• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Was Punked: “Obama Thesis” Hoax

to be so worked up, so obsessed over some insignificant little piece of cheese

LOL!

such small vision

health care's dead

ask ben nelson, conrad, difi, bayh, sharrod brown, combat boots webb, feingold, stupak and his 40 dogs, barrow and nye and their 36 hawks...
 
Just Plain Jim said:
It must have seemed so perfect. An obscure blogger unearths some pages of President Obama's college thesis. The report supposedly comes from big-time journalist Joe Klein of Time magazine. And the thesis has some real gems: like Obama's disdain for the Constitution.

The whole thing was nothing more than a satirical post on a humor blog. But Rush Limbaugh, who quoted from the supposed thesis on his radio show, sure wasn't laughing. Here's how it went down.

An unknown blogger picked up on a made-up post meant as a joke, which claimed that Joe Klein had gotten his hands on 10 pages of student Obama's college thesis. Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, which immediately sparked Web searches on "obama thesis."

Supposedly titled "Aristocracy Revisited," the excerpt revealed the president had "doubts" about the "so-called founders." Juicy. Except not true. Limbaugh discovered halfway through his show that he'd been had, but defended himself by saying basically the thesis felt true. Listen in to Rush's mea sorta culpa.

Joe Klein finally jumped in, and called the report "nonsense" on his Swampland blog, and the blogger who thought the hoax was real also apologized.

Let's hope someone kept their sense of humor in all this. Still, for a humble post to go from humor blog to major media outlet sure seems impressive. Someone ought to write their thesis on it. For real.

The Buzz Log - Rush Was Punked: ?Obama Thesis? Hoax - Yahoo! Buzz

==============

How many times has Rush punked the people? Or just about every talking head for that matter, left or right, it seems like it's punk this, punk that, and divide us more.

.
Click to expand...

+1 if you know who Rush was parodying with his "it felt true" satire.

RUSH: In the first hour of this program, I cited a statement that Michael Ledeen found on the blog Jumping in Pools reporting on Obama's college thesis written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages Obama wrote the following: "[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 believe the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." Now, I got a note from a researcher who has been scouring the Internet, and the note says this:

"Rush Limbaugh: Mini-warning on these quotes." Because the paper that Obama wrote, "Aristocracy Reborn," the first ten pages were all that reporter Joe Klein was permitted to see; and it says here that Klein did write about it for TIME Magazine. A researcher has been scouring the Internet and can't find any sources for the quote. "The blog that Ledeen cites doesn't have supporting info," supposedly. The source post that was from August, says it's going to be in an upcoming report from Joe Klein, but the researcher can't find anything that has come out since, and nothing in Klein's blog. There have been no matches found on the Internet for any of the info or quotes other than the source posting. So I now say that the blog from which this came has no sourcing data other than Joe Klein upcoming report and Joe Klein hasn't written his upcoming report.

So we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate. However, I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, "It doesn't matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." Sort of like Dan Rather said, "I don't care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don't care if the documents are forged." I don't care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it." Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois.

Obama's Disdain for Constitution: We Know He Thinks It, Don't We?
Click to expand...
 
RUSH: In the first hour of this program, I cited a statement that Michael Ledeen found on the blog Jumping in Pools reporting on Obama's college thesis written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages Obama wrote the following: "[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 believe the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." Now, I got a note from a researcher who has been scouring the Internet, and the note says this:

"Rush Limbaugh: Mini-warning on these quotes." Because the paper that Obama wrote, "Aristocracy Reborn," the first ten pages were all that reporter Joe Klein was permitted to see; and it says here that Klein did write about it for TIME Magazine. A researcher has been scouring the Internet and can't find any sources for the quote. "The blog that Ledeen cites doesn't have supporting info," supposedly. The source post that was from August, says it's going to be in an upcoming report from Joe Klein, but the researcher can't find anything that has come out since, and nothing in Klein's blog. There have been no matches found on the Internet for any of the info or quotes other than the source posting. So I now say that the blog from which this came has no sourcing data other than Joe Klein upcoming report and Joe Klein hasn't written his upcoming report.

So we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate. However, I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, "It doesn't matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." Sort of like Dan Rather said, "I don't care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don't care if the documents are forged." I don't care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it." Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois.
Click to expand...

Looks like the punkers became the punkees. Of course, the Libbos will ignore the real facts.
 
The Prof said:
to be so worked up, so obsessed over some insignificant little piece of cheese

LOL!

such small vision

health care's dead

ask ben nelson, conrad, difi, bayh, sharrod brown, combat boots webb, feingold, stupak and his 40 dogs, barrow and nye and their 36 hawks...
Click to expand...


Cheese Rocks! Rush Sucks! Do not insult the cheese:mrgreen:
 
This is what I know about Rush.

Years ago, I think it was the late 80's I was flipping through the dial of my radio and happened to come across this brash talking man, Rush Limbaugh, who seemed to be making a lot of sense. I tuned in for a few months, but something didn't seem quite right, I couldn't quite put my finger on it till one day he said, "man has never cause any extinction of any animal, FACT!" All I could think of was Dodo Bird.

That is when I tuned him out and I have found these talking heads, regardless of how much they fit my ideology come up with so called facts that are taking out of their ass.

Like Ray Talifaro of KGO in San Francisco, spewed some stuff about Bush that he claimed was all over the internet and swore up and down it was true. So I did my own fact checking and couldn't find hide or hair of that so called fact.

My question then becomes, since they lied and mislead about that, then what percentage are they lying about? 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% or what? And of that, how are we to know what is fact or BS?

That is why I don't listen to talking heads anymore, regardless of how much I agree with them because they have a history of taking things out of context, missquoting, believing a so called fact is a true because it fits their agenda, or just plain lying.

Just like Rush.

One of my favorite sites on the internet is this one:
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

.

.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of Rush and fact is I haven't listened to him much since his days way back in Sacramento. I can't stand people like him and Mike Savage I find that half the time both of them are what Savages last name really is only plural Weiners.

Punk'd definition is described as having a practical joke being pulled on you while being filmed, and I guess since Rush is on camera they got it right technically even though the author got the spelling wrong according to MtV standards which is funny it's self. (As if MTV has standards)

Well I think it's kind of funny Rush gets Punk'd about Obama while the Country is getting Punk'd by Obama almost every day. Only thing is what Obama is doing is neither practical or funny worth a damn.
 
goldendog said:
For Rush to run with that junk without checking it accuracy just shows how desperate he and his buddies really are.
Click to expand...
Like... Dan Rather/CBS in Septermber 2008?

Except of couse, that was reported as FACT from a NEWS organization.
 
Hatuey said:
If this doesn't prove that Rush Limbaugh and the right wing are willing to take whatever is said about Obama and use it to smear regardless of the veracity behind it. I don't know what will.
Click to expand...
If this doesn't prove that Dan Rather/CBS...

Oh, but that was different. I forgot.
 
Goobieman said:
If this doesn't prove that Dan Rather/CBS...

Oh, but that was different. I forgot.
Click to expand...

Cool beans. Rush Limbaugh is on an equal footing as Dan Rather. Both are idiots for not checking their sources and reporting false info. Thanks for the correlation.
 
Lost amongst the knee jerking spasmodic rush to announce AH HA GOTCHA RUSH, is the fact that Limbaugh did in fact admit he had been punked as claimed. By all accounts about half way through his reading of the piece in question. Catch that one did some of you? He admitted it as soon as he became aware of it, which given the fact it happened live and on air, must not have too easy to do.

As we see from recent headlines, Mr. Rather STILL has not been able to bring himself to do so regarding his well documented, shall we say......... error? He is STILL fighting a court case over this matter, STILL refusing to admit what happened and his role in it. For some reason all the "journalistic scholars" going on and on about Limbaugh seem to have missed this slightly salient point. Must be the ginormous blinders bolted to their oh so impartial and deeply intellectual skulls eh?

And the none too talented band played on with their kazoos..........
 
Last edited:
Just Plain Jim said:
This is what I know about Rush.

Years ago, I think it was the late 80's I was flipping through the dial of my radio and happened to come across this brash talking man, Rush Limbaugh, who seemed to be making a lot of sense. I tuned in for a few months, but something didn't seem quite right, I couldn't quite put my finger on it till one day he said, "man has never cause any extinction of any animal, FACT!" All I could think of was Dodo Bird.

That is when I tuned him out and I have found these talking heads, regardless of how much they fit my ideology come up with so called facts that are taking out of their ass.

Like Ray Talifaro of KGO in San Francisco, spewed some stuff about Bush that he claimed was all over the internet and swore up and down it was true. So I did my own fact checking and couldn't find hide or hair of that so called fact.

My question then becomes, since they lied and mislead about that, then what percentage are they lying about? 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% or what? And of that, how are we to know what is fact or BS?

That is why I don't listen to talking heads anymore, regardless of how much I agree with them because they have a history of taking things out of context, missquoting, believing a so called fact is a true because it fits their agenda, or just plain lying.

Just like Rush.

One of my favorite sites on the internet is this one:
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

.

.
Click to expand...

I am the same way. I have no time for talking heads... it's an automatic channel changer for me.
 
Kali said:
I think it funny as hell:) Anything to make Rush look even more the fool is a good thing. hehehe
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if any of his followers (1) thought he looked like a fool and (2) understood that the thesis thing was a hoax.

It appears that when Rush sort of admitted that the thesis was nonexistent, he reiterated that Obama felt that way anyway. His blind followers would take that as gospel.
 
aps said:
It appears that when Rush sort of admitted that the thesis was nonexistent, he reiterated that Obama felt that way anyway. His blind followers would take that as gospel.
Click to expand...


I think you totally missed the sarcasm when he said that. Go back and re-read the transcript.
 
apdst said:
I think you totally missed the sarcasm when he said that. Go back and re-read the transcript.
Click to expand...

But I saw the footage. I think many of these people who follow Rush in a blinded manner are not savvy enough to tell the difference.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Cool beans. Rush Limbaugh is on an equal footing as Dan Rather. Both are idiots for not checking their sources and reporting false info. Thanks for the correlation.
Click to expand...
Except that Rush isn't a news anchorman...
 
Goobieman said:
Except that Rush isn't a news anchorman...
Click to expand...

You're correct, he's a anchorman for his followers and he has taught then to scream the loudest to drown out the opposition.

That is how the ultra right wing does business and why I refuse to try to have a civil conversation with them about politics, because it is never civil.

.
 
Just Plain Jim said:
You're correct, he's a anchorman for his followers and he has taught then to scream the loudest to drown out the opposition.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you dont see the difference in standards between a netweork news service and a political entertainer.
 
I just find it funny that after he found out it was a hoax, he tried to justify his seething rage by indicating that "there is a kernel of truth" behind it.

Perhaps there is, I am just amazed that Rush has a following at this point. The staunchest right-wingers I know in real life even think he's a buffoon.

And despite the fact that he isn't a "real" newsman, many people take him as such. Same with the talking heads on TV, if it's on a news channel, and politics are involved, some will always equate commentary with "news".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom