As my colleague Tim Graham reported earlier, President Barack Obama, according to the New York Post, told Congressional Republicans on Friday to stop listening to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
National Review's Byron York got in touch with Limbaugh Saturday, and published his response to the President at NRO's Corner blog:
There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this. [...]
To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle. [...]
If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.
Read the whole thing.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
PreBo again demonstrates.......
January 24, 2009 - 19:02 ET by BEGRUNThis whole administration is amateur hour. I see a public meltdown fast approaching. This is what you get with an un-vetted child running the country...........I hope you leftists are happy.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Thin Skin Amateur
January 24, 2009 - 19:11 ET by Gat New YorkBetween Obama's rude attitude toward the Press (his Press) and this comment, it is already showing how utterly immature and unprofessional this guy is.
Think about it. He is President of the United States in discussions with leaders of Congress over an econmic bill and the rather than argue his points the best he can do is be like Daily Kos and make a radio pundit his whipping boy.
Add to that his innapropriate inaugural speech and he is clearly showing that things are going to be done his way and that he has zero ability to negotiate and reach across the aisle.
These next two years are going to make Carter look like Reagan.
Yeppir.....
January 24, 2009 - 19:25 ET by BlondeIt won't take long before he commits a totally atrocious impeachable offense.
One so heinous even Nanny's going to have to go along.
Sheesh, I forgot to buy my popcorn futures.
I've said it before and
January 24, 2009 - 22:29 ET by stratmanI've said it before and I'll say it again:
I going to need pallets of Pepto and Popcorn to get through the next four years.
Gat
January 24, 2009 - 19:39 ET by iveseenitall"Immature and unprofessional". That was exactly what came to mind for my wife and me when reading this story. He's the President of the United States, for crying out loud. How undignifed to choose a radio talk show host to criticize while attempting to defend his policies. As I've said many times here, Barry Obama is an immature child pretending to be a man and pretending to be a world leader. How sad for this once great nation.
BTW, IMO Rush Limbaugh knows the modern "liberal" mind better than anyone in the media. He understands these pathetic creatures who are now running America. He knows so well that one must...
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
That is right
January 26, 2009 - 12:34 ET by general company"Immature and unprofessional"
Never once did I hear Bush call out anyone by name, even when I thought he should. Yet Obama has been POTUS for less then a week and is already publicly critical of those that dont agree with him, by name. This is nothing more then bully politics, by a partisan politician.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The Clinton reruns are not
January 24, 2009 - 19:33 ET by motherbeltThe Clinton reruns are not amateurs. That's why he picked them, because he know that he is, and needs people who've been around the block a time or two.
But he himself is the amateur, and it shows. He doesn't realize that getting into an argument with a "radio personality" should be beneath him. If he were smart, he would at least pretend to ignore Rush.
Anyone who watched him during the campaign could have seen this coming. He's the cocky teenager, throwing little digs at his "enemies," belittling those who disagree with him.
mother....I agree the Ex-clintoon aids arent.........
January 24, 2009 - 19:43 ET by BEGRUNTamateurs......they're scapegoats for PreBO. As you know NOTHING is PreBO's fault.....it will ALWAYS be someone else....never him. He did this during the campaign........how many "under the bus"?? Well he has a new bus with lots of ground clearance.......I wonder who'll be first........?????
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Crude and immature
January 24, 2009 - 21:29 ET by needle“He's the cocky teenager, throwing little digs at his "enemies," belittling those who disagree with him.”
He is also so crude and immature that he occasionally on the podium throws “the finger” at those he does not like. Such Presidential timber! (hmmm, it’s been a while since we heard that phrase in the Press. I wonder why…)
BTW, I have not yet heard a rationalization, that is worth its salt, for why he picked Biden as his VP. Maybe as someone who would not make him look inadequate?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Elsewhere
January 24, 2009 - 21:36 ET by doug1950someone said "impeachment insurance". I thought that was pretty good.
I heard "Assassination
January 24, 2009 - 22:34 ET by motherbeltI heard "Assassination Insurance." I like that even better.
He picked Biden so that someone could sell...
January 25, 2009 - 04:43 ET by Army Brat"My Vice President Is White" t-shirts, thereby ending divisiveness in America.
Happy Trails...
motherbelt
January 24, 2009 - 23:22 ET by Travis NoodleYour comments (19:33) are right on point! Nice work.
Rush is right again. The
January 24, 2009 - 19:09 ET by BlazerRush is right again. The new "New Deal" is no more than attempt by the fed to beat up conservative middle class America and make them dependant on government handouts. Robert Reich's recent statement's affirm it.
It's a go along to get along approach by Democrats to reward their voting bloc and get conservatives to tow the line or else.
We have no choice where our tax dollars go, unfortunately this far-left admin. will make good and damned sure it will not go to us if we misbehave. In the immortal words of Capt. Malcolm Reynold's of The Serenity, " I aim to misbehave"
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blazer
January 24, 2009 - 19:27 ET by ahusserI won't use the word great but Serenity was a really good movie.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Oh no ahusser it was great
January 24, 2009 - 19:30 ET by BlazerOh no ahusser it was great and get's better each time you watch it.
"I'll be in my bunk"
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blazer
January 24, 2009 - 19:42 ET by ahusserI do think it was great but I didn't want to seem to be too hyperbolic. One of the few select movies I watch over and over. I'd like to see another season of "Firefly" but I think the Sci-Fi channel screwed up. One of the complaints I recall was that they showed the episodes out of sequence. Anyway Adam Baldwin as Jayne always cracks me up. "I aim to misbehave" a great quote, enjoy.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Never watched Firefly until
January 24, 2009 - 19:52 ET by BlazerNever watched Firefly until I saw Serenity, but yea they screwed up imho when they killed off "Wash" Washburne. Nonetheless I hope Whedon will do a few more Serenity flicks. It is high calibre sci-fi, very smart and the characters are top-notch.
How about this quote:
"Half of writing history is hiding the truth." - Capt. Mal Reynolds
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blazer- I haven't watched it for a few months
January 24, 2009 - 19:56 ET by ahussersound like it's time for a rerun. :)
Take Care.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Another fan
January 24, 2009 - 20:27 ET by jgarciaI love that movie and bought it to replay..... plus the DVD's for firefly.........
The Myth of the New Deal and FDR
January 24, 2009 - 21:00 ET by PopularTechHow FDR Made the Depression Worse (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People (Jim Powell, Historian)
Not-So-Great Depression (Jim Powell, Historian)
Should We Try Another New Deal? (Jim Powell, Historian)
Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal (Jim Powell, Historian)
Why Did FDR's New Deal Harm Blacks? (Jim Powell, Historian)
The New Deal Debunked (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
The New Deal Debunked (again) (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
The Truth about FDR (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. History)
Three Myths of the Great Depression (Burton W. Folsom, Ph.D. Professor of History)
Five Myths About the Great Depression (Andrew B. Wilson, The Wall Street Journal)
The New Deal Jobs Myth (Amity Shales, The Wall Street Journal)
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate (UCLA)
Papers:
Great Myths of the Great Depression (PDF) (Lawrence W. Reed, M.A. History)
How FDR Prolonged the Great Depression (PDF) (Jim Powell, Historian)
The Government and the Great Depression (PDF) (Chris Edwards, M.A. Economics)
Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War (PDF) (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Books:
FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Jim Powell, Historian, 2003)
New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America (Burton W. Folsom, Ph.D. Professor of History, 2008)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
New Deal Links
January 24, 2009 - 23:41 ET by MoosebusterOh, my! Thank you so much for all those New Deal links! I can see that I have my homework cut out for me for a while.
Wow how stupid is this administration already?
January 24, 2009 - 19:19 ET by Lord ErondImagine criticizing the biggest representative of free speech in this country in such a fashion. Fortunately we had 8 years of Klinton and we're used to these tactics. Maybe we can get this SOB impeached.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Obama berates the GOP for
January 24, 2009 - 19:28 ET by BlazerObama berates the GOP for listening to Rush a private citizen. Now he needs to go ahead and try to get the un-fairness doctrine reinstated and get Rush off the air, that would really be a smoothe move Ex-Lax.
This is gonna be four years of amateur hour in The Whitehouse.
. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Oh my Blaze,
January 24, 2009 - 19:31 ET by BlondeI have two words for The One.
F' Off!
I have two words for
January 24, 2009 - 19:35 ET by BlazerI have two words for Obama.
Kiss my a$$.
All right,... so it was three.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
In Biden's world it was
January 24, 2009 - 19:39 ET by cocodrieIn Biden's world it was four. Jesus Loves You
You beat me to it!
January 24, 2009 - 21:34 ET by needleYou beat me to it!
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
His comment about Rush was,
January 24, 2009 - 20:56 ET by celatorHis comment about Rush was, what, his 7th or 8th goofup after only three days in office? Each one would have been easily avoided if Obama had plain common sense, or genuine political savvy.
A wide range of managerial and leadership experience would have shown Obama how to avoid these amateurish events. Of course, he has neither.
He's beginning to make Biden look like Shakespeare.
One can only imagine the glee the enemies of the US are experiencing as they watch these White House follies. They know Obama will be easy to trip up in foreign affairs.
It's a pathetic first week.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
cel.... Your comment
January 24, 2009 - 21:10 ET by bigtimercel....
Your comment about O making Biden look like Shakespeare is hilarious!
LMAO!
Yep, that's the political
January 24, 2009 - 21:13 ET by celatorYep, that's the political world we are in at this time.;+}
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
How long til the child King freaks out...?
January 25, 2009 - 05:15 ET by Army BratHow long 'til he throws an out and out tantrum? Any bets?
With him controlling the medias access to him so completely, and their insane dedication to him to boot, he may freak and we'll never know...
Happy Trails...
Lets observe.
January 24, 2009 - 19:28 ET by mizflame98Of the two men, which one spoke like a mature person? And it's the liberals that are the intelligent and enlightened ones? Well, I guess I should be proud to be a kuckle-dragging conservative. We obviously have better manners and are capable of arguing the issues instead of taking cheap shots at others.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
A lot to consider
January 24, 2009 - 19:29 ET by kdizzydazeObama saying what he said to the Republican leadership tells me he either listens to Limbaugh (highly unlikely) or he is truly dumb enough to believe what the MSM talking heads and inner-elite-circle he hangs with says about Rush. We all know that these people do not listen to Rush and have based much of their hatred of him on innuendo and soundbites used way out of context.
This man's childish behavior boggles the mind. I know mid-level managers with more executive ability than this guy.
God made man, but he used a monkey to do it -- DEVO
Gosh...glad this is here
January 24, 2009 - 19:32 ET by bigtimerGosh...glad this is here now...but I've already posted quite a bit already.
Nevertheless....one word comes to mind with O....
Arrogance.
As usual.
He took the wrong man on.
He (Soros/MM and crew) will lose in the end...what a fool...
Btw...all it does is bring more visitors to Rush's site...inquiring minds want to know...even some on the left....hehehee...
I also don't care what anybody else thinks...this is the first step, incrementally into attempting to get the Fairness Doctrine passed, using whatever name they want to change it too, they will...it will be attempted to be slipped into a huge Bill with some saying they saw nothing...as usual, and I am including RINOs like McC.
Everything Rush says in here is correct...from the cradle to grave socialism being completed on down.
I want to hear some dissent from the right side of the aisle regarding this BS regarding Rush and what O the Arrogant said.
I'm waiting.....
BT
January 24, 2009 - 19:36 ET by Noel SheppardBT,
Sorry to take so long getting this up, but I was at Sully's homecoming. That said, what angers me more is that I didn't think about sending Rush an e-mail message to get his response before Byron did. :-) ns
ns... Hey...no
January 24, 2009 - 20:21 ET by bigtimerns...
Hey...no problem...wished I could have been there also.
Just had a nice back/forth with good ol' nick about this before getting dinner done about this...and had commented earlier and posted link to Rush's rebuttal too.
Can't wait 'til Monday myself to hear El Rushbo. ;-)
Byron York
January 24, 2009 - 21:05 ET by KC MulvilleYou can't feel bad about finding yourself a step behind Byron York. For my money, he's about the best and fairest reporter out there. He's certainly on my must-read list.
KC... I'm with you on
January 24, 2009 - 21:13 ET by bigtimerKC...
I'm with you on that one...York has been a fav of mine forever...long before I ever got the PC...now I am even luckier having this.
Yep bt, your right. Each
January 24, 2009 - 19:40 ET by BlazerYep bt, your right. Each time one of these dimwits on the left take on Rush or mention him by name all they do is drive listeners to him. Some liberals who have never heard him or those who are politically ignorant will no doubt become enlightened and change their way of thinking.
I should know, many moons ago, I was one of em'.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Yes, Obama is an amateur
January 24, 2009 - 19:47 ET by jefflebowskiHe is an amateur and his statements and behavior show it. Unfortunately, this amateur could get us all killed! We must back conservatives like Cornyn and root out those RINO's like McCain, Specter, etc. It's our only chance!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
jeff... That we do! We
January 24, 2009 - 20:23 ET by bigtimerjeff...
That we do!
We had better hear something from some on the right that have some power regarding this issue....and soon.
Or they are gonna' hear from us....well, me anyway.
Evening, bt....and
January 24, 2009 - 19:40 ET by motherbeltEvening, bt....and GMTA!
See my comment above re his arrogance...the cocky teenager. He just can't resist throwing a little jab, which he thinks makes him look cool to his followers.
I read a column yesterday by someone (forget who) who said it's the beginning of the permanent campaign, a la Clinton.
You get the feeling that this guy is always "on"....always performing for the cameras.
Hi mb.... You got that
January 24, 2009 - 20:31 ET by bigtimerHi mb....
You got that right!
Another thing I am soooo sick of seeing is him turning his head from side to side when speaking...it never stops!
He must be so self-conscience about his ears he just can't help himself...
Well, get over it....look at us with your good eye...we know you have big ears....get over it already!
Dead ahead O....look and speak straight-forward...
Worry not MoDo isn't going to mention your ear size...didn't you hear her nasally-voiced blathering on Larry Almost Alive the other night? For heavens sake that was pitiful to watch.
He drives me crazy with the sea-sick motion...even when he is sitting with his cabinent or members of congress he does this...(of course as usual Reid has his nose straight p in the air most of the time, don't know if anybody else noticed it the other day...but I cracked up laughing, so typical of the Senate Fearless Leader...)
It's the teleprompter...
January 24, 2009 - 23:32 ET by Deskpilotglass. THE ONE NEVER makes a speech without it. It is as much a part of his office as his BlackBerry. Note that when he speaks without it, he creates more controversey, but with it, he flourishes with nothingness that someone else writes.
Behold the the BEST LOOKING and soundung politic force, who knows that a teleprompter is a TOOL, not a crutch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgNrb3baNM
She had what, 3 days to prepare for the speech of a lifetime and IGNITED an nation. THE ONE had TO YEARS, and all he managed was his typical , empty rhetoric after descending from the cloud to the Temple of Obama (made of non-recyclable stryrofoam)
Remember what happened last time a politician jumped all over Rush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frmFkkfWtLg
Lots of hereos kids benefitted immensly, with $0.00 (ZERO) challenged matched dollars from the Democraps.
I willl venture guess that Rush will have one of his TOP rated shows on Monday, and most of his punches will be laid out in the FIRST hour, so that our deployed military can stay in the loop, since they only get that part of the show on Armed Forces Network.
A Salute to all in uniform. By the way, we've got this fight here at home. You men and women just keep up the great, honorable work wherever you may be stationed.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome
- Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
Dp... You are so right
January 25, 2009 - 04:54 ET by bigtimerDp...
You are so right about that important first hour for the military that the he is allowed to get to the military....that LOVE Rush/
thank you congress...and still Harkin was trying to get that abolished for Years in the Senate that I watched...it was infuriating!
Thanks for the reminder...Fairness Doctrine anyone?
Unintended truthtelling
January 26, 2009 - 11:32 ET by Pilgrim1949Deskpilot:
Loved the phrase: "Behold the the BEST LOOKING and soundung politic force..."
Probable typo in "soundung" actually is quite descriptive: Pretty much everything The One says sounds like dung to anyone with at least two or more synapses working at the same time.
As a thoroughly unrepentant and incorrigible punster of wordplay myself I thought "soundung" was right on target!
Bombs way, Pilot! (hmm...another punny reference again?)
Have a great conservative day!!!
USAF vet regards
Arrogance
January 24, 2009 - 21:08 ET by KC MulvilleOne of the legends about Jimmy Carter is that the first time he invited Congressional leaders to the White House, he simply informed them of his orders. He didn't ask for input, and he clearly didn't want any. He said what he said and then left the room.
Things worked out real well for him after that ...
No knock on Rush Limbaugh
January 24, 2009 - 19:44 ET by Chris NormanNo knock on Rush Limbaugh at all, but does anyone else find it distressing and depressing that we have to look to a radio commentator for leadership because almost every elected representative of the Republican Party has gone to ground? I feel like we're on a sinking ship and discovered that the captain and crew have already evacuated...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris
January 24, 2009 - 19:56 ET by Noel SheppardChris,
Yep! We're really out here on our own, aren't we? We can try to level the media playing field, but who's out there on the front lines to take on Pelosi and Reid, two lightweights compared to Obama?
In '93, we had Newt. Who do we have now to lead this charge besides conservative media members like Rush, Sean, Mark, Laura, Neal, etc., etc., and us in the blogosphere? Hmmm?
Feels pretty darned lonely, my friend, and I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling that way!!! ns
noel...who will go?
January 24, 2009 - 20:09 ET by porpoiseboyIsa 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
so i guess ......that means me....US. that is one of the reasons i like the palin story. if you really do act "local", you may be asked to act "global". we need to ourselves, and encourage those we know of same heart to get into the political fray. otherwise it's just blogging...eh?
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
Good evening Chris & porpoiseboy
January 24, 2009 - 20:37 ET by cocodrieAs more and more people wake up to what is happening to America the left-wingers are going to try harder and harder to silence and isolate us.
Rush and this site are going to be harassed bigtime. Look for democrat sponsored taxes, licenses, regulations, permits, restrictions and other impediments to our free exchange of informayion. I'm sure old Soros is already hard at work planning.
Jesus Loves You
Noel, I guess
January 24, 2009 - 20:21 ET by Chris NormanNoel,
I guess that misery does find comfort in company - for all of us. Thank you, I feel strangely comforted. I think that the work you and your colleagues do has become more important than the work of any conservative politician, strategist, or think tank, because until grotesque media bias is suppressed or the mainstream media is totally discredited, conservatism will remain almost academic - like it was pre-Reagan. What real chance does leaderless conservatism have in the political arena when the news coverage has become so deliberately warped and partisan?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris
January 24, 2009 - 21:44 ET by Noel SheppardChris,
The problem is that pundits can't legislate. Rush isn't running for office, and neither am I. We can level the playing field, but we still need a quarterback, running backs, wide receivers, and an offensive line.
OK, we have the offensive line. :-)
Media can support politicians, and tear them down. And, in the case of Clinton and Obama, can even create them. However, there's got to be clay to work with, and I don't see it right now. Do you?
Who's the next Newt? Right now, with a midterm election coming up, that's more important than who's the next George W. We've got to stop the socialist steamroller, or we'll not only be paying for the roads, but be part of them.
Nice imagery, huh? ns
Noel,
January 24, 2009 - 22:09 ET by Chris Norman"...we'll not only be paying for the roads, but be part of them."
Maybe that's the way Robert Reich will allow us to participate in the infrastructure rebuilding programs. :)
Seriously, the fact that you, Rush, and other commentators aren't running for office is what keeps you commtted to conservatism - you haven't become a member of the "Beltway Party".
However, trying to level the playing field is so very important. I have no doubt that - with a level playing field - true conservatism wouldn't necessarily need another Reagan - it would prevail on it's ideas alone. It's the media's attacks and borderline libel and slander that makes the weak-kneed "conservatives" wobble. Heck, it even made Reagan wobble occasionally and it definitely destroyed Newt politically. Imagine if conservatism was covered fairly and without the overt hostility. It's ideas would win every time and it's victories wouldn't be shaky or temporary - usually succumbing to the onslaught of "starving baby" stories.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Noel.. gang of 6 vs the MSM
January 24, 2009 - 20:27 ET by Gary HallNoel - you just named some of the gang. Remember me mentioning this - a while back? There's 6 - 8 - 10 or so. Add O'Reilly, Hewitt, etc to the list. All you end up with is a handful of conservative voices competing in a world (MSM) which has hundreds (if not thousands) of widely recognized liberal to radically left pundits, editors, journalists, news magazines, newspapers, preachers (Rev Wright and the like), TV anchors, PBR, PBS, etc.
Day in and day out these orgs and these folks in the MSM selectively search for little tid bits from the gang of 6-8. Usually they are used either out of context, or in out and out misrepresentation of what was supposedly said. As is norm, Rush was a hot topic within the MSM this past week - so much that the new President jumps on it? How dare he tell America who to listen to or not to listen to!
Can one even imagine a newly elected President Bush popping off and saying something like that?
Try this: President George Bush yesterday told Democratic leaders, "You just can't listen to the likes of Matthews, Brokaw, Steve Kroft, Couric, Al Franken, Al Gore, Olbermann, Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, etc (we could go on all day long, you see) and expect to get anything done."
For starters the entire MSM would definately be driven into frenzy willy land if any of their voices had been so threatened.
The people, "we the people," who believe in free speech, should demand that Pres. Obama should not only apologize, but he ask every single national MSM outlet (every TV anchor, etc.) to invite Rush on their program for a bit of open discovery; a fair and balanced discussion on the views of the day. They owe him that.
(;~/ gary
Gary, good luck with that plan
January 24, 2009 - 20:44 ET by jefflebowskiRemember, the MSM has an agenda. Conservatives don't fit there. They will continue to cover Obama as long as they can. Remember, they hate conservatives and will even invent bad news to report on them (remember Dan Rather?).
We must get out of our homes and go to the local Republican meetings and voice our opinions. We must rid ourselves of RINO's or our country could be in a rapid decline into oblivion.
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Hey Gary...with you all the
January 24, 2009 - 21:17 ET by bigtimerHey Gary...with you all the way here...
....but that is going to happen about the 12th of Never.
Know what I mean?
Noel,
January 24, 2009 - 21:09 ET by R D HelmIt now appears that it is we, us, and ourselves in this battle.
The Republican Party has apparently abandoned all pretense of conservatism, not to mention common sense.
What little that has been said in opposition to PrezBo from that party since Tuesday sounds almost apologetic to me.
We may very well lose in the end, as I now believe the tide has irreversibly turned against those of us who truly value freedom and liberty, but at least I will know I have gone down amongst some damn fine Americans.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
As the days go by I find it
January 24, 2009 - 19:58 ET by mizflame98As the days go by I find it very disturbing. I keep waitng for the GOP to pull their heads out of their butts and act like Conservatives again instead of wussy wanna-be democrats.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Leadership
January 24, 2009 - 21:40 ET by KC MulvilleYeah, but that's natural. The outgoing president is unpopular, and the last presidential candidate lost. There's going to be an ordinary transition to a new leadership class, but it'll take time to develop.
The natural process is for leadership to develop from outside the Beltway, since the people inside the Beltway proved they would lose. Of course, you can't afford to piss off the government class too much ... just enough to become popular. You're looking for someone who is untainted by Washington, but who has enough connections within Washington to develop a power base. Obviously, Reagan comes to mind. Reagan ran against the Beltway, but he had enough friends within Washington to prevent a backlash. Does that describe Sarah Palin? How about Bobby Jindal? Tim Pawlenty?
I'm hoping for David Petraeus. I hope he's not secretly pro-abortion or anything, because that's a deal-breaker for me. But if I can live with his social positions, Petraeus has certainly shown that he knows how to lead. He clearly understands the bureaucracy of Washington, he certainly knows foreign affairs, he's hugely respected by our allies and feared by enemies. I deny that presidents can help the economy anyway (they can only hurt it), so all he has to say is "tax cuts," and I'm happy.
We can hope, can't we?
Pawlenty
January 24, 2009 - 21:50 ET by doug1950I was under the impression that Pawlenty was another RINO. Am I wrong on this? There was some discussion on this when Palin was trying to give her speech at the GOP Governors convention in south FL after the election.
Pawlenty is a RINO
January 24, 2009 - 23:27 ET by PopularTechPawlenty's Record (The Wall Street Journal)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 24, 2009 - 23:34 ET by doug1950I thought so. Thanks for the link. Yes, he is definately a RINO and one that waffles after running his mouth apparently.
He was talking about how
January 25, 2009 - 00:32 ET by mizflame98He was talking about how fair the MN recount was because it was a bipartisan panel doing the recount.
HA!!!
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
January 24, 2009 - 19:32 ET
January 24, 2009 - 19:47 ET by FirmwormJanuary 24, 2009 - 19:32 ET by bigtimer
He took the wrong man on.
I think the One is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Ouch !!
Interesting... my lib
January 24, 2009 - 19:55 ET by dark_dsInteresting... my lib friends always say "well stop listening to Limbaugh" when I talk politics with them ... they become dumfounded when I say I dont listen to Limbaugh and with all due respect for those here that do I really dont enjoy Limbaugh ....they think apparently a person cannot have my view point without Rush's guidance ..... one thing i have heard Limbaugh say is he is "the last man standing" I know its show biz but that statement minimizes the rest of us
Water Boarding is illegal but Koolaid Boarding is still an option... dark_ds said that
I know what you mean about
January 24, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Indiana JoeI know what you mean about having your own thoughts. I was talking some politics with someone years ago. I'd heard of Rush, but never listened. When I did, I thought, "hey, this guy is saying what I've been thinking. Maybe I'm not all alone here."
That's the value I get out of Rush. As for his "last man standing," if you did listen regularly, you'd have a different take on that. Rush is constantly telling callers that without them, he'd be just another voice in the wilderness, and it will be through the work of all of us that the day will be won.
He's just a harmless little fuzz-ball. ;^)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Rush has always said that
January 24, 2009 - 22:42 ET by motherbeltRush has always said that liberals think he tells others what to think (mind-numbed robots). However, he says, what happens is that people hear him and say "Wow! This guy is saying what I have thought all along!"
That's why he has such a following.
Exactly right! He is a
January 24, 2009 - 22:55 ET by bigtimerExactly right!
He is a voice for US out here...and he always has appreciated that fact....as we do him.
Rush
January 24, 2009 - 20:21 ET by iveseenitallI wonder if Barry is smart enough to realize that any attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh will meet with massive resistance. It will divide the nation even further than it is now. Or are his advisors so inept and arrogant as to miscalculate Limbaugh's influence? Obama didn't get a mandate by a long shot. Millions in this nation despise what has happened and most of those are quickly getting to despise Barry himself. Nothing good will come from all of this. Nothing good will come from the election of this ignorant*, incompetent manchild.
* Barry introduced Lawrence Summers ( Harvard ) as "a" economic advisor. Boy, he sure made "a" ass of himself with that one. Imagine if President Bush has said that !
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Childish, amature,
January 24, 2009 - 20:02 ET by BKeyserChildish, amature, sophmoric, etc., etc. All words to describe the new administration. And then I see this little gem by the AP and I think to myself, boy are we in trouble. Here's a guy who actually managed to make Rush a victim!
Yep repealing the abortion
January 24, 2009 - 20:09 ET by BlazerYep repealing the abortion aid ban, pissing off the vatican, going back on his promises concerning lobbyists, thumping his chest and saying "I won" and " I will trump you on that to the GOP". Nope nothing divisive there.
He playing partisan politics like a good Democrat should. Now if we could only teach that lesson to the GOP.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
My two Cents......
January 24, 2009 - 20:04 ET by jgarciaObama should have finished his sentence with; “ and you (the democrats) stop listening to the MSM and work with the GOP’s……..
This issue is more serious than me joking around … but I am speechless at the amount of missteps so far shown by President Obama…… and for me to be speechless says a lot! I hope Rush doesn't become speechless! What a mess this is going to become.........
jgarcia... So glad to see
January 24, 2009 - 20:15 ET by bigtimerjgarcia...
So glad to see you here now and then, I miss your posts.
No matter what...they aren't going to shut Rush up...come hell or high water...no way, there are other venues....and those other venues the leftist will and are trying to get their paws into too.
I subscribe to Rush, I can't get radio here where I live, plus I have heard, don't know how that would all work myslef, others may, but if he went to say Sirius (sp) or such they can't stop him either...I don't know, but O can pretend all he wants he isn't for this, so can RINOs like McC who do not like him deep down whatsoever, they want the conservatives shut down...all of them, not just Rush.
I agree bt, Rush would
January 24, 2009 - 20:19 ET by BlazerI agree bt, Rush would just move to satellite radio and/or go back on television. Talk radio is big business employing many people and in the residual industries that depend on it also. The fairness doctrine will destroy it. Bad move in this economy.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Right you are
January 24, 2009 - 20:53 ET by bigtimerRight you are Blaze...
...but heck, since when did the left EVER want the economy to be good?
Socialists do not want that now do they...lol.
Btw....Rush would always be able to get any big spot he wanted on Fox I bet, although he does not want to do television again, wants to be in control of his own time/situations, but if he did, let alone Sirius or anything else, the left and other RINOs who would vote for the FAIRNESS Doctrine had better be ready for one word...
BACKFIRE!
Be careful what you wish for.
Thanks
January 24, 2009 - 20:49 ET by jgarciaThanks, enjoy chatting with you too! I am a big supporter of get rid of the fairness doc forever, for I feel it leads us towards a Nanny State or Big Brother Government! Knowing Nancy or Harry they would fix it to make sure one side is protected!
I don’t listen to Rush, but I wander over to his website once in while……. He has some very valid points. My liberal mother and I go around and around about Rush…… She wants him off the air so badly, so I keep asking is it fair to remove him but not her beloved Keith….. of course it is she says because it would only affect (sp) Rush and his small audience…….. scarey isn’t it because she believes it! PS, my mother doesn’t know I don’t listen to Rush …….. LOL
jg... You should give him
January 24, 2009 - 20:56 ET by bigtimerjg...
You should give him a try for awhile.
Then you could really have something to say to your mother about him...lol.
You can get him on TalkStreamLive.com for free if you can't get him on radio.
My poor mother is still
January 24, 2009 - 21:30 ET by jgarciaMy poor mother is still wondering how she raised a conservative thinker ........ the fun part, is she has never asked me out right if I listen to Rush, she just assumes it!
I will give Rush a try on the talkstreamlive.com some time, since my radio has been taken over by children! lol
Enjoy your evening.......
jg... I'm laughing with
January 24, 2009 - 21:35 ET by bigtimerjg...
I'm laughing with you....you enjoy yours as well.
"My poor mother is still
January 24, 2009 - 21:38 ET by Blazer"My poor mother is still wondering how she raised a conservative thinker"
I see you and I are in the same boat jgarcia. Maybe having dyed in the wool bleeding heart liberal mothers who worship the ground the Clintons walk on, actually breeds conservative children.
Maybe they should do a study.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Good Morning, Oh I feel
January 25, 2009 - 08:07 ET by jgarciaGood Morning,
Oh I feel your pain…..lol Growing up, Mom liked playing the victim when things/people/places/earth didn’t go her way… Drove me nuts even as a little kid! LOL however, my mother’s twin sister……loves RUSH, it makes for some great holiday dinners……..
BT
January 24, 2009 - 22:26 ET by ThisnThatCan't get radio? Many radio stations will allow you to listen live over the internet. Go to this radio station's website to hear Rush live each day.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Evening TnT... Hey
January 24, 2009 - 22:32 ET by bigtimerEvening TnT...
Hey Thanks...
I subscribe to Rush...but you can also get him and tons of other talkers, from all sides, lots of conservatives we talk about here on TalkStreamLive.com too...free.
....so far.
No comment by me required on this thread...
January 24, 2009 - 20:13 ET by R D Helm...as my kick-a$$ NB friends have pretty much covered it.
:-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
StumblObama
January 24, 2009 - 20:17 ET by Indiana JoeThis guy hasn't been in office a week, and the missteps just keep on coming. He has absolutely no idea what he's into, and it's too late for OJT now. Can't wait for Biden to open his mouth. In about a year, there could be a book out analyzing this duo's habit of "stepping in it."
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
I don't think Obama is
January 24, 2009 - 20:25 ET by robert108I don't think Obama is either amateurish or incompetent. He has been trained since birth to be a communist operative in this country, and is simply doing what he was raised to do. His childhood influences were all Marxists, and that's all he knows. He was a deep cover mole, designed to exploit liberal white guilt to become President. Now that he's revealed himself, we're all surprised, but we shouldn't be. Even a cursory look at his background and formative influences should tell us all we need to know about the man. The MSM is complicit in this deception, which won't save them.
"He was a deep cover mole,
January 24, 2009 - 20:32 ET by R D Helm"He was a deep cover mole, designed to exploit liberal white guilt to become President."
Well put.
As I have said here many times, Obama is not his own man, he is a marionette.
I bet George Soros is still celebrating his coup.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
I wrote this on Townhall in
January 24, 2009 - 20:47 ET by BKeyserI wrote this on Townhall in October:
in a post entitled: The Obama Puppetmasters. I couldn't agree more.
A little over the top
January 24, 2009 - 20:40 ET by Indiana JoeI think you give Obama way too much credit. "Communist operative?" Maybe he's a communist, he's certainly a socialist, and I have no doubt his upbringing had much to do with that, as it does with us all. But a "mole?" He's just another ambitious lefty, with a dash more charisma than most. It was enough, especially against a John McCain, who is maybe a great man, but a lousy candidate. And, of course, with the help of the unbridled and unprecedented media fawning.
He hasn't "revealed" anything. This and other actions have merely confirmed what those of us who didn't drink the Kool-Aid expected. The only real surprise is that he's such a political neophyte. With his record of being able to win elections, I think most of us here just didn't realize how politically naive he really is. And people thought Palin was "too inexperienced?"
He must have had some great handlers throughout his career. And now that he's the dog that caught the car, he has no idea what to do with it!
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
I agree, way too much
January 24, 2009 - 20:46 ET by BlazerI agree, way too much credit. The anti-Christ/ Beelzebub would never have picked Joe Biden as his running mate. Beelzebub would have picked Hillary.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
"Beelzebub would have picked Hillary."
January 24, 2009 - 20:53 ET by Indiana JoeOr maybe Rangel. Barney Frank? Maxine Waters!
But Biden???
No way!
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
IJ and Blazer,
January 24, 2009 - 23:22 ET by R D HelmGeorge Soros, who despises this country only slightly less than does Jihad Jimmy, blew his wad getting this nobody of an empty-suit elected POTUS.
He didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
"The anti-Christ/ Beelzebub
January 25, 2009 - 09:07 ET by NL207"The anti-Christ/ Beelzebub would never have picked Joe Biden as his running mate"
But a false anti-christ would. Obama isn't even capable of doing the anti-christ thing right.
I do not know if Obama is the Anti-Christ, but I can see plain as the nose on my face he is a big-time Narcissist and those sort do not make good leaders especially if limited government is the goal.
So, in the next version of the Manchurian Candidate...
January 24, 2009 - 20:40 ET by R D Helm...which Hollywood star will get pinched to play Barack Hussein Obama?
My money is on Denzel Washington. :-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
How about Bob Downey Jr.?
January 24, 2009 - 20:50 ET by BlazerHow about Bob Downey Jr.? He was awesome in Tropic Thunder.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Go Rush!
January 24, 2009 - 20:41 ET by SlyrrHooray for Limbaugh - don't take Obama's bullying tactics lying down - show him why you're 'the man who runs America'!
Slur, I am glad he thinks
January 24, 2009 - 21:46 ET by Dan The Man 2Slur, I am glad he thinks for you and runs your life. But, I make my own decisions and most of the people around here do also. I put it in the category of Joe the Plumber, of course Limbaugh is a well known pundit,but in the spirit of a drive by smear. Keep on trucking dude.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I've said from the git this
January 24, 2009 - 20:43 ET by ConservativeRexI've said from the git this empty suit is a meat puppet. It maybe Soros, but I'm thinking someone more corporate. I dunno, but this fella is hammering a private citizen for God's sake!
Far be it from me to give Rush any advice, but, I've always told my son's to be on the offensive is situations such as this. Rush knows how to run with the ball. As they say in my neck of the woods, this orter be fun!
Saul Alinsky
January 24, 2009 - 21:24 ET by rammingspeedIt's been recommended by many conservative scholars that conservatives - or even simply people who abhor polemics in politics no matter what they favor - get a copy of Saul Alinsky's guidebook for radicals. I've read it, and it's mind bending how much the book defines people on the left, from the '60's hippies until now. The Clinton's and their operative went step-by-step with Alinsky's instructions, and guess what? It worked.
It can work for Obama too, if people don't realize that the far left wing of the Democratic Party is out to indoctrinate and conquer.
Poppycock!
January 24, 2009 - 21:40 ET by mizflame98The problem is not the affectiveness of Saul's tactics, but the weak response from Republicans. I've argued with many people that tried to use those Alinsky's tactics on me and I was able to discredit their tactics quite efficiently.
As long as Republicans fold like a house of cards every time a leftist plays the race or wealth or any other cards, the leftists will win. Republicans go out of their way to apologize for things they're not guilty of when they should be standing up for themselves. Instead of avoiding a topic for fear of being called a racist or ignoring the charge of racism, Republicans should discredit the accusation with his or her head held high to show that said Republican will not put up with such silliness. Turn the false claim back on the accuser. Put the accuser on the offensive. It can be done so long as there is a willing Conservative out there to take on the challenge.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
mizflame... Exactly! I'v
January 24, 2009 - 21:45 ET by bigtimermizflame...
Exactly!
I've been saying the sme thing 'til I'm blue in the face...may as well forget about it.
They do not listen...seems they never will/
Unless their money dries up, them maybe so....until then, growing a spine is useless.
I am not talking about all...but I am talking about the so-called big-wigs powers that be.
I'm weary of this all...tehy will not pay attention until their well runs dry.
I remember arguing
January 24, 2009 - 22:12 ET by mizflame98I remember arguing with this one twit that had a nasty habit of discrediting all southerners because Bush is from Texas. You know the kind, "southerners are ignorant, racist, inbred, rednecks, etc, etc, etc." I finally frustrated her by continuously asking these 2 questions:
1. What southern state(s) has she ever lived in?
2. How long did she stay in said state(s)?
Constantly asking those 2 simple questions every time she went on a southerner bash-fest was enough to finally make her come fully unhinged. She started making less sense (if that was even possible), started to not only accuse me of being a racist but she started using racial slurs against me (she denied she was saying anything racist because she's a liberal of course.) It was quite entertaining to see Alinsky's teachings crumble as some of her devoted cheerleaders gradually grew silent.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Wow, sounds eerily similar
January 24, 2009 - 23:44 ET by GregEWow, sounds eerily similar to a liberal I used to work with that I now email back and forth with. She does the same thing, regardless of topic, after a few back and forths she can move it somehow to "you're racist" but looks like a fool doing it. I guess it doesnt matter to her, no one is seeing what she says except me so her stupidity doesn't get broadcast.
For the record, she's black, I'm white, and her life revolves around all things black. I'm on an email list of hers, and I get email about hollywood marriages (as if I give a crap), new movies, etc etc.....most often (if not always), its regarding someone black. She'll accuse me of being racist when her ideas are being challenged a little more than she wants, and it's funny (or sad) that I expect that she'll take it to that point, and she doesn't disappoint.
Not to interrupt
January 24, 2009 - 23:48 ET by doug1950but if she thinks you are racists why does she email you. I would probably tell her "No, Im not a racist but in your case I might make an exception."
LOL. I wonder the same
January 25, 2009 - 00:07 ET by GregELOL. I wonder the same thing. I don't know if she thinks it or just says it out of stupidity. Maybe a bit of both.
I like your line, might incorporate something along those lines.
Our back n forths normally start because I will send either to her or to a list of people, blind copied, something I think is interesting along political or ideological lines. Much of it she doesn't respond to, but much of it she just can't help herself. I know which ones most often will cause a reaction.
If you want to see something really fascinating
January 25, 2009 - 00:41 ET by mizflame98...watch how a white liberal treat a black conservative. For some reason it's OK to call a black person racial ephitets like Uncle Tom or black apple so long as the black person is a conservative and the white is liberal. Remember how Michael Steel was treated when protesters rolled oreo cookies at him and the response from the liberals when he complained about it?
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
mizflame... Exactly! I'v
January 24, 2009 - 21:45 ET by bigtimermizflame...
Exactly!
I've been saying the sme thing 'til I'm blue in the face...may as well forget about it.
They do not listen...seems they never will/
Unless their money dries up, them maybe so....until then, growing a spine is useless.
I am not talking about all...but I am talking about the so-called big-wigs powers that be.
I'm weary of this all...tehy will not pay attention until their well runs dry.
mizflame...Exactly!I'v
January 24, 2009 - 21:45 ET by bigtimermizflame...
Exactly!
I've been saying the same thing 'til I'm blue in the face...may as well forget about it.
They do not listen...seems they never will/
Unless their money dries up, then maybe so....until then, growing a spine is useless.
I am not talking about all...but I am talking about the so-called big-wigs powers that be.
I'm weary of this all...they will not pay attention until their well runs dry.
The most insightful, potentially damaging thing Rush observed?
January 24, 2009 - 22:14 ET by CKA in Red State USA"I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy."
If Obama and his fascists do this, and then grant accelerated citizenship to illegal aliens and then make it possible for felons to vote, in or out of prison, anyone who's not a Democrat, liberal or leftist may not occupy the White House or the majority in Congress for a very long time.
Rush and Hannity are the reason Barry is President!
January 24, 2009 - 22:35 ET by political mavenFor 8 years these guys carried W's water, not really protesting his liberal spending, border, and immigration policies. Sure they paid a little lip service, but they did it very gently.
They didn't want to rock the boat of being invited to the White House, or doing gushy interviews with the first couple.
Had they attcked his non conservative policies like they did Clinton's there would have been more pressure on him (Bush) to stick to core principles. Let's face it, who ran up the deficit? Republicans. Who was soft on immigration? Bush. Who didnt secure the border? Bush.
I think he is a decent man(Bush) but these radio guys have to use the same vitriol on the Republicrats.
The only guy who called it honestly & didn't kiss a** is Savage.
Limbaugh loves power and attention...like everyone. He too fell victim to the glamour of palling around with powerful Republicans..think about it.
pm....wow...Savage is
January 24, 2009 - 22:49 ET by bigtimerpm....
wow...Savage is the one eh?
Glad to be informed....
I've listened to his shows, well as much as I could stand, he is way out there at times in my opinion.
Nice we all have choices to pick who we like to listen to on the airwaves so far anyway.
As far as Hannity goes, I agree with you to a point, I couldn't stand to listen to him support McC....now he is talking different like a lot of people are...after it is over with now.
Rush was never in bed with McC....he ended up like we all did that couldn't stand McC to begin with and knew him well, we were at the end of the rope, we had a choice....O or McC.
Simple as that.
Btw...I blame nobody but the voters...the msm and the polictical big-wigs behind the scenes.
As an add on...I don't vote according to what anybody else says, talking heads least of all.
Hey Bigtimer....
January 24, 2009 - 22:58 ET by political mavenI never said Savage is the one. I just said he didn;t pull any punches. Rush never really blasted Bush for abandoning fiscal restraint. I know savage is a bit of a nut...I enjoy Rush, he's entertaining and makes good points.
Hannity shoud have been wearing a chearleader outfit all the years of kissing up to Bush.
I wasn't talking about Mclame at all. Once it was him or the ONE, what else could these guys do?
But I agree that ultimately it is the voters who are uninformed and know more about American Idol than policies & positions in Washington...
I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement. But you must admit that in areas where Bush took a left turn (no child left behind, farm aid, aids money to Africa, borders, immigration, not vetoing pork bill after pork bill by the Republicans) Rush did not protest as hard as he would have if it was a Dem.
So he gets phone calls from the Bushs, plays golf with them, has lunch at the White House...it's hard to give up that kind of power and connections..
pm.... Excellent
January 24, 2009 - 23:06 ET by bigtimerpm....
Excellent points....well made.
I agree.
pm, I am going to commit heresy here @ NB and agree. GWB
January 24, 2009 - 23:56 ET by R D Helm...is the single largest reason why PrezBo is now residing in the White House.
Not only was he curiously unable to locate his veto pen until all was lost, he couldn't find his way to the "Bully Pulpit" with a map, verbal directions and a twenty minute head start.
And yes, Savage is a little crazy...like a fox.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Good shot RD
January 25, 2009 - 00:27 ET by cocodrieThey can excommunicate me along with you.
2010 is coming and we need to start the uphill climb now.
Sittin' here listening to Clifford Breaux sing Little Richard's Continuez DE Sonner (Keep A' knockin'). Quite different by Breaux.
Jesus Loves You
coco, that's okay, as I have already been excommunicated...
January 25, 2009 - 01:54 ET by R D Helm...from NB once before.
It is difficult for me to say this, because I truly believe GWB, deep down, did what he thought was right. After all, we suffered only one Osama attack once he became POTUS.
But that does not excuse his unwillingness to close the southern border, nor his willing participation in the doubling in the size and scope of the federal government during his tenure.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Rd
January 25, 2009 - 02:14 ET by cocodrieBush had some major flaws but the alternative was totally unacceptable.
Jesus Loves You
coco, I agree.
January 25, 2009 - 02:25 ET by R D HelmIf Algore had been elected, we would most likely now be conversing in Arabic.
:-(
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Savage calls it like he sees it
January 24, 2009 - 23:25 ET by PopularTechSavage is right more often then he is wrong, he sometimes goes off the track with economics - his formal training is in science not free-market (austrian) economics. But he has done an excellent job exposing Bush's socialist government policies and was never afraid to call Bush out on anything. Since he has no problems attacking both sides, the third largest talk radio host effectively does not exist. I find that interesting.
Rush definitely was not in bed with McCain but he effectively defended Bush either directly or by saying nothing - which is just as bad. I like Rush but I also listen to Savage to get the non-partisan spin.
Hannity, well I like Hannity but he is the poster boy for the Republican Party.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Good morning PoP
January 25, 2009 - 01:02 ET by cocodrieHaven't spoken to you in a while. I pray all is well with you.
I like Savage also because he is radical and compromises for no one. He's off base on some things but I'd rather hear him talk about his dog than listen to the old media.
Thanks for the links on the AGW scam
We still disagree violently about Sarah Palin, though.
Jesus Loves You
I could not agree more, Republican Water Boys helped Obama
January 24, 2009 - 23:15 ET by PopularTechI like Rush and Hannity but they rarely to never criticized Bush on his big government policies. They spent more time making excuses for them, like Rush is now with TARP.
Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster (The Wall Street Journal)
Partisanship is killing this country from both sides.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Nonsense. This country has
January 24, 2009 - 23:28 ET by KevroyNonsense. This country has been partisan since Day One. It's what makes America the greatest nation on Earth.
Partisanship makes this country great?
January 24, 2009 - 23:29 ET by PopularTechI always thought it was Liberty and the U.S. Constitution.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT... Where do you get
January 24, 2009 - 23:40 ET by bigtimerPT...
Where do you get the idea that Rush has ever supported TARP...ever?
I must have missed a show or two.
He has never been happy with this... ever, at all...he wants the free market to work it's will...and has said so from the beginning...he has not defeneded any repub about this all that I have ever heard, anymore than illegl immigration, including Bush.
I'm not going to go on and on...but I do know what I have heard.
In his comments...
January 25, 2009 - 00:13 ET by PopularTech"Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs."
I found this to be a poor argument, since it is either borrowed, taxed or printed TARP money "stimulating" the private sector.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Oh come on PT...your my pal
January 25, 2009 - 00:50 ET by bigtimerOh come on PT...your my pal and all that..but...
Now look, that is a poor example....and you know it, you must have looked high and low for that attempting to twist the words here into a pretzel, this doesn't make your point that Rush supports TARP ... you're really twisting it to the extreme.
Btw...I was trying to reply to you earlier about this from my earlier response above, lost the site and had to get back on...lol.
Anyway...each to their own.
Why he is he defending TARP spending then?
January 25, 2009 - 01:02 ET by PopularTechJust to attack Obama? I saw no reason for him to even bring that up. If you are against TARP, you would be against them spending the money to redecorate the office regardless.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT... It is more than
January 25, 2009 - 01:02 ET by bigtimerPT...
It is more than obvious you do not listen to Rush on a regular basis...if much at all.
He isn't defending TARP PT...no matter how you attempt to twist it.
I am leaving it at that...but if you don't or haven't..it would do you well to do so....couldn't hurt a bit...I don't agree with him or anybody 100% of the time, anymore than they do me...but learning/listening to others is always a good thing in the end of it all.
It is more than obvious
January 25, 2009 - 01:24 ET by PopularTechPeople hear what they want to hear. Sure sometimes Rush comes right out against things, other times he is intentionally vague or just ignores something then spins it for Bush. He may come out against things but he always spins it as if he is against the Democrats and not Bush. His Bush comments are rarely to never negative. He walks a fine line, especially in the last two years exposing conservative principles without offending Bush. He is skilled at it but it doesn't change the fact that he does it. The same with TARP, he will call it socialist but then make comments like this. Who else would defend TARP money being spent to redecorate an office? Seriously.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Whatever PT...You need
January 25, 2009 - 01:28 ET by bigtimerWhatever PT...
You need to get the last word in, even though you are dead wrong, so be it.
Well I am not wrong
January 25, 2009 - 01:35 ET by PopularTechThe one thing I am not is dead wrong. You don't think the president calls Rush on his birthday because he was highly critical of him? Give me a break.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Give me an f'n break here
January 25, 2009 - 01:42 ET by bigtimerGive me an f'n break here PT.
Did you not read my response to pm above.
He made his points well...
I agreed.
This had NOTHING to do with you, me, Rush and TARP...which YOU started. YOU. Quit twisting this to suit you when you are and were wrong.
You are really reaching here.
I am not the one defending TARP spending
January 25, 2009 - 01:46 ET by PopularTechThat would be Rush.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Spinning here PT. Not
January 25, 2009 - 01:55 ET by bigtimerSpinning here PT.
Not working.
bt
January 25, 2009 - 01:58 ET by SvenNow I'm understanding why so many here grow frustrated with PT and his debating techniques! He clearly does not listen to Rush! He finds quotes that he can twist and take out of context.
This is the same guy who is famous for posting his left-leaning polls showing how palin was responsible for McCain's loss!
You nailed it when you said he had to get the last word in ;-)
Cheers!
Palin did cause McCain to lose the election
January 25, 2009 - 02:32 ET by PopularTechOh I listen, despite how many times you say I don't. As for Palin, she did cause McCain to lose the election.
82% believed Sarah Palin caused John McCain to lose the election (CNN)
81% of Independent Voters said they were less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin (Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg)
80% of women voters believe McCain picked Palin for Political Reasons not Qualifications (Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group)
79% of uncommitted voters did not believe Palin won the VP Debate (CBS News / Knowledge Networks)
75% of likely voters did not believe Palin has the right experience to be president (AP / GfK)
72% of voters say that McCain's choice of Palin did not make them inclined to vote Republican (San Francisco Chronicle)
68% of voters were not very comfortable with Palin as President (FOX News / Opinion Dynamics)
61% of voters did not believe Sarah Palin is ready to serve as President (USA Today / Gallup)
60% of women under 50 have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin (The Pew Research Center)
59% of voters said Sarah Palin is not qualified (New York Times / CBS News)
57% of likely voters said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have (CNN / Opinion Research)
56% of registered women voters trust Hillary Clinton more than Sarah Palin (Blum & Weprin Associates)
55% of registered voters did not believe Palin is qualified to step in as president (Newsweek / Princeton Survey Research Associates)
55% of voters said Sarah Palin is unqualified (NBC News / Wall Street Journal)
52% of women voters said Sarah Palin is not qualified (Quinnipiac University / Wall Street Journal)
51% of likely voters view Sarah Palin unfavorably (ABC News / Washington Post)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 02:38 ET by SvenI do love those left-leaning polls ;-)
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg
San Francisco Chronical
CBS News
AP
ROFLMAO! This is rich! ;-)
PoP
January 25, 2009 - 02:56 ET by cocodrieThose are all opinions. Not worth a plugged nickle. Not even a plugged Biden.
Jesus Loves You
PT, there's only one quote
January 25, 2009 - 11:11 ET by ThisnThatPT, there's only one quote that I think is relevant regarding Sarah Palin: "What did [she] do to deserve getting dragged through the mud?"
This quote can be found in the online NYPost this morning (25 Jan).
BTW -- this quote was about Caroline Kennedy (not Sarah Palin), and how she was supposedly treated soooooooo unfairly. I just wanted to point out the obvious double standard how everyone fawns over someone like Caroline -- yet you and other leftists continue to drag Sarah Palin through the mud for no other reason that blind hate. Shameful, PT, just shameful on your part. And very, very tiresome.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
PT
January 25, 2009 - 02:23 ET by SvenI know I said I wouldn't comment further, but thought it funny you didn't quote Rush and Obama(I've Bolded throughout):
RUSH:This is what you get. I don't know if you've heard this or not, ladies and gentlemen. But John Thain, who was running one of these places out there, Merrill Lynch. (I don't know which one it was. They all run together.) It was learned that he spent $1.2 million redecorating the office, during all of this bailout shenanigan, all the talk about how they're not lending and they're in deep trouble and the country's going to go to hell in a handbasket if we don't get this money pumped into them fast. So everybody's outraged now, everybody is outraged: $1.2 million for a new office; $47,000 for a rug or some such thing. President-select Obama found out about this and had something to say about it this morning at the White House.
OBAMA: Some of the reports that we've seen over the last couple of days, uh, about companies that have received, uh, taxpayer assistance, then going out, uh, and renovating bathrooms or offices or in other ways, not managing those dollars appropriately -- and, uh, I'm looking forward to having conversations with all the leadership here about how even as we move swiftly and aggressively on, uh, the recovery package, we are also starting to put in place the kinds of reform elements, oversight, transparency, accountability, that's going to be required in order for American people to have confidence in what we're doing.
Rush: I'm not justifying what these guys in Merrill Lynch did, or wherever it was, you know, $1.2 million to redecorate an office, especially with money that was given to them by the US taxpayers. But I'm probably like another lone wolf on this, given the sorry state of ignorance as to the country's founding and the kind of country we are and how we're structured. But it ain't the job of the president of the United States to decide how these dollars are spent "appropriately," to this degree.
Now, one other thing, too, folks, because this is exactly how class envy works. The Drive-Bys report this story that Merrill Lynch or whoever, spent $1.2 million redecorating an office with federal bailout money, and that money is supposed to go to the banks and supposed to be loaned. Hey, somebody got work out of that money. In fact, that's the kind of work I would call infrastructure work. You remodel your office. You might remodel your house. Infrastructure work. I would say that Merrill Lynch got a head start on the infrastructure repairs that Obama's talking about, and some company or vendor, series of them had to get hired to do the work. So what's wrong with it? By the way, my good friends, how is it any different for a bank to waste money on some executive office and the government wasting money on some bureaucrat's office or bureaucrat's car or bureaucrat's plane? We shouldn't be paying for any of this, either. You want to talk about Merrill Lynch wasting money, fine and dandy, but the federal government's got no business talking about it because they define wasting money.
So you see PT, Rush didn't advocate TARP! He does what he always does: "demonstrates the absurd, by being absurd!"
By the way, here's the link for the entire segment:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012309/content/01125110.member.html
Wrong source
January 25, 2009 - 02:42 ET by PopularTechMy quote was from Noel's source. He is just concerned with Obama attacking Meryl Lynch, so? The mere fact that they were bailed out and accepted tax payer money means they should not be worthy of Rush defending them, let alone on this.
I actually agree with Obama on this point, you have supposedly insolvent banks needing federal money to stay alive and you have them refurbishing offices with the money? If anything that is just another reason for them NOT to get the money. But that is not how Rush spun it.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 02:48 ET by SvenTry and grasp this: Rush is making fun of this TARP...not endorsing it! There's NO way you could conclude otherwise from reading this transcript from Friday's show!
It really is strange that you didn't attempt to find ALL of Rush's comments on this? But then you wouldn't be able to twist Rush's position. ;-)
Really Strange? What?
January 25, 2009 - 03:13 ET by PopularTechOh right after reading his comments from Noel's link, I am supposed to go searching to find his other comments on the same issue for the comments he just made? Strange indeed!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 03:19 ET by SvenOh right after reading his comments from Noel's link, I am supposed to go searching to find his other comments on the same issue for the comments he just made? Strange indeed!
Hey pal, you're the one that said you listened to him! Good grief, you'll search for every poll under the sun on Palin and AGW, but wouldn't think to go and see what Rush said in context on this TARP story!
You are pathetic!
Are you clueless?
January 25, 2009 - 03:39 ET by PopularTechSeriously? Have you clicked on Noel's link yet? I apologize for trusting National Review, it will not happen again. LMAO!
And no I do not listen to every minute of his show, every day, I have a life.
You are beyond clueless.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT...What are you
January 25, 2009 - 02:56 ET by bigtimerPT...
What are you doing?
Really...just reading and eating the pages?
My God man, it couldn't be any plainer and you are still attempting to twist this into a pretzel that NO baker could make.
Unbelievable...really...just unbelievable...come on, I would think even you would have the grace to say you may have been wrong.
What are you doing?
January 25, 2009 - 03:18 ET by PopularTechFirst of all why don't you try to be honest and click on Noel's link and then show me all the stuff I left out, that I am accused of. Rush's comments to NRO come off poorly in the context they are presented.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
This started with you and
January 25, 2009 - 03:38 ET by bigtimerThis started with you and me about TARP PT.
Nothing more...nothing less.
You are/were wrong...like I said...Rush HAS NEVER SUPPORTED this.
Admit it when you are wrong.
I am not apologizing for the National Review
January 25, 2009 - 04:02 ET by PopularTechWhy would I apologize for something I did not write?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You are a mental case. I
January 25, 2009 - 04:17 ET by bigtimerYou are a mental case.
I haven't been this mad in a long, long time.
Sit and spin PT for all I care.
I have had it.
You know not when to move on, apologize, show some class whatever...I have stood up for you when I thought you were right, but you are really going beyond the pale of reality here.
Btw...I am sick of you twisting all of this into some jumble...
You are wrong.
I thought you were a better man than this.
pm
January 24, 2009 - 23:28 ET by Noel Sheppardpm,
Interesting stuff. I'd like to see more response to this.
Something to consider, of course, is that Rush was certainly not a McCain supporter. Not even close. Nor was Sean. They got on board when the primaries ended, for there really wasn't any choice at that point, was there? But I certainly wouldn't describe either of them as McCain supporters. Would you?
That said, do you think Republicans would have done better this election cycle if the two leading conservative voices in the nation were more hostile to the GOP presidential candidate? Would we have done better if Rush and Sean were bashing Bush the past five years along with the rest of the media?
I'm not asking these questions to be contentious. I'm seriously interested in hearing some answers. ns
Not hostile but more critical
January 24, 2009 - 23:35 ET by PopularTechCritical to conservative points not what the MSM did. Instead I heard cheerleading as the government grew in size but that was ok because it was a "Republican" growing it.
Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster (The Wall Street Journal)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 00:37 ET by SvenCritical to conservative points not what the MSM did. Instead I heard cheerleading as the government grew in size but that was ok because it was a "Republican" growing it.
PT, sorry, but I listen to Rush on a regular basis, and he NEVER was a cheerleader for Bush growing the government! In fact, he was one of the few voices objecting to Bush's: Prescription Drug coverage and illegal immigration! He has consistently complained that Bush grew the Federal Government.
I don't listen to Hannity much, so I can't say what his views (cheerleading) were, but Rush never gave Bush a pass!
Rush admitted he did this
January 25, 2009 - 00:55 ET by PopularTech"I no longer am gonna have to carry the water for people who I think don't deserve having their water carried" - Rush Limbaugh, 2006
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 01:04 ET by SvenNice try, but you should try keeping stuff in context!
I've heard him say this many times, and it's NOT a reference to him carring the water for Bush and the GOP with regards to growing the Federal Government! It was in reference to defending them against attacks from the media and the Dems why they stood by and grabbed the ankles!
Good grief...you're witnessing the silence of our elected Republicans now!
Look, I appreciate many of your posts...espcially on AGW, but in this instance, you're simply showing your ignorance of what Rush's views actually are. Maybe you should try listening to him instead of trying desperately to find a quote and take it out of context.
So what is your point
January 25, 2009 - 01:04 ET by bigtimerSo what is your point PT?
He stated a fact.
PT
January 25, 2009 - 01:10 ET by SvenOne other point I failed to make earlier: If Rush was Cheerleading the growth of Government, why do the Media and Dems hate him so much...hmmmm?
Because he supports Bush
January 25, 2009 - 01:26 ET by PopularTechThey hate him because he defends Bush, Cheney and all the other Republicans they hate, no other reason.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 01:48 ET by SvenIf you listened to Rush (which you obviously don't), you'd know he's a huge proponent of small government! He consistently spoke about and was frustratd with Bush's massive growth of government!
However, there many issues that he agreed with Bush and many Republicans on like: Tax Cuts, The War on Terror, Tort Reform etc.
This will be my last post to you on this subject. It is an utter waste of time.
Rush is never against Bush
January 25, 2009 - 01:56 ET by PopularTechFirst of all I listen to him, apparently I am the only one who really does. Yes he states these things but it is what he does not say about certain people and with as much veracity that is the problem.
Take any issue, the amnesty bill, dubai ports deal, the bailout ect... and listen to Rush vs. Savage. It becomes crystal clear who goes after Bush when he deserves it. Rush may be against things but he is never really against Bush.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT... You love
January 25, 2009 - 01:59 ET by bigtimerPT...
You love Savage...
I love Rush.
All depends on the ear of the beholder...now doesn't it?
I don't love either
January 25, 2009 - 02:18 ET by PopularTechBut I listen to both. Rush is usually better on economics and Savage non-partisan politics.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Maybe...maybe not. All
January 25, 2009 - 02:22 ET by bigtimerMaybe...maybe not.
All depends on the ear of the beholder...at the time, subject...and how we view things regarding subjects they are speaking about...now doesn't it?
Or it could just be the facts
January 25, 2009 - 02:44 ET by PopularTechFacts don't change because someone else hears them.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT... What I just stated
January 25, 2009 - 02:49 ET by bigtimerPT...
What I just stated went in one ear and out the other with you.
No it didn't
January 25, 2009 - 03:06 ET by PopularTech1+1 always equals 2. It doesn't matter who hears it, the facts are the same.
The real problem is people have a hard time separating opinions from facts. What you stated is true listening to someone's opinion. The facts however are a different story.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Noel,
January 25, 2009 - 00:43 ET by RESTLESS 1Perhaps if conservative radio, aside from Savage, had been more critical of Bush policies on immigration, spending, and so forth, the conservative base would have been more demanding of him being a true conservative. For six years we had a Republican congress and President yet they proved as willing, if not more, to spend our tax money unwisely. I know the WOT was much of this, but how much did non-military spending increase?
We won the immigration debate by calling our reps and demanding that they vote our wishes, but so much went unanswered. Where is the wall? The Dubai ports deal was another win. Bush supported these.
I think the Bush administration deserved critisism, and if this had come from the right, instead of from the left, perhaps things may have happened differently.
My most major gripe with Bush was that he would not defend himself. Snow and Perino did admirable jobs, but Bush was a no show for the most part. He let too much BS from the left go unanswered.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
January 25, 2009 - 01:18 ET by Noel SheppardR,
Perhaps. Or maybe we wouldn't have taken back the Senate in 2002, or won executive re-election in 2004 whilst expanding majorities in both chambers of Congress.
We're politically at war, Restless. Against all odds, we took back both chambers of Congress in 1994, the White House in 2000, the Senate in 2002, and retained the White House in 2004 whilst expanding majorities in both chambers of Congress. Given liberal control of the media, and Clinton's popularity, I think we've being doing quite well.
How might we have done during this period if conservative talk show hosts like Rush and Sean would have been more critical of Republicans? Think about it. ns
So this is just about Winning?
January 25, 2009 - 01:31 ET by PopularTechNot reducing the size of government? Winning doesn't mean much if you have little to show for it.
If they had been more critical we might have reduced the size of government, reduced the deficit, reduced spending, lowered taxes, not had worthless no child left behind legislation, the dubai ports debacle, amnesty legislation, the prescription drug benefit program, worthless aide to Africa ect...
Thankfully they were quiet!!!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 01:38 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
So, if we had lost the Congress in 2002, and the White House in 2004, do you think government would be smaller? Do you think the Dems would have exercised better fiscal restraint? Are you sorry Bush beat Kerry in 2004? Do you think we'd be better off if the Dems had won back Congress sooner, and Kerry was now in his second term? ns
Well government is bigger
January 25, 2009 - 01:48 ET by PopularTechSo what is your point? That is a ridiculous argument, seriously. Which is why we need a real third party and why I voted Libertarian.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 02:02 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
This is a BS answer! You asked if it's all about winning. I asked you if things would be better if the GOP and Bush had lost. The lack of a third party in the past is irrelevant. There were choices to be made in 2002 and 2004, period.
As such, do you wish the Dems had taken control of Congress in 2002, and Kerry had won in 2004? Do you think we'd be better off?
These are very simple questions. Can't you answer them without equivocating? ns
Tax and Spend vs. Borrow and Spend.
January 25, 2009 - 02:16 ET by PopularTechSo we should be happy that government is bigger because if the Democrats won, government would be bigger?
The lack of a third party is the whole problem, which is why I brought it up.
Besides the fact I voted for Bush, I do know that if Kerry would have won, we would not have went through the Dubai ports debacle. But in terms of differences we would have gotten tax and spend insead of borrow and spend, which just leads back to more taxes anyway. Thanks to Bush we got to abandon the free market! Yay!
Bush: "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market" (Video)
I should be so thankful.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You're straying PT.
January 25, 2009 - 02:28 ET by RESTLESS 1And I tend to agree with you re: Rush and Sean and even Savage. The fact of the matter is, none of them supported the bailouts, your twisting of quotes notwithstanding.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
PT
January 25, 2009 - 02:31 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
You really are a waste of time. Adieu. ns
Reality is a waste of time - But hey we won! Yay!
January 25, 2009 - 02:46 ET by PopularTechSo we should be happy that government is bigger because if the Democrats won, government would be bigger?
Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster (The Wall Street Journal)
But hey we won! Yay!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Noel,
January 25, 2009 - 01:35 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm confining my argument to post '05. The slide began there. Comparing to '94 is unfair. Newt did an excellent job of getting the message out. The right also had Clinton to fight. In 2004, the WOT was still a big part of what Americans were voting on. After that, Bush let the media spin work against him. He should have been defending Gitmo, enhanced interrogation techniques, should have been making sure the fence was built. He became eerily silent for the most part after his reelection.
I'm saying that conservative voices in the media should have called him out on his domestic policies and spending, while still defending the WOT. I think that conservatives became disheartened with his "moderate" side coming out. Perhaps if the conservative voices in radio had hammered him, from the right, then he may have been forced to rethink some decisions.
Notice that I am stressing that they should have been tougher, "from the right" as I believe that conservative principles are superior and will win if conveyed to the voting public.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
January 25, 2009 - 01:44 ET by Noel SheppardR,
So, as Bush failed to reform SS in 2005, and got his ass kicked by the media that same year because of Katrina, do you think Rush and Sean beating him up would have improved our chances to avert losing the Congress in 2006? Do you think Rush and Sean's hostility towards Bush would have countered macaca and the Foley scandal? If they were attacking Bush during this period, would this have countered the media's culture of corruption meme?
Honestly, given all these things, how would added attacks from Rush and Sean have helped? ns
Yes it would have helped the Republicans in 2006
January 25, 2009 - 01:52 ET by PopularTechIf they had legitimately criticized Donald Dumsfeld, we would have had Petraeus BEFORE the elections. Instead they cheerleaded idiotic military policy.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Noel,
January 25, 2009 - 01:56 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm not advocating "hostility", just honest criticism of policies that disheartend conservatives. That Bush didn't defend himself against critcism for Katrina, didn't better defend his SS ideas are not issues I'm laying at the feet conservative radio. Certainly, Bush has some copability here, but if Obama sees the danger to liberalsm posed by conservative radio, might Bush have payed attention to honest criticism levied by same?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
January 25, 2009 - 02:09 ET by Noel SheppardR,
Ah, but now we're scratching a different and more appropriate wound. The reality is that Bush should have been more resolute concerning SS reform, AND defended his Katrina-related actions better. These failings were INDEED his undoing, and are at the very heart of him becoming a lame duck in the first year of his second term.
This wasn't Rush or Sean's fault, for they were both fighting for SS reform well after he caved. Bush's failings are his own, and we as conservatives need to accept that rather than trying to transfer blame to others with far less power. ns
Agreed Noel,
January 25, 2009 - 02:22 ET by RESTLESS 1And I don't know if criticism of Bush on immigration, spending, prescription drugs, etc. would have changed anything. As far as I'm concerned, the nomination of McCain hurt us more than anything, but that is another thread entirely.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I would say it's about
January 25, 2009 - 01:59 ET by contraryI would say it's about ideas and furthering conservative policy. Bush, or republicans in general, should push for policies to reduce government spending and meddling into private affairs. It is precisely this the Rush's and Sean's of the world should be critical of. Not with the intent to bash Bush/republicans, but to get them focused on what matters. With wider public support for these ideas, we wouldn't be in the fix we are in now.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
contrary
January 25, 2009 - 02:15 ET by Noel Sheppardcontrary,
I think people like Rush and Sean walk a fine tightrope. They know the power they wield, and do the best they can balancing their own politics with reality. Frankly, I think they do a better job of this than most. ns
Exactly a
January 25, 2009 - 02:29 ET by bigtimerExactly a tight-rope...
Rush went out of his way to avoid any endorsement of any of the candidates during the primaries on our side of the aisle...and a lot of us knew how hard that was to do.
Could be wrong...but sure seems like that was the way it was.
For those of you in Rio Linda....I said endorse.
thought
January 25, 2009 - 08:44 ET by jgarciaI was wondering something a bit different……. Why do the GOP/Conservatives (Dem’s too) have to keep taking back the “office”? Some explain it to me that it always has been that way and I also understand that once in office, folks should govern in the middle to really make things work for “we the people”… but this cycle of one sided power in and out of office seems, in my opinion, just gets in the way of “getting things” done. Just my humble opinion……..
Savage? Please. Don't
January 25, 2009 - 01:36 ET by fitzfongSavage? Please. Don't make laugh. That clown gets his a** handed to him by Levin from coast-to-coast. And Levin's a real conservative. He was fighting Bush and the Republicans hammer and tongs over illegal immigration, government spending, everything. And you obviously have no clue about Limbaugh because he a) doesn't pal around with powerful Republicans, he's a conservative who constantly spoke/speaks out against "country club, blue blood moderate" Republicans, b) spoke passionately throughout the Bush Presidency whenever the Administration and Republicans strayed from conservative principles and c) didn't schedule "gushy interviews with the First Couple". Savage, on the other hand, is just a bitter, inconsequential windbag.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
What is interesting about Levin
January 25, 2009 - 02:09 ET by PopularTechIs he apparently wants to make a name for himself by going after Savage because all of his listeners hate Savage for no apparent reason other than Levin told them so. It is interesting because Levin is an attorney who worked for Reagan and then got into Radio through Limbaugh and Hannity, which is fine but he is part of that circle. He is also in the same time slot as Savage. Not to mention he is Jewish, with a NY accent and talks about his Dog too. Coincidence? I don't believe in them.
But it is hard to call Savage inconsequential when he is the 3rd most listened to Radio Show.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Oh no...say it ain't
January 25, 2009 - 02:16 ET by bigtimerOh no...say it ain't so!
You don't like Levin either PT!
I'm shocked...shocked I tell ya...
Just who do you like beside Savage out of curioustity?
Speaking of the Libertarians as I saw you were earlier somewhere..you voted for Barr I take it.
Did you watch the Libertarian platform, the debates, the roll calls, speeches, nominations, votes, speeches to the end?
I'm older than you...I used to think I was a Libertarian, they sure have moved since then too...I watch them every year on C-SPAN.
Nothing against Levin
January 25, 2009 - 02:28 ET by PopularTechBut he effectively says the same thing as Rush and Hannity and there is only so much time in the day to hear the same thing. I respect his legal opinion though.
I already said I listen to Savage and Rush.
Yes I voted for Barr and yes I listened to enough of the libertarian party and Barr.
How do you know you are older than me?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Why did you vote for
January 25, 2009 - 02:35 ET by bigtimerWhy did you vote for Barr?
Just curious.
Btw...as to the age thing...just time over the posts here and what you have stated since I have been here....a deduction kind of thing.
Many Reasons
January 25, 2009 - 02:59 ET by PopularTechFor Reduced Government Spending
For Lower Taxes
For Smaller Government
For Free-Markets
For Free-Market Energy Solutions
Against Alternative Energy Subsidies
Against the Bailout
Against Global Warming Regulation
Against CAFE Standards
ect...
He was far from my ideal candidate and has some issues but compared to McCain he would have been better for the economy.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT... Oh now I am
January 25, 2009 - 03:18 ET by bigtimerPT...
Oh now I am laughing my ass off...granted, I don't have the links you do, but I could get them easily...all you have to do is google Bob Barr and global warming...hell PT, he joined hand in hand with algore...get a reality check...I may have been the only one who watched all of it..but I did....you walked right into this one.
You did not listen to the platform, debate, votes, speeches ect...I am ready for you to answer more about where Barr stood, when he was against it, before he went for it on a few other subjects PT...not gonna' waste my time.
You need to do better research
January 25, 2009 - 03:24 ET by PopularTechPlease show me where he advocated government regulation. Oh wait someone failed to read AGAIN!
"I remain firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies." - Bob Barr
I am well aware of this as I brought it up when it occured. Since McCain advocated government intervention and has pushed for Legislation, Barr was the better choice. At the end of the day actions are all that matters.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Please show me where he
January 25, 2009 - 03:30 ET by SvenPlease show me where he advocated government regulation. Oh wait someone failed to read AGAIN!
Yeppers! Just like you failed to read what Rush actually said on this TARP issue ;-)
Really?
January 25, 2009 - 03:33 ET by PopularTechClick on Noel's link and prove what I failed to read, after you are done embarrassing yourself get back to me.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Here is another...like I
January 25, 2009 - 03:51 ET by bigtimerHere is another...like I said, google it PT...there are plenty other examples there...plenty...you are great at links when it suits your purpose...
Here is another one on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PT.
What the heck are you doing is what I would like to know...come on already.
the real point is I do not believe for one second you listened to all of the Libertarian Party thing...let alone the speeches ect...and you sure as heck do not listen to Rush.
Please show me where he advocated government regulation.
January 25, 2009 - 03:59 ET by PopularTechPlease show me where he advocated government regulation to fight Global Warming.
I am aware of his immigration policies which are still better than McCains!
Barr's position on immigration:
Unfortunately his website is down but if you actually read through each issue it would make more sense.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT... Read his site
January 25, 2009 - 04:11 ET by bigtimerPT...
Read his site hell!
I listened to his very words for almost three days...something you should have done when it came right down to where he stood..when the going got rough...he really didn't even win the nomination what I would call fair and square...hell PT suit yourself..you didn't watch it live evidently.
He never said anything about government regulations
January 25, 2009 - 04:27 ET by PopularTechI am aware of the infighting. Outside of Ron Paul he was the most publicly well known so I thought he was a good choice but he had a nonexistent campaign. He was still better on the positions than McCain.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
So glad you are AWARE of
January 25, 2009 - 04:35 ET by bigtimerSo glad you are AWARE of it...obviously you didn't watch it.
This wasn't about McC to begin with...that goes without saying.
Please show me where he advocated government regulation
January 25, 2009 - 08:12 ET by PopularTechPlease show me where he advocated government regulation to fight Global Warming.
I don't care if he thinks Al Gore is a scientist, where has he ever said he supports cap and trade, carbon taxes or government regulation to "fight" global warming. His words are crystal clear:
"I remain firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies." - Bob Barr
This is much better than McCain! I brought up McCain because he was a choice running for president and this is directly related to why I voted for Barr over McCain:
McCain and Lieberman Push for New Anti-Global Warming Legislation (The National Center for Public Policy Research)
McCain Pushes 'Cap-And-Trade' Plan to Fight Global Warming (Business & Media Institute)
Senators McCain and Lieberman Propose Energy Tax (The National Center for Public Policy Research)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I suppose you were against
January 25, 2009 - 04:07 ET by bigtimerI suppose you were against the Patriot Act/FISA PT?
Barr was a favorite of mine when he was in the House/one of the 13 great minds during the Impeachment hearings/trial/vote in the House with Hyde leading the way...he changed PT...I watched it...I also watched him during the Libertarian Party platform, my gawd, he flipped more times than we could take here...hell Baldwin was far better than he was. It was all a sad joke to me...as gal who used to love the Libertarian Party...it has gone bye-bye as far as I am concerned along time ago...the majority have gone so far left it is laughable...from abortion to drugs.
There are legitimate problems with the Patriot Act
January 25, 2009 - 04:15 ET by PopularTechThere are legitimate problems with the Patriot Act.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Exactly how I thought you
January 25, 2009 - 04:19 ET by bigtimerExactly how I thought you would answer.
Thank you ...thank you very much.
Exactly how I thought you
January 25, 2009 - 04:19 ET by bigtimersorry..double.
BT
January 25, 2009 - 04:38 ET by cocodrieYou need to return sheryl's computer.
Bon matin ma jolie petite fille. Je vais couche.
Jesus Loves You
LOL coco...ah heck...I got
January 25, 2009 - 04:47 ET by bigtimerLOL coco...ah heck...I got it at half the price....I can live with the doubles if you can.
...and I don't understand what you said in the last lines there...before your tagline that is...but I am taking it it was okay. ;-)
BT
January 25, 2009 - 05:02 ET by cocodrieYou have to improve if you are going to break her record of 32.
It means "Good morning my pretty little girl I'm going to bed>"
Jesus Loves You
coco... Good morning my
January 25, 2009 - 05:13 ET by bigtimercoco...
Good morning my special friend...
Catch you when I catch you next kind sir....I'm getting some zzz's myself...I cannot believe what time it is.
bt
January 25, 2009 - 02:41 ET by SvenFunny our good friend PT didn't take time quote all of Rush's words from Friday's show regarding this 1.2 million renovation with Tarp money:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012309/content/01125110.member.html
I'm beginning to think he's a troll ;-)
I am beginning to think I am the only one who reads
January 25, 2009 - 03:01 ET by PopularTechTry clicking on Noels link in his post. I am beginning to think that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 03:12 ET by SvenYou said earleir in this post:
I like Rush and Hannity but they rarely to never criticized Bush on his big government policies. They spent more time making excuses for them, like Rush is now with TARP.
After giving you the link to Rush's own words, please tell me how Rush was making excuses for TARP?
Noel provide the link
January 25, 2009 - 03:31 ET by PopularTechTo his own words, you provide a DIFFERENT link to similar words. Which is fine thank you for doing that but I still find the argument pointless in that context. What he is saying makes perfect sense with private funds but comes off poorly when applied to federal funds, especially in this situation as politicized as it is.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
January 25, 2009 - 03:47 ET by SvenTo his own words, you provide a DIFFERENT link to similar words. Which is fine thank you for doing that but I still find the argument pointless in that context. What he is saying makes perfect sense with private funds but comes off poorly when applied to federal funds, especially in this situation as politicized as it is.
Hey genius! These were still his words on this subject! The point is, he has been criticizing these bailouts from the beginning! If you had listened to him and did some investigating, you'd know this! He was mocking TARP and OBAMA!
Dude, you were the one who said Rush covered for the president, and gave TARP as an example. I proved you wrong from Rush's own words. The fact that you can't admit this is pathetic!
And you have the nerve to tell bigtimer she needs to read more carefully? What balls!
That is all fine and good
January 25, 2009 - 03:54 ET by PopularTechNone of which changes the fact of what was posted on the National Review. I am not going to apologize for not reading words that were not there.
Rush covers for Bush, all the time by either not attacking him, saying nothing ot attacking Democrats by spinning the issue.
BT didn't read what she linked, I already did a long time ago.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I most certainly did...I
January 25, 2009 - 04:30 ET by bigtimerI most certainly did...I also listened to his words at the convention PT...as well as some others did....few and far between...but some of us out here in the real world did.
Just google what I said earlier PT...there are plenty of flip-flops.
Sven....thank you.
Barr's Postions on Economics are good
January 25, 2009 - 08:26 ET by PopularTechOn the major issues affecting the economy is 100 times better than McCain.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Savage is not inconsequential,
January 25, 2009 - 02:16 ET by RESTLESS 1His ratings prove that. He can be hard to take and out there on occasion, but his criticism of Bush's liberal leanings on some matters is dead on.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
You are drinking the Rush Kool Aid
January 25, 2009 - 09:59 ET by political mavenDid he or did he not blast Bush (like he did Clinton) over spending, borders and immigration?
Did or did not Hannity do a gushy interview with the first Lady?
Did they or did they not blame the Democrats for spending when the Republicans blew the budget ?
C'mon, Rush is smart, funny, entertaining, but you don't really think he really belives all that, if he did he wouldn't go soft on leftist policies just because it's done by an "R" president.
Svage has great ratings and because he actually calls them like he sees them, Levin makes fun of him.
Levin is very good, but he, Rush and Hannity went very soft on Bush for very unconservative policies!
Did he or did he not blast
January 25, 2009 - 11:27 ET by fitzfongDid he or did he not blast Bush (like he did Clinton) over spending, borders and immigration?
Yes, he did. In fact, Limbaugh (and Hannity, Levin, Jason Lewis, Boortz, Gallagher, John & Ken in Los Angeles and countless others) generated the opposition that eventually overcame the Bush/McLame push to pass the amnesty bill. He constantly spoke out against Bush and his "New Tone" nonsense...he always talked about how Bush was not a full-fledged conservative. He complained about Bush letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill, he spoke regularly about wasteful government spending...and how it increased under Bush. The fact that you don't know that illustrates how little you've listened to the guy.
Did or did not Hannity do a gushy interview with the first Lady?
I don't know. I don't follow Hannity with regularity. However, the First Lady is not elected...do you actually expect Hannity to grill her over policy issues?
Did they or did they not blame the Democrats for spending when the Republicans blew the budget ?
Limbaugh and Levin blamed Democrats for their ridiculous spending...they blamed Republicans for allowing it to happen when they were in the majority and in a position to stop it.
C'mon, Rush is smart, funny, entertaining, but you don't really think he really belives all that, if he did he wouldn't go soft on leftist policies just because it's done by an "R" president.
Rush Limbaugh is a conservative first. It just so happens that the Republican Party is more of a home to conservative thought than is the Democratic Party...but in truth, Limbaugh is a Republican Party outsider. The national Republican Party is entrenched in Washington, and, as such, feels the need to collaberate with the Democrats...not oppose them. As a result, Limbaugh is an irritant to the national Republican Party. His support for McLame in the 2008 Presidential Election stemmed from his opposition to the outright socialism promoted by Obama, not by any great love for McLame or the Republican ticket. He and Levin didn't get on board until Palin was chosen...and even then, they made it clear that it was a choice between bad and disastrous. When that empty uniform Colin Powell shot his big mouth off, claiming that Republicans shouldn't listen to Limbaugh, Limbaugh made the very important point that Republicans were not listening...otherwise we wouldn't have been stuck with such a turd of a Presidential nominee.
Svage has great ratings and because he actually calls them like he sees them, Levin makes fun of him.
Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all have great ratings...Levin is adding a third hour, is on satellite radio and is clobbering Savage in New York and other major markets. They all call them as they see them...the fact that Limbaugh and Hannity are less confrontational does not diminish that fact. And I daresay Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin wouldn't be looking for handouts if they had to defend themselves in lawsuits from those goons at CAIR.
Levin is very good, but he, Rush and Hannity went very soft on Bush for very unconservative policies!
No, they weren't.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Scorecard
January 25, 2009 - 11:37 ET by Free StinkerFitz: 6
political moron: 0
Nice work Fitz ! :-)
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
Thought about it...
January 25, 2009 - 03:18 ET by CTYou're wrong.
very well thought out refutation , CT!
January 25, 2009 - 09:46 ET by political mavenLove the point by point logic there!!!
very well thought out refutation , CT!
January 25, 2009 - 09:47 ET by political mavenLove the point by point logic there!!!
100 yr strategy
January 24, 2009 - 22:45 ET by KevroyThis is how the libtards emulate the muslims and commies with the '100 yr plan' mentality. To push the Fairness Doctrine they need to take baby steps against Rush. Continually plant the seeds of doubt one at a time until polls show that Americans want to 'stop this divisivness' and take conservatives off the air. Last week it was Rush 'wanting the President to fail', before that it was "Barack the Magic Negro'. Now it's 'the GOP needs to stop listening to Rush'. It's the same tactic they will use against Palin for the next 4 yrs....one non-scandal after another until the seeds of doubt have sprouted amongst the sheep.
Bush would never have responded to a radio show hosts vocalizations. Just as he ignored Reid, Pelosi, & Company's rants. Obama is only half a man. If that.
got wood?
January 24, 2009 - 23:11 ET by WesenRush's got wood on this. Barry is a man-child trying to get traction using Chicago thug tactics. Rush will have him reciting poetry within a few months.
I'll agree to stop listening
January 24, 2009 - 23:28 ET by SmartypantsI'll agree to stop listening to Rush when Obama stops listening to Saul Alinsky, William Ayers and Karl Marx.
Idea for 2012...
January 25, 2009 - 00:09 ET by DeskpilotChesley Sullenberg/Sarah Palin
Sully has military experience, flying in Nam, (Salute and Thank You Sir) leadership experience, business experience, and has surely been tested with responsibility for the well being of people that he was responsible for. Loved by BOTH sides, speaks clearly and concisely, and an attractive wife who dresses well enough to be a First Lady. (See video on home page)
Sarah Palin, nuff said
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
Ok I'm confused
January 25, 2009 - 04:08 ET by jackssnIf you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
I spent 21 years in the navy and I have no idea what AM(H)1 (AW) is could you let me know?
ETCS(SS) (Ret)
Interesting comments here tonight
January 25, 2009 - 00:17 ET by Ole_SargeI'm one that IS worried and a little scared at the moment. I pray that America "wakes-up" soon. The man is dangerous and on top of that, arrogant too. Benito Mussolini reincarnated as a bi-racial American(?).
Rush is Brilliant
January 25, 2009 - 01:03 ET by WorriedHe surmised so precisely what Barack Obama is trying to do. I hope and pray the Republicans read Rush' response. Obama is a radical Marxist and is trying to push his ideas through and force them upon the American people.
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE AND CONGRESS: DO NOT SIGN ON TO THIS BILL. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? YOU WILL GAIN POWER IN 2 YEARS WHEN THE PEOPLE FINALLY WAKE UP FROM THE SPELL OBAMA HAS PUT THEM UNDER, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO WHAT IS RIGHT. DO NOT BOW DOWN TO THE FRAUD IN POWER.
No Republican Votes for Socialist Stimulus.
January 25, 2009 - 03:04 ET by CTNo Republican that seeks future leadership in the party should consider caving in to the Democrap stampede to socialism.
He says don't listen to Limbaugh...
January 25, 2009 - 05:21 ET by Army BratHow long 'til he tells us who we should be listening to, if we want to get along?
Happy Trails...
Let me see if I understand
January 25, 2009 - 06:36 ET by JerLet me see if I understand this correctly: We have the most powerful and influential conservative voice in America, someone whose media forum was used as the original launching pad for the Bush-Cheney campaign, someone who: has been wined and dined in the White House, called the most important Republican in America, and had been previously made an honorary member of the Republican congress during the Clinton administration; moreover, this conservative voice, a/k/a Rush Limbaugh, not merely content to relentlessly slam a President-elect as some sort of far-left socialist bogeyman, nor merely content to announce on the day of the new President's inauguration "I hope he fails", but, indeed, deems it necessary to go even further and, at least implicitly if not explicitly, threaten "roll over, bend over, lay down" Republicans with retribution if they should dare work with this new President in a bi-partisan effort to address the dire economic crisis engulfing the nation. And yet, Rush, ever the victim, whines that HE is being made a distraction. Baloney...Rush has not only made himself the distraction, but apparently has decided he knows what is best for the country and the Republican party, and if the Republican party doesn't kowtow to him, then, God forbid, the Democrats might get re-elected. Gosh, Rush, let's not hope things get better, let's pray for failure. [By the way, those eight years of relative prosperity during the 90's under Clinton?...how well did that work out for the Democrats in 2000?]
Now, presumably as a result of these proclamations and "no helping hand" edicts issued by the high priest of conservatism, the new President suggests to congressional Republicans that (gasp) "they can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get things done". This observation by Obama is susceptible to a couple of interpretations: 1. They [the Congressional Republicans] need to expose themselves to other viewpoints in addition to those of Rush, i.e. not just Rush, or 2. [and the more logical interpretation] they can't just tune into Rush for their marching orders and simultaneously expect to achieve a high level of bipartisan co-operation and expeditiously pass true bipartisan legislation--SINCE THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM RUSH ARE PRECISELY TO THE CONTRARY.
So, there two roads. One road consists of two lanes along which both parties can travel in the spirit of furthering their [surely] mutual interest of solving the nations's problems--the most urgent one being the state of the economy. The other road is controlled and patrolled by Limbaugh, who determines which political travelers are authorized to use it as well as their mode of transportation. But, first and foremost, it is a private road which NO DEMOCRATS OR RINOs ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER.
There are also two conclusions: 1. Obama isn't ordering anyone to stop listening to Rush, nor is he in any way whatsoever threatening to shut up or shut down Limbaugh. 2. Rush may be right. Maybe his ideological paradigm is superior. Maybe he is the keeper of the flame, and the future of conservatism and that of the Republican party depend upon a strict adherence to his dictates.
But, don't complain about those nasty, intractable, partisan Democrats if the second road [Limbaugh's 'my way or the highway'] is chosen by congressional Republicans, and legislation is thereinafter written by Democrats and enacted by Democrats with little or no Republican input.
Jer
But, don't complain about
January 25, 2009 - 07:42 ET by motherbeltBut, don't complain about those nasty, intractable, partisan Democrats
if the second road [Limbaugh's 'my way or the highway'] is chosen by
congressional Republicans, and legislation is thereinafter written by Democrats and enacted by Democrats with little or no Republican input.
They don't want "input" from Republicans. They want collaboration. They know they have enough votes to get things through on their own. The only reason they want Republicans in on anything is so that when it fails they can say it was a bipartisan bill.
And if the Republicans go along to get along, they will get none of the credit.
Frankly I think the Republicans should fight everything they don't believe in. Let the Democrats pass things without Republican votes.
It's called "principles."
Bi-Partisan Support of Gay Socialist Economics?
January 25, 2009 - 08:36 ET by PopularTechWhy should Republicans support Gay Socialist Economics (Keynesian Economics - Fact: Keynes was Gay) which has been an utter failure? Government cannot fix the economy through inflationary spending and making itself bigger. We tried that in the 30s and got the Great Depression.
Rush is trying to protect the Republicans from being part of the Gay Socialist Economic plan put forth by the Democrats that WILL FAIL.
Now by some miracle Democrats could magically get an understanding of economics and drastically reduce government spending, taxes and regulations, therefore actually helping the economy. But I highly doubt they would give up their guaranteed failure ridden socialist policies after so many years of brainwashing.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Jer, Rush Limbaugh has
January 25, 2009 - 13:34 ET by fitzfongJer,
Rush Limbaugh has always stated that the biggest mistake the Republicans made after the 1994 landslide was that they stopped teaching. They thought their job was done, that they'd convinced the country once-and-for-all that small government conservatism was the way forward. They got comfortable in Washington, enjoyed the parties and stopped teaching. Eventually, the Republicans in Congress spent too little time addressing the wishes of their constituencies and too much time seeking the approval of the Beltway media...hoping to enhance their national profiles, so many turned left (or centrist). They could then paper over the cracks locally and ensure reelection by "bringing home the bacon". Meanwhile, Limbaugh has been lamenting the abandonment of principles by many Congressional Republicans (not to mention those of the Bush Adminstration). In his view, Republicans should spend less time compromising core principles to populist concerns and more time educating the people on why core principles need to be followed. When the majority party is promoting bad ideas, sometimes it's better to stand in opposition on principle than to have even the slightest hint of participation in a bad bill. Limbaugh wants conservatism to win in the "arena of ideas", and he wants elected Republicans to stand up for conservative principles to that end. Perhaps he has the luxury of being an idealist whereas a Washington Republican has to concede somewhat to practicality, but Limbaugh is under no obligation to promote policies he finds repugnant...and he's under no obligation to shut up. He represents a significant constituency, one that cannot be ignored by Republicans, but he has no power over those in Washington. He's expressing his opinions, and many happen to agree with him. To the extent that he gives voice to conservative activism in keeping Congressional Republicans accountible to their constituents, he provides a great service.
-fitz
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Rush's afterthought
January 25, 2009 - 06:53 ET by Barrackwww.benbarrack.com
If you notice in Rush's response to York, he points to two things going on (and subsequently argues the points).
But it was his afterthought at the end that is the real goldmine. Namely, that Obama is using one of Alinsky's Rules (Rush says #13 but I believe it's actually #11).
Rules 4 Radicals is not just literature Obama read as a youth. This is his playbook! If the right wants to effectively combat his insane policies, they need to hammer on this because if they do, they will perpetually be in Obama's backfield on every play.
Let's also not forget that Alinsky dedicated that book to LUCIFER.
Read all 11 rules here....
http://www.vcn.bc.ca...
Limbaugh is spot on. The
January 25, 2009 - 09:20 ET by NL207Limbaugh is spot on. The Democrat strategy is simple. Now that they have regained power, they will change the rules so that they are never again in the minority.
This "stimulus package" isn't going to stimlate anything. If anything, it will deepen and lengthen this recession, possibly enough to be labeled a depression.
The Republicans are about to
January 25, 2009 - 09:22 ET by msh1973The Republicans are about to make the biggest mistake of their political careers...didn't they learn anything by nominating McCain? I mean for crying out loud, they are a bunch of self-absorbed, egomaniacs. I say get rid of them all! I am just glad that Mel Martinez has decided not to run again. You can bet I will be on the phone to my Congressman (Mack) and letting him know how I feel about the Obama policies.
Since I started & dared to point out the obvious about Rush...
January 25, 2009 - 10:04 ET by political mavenLet me sum it up (many have agreed, no one logically refuted any of my points)
Rush preaches conservative values. I don't consider him a hypocrite for not living them regarding marriage, children and drugs, he is human and we all fail now and then.
However, he is a hypocrite by not bashing Republicans, especially Bush who turn left on issues. This simply illustrates that he does NOT indeed love the country, but himself. He realizes the audience he gets by saying what he says, and at the end of the day, he has parlayed that understanding into megabucks.
Were he a true, principled conservative,(like George Will, or Walter Williams) who's values trounce access to the White House or palling around with the famous, he would call em like he sees em.
The fact is that he did not unload on Bush for very bad policies like he would have for a Democrat. This is exactly the double standard that HE yells about with regard to the lib press (and he is correct about the lib press).
Result: White house lunches, calls from the Bushes, golf with the "right people".
If you are a fan, it might be hard to swallow, but nothing I am saying is factually inacurate.
Hannity , like I said earlier, is nothing but a cheerleader for the Republicans, and is even worse than Rush in kissing up and abandoning core principles when it suits him.
Finally, I like Bush as a person. He is a decent guy, and the libs hate him because he is moral. His policies were basically liberal in many areas. He did a good job with Gitmo, the war against Islam (although he wouldn't call it that-saying war on terror is like saying WW2 was a war on Panzer tanks-he refused to identify the enemy), and the Supreme court.
Happy Sunday! lets enjoy the follies of the child in the Oval Office! He's gonna crash so fast, even CNN will have to report it!
I think turning a blind eye
January 25, 2009 - 10:09 ET by nwahsI think turning a blind eye to Bush's spending over the years may be what has weakened the the conservative base. Most people don't stomach hypocrisy well, and those Bush yes men still in congress have an air of spinelessness about them.
I am not sure that any of
January 25, 2009 - 10:17 ET by msh1973I am not sure that any of you actually listen to Rush or Hannity. In my view both of these men have been honest when it came to wasteful spending and the illegal alien issue. Rush has talked about Bush making the government bigger and so has Hannity. Yes, they were both invited to the White House, but so was Ingraham, Bortz and many more. Go back and listen to the archived programs.
You miss my point
January 25, 2009 - 12:36 ET by political mavenThey did not skewer as they do to Dems, thus covering their butts by having criticized a little, and still staying in the good graces to keep getting the goodies from the powerful.
I do listen quite often, emailed them many times about their double standard, naturally no response.
Can you honestly say that these guys blasted Bush for all the spending and open borders, like they do when Dems do stupid things??really.....
Of course BO is a complete moron for the way he brings up a talk show host, it defies logic, is unpresidential, is immature, and he is nothing but a baby. Just because I call out Rush for his double standard, doesn't mean I don't love the guy....I do! He's gonna have a field day with Affirmative action BO!!
Barry is gonna smoke a lot of cigs from the stress, unless he manages to pull a soviet style (fairness doctrine) cleansing of the opposition voice.
I would love to see howver a photoshop of Hannity in a cheerleader outfit with a big R....I'm too inept to do it myself..:)
Well first of all, they are
January 25, 2009 - 12:54 ET by msh1973Well first of all, they are not unbiased media types. They don't have to be completely unbiased. In my humble opinion (as I said before) they do call out the Republicans when need be.
"War on Terror" is a step
January 26, 2009 - 02:24 ET by Schnikeys"War on Terror" is a step up from "WWII."
"War on Terror" does indeed only identify the weapons that we are fighting against...but "World War II" only indicates that there was a war. Worldwide. And for a second time. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
→ Maven
January 25, 2009 - 10:13 ET by Cool ArrowWe must be listening to different shows.
Rush seemed to do a pretty good job of criticising President Bush when the President was wrong. His criticism generally tended to stem from Bush's departures from conservatism.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Muslim, Khalil Gibran
"We must be listening to
January 25, 2009 - 13:26 ET by ckc1227"We must be listening to different shows."
Don't fall for it, CA. The only show he's listening to is the one put on by the voices in his head. His posts are basically comic relief at this point. Next he's going to tell us Rush was a big time McCain supporter, lol.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
I don't think Bush turned Left
January 25, 2009 - 10:26 ET by ahusserbut I felt he made some terrible political mistakes. The war in Iraq I believe very strongly was a political mistake, maybe not a moral or strategic one though but the war rallied his domestic enemies while they were in disarray and gave the left the PR ammunition they needed to bring down a President and a party the downfall of his administration and the GOP started with the invasion.
Using some pop psychology here I felt he became more insecure as the media piled on him. It almost seemed he started acquiescing to the left, abandoning his principles and the principles of those who elected him because of the criticism and for no other reason that I can fathom than thinking if he gave in maybe they (the media, country, democrats, whatever) would like him (again). We could see that he lacked polish and public speaking ability and I am sure he shied away from any public speaking that he didn't feel absolutely necessary as any speaking he did he knew would be perversely twisted, taken out of context and ridculed by the MSM minions. But the Bully Pulpit was what was necessary to counteract the absurdity and vileness of some of the accusations (Katrina comes to mind). After that I think the GOP abandoned him fearing him as "toxic waste". In the end he became isolated, trapped and irrelevant. Along with him the Republican majorities in both houses withered away and we saw the Republican party virtually disintegrate. Maybe insecurity, some thin skin and unbelief that people would believe and say the incredibly nasty things they said about him would totally incapacitate him and his administration.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
(many have agreed, no one
January 25, 2009 - 12:53 ET by fitzfong(many have agreed, no one logically refuted any of my points)
You sure have a disproportionately high opinion of the effectiveness of your original post. Neither of your above claims are accurate. I haven't seen much widespread agreement with what you've stated...and your suggestion that no one "logically refuted" any of your points is a tad subjective and self-serving. I addressed one of your posts a few minutes ago paragraph-by-paragraph...no doubt you'll still claim that no one has refuted your points...and that will simply illustrate what a non sequitur the original boast was.
I don't consider him a hypocrite for not living them regarding marriage, children and drugs, he is human and we all fail now and then.
Then why bring that up? The "hypocrite 'argument'" is a dishonest tactic often used by liberals to suggest that if an individual conservative strays personally from certain conservative principles, somehow that proves the principles are wrong. Using the "hypocrite" lifeline for leverage is one of the weakest rhetorical ploys. Whatever has happened in Limbaugh's personal life, he is still entitled to believe and promote the principles that he does. Alluding to marriage, children (whatever that's about) and drugs does not put his principles in any context...it's just another lame non sequitur.
However, he is a hypocrite by not bashing Republicans, especially Bush who turn left on issues. This simply illustrates that he does NOT indeed love the country, but himself. He realizes the audience he gets by saying what he says, and at the end of the day, he has parlayed that understanding into megabucks.
The above paragraph was written out of ignorance or dishonesty...I'm not sure which. If you listened to the show, you would know that he constantly bashed(es) the Republicans and the Bush Administration over "crossing the aisle", profligate spending, illegal immigration and other important issues. To illustrate the divide, he makes the distinction between Conservative Republicans and Washington/Beltway Republicans. He is not a Party mouthpiece, so he often finds himself at odds with the RNC, with McCain, Graham, Hagel, Snowe, Gingrich and other squishy Beltway Republicans. He even dressed down the reliably conservative Tom Coburn last week when he spoke on behalf of Republicans wanting to get along with the new Administration. Your arguments are filled with the kind of conventional "wisdom" oversimplifications so often presented by people who never heard his show and therefore assume the worst. They've been done before, unsuccessfully. And based on your arguments so far, I don't think you're going to have any success, either.
Were he a true, principled conservative,(like George Will,
George Will? Are you kidding? The same George Will who attended that Obama dinner with Bill Kristol and a handful of other pseudo-conservatives?
If you are a fan, it might be hard to swallow, but nothing I am saying is factually inacurate.
None of what you have said is factual, period. It's your opinion based, it seems, largely on conventional assumptions.
Hannity , like I said earlier, is nothing but a cheerleader for the Republicans, and is even worse than Rush in kissing up and abandoning core principles when it suits him.
Instead of making some blanket charge and assuming that your statement stands on its own, why don't you enlighten us? What specific core principles have Hannity and/or Limbaugh ever abandoned? When? What specifically was said that leads you to this conclusion?
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
read the posts
January 25, 2009 - 13:14 ET by political mavenMany agree that Limbaugh/Hnnity went soft on Bush even though he spent us into heavy debt and never vetoed pork.
You site me one example where these cheerleaders blasted Bush for the spending and borders as they do Democrats.
It was always "I don't understand him" . They never held his feet to the fire, they never blasted him about the Haditha Marines (only blasted Murtha and Time)
So although Bush is a decent guy and loves his country, there was no accountability to the conservatives.
Didn't he fail to veto pork?
Didn't he leave open borders?
Didn;t he want amnesty?
Didn't he get in bed with Kennedy with the education bill?
The limbaugh/Hannity/Levin trio tiptoed very gently , they did not blast him in a way that would enrage the base.Not being as vocal is a defacto abandonment of stated principles.
Any objective person who doesn't drink Rush Kool Aide knows this.
I'm sure we agree on most issues, I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I vote Republican, even though there isn't much difference anymore. I built a business from scratch and currently have 25 employees. I understand how taxes kill business, and handouts take away insentives.
Pardon me for being , perhaps even more conservative than you. I WON'T IGNORE THE DOUBLE STANDARD JUST BECAUSE I LIKE RUSH.
At the end of the day we share the same values, I just think Rush and Hannity have been stooges for Bush. Now thatthe Dems are in charge, they are blasting away (which I love)
In truth, political maven,
January 25, 2009 - 14:04 ET by fitzfongIn truth, political maven, I don't think either Hannity or Limbaugh did "go soft" on Bush. The agenda of Limbaugh's show is set largely by what the media is reporting from day-to-day. He reads articles, he plays soundbites and discusses topics relevant to the day's news. Essentially he puts the reporting of the day's news in context...it's largely reactionary. For much of Bush's 2nd term, the media focused on the war, Hurricane Katrina and a rash of overblown political "scandals" designed to weaken the influence of the Republicans in Washington. To the extent that Limbaugh and Hannity found themselves having to debunk a lot of misinformation spread by the print, radio, television and internet media on a daily basis, they were often limited on topics by the constraints of time. That said, they significantly addressed the issues we conservatives take so seriously...illegal immigration, tax policy and bloated government spending (including earmarks). I really don't know what more could be asked of them.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
You must not listen to Rush
January 25, 2009 - 13:17 ET by ckc1227You must not listen to Rush or Hannity very much then. You might have the shows on, but you clearly aren't listening, because both of them criticize when criticism is due. Hell, that's all Rush has been doing this week.
You do realize that they don't have to react like they're one outburst away from being in a straight jacket and a stay in a padded cell like the moonbats on the left do in order to get their point across, don't you? You can criticize without becoming a stark, raving lunatic. If that's what you want, there's plenty of places you can get that kind of reaction. But I'm guessing you already know all about them.
moonbat?
January 25, 2009 - 13:18 ET by political mavenThey had no problem blasting away at Clinton, Pelosi and Obama constantly and vocally. Which is my point.....
Im not saying they are the same, I'm simply saying had they blasted the very liberal policies of Bush in many areas, the outcome may have been different...not a big deal, really.
I don't blame Rush, hell, who doesn't like hanging with The President, most people would have kissed ass too...
Bombastic Obama
January 25, 2009 - 10:06 ET by TN MomThis is Obama at his bombastic best; attacking Rush just like he attacked Nancy Reagan during his first press conference and just like he constantly attacked Hannity during the campaign. Nothing more than basic Chicago style thug politics with shades of Rev Wright and Rules For Radicals (see rule #13).
Pretty soon, Obama will send emails to his supporters complaining that 'it's all Rush's fault' and there will be an outcry for Rush to close shop.
This is NOT my first election and I will NOT allow my freedom of speech to be taken away...as God is my witness, I WILL take to the streets, pitchfork in hand, and fight Obama/Dems.
I'm with you TN Mom
January 25, 2009 - 14:31 ET by WorriedI will not be silenced and will continue to talk against Obama in the coming days, weeks, years. In the first few days of his reign, he has shown his true colors. He wants all of us to worship and follow him down a road I do not want to go down.
I will stand up for my rights and those of all Americans. The First Amendment is sacred and is what our forefathers feared most, thus why it is first.
For my money
January 25, 2009 - 11:52 ET by StarAZYes, money--I still pay for pathetic, nothing on again cable--Obama has now thrown down on both Hannity and Limbaugh and they can say any and everything they want, and yes, even INVESTIGATE his background and actions. Go to it, guys!
Expectatons
January 25, 2009 - 12:51 ET by pepsioniceI think Obama has pretty much maxed out on our expectatons. His Jedi-touch on reporters, the "I won" statement, and the "blame Rush" game...pretty much have let the air out of his ballon. Putin has to be smiling because when the two likely meet later in the year.....the Russian master will rip this guy up without even trying hard.
Yep!
January 25, 2009 - 14:26 ET by doug1950Darth Vadar meets Dondi
Good one, Doug!
January 25, 2009 - 14:34 ET by Blonde:)
Doug1950
January 25, 2009 - 17:20 ET by ahusserLOL Your remark reminded me of that famous (infamous?) very short 1969 animated cartoon Bambi meets Godzilla. (It's only a minute and a half long you tube presentation.) Enjoy.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
The Russian master schools Obama?
January 25, 2009 - 20:08 ET by JerRight, it's a shame we will no longer enjoy the foreign policy "mastery" of the most recent administration--the mastery which alienated our allies and emboldened Putin, kicked the Iranian nuclear can down the road, left the Mid East in turmoil, made no progress in reducing the potential North Korean threat, allowed Al Qaeda to establish new and ominous footholds on the African continent, all while a resurgent Taliban roils Afganistan, and Osama bin Laden still hangs out along the Pakistani border calling for jihads against America.
Thanks, but I'm more than willing for someone else to give it a shot.
Jer
Jer
January 25, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
I think you forgot one, namely the Administration that prevented another terrorist attack on our nation for more than seven years after 9/11.
As you're "more than willing for someone else to give it a shot," would you care to make a wager that we won't go another seven years without such an attack? ns
Noel...Bush and keeping us safe
January 25, 2009 - 22:59 ET by JerNoel, I've given Bush plenty of credit for that as well as for many other things on a number of occasions here. Do I need to repeat it at the beginning of every comment I post about him? Maybe I can just make it my tag line.
Jer
Jer
January 25, 2009 - 23:36 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Certainly not. But as your post was completely defamatory of Bush foreign policy, isn't the goal of such national security? With that in mind, it seems specious to give Bush an "F" on this.
See my point? ns
Noel...
January 26, 2009 - 00:39 ET by JerDo I see your point? Well, actually..."No".
a. My post wasn't "completely defamatory". In fact, it wasn't defamatory at all. It was critical and contained some very mild sarcasm, but defamatory?....Absolutely not.
b. Where did I give Bush an "F" on foreign policy. Where did I assign him any grade? I was simply countering a post suggesting that Obama would be "mastered" by Putin--the implication being that the prospective foreign policy efforts by the new administration will be underscored by ineptness and naivete. Consequently, I listed some areas where the Bush/Rice foreign policy initiatives haven't exactly been shining successes.
c. I've already noted that I have given Bush high marks in other areas of national security/foreign affairs.
Jer
Jer
January 26, 2009 - 00:44 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Your post wasn't defamatory? Really? Maybe you should reread it:
That's what I call defamatory. You don't? ns
Noel... I'm astounded.
January 26, 2009 - 01:03 ET by JerNoel...
I'm astounded. If you can call fairly hard-hitting, somewhat partisan, but legitimate criticism "defamatory", what adjectives do you have left to describe at least 80% of the posts at NB which are considerably more strident than this one of mine?
Jer
By the way, you and I both always reread our posts, before and after posting. Remember?
Sounds like the right word to me.
January 26, 2009 - 01:20 ET by JWFI would say Noel's understanding of english is fairly comprehensive and thorough.
defame -2: to harm the reputation of by libel or slander
libel - 2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
Sincerely,
a personage the groks Mr. Noel.
Thankyou, Justice Holmes,
January 26, 2009 - 01:30 ET by JerThankyou, Justice Holmes, for affording me the opportunity to reminisce about something I learned in my first year of law school nearly forty years ago.
You may go now.
Jer
Hey guys, I have a wikipedia page!
January 26, 2009 - 01:43 ET by JWFHolmes was known for his pithy, short, and frequently quoted opinions. In more than thirty years on the Supreme Court bench, he ruled on cases spanning the whole range of federal law. He is remembered for prescient opinions on topics as widely separated as copyright, the law of contempt,...
How can I go? I have not read, reread, and then reread your post. Nor have I been directed to do further research. Or check with dozens or hundreds of qualified experts.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF... I can't help it
January 26, 2009 - 02:05 ET by bigtimerJWF...
I can't help it any longer...I've been cracking up laughing with your posts tonight....you are on a roll!
Sorry Jer....he is stating what you do to all of us here...perfectly.
It is humorous...no way around it.
Thanks bigtimer.
January 26, 2009 - 02:11 ET by JWFYou know I do it for you. ;-)
Good night.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
aka "Justice Holmes" as Jer affectionately calls me due to my pithy, short, and frequently quoted opinions.
JWF... Night to you
January 26, 2009 - 02:17 ET by bigtimerJWF...
Night to you too...catch you later.
Jer
January 26, 2009 - 01:32 ET by cocodrieThere will be no peace in the middle east as long as there is one radical muslim alive. They have vowed to annihilate America and Israel or die trying. The war will go on.
As far as Putin is concerned, he is KGB. The only thing that will deter him is a bullet to the head behind the left ear.
Jesus Loves You
coco...
January 26, 2009 - 01:34 ET by JerSad, but may very well be true.
Jer
Jer
January 26, 2009 - 02:05 ET by cocodrieOur safety concerns me a lot. I believe We are in more danger every day. Every country in the world is increasing their armed capabilities and we are getting ready to cut back.
Oil is going to be a severe problem very soon. Jesus Loves You
coco... Regarding the
January 26, 2009 - 02:14 ET by bigtimercoco...
Regarding the oil...along with the rest of your sentiments...you are so right.
How soon people forget when prices go back down....they are not going to stay that way forever...and it will be too late.
People these days think you can just twitch your nose and make everything magically A-OK...
Not going to happen...we have become a nation of imbeciles.
Good evening BT
January 26, 2009 - 02:32 ET by cocodrieDuring the oil "shortage" under Jimmy Caeter I spoke to dome river pilots who were idle because tankers were anchored at the mouth of the river.The oil companies were holding them back and the refineries were running at less than half capacity.
I heard that the same thing ts going on now. We are going to hear about heating oil shortage soon.
WE are so screwed. The baggy pants people are going to have trouble getting gas for their pimpmobiles.
Oh I forgot they are going to get free gas.
Jesus Loves You
Oh I forgot they are going
January 26, 2009 - 02:55 ET by bigtimerOh I forgot they are going to get free gas.
...along with their homes, food, transportation of any kind...plus...they aren't going to have to worry about the 3 Letter word....JOBS.
Don't worry...be happy!
Hope and Change...works every time...and you don't even have to apply yourself....O will do it for ya!
It's a Skippidity doo-da-dah...day....
"Thanks, but I'm more than
January 25, 2009 - 21:10 ET by Blazer"Thanks, but I'm more than willing for someone else to give it a shot."
Right Jer, but don't forget they'll be opening up new front's like Pakistan and Darfur, expanding the WOT and no we won't be getting out of Iraq either.
Not to mention Iran will have to be dealt with and carrot's ain't gonna work this time. if we don't the Israeli's will. But I guess a Democrat war is a good war, Republican war a bad war.
No matter what, I will support our troop's and their mission unlike the left.
If you thought Bush/Cheney had us going slowly to hell in a handbasket, your gonna really enjoy the Obama/Biden rocket assisted express elevator to hell.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Once again, spreading liberal media bias.
January 25, 2009 - 22:44 ET by JWFYou come to as site dedicated to combating liberal media bias and attempt to FURTHER SPREAD MEDIA BIAS.
...which alienated our allies...
That is an example of liberal media bias! We have alienated no one. Only the liberal media says we have alienated allies.
You don't ask for someone to LIKE you on the national stage. You don't ask for someone to DISLIKE you on the national stage. YOU DEMAND RESPECT. Remember the whole "speak softly and carry a big stick" thing. GWB carried a very big stick and started beating people with it in Afghanistan and Iraq. He even tossed a few sticks over the fence in Pakistan and Yemen and a few places in Africa. He leant out a few sticks to the Philippines, maybe a few other places.
So point out where we have lost respect Johnny Bias. Point it out.
kicked the Iranian nuclear can down the road
Ah, Johnny Bias is now the expert. I have heard a lot of talk over the years, I have read between the lines. Important Iranian people have freakin disappeared. Mysterious BoomBooms happen at important nuclear locations. Quality control seems to oddly be a big problem. Now they are running out of yellow cake. Hmmm can't seem to be able to buy more. The BOOK IS NOT CLOSED. Like WWII, North Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, oh hell all of them, we won't know for years what went on.
made no progress in reducing the potential North Korean threat
Ohhhhhhh....K Johnny Bias. Hmmmm. North Korea has hurt no one except her own citizens* for some 50-odd years. AGAIN, we won't know the real story for years. There are some people, Johnny Bias, that don't even believe the NorK's have a nuclear weapons. That big boom in the mountains in north North Korea, very possibly could have been from conventional explosives. Oh, Johnny? Johnny? There was a real big BoomBoom in a NorK railroad station. Johnny? Remember that? Odd. Hmmmmm. What? Yea, sorry, won't know for years.
allowed Al Qaeda to establish new and ominous footholds on the African continent
Now you will poop a brick Johnny Bias. Remember Pres. Clinton bombing the aspirin factory that wasn't an aspirin factory? Johnny? THAT WAS AL QAEDA! Also Johnny, yea, that was Bush's fault in 1998**
Osama bin Laden still hangs out along the Pakistani border calling for jihads against America.
Hey Johnny, since you know exactly where he is, why don't you point him out and we will put a polaris*** up his ass.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
* and kidnapped a bunch of Japenese.
** or whenever it was PRE-BUSH
*** that is a missile Johnny. But you would know that being privy to ALL of the intelligence for the last 8 years.
Johnny? Oh Johnny Bias? You still there?
January 25, 2009 - 23:09 ET by JWFkicked the Iranian nuclear can down the road
Remember the Cold War, Johnny? We stared down the Ruskies for 50 years. We won it and never fired a shot. Does not mean there wasn't plenty going on behind the scenes.
What makes you think nothing is going on behind the scenecs with Iran Johnny? Ah, the liberal media would have you believe not a damn thing, huh?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Actually, JWF...my reference
January 25, 2009 - 23:18 ET by JerActually, JWF...my reference to
"kicked the Iranian nuclear can down the road"
was based upon an astute similar assessment by CONSERVATIVE pundit, Monica Crowley. Or perhaps you consider HER to be a liberal media "Johnny Bias". Huh?
Jer
Well then, Johnny, you found one, good for you.
January 25, 2009 - 23:37 ET by JWFI will of course dismiss all claims of bias against you because you found ONE conservative voice to agree with you and ALL of the liberal media.
I of course assume said conservative pundit is/was privy to secret intelligence the rest of us are not privy to.
Couldn't find any dead ones?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Why are you so scared of the Norks?
January 25, 2009 - 23:34 ET by JWFmade no progress in reducing the potential North Korean threat
The Norks are no threat to us. Yea, they have a standing, STANDING Johnny, not draftees or reserves, MILLION man army. But that is a threat to their neighbor to the south, not us. Yea, they may or may not have a missile that could reach California. Some may argue that could be a good thing. Some could argue different. Still they are no threat to us.
Hmmmm. I remember another guy that was not an immediate threat to us. Yet we went in, didn't we, Johnny?
You advocating preemptive action now, Johnny? Were you advocating preemptive action in 2003? Cuz we sure could a used ya then Johnny.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I don't know where to jump in here.
January 25, 2009 - 19:32 ET by JWFI saw a few comments about Bush spending, Republican pork, and Rush/Hannity and/or others ignoring/rightly pointing out same.
This is a liberal talking point.
As a percentage of GDP, Bush/Republicans did by no means MASSIVELY increase spending. Yes, they could have done a better job keeping spending in check. But as a percentage of GDP, and considering the huge deficit spending that is being planned now, I would be inclined to let criticism of Bush's spending, you know, go lightly. (excepting of course the last few months)
http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gross-domestic-product-1980-2007/
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Republicans vs Democrats
January 25, 2009 - 22:17 ET by hwm98264hwm982xx
The Republicans are Lap-Dogs while the Democrats are Pit-Bulls. Unfortunately, this is a losing proposition for the conservative taxpayers. One can't win with such lop-sided power and effort that currently exits in DC . The next 4 years are going to be very bad.
Read My Lips!
January 26, 2009 - 09:27 ET by Sergeant ROCKRepublicans would be wise to listen to Rush. The democRATS are trying to get the GOP's fingerprints on this 'trillion dollar debacle' - plain and simple.
To partake of the Kool-Aid is to repeat history.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
→ Hey Rock
January 26, 2009 - 09:32 ET by Cool ArrowWe must both be watching FOX this morning.
Hemmer just brought up the same thing. Dems want to make sure when it fails, they can point to bipartisanship.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
And the way Dem's spin
January 26, 2009 - 09:37 ET by SeashellAnd the way Dem's spin things, they would somehow find a way to pin the whole thing on us!
Correct!
January 26, 2009 - 09:42 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat was it.. ? A while back, democRATS were on TV blaming Republicans for the failure to pass something when in fact, it was the failure to get enough democRATS to vote for it! Republicans didn't have the numbers even if they had all voted 'no'.
Of course, the propagandists in the MSM just perpetuate these sort of lies.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
As Cheney said
January 26, 2009 - 09:51 ET by Seashell....in an interview that they put up legislation to regulate Freddie/Fannie and the democratic controlled congress failed to pass it, yet to hear the MSM talk the entire housing fiasco is Bush's fault.
Barney vs. Bill
January 26, 2009 - 09:56 ET by Sergeant ROCKI thought it was hillarious when O'Reilly played that clip of Barney saying that there was nothing wrong - and he still denies saying it!
These people are delsuional. And with the help of the MSM, we are heading down the path of self-destruction.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
EXACTLY!
January 26, 2009 - 09:39 ET by Sergeant ROCKThis is all about politics. The democRATS don't need bi-partisanship on any of this. If they so firmly believe that they are right, why don't they move ahead? I suspect that they don't!
It would be political suicide for the GOP to sign-on to this socialist agenda.
Bolton/KEYES 2012