Here's your disclaimer Francis..."Dumbasses like Francis Volpe who think they are qualified to form everyone elses opinion for them can crawl back under the same rock as the "Hollyweird 100"...We don't want your gasbag opinions and if you get in our faces with them, you may well need tape to hold your glasses up because your nose is gonna get flattened!
Is THAT injurious enough for you, Francis?
Francy boy heard that at his last 'seminar caller' meeting.
Enter Francis Volpe.
Apparently he has just discovered Rush Limbaugh. Or at least discovered the he was becoming popular. The trouble is, Rush has been the number one rated talk host in the country for over a decade now. Everyone already knows about Rush Limbaugh. Heck, most of us even know about the "shocking" revelations Volpe seems to think he is "breaking" in his article.
There is no longer any need to wonder who plays the office idiot role at the Carlisle Sentinel.
that the occasional eruption of a single volcano causes more permanent damage to the ozone layer than the constant assault of industrial pollution....
or that the New York Times buried a news story about positive Republican prospects in the just-passed election to serve some supposed liberal bias.
hmmmm. All these statements are true.
Even the envirowhackos do not dispute this one. They say the reforestation of America is the result of all the CO2 in the air and that we have reached the upper level of how much forest the country can have so NOW we will get the high CO2 rates they have been predicting all along.
Either that or he is just freshening up the same pile of dung you see printed about Rush in the Yahoo Bumpkin/Gazette every few months.
This guy does the third-rate rehash hatchet job on Limbaugh and then criticizes a man who puts out 15 hours of original programming a week for six statements made over the last twenty years about not being thorough.
Go figure.
Well he’s hardly in the same boat he was then. He’s now talking to a much bigger audience as well as getting a fatter payday.
To judge Volpe’s credibility you can read his letter to Salon in 1999 here here in which he commented about an article by Andrew Ross about Clinton getting better treatment than Robert Packwood during the impeachment trial which is below.
Andrew Ross' article about Clinton getting better treatment than Robert Packwood was an interesting idea for a story, but it probably wouldn't have played as well if Ross had included any facts about Packwood's fall. For example, Packwood was not hounded for sex but sexual harassment -- his antics were not in any way consensual. The only actual case of harassment suggested against Clinton is the Paula Jones case, which was thrown out of court and only settled because Clinton knew the Whitehead Institute would have appealed it to the World Court in the Hague just to keep it in the newspapers.
Packwood was also guilty of falsifying actual evidence in the form of his forged diaries. You can quibble about perjury with Clinton until the cows come home, but making a few mistakes while trying to remember past events on the fly is nothing compared to seating yourself before a keyboard and hammering out a document whose very existence is a lie.Ross also got an actual fact wrong -- Robert Bork's video rental history was never at issue, it was Clarence Thomas who was accused of renting things like "On Golden Blonde" and "Sex Trek, The Next Penetration." By the way, if you want to start a conversation about liars, let's talk about Clarence Thomas telling a Senate committee and a television audience that he had never in his life formed an opinion about the Roe vs. Wade decision. Thomas may be the only person in history to perjure his way onto the Supreme Court.
-- Francis Volpe
Carlisle, Pa.
Do you know what a Clymer is?
psst... you're one!
I believe this is called "projecting".
It's called research, Francis. It's not that hard. A child can do it. Try a Google search.