rush limbaugh comments on fda and ecig

[Rocketman]

Somebody needs to 'educate Rush' (ha).
If he really wants to take up the cause against the FDA, you know, for the people, then he needs to get the 'advertising' out and the facts in. I listened to one youtube and he seems to be advertising (for money?).

We already have 'infomercials' on late night. Free deals and the like.


my 2 cents.

 

[Kent C]

I listened yesterday when Dr. Walter Williams was the guest host. He was introduced with "Black by popular demand..."

And yes he is African American. I have a suspicion that if Rush were truly racist, a Man of Dr. Williams' stature would not be associating with him.

Good point! And Snirdley, his long time screen caller is Afr.Amer. plus Clarence Thomas performed his marriage ceremony with his last wife before the current one. But because of their politics, those African Americans have been called worse things by some, than referring to their preferences in cigarettes. Those comments aren't picked up by "Media Matters" - Rush's (and Beck's) are.

A great example of how MM take things out of context was on Beck today - same comment about the imam (mosque story) 5 years ago, spun one way then, and spun 180 degrees opposite just this last week - same clip, same words, different spin to fit the attack.

Once one understands this, then one is no longer 'surprised' or 'angered' by what is reported about "what Rush said today". lol

 

[Vapinginmyboots]

I heard his monologue about e-cigs today. He defidently seems to be a good ally for the community, putting politics aside completely as inevitably some will love, some not care for, and some hate them from someone such as him. How many millions of listeners will hear him talking e-cigs who have not heard of them and think, "well, that sounds like something id like to try"? This is def. the kind of exposure we need, just think of the ripple effect from all those fans who might now try e-cigs and recomend them. I hope the brands he seems to be advertising are at least fairly good brands. From the sounds of it, I dont think hes done dabbling in e-cig talk as this is 2 times hes now brought them up at least in any significant way.

 

[Rocketman]

Joe,
thanks for the clarification.
BTW, I haven't seen you guys doing infomercials \

I agree it's a great opportunity for the cause;
if he gets it right. If he screws up it could backfire.

Those that listen to Rush seem to take what he says as gospel (like my inlaws )
They even have their Bose radio/clock/recorder set to come on and record his shows.

Just think how good this could be if he had 'all the facts'.
His producers better get to reading.

 

[Rocketman]

This is going to give me monstrous credibility with the inlaws (I told you so category).
If Rush is behind it, it's gotta be right. Wonder if the new wife is really behind him vaping?

Anybody want to photoshop him and Obama vaping?
Just kidding.

 

[NCC]

With friends like Rush, who needs enemies?

 

[kristin]

Unfortunately, e-cigs are already heavy on enemies and mainstream media isn't doing us any favors in getting the truth out.

"The enemy of my enemy...."

 

[Rocketman]

Unfortunately, e-cigs are already heavy on enemies and mainstream media isn't doing us any favors in getting the truth out.

The enemy of my enemy....

Kristin,

That's because they are just 'copy managers' building news from press feeds.

Maybe they'll pick up on Rush's comments, and build some news from that.

 

[Kate51]

NCC, How do you pick your friends...and do your enemies pick you?

I don't know, seems like a friend in need is a friend indeed! Not like we're in perfect position here. The Anti's have all picked already.

 

[Kent C]

With friends like Rush, who needs enemies?

Maybe you should ask this family:
Our Prayers for the Hasara Family

This was his first hour today before the ecig comments.

 

[Bahnzo]

A great example of how MM take things out of context was on Beck today - same comment about the imam (mosque story) 5 years ago, spun one way then, and spun 180 degrees opposite just this last week - same clip, same words, different spin to fit the attack.

And Beck/FoxNews/Rush don't? They jumped all over that women from the Ag Dept whose comments were deliberately taken out of context and called her racist. Everybody does it, not just one media outlet. Beck et all are just as guilty as everyone else. Hell, Beck contradicts himself daily anyways.

And a good example of how Fox only tells you what you want to hear....the imam and the mosque issue....one of the biggest contributers to that imam and his "terror organization" is also the largest shareholder of Fox News besides Murdoch. Hmmm, wonder why they forget to mention that?

 

[Kent C]

And Beck/FoxNews/Rush don't? They jumped all over that women from the Ag Dept whose comments were deliberately taken out of context and called her racist. Everybody does it, not just one media outlet. Beck et all are just as guilty as everyone else. Hell, Beck contradicts himself daily anyways.

And a good example of how Fox only tells you what you want to hear....the imam and the mosque issue....one of the biggest contributers to that imam and his "terror organization" is also the largest shareholder of Fox News besides Murdoch. Hmmm, wonder why they forget to mention that?

This is a good example how people like you don't actually watch Fox or Beck but only parrot what the liberal blogs say about them. If you actually watched you might know the full story:

You might take a look at the timeline of that story. Most of Fox coverage, as well as CNN's and MSNBC took place 'after the fact'. Even Media Matters and the NYTimes points out that Fox didn't 'hop on' the story and the NYT says this about Beck, who took the side of Shirley Sherrod a day after the Administration fired her:

"By the time the conservative commentator took up the issue, the full transcript of the speech was out and Mr. Beck was citing Ms. Sherrod — but as a victim of administration recklessness. This time, he was right."

Fox News - Shirley Sherrod | Coverage | Myth - Resigned | Mediaite

Beck was injected into the story by the AG department people that told Sherrod that she would be on Beck if she didn't resign immediately. And frankly that right there is a good indication of how they view Beck. If he was just the goofball that they'd like everyone to think he is, they'd just ignore him.

And while I'm not saying that others don't take things out of context, what was especially telling about the imam segments by Media Matters was that the SAME clip and words were made to make two points that were 180 degrees opposite. It's one thing to take someone's words out of context to push your own agenda but it's quite another when you take the same words in an attempt to make him appear to agree when it suits your spin and to disagree when it suits your spin at another time. That is the most pernicious aspect - it takes lying to a new level. Some people like stuff and can only justify it by accusing the other side of the same thing, but in this case you used the wrong story to justify it because it wasn't Fox or Beck, as even those liberal media sources indicate. Find one where they take the same exact words and spin them in different directions on two different occasions. Media Matters shouldn't have any credibility whatsoever after this, but of course it will be shrugged off by the gov't lapdog press. They won't even mention it.

 

[Bahnzo]

This is a good example how people like you don't actually watch Fox or Beck but only parrot what the liberal blogs say about them.

Sorry, but not only do I not watch Beck, I also don't read liberal blogs. I have never heard of Media Matters until you mentioned it. My point is you talk about spin and how they take Beck and like out of context when the same thing happens to others as well. It happens on both sides and both are to blame. Beck is as much to blame as Oberman or whomever else. People who have mindless devotions to Beck/Rush/Fox tend to not understand this and "their guy" is the one who gets smeared.

 

[Kent C]

Sorry, but not only do I not watch Beck, I also don't read liberal blogs. I have never heard of Media Matters until you mentioned it. My point is you talk about spin and how they take Beck and like out of context when the same thing happens to others as well. It happens on both sides and both are to blame. Beck is as much to blame as Oberman or whomever else. People who have mindless devotions to Beck/Rush/Fox tend to not understand this and "their guy" is the one who gets smeared.

Well, in order to get the Sherrod story so wrong you had to watch or read something. My point on the imam story that you decided to comment on was a specific point about taking the same words and spinning it in two different directions at different times. To say that everyone takes everyone else out of context is, itself, out of context to my comments. You wanted to make the point that two wrongs don't make a right but you chose the wrong story to cite because neither Fox nor Beck was wrong on that one. It was only 'reported' that way by people with an agenda, who know there are people out there that will take them at their word without doing any follow up. In fact, they count on it.

 

[Reyth]

Just to let everyone know- We did not pay him to say anything about our product. He has bought many ecig products and seems to like ours. He is a customer and pays for all of his products and demanded it be that way. We couldn't give him a thousand kits for this free advertising.
Yes your right, it does sound like a commercial, but don't we all sound like a commercial once we quit smoking and start vaping?
This is the greatest thing that can happen to ecigs. The more people knowing what the FDA are doing, the better. No matter if you love him or hate him, he WILL make this controversial matter publicized.
Thank you all for your support, and hope all Ecig companies benefit from this. It was great meeting with many of you during vapefest...see you all soon!!!

Thanks for having a well engineered product! I bought one of your atty's because it works so much better on my Blu and the vapor increase was immediately noticeable and profound! If I had known about your product I would of purchased it over the Blu!

 

[rothenbj]

Thanks for having a well engineered product! I bought one of your atty's because it works so much better on my Blu and the vapor increase was immediately noticeable and profound! If I had known about your product I would of purchased it over the Blu!

Are you saying that the volcano and blu use the same atty? Plus that their atomizer is better? I ask because a friend didn't take my recommendation and bought a blu. He's been doing okay, but his wife isn't getting the visual exhale that works for her. I might recommend try one of them if it made sense.

 

[Reyth]

Yuppers. All the Volcano parts and Blu parts are interchangeable -- I started off using the Blu atty and then switched to the Volcano and IMMEDIATELY noticed the vapor and throat hit increase.

I'm blowing monster smoke with my Blu now.

 

[scinsc]

This is a good example how people like you don't actually watch Fox or Beck but only parrot what the liberal blogs say about them. If you actually watched you might know the full story:

You might take a look at the timeline of that story. Most of Fox coverage, as well as CNN's and MSNBC took place 'after the fact'. Even Media Matters and the NYTimes points out that Fox didn't 'hop on' the story and the NYT says this about Beck, who took the side of Shirley Sherrod a day after the Administration fired her:

"By the time the conservative commentator took up the issue, the full transcript of the speech was out and Mr. Beck was citing Ms. Sherrod — but as a victim of administration recklessness. This time, he was right."

Fox News - Shirley Sherrod | Coverage | Myth - Resigned | Mediaite

Beck was injected into the story by the AG department people that told Sherrod that she would be on Beck if she didn't resign immediately. And frankly that right there is a good indication of how they view Beck. If he was just the goofball that they'd like everyone to think he is, they'd just ignore him.

And while I'm not saying that others don't take things out of context, what was especially telling about the imam segments by Media Matters was that the SAME clip and words were made to make two points that were 180 degrees opposite. It's one thing to take someone's words out of context to push your own agenda but it's quite another when you take the same words in an attempt to make him appear to agree when it suits your spin and to disagree when it suits your spin at another time. That is the most pernicious aspect - it takes lying to a new level. Some people like stuff and can only justify it by accusing the other side of the same thing, but in this case you used the wrong story to justify it because it wasn't Fox or Beck, as even those liberal media sources indicate. Find one where they take the same exact words and spin them in different directions on two different occasions. Media Matters shouldn't have any credibility whatsoever after this, but of course it will be shrugged off by the gov't lapdog press. They won't even mention it.

Nailed it.

 

[Luisa]

I have said this before but it bears repeating. For all those spending time bashing Limbaugh and conservatives, why are you not using that time to contact liberal commentators and liberal publications. Why don"t you try to get some positive press from them? I would love to see some of them support us. The Wall Street Journal has the fairest and best news of any print newspaper that I know. It is considered conservative,but I find it to be pretty consistently even handed reporting news. ALL YOU LIBERALS,PLEASE contact liberal newsmakers that might give us some help. We need help from all sides. Thanks

 

[Bahnzo]

Well, in order to get the Sherrod story so wrong you had to watch or read something. <snip> It was only 'reported' that way by people with an agenda, who know there are people out there that will take them at their word without doing any follow up. In fact, they count on it.

Hmm, so it does appear that Fox was the first to pick up on it and run with it. It wasn't until later that O'Reilly apologized and admitted he was wrong. I guess there's your "people with an agenda" who "take them at their word without doing any follow up."

From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

Fox News began its pursuit of Ms. Sherrod in prime time on Monday night on three successive opinion shows that reached at least three million people. Leading off, Mr. O’Reilly asked on his top-rated program, “Is there racism in the Department of Agriculture?” He discussed the tape, plugged Mr. Breitbart’s Web site and demanded that Ms. Sherrod resign immediately.

And has Fox bothered to report it's their 2nd biggest shareholder who helps fund the "terror mosque"? I find it hilarious that Fox News itself is essentially funding the very thing they spread fear about.