Independents. So if Pennsylvania is now a swing state, then independents are the determining factor. Independents are breaking for Romney all over the place. He says the Republican turnout is gonna be higher than the Democrats. Well, every bit of evidence that we've seen so far indicates that that's true.
It was in 2010.

 

[Yurt]

According to your MessiahRushie it was not opinion but "direct pure analysis."

November 6, 2012
RUSH: Now, as you know, I have been making a big deal about 2010 as a turnout model as opposed to 2008.* I don't think there's any similarity in this election to 2008.* Let me repeat again why.* I mean, this is not wishful thinking.* This is direct, pure analysis.

i can't stand rushbo. you should count to 10 before you post a response.

and really, you can put lipstick on - "direct pure analysis" - but it is still opinion.

You say now, after the fact, that it was opinion, but at the time of delivery the MISinformation was given as factual "evidence!"

November 5, 2012
RUSH: Independents are what define a swing state. Am I right about that? I mean, a swing state is called a swing state because they're independent people who go either way. Independents. So if Pennsylvania is now a swing state, then independents are the determining factor. Independents are breaking for Romney all over the place. He says the Republican turnout is gonna be higher than the Democrats. Well, every bit of evidence that we've seen so far indicates that that's true.
It was in 2010.

please don't embarrass yourself further

 

[Stephanie]

And Rush matters how?? Matters more than any other entertainer??

And go figure.. Media Matters.. LOL

Almost as bad as Bush Derangement Syndrome

The right actually makes it so someone like rush to be the leader if the party. The year of the republican party apologized to rush. To rush! The right is sickening.

And the left makes it so Bill Maher, Mikey Moore, Ed Schultz, Chrissy Matthews, Colbert, Steward, etc etc is their leader and you on the left don't apologize for them even when they call a Woman Vice Presidential candidate, a cxxt or a slutty flight attendent

so spare us all the stupid shit

 

[edthecynic]

i can't stand rushbo. you should count to 10 before you post a response.

and really, you can put lipstick on - "direct pure analysis" - but it is still opinion.

You say now, after the fact, that it was opinion, but at the time of delivery the MISinformation was given as factual "evidence!"

November 5, 2012
RUSH: Independents are what define a swing state. Am I right about that? I mean, a swing state is called a swing state because they're independent people who go either way. Independents. So if Pennsylvania is now a swing state, then independents are the determining factor. Independents are breaking for Romney all over the place. He says the Republican turnout is gonna be higher than the Democrats. Well, every bit of evidence that we've seen so far indicates that that's true.
It was in 2010.

please don't embarrass yourself further

Please continue to embarrass yourself further.

 

[Yurt]

do you even know what "indicates" mean? also, evidence is not necessarily proof.

seriously, you're getting your panties bunched up over nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

do you even know what "indicates" mean? also, evidence is not necessarily proof.

seriously, you're getting your panties bunched up over nothing.

Neither "evidence" nor "indicates" means "opinion."
Keep up your foolishness.

 

[Yurt]

do you even know what "indicates" mean? also, evidence is not necessarily proof.

seriously, you're getting your panties bunched up over nothing.

Neither "evidence" nor "indicates" means "opinion."
Keep up your foolishness.

this is evidence that indicates you're a moron.

 

[edthecynic]

do you even know what "indicates" mean? also, evidence is not necessarily proof.

seriously, you're getting your panties bunched up over nothing.

Neither "evidence" nor "indicates" means "opinion."
Keep up your foolishness.

this is evidence that indicates you're a moron.

That's your "opinion."