Comedian Jon Stewart's odd moment of clarity Tuesday was sadly short-lived, for by Thursday he was attacking Fox News for having the audacity to report the, um, news while declaring that Rush Limbaugh was "arguably treasonous" for wanting President Barack Obama to fail.
The premise of this at times humorous segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" was that since conservatives labeled media members hoping George W. Bush would fail as unpatriotic, the same standard should exist for Obama.
To make his point, Stewart aired an "O'Reilly Factor" clip from March 29, 2007 (video embedded below the fold, file photo):
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: But this hate stuff, this rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq and other areas is un-American, unbecoming, and unacceptable. Like him or not, Mr. Bush is the elected leader of this country...
Stewart then played a clip of Sean Hannity's interview with Limbaugh from last week:
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I am hearing many Republicans say that very thing - "Well, we want him to succeed." And prominent Republicans, "Yes, we wanted." They have laid down. They have totally - they're drinking the Kool-Aid, too. So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail.
Stewart responded:
Two things: One, is Rush Limbaugh molting? (Laughter) Two: Does Bill O'Reilly think Rush Limbaugh hates America? And in case you think Limbaugh's arguably treasonous talk couldn't get any grosser, enjoy.
Well, let me answer the second question in O'Reilly's absence: "No." After all, the subject of his March 29, 2007, show was America-haters like Rosie O'Donnell. Here's how it began:
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: THE O'REILLY FACTOR is on.
Tonight:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROSIE O'DONNELL, "THE VIEW": You want to know why we go into Iran? For the money!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Critical mass has now been reached with Rosie O'Donnell. She is sympathizing with Iran and continues to accuse the Bush administration of killing Americans on 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'DONNELL: It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: What will ABC do with this woman?
And, the little snippet Stewart cherry-picked followed a video clip of O'Reilly interviewing Bush:
O'REILLY: You are getting pounded day after day. Pounded, pounded, pounded. How do you process that?
BUSH: I believe in what I'm doing. If I didn't believe in what I was doing I guess the pounding would end up affecting me. But when you believe in your soul, in the very fiber of your system that taking on these extremists and radicals in the Middle East is necessary to have peace in the long run for our children, then you move on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Now every American, including media people should evaluate the president and form conclusions. That is our duty as citizens. But this hate stuff, this rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq and other areas is un-American, unbecoming and unacceptable. Like him or not President Bush is the elected leader of this country. He deserves a fair hearing. That's the "Memo."
Now for the "Top Story" tonight. One of the biggest Bush haters in the media is Rosie O'Donnell, a fanatical leftist who has been given a daily platform by the American Broadcasting Company.
Ms. O'Donnell is now actively supporting Iran against her own country and Britain.
I guess this routine wouldn't have been funny with the context.
That said, O'Reilly's point almost two years ago was that media members like O'Donnell who appeared to be rooting for America to lose in Iraq while also claiming the Bush administration was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center on 9/11 were "un-American, unbecoming and unacceptable."
By contrast, Limbaugh isn't hoping Obama fails in Iraq OR in Afghanistan OR in the war on terror. Limbaugh instead is hoping Obama doesn't succeed at advancing socialism in our nation.
For the record, as the father of two children, I feel the same way as I don't want my kids and grandkids sentenced to the low standard of living that comes under such a political structure.
As such, I hope with all my heart and all my soul that Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid fail miserably at turning America into the Soviet Union.
Regardless of what liberals in the media think, I doubt our Founding Fathers would consider my point of view unpatriotic.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ Makes sense
January 25, 2009 - 18:54 ET by Cool ArrowOf course it makes sense that the MSM should want Rod Blagojevich to succeed, also.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
ROFLMAO
January 25, 2009 - 18:59 ET by 10ksnookerAfter what was said about Bush, nothing rises to the level of treason anymore.
Isn't it amazing how things
January 25, 2009 - 20:32 ET by kgIsn't it amazing how things change when the shoe is on the other foot?
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
That is only when........
January 26, 2009 - 04:34 ET by old croyou throw the shoe at the president before changing sides.
check out and add..
January 26, 2009 - 08:15 ET by AJBCheck out my post to Jon at http://forum.thedail... and add your thoughts!!
There is a big difference
January 25, 2009 - 19:00 ET by BlazerThere is a big difference in rooting for socialism/communism to fail and not carrying water for your enemies. No surprise a Big Hollywood liberal like Stewart can't tell the difference.
"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."
Agree Blazer but
January 25, 2009 - 21:17 ET by Dee BunkEven if they were the same thing, Stewart never criticized the Bush haters so he's the hypocrite either way.
→ But it's different
January 25, 2009 - 19:10 ET by Cool ArrowIt's different when a Democrat declares our soldiers have failed in Iraq.
It's different when Obama declares a born baby is as good as dead if the mother wants it that way.(And we're expected to hope he succeeds with his infanticide dreams?)
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
and the msm replies...
January 25, 2009 - 19:16 ET by justme"As the President put it, 'I won.'"
(but, of course, Bush's win was no mandate)
Justme
January 25, 2009 - 19:36 ET by NorthCoasterObama's win was no statistical mandate either. The Obama team played the Electoral college game masterfully and won, but without a mandate.
:) Exactly
January 26, 2009 - 02:43 ET by justmehence the hypocrisy
Actually...
January 26, 2009 - 07:26 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. they STOLE the election (See also; ACORN).
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Sgt. Rock
January 26, 2009 - 21:05 ET by NorthCoasterYes the ACORN was planted and it grew into a mighty oak. Methinks we need a Fronteirsman to cut it down to size. The only Frontiersman I see at this moment is Sarah Palin. Sarah's tough but she'll need a lot of additional help.
Sarah Palin
January 26, 2009 - 21:32 ET by Sergeant ROCKUntil then, lets hope that Palin further demonstrates the skills needed to lead this country. Meaning, lets make sure we get the most qualified candidate, not the most popular. Lest we mimic the democRATS.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Sgt. Rock
January 27, 2009 - 23:53 ET by NorthCoasterYou're right about getting the best candidates. We do have some exceptional candidate material. Bolton, Keyes, Steele, Blackwell, Romney, Palin, Coulter, Malkin...........
If Stewart applis his standard to himself and all of Democats...
January 25, 2009 - 19:13 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . liberals and leftists, there is no arugment that they were treasonous during former George W. Bush's terms in office.
Per usual, the whiners that the Democrats, liberals and leftists are can dish out, but they lact the strength and testicularity to receive what they've sown.
Crybabies, all.
Jon, I agree with Rush...
January 25, 2009 - 19:32 ET by Clear thinkerJon, I agree with Rush... so kiss off!
Obama vs Rush - Rush By A Landslide
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
How Civil
January 25, 2009 - 19:33 ET by allanfWasn't it Bill Mahar who cracked that Dick Cheney's death would save lives? Where was Stewarts outrage then?
Yea Maher made that comment
January 25, 2009 - 19:41 ET by BlazerYea Maher made that comment I believe right after the failed terrorist bombing at Bagram while Cheney was there visiting. I wonder if the same thing will apply to Biden now, especially since we'll also probably be in Darfur before the end of the year.
"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."
especially since we'll also
January 25, 2009 - 22:29 ET by Dan The Man 2especially since we'll also probably be in Darfur before the end of the year
I pray not.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Come on, Jon, man up....get
January 25, 2009 - 19:46 ET by motherbeltCome on, Jon, man up....get a grip!
If hoping a President fails is treason, then the whole lot of congressional representatives and senators should be in jail, beginning with Her Speakerness and Dingy Harry.
Wanting a President to fail at instituting socialism is not treason.
I think going to Baghdad and saying that you believe the dictator there should be taken at his word before the President of the US is a little more serious, but you didn't have anything to say about that, did you?
Democrats were actively
January 25, 2009 - 23:01 ET by kgDemocrats were actively doing all they could to make sure President Bush failed and the media was right there cheering them on as well as giving them pointers. And when he was successful they said he failed anyway.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Stewart is right...sorta
January 25, 2009 - 19:40 ET by danebramageThe thing is, Noel, the left views success in Iraq as just as damaging to the country as you view socialism. Yes, they're insane, but from their inverted, Up-is-Down, Good-is-Evil point of view defeat in Iraq abroad and the triumph of socialism at home are such obviously desirable things that you're the insane one for not wanting them. In fact, you're not just insane. You're evil and unpatriotic--a hater of your fellow Americans--which is exactly how most conservatives view lefties.
So I think the equivalence Stewart is citing in his piece is accurate as a logical matter. However, substantively, he's wrong, because the conservative position is (arguments about what comprises "true conservatism" aside) consonant with Constitutional principles, while the leftist position is a fundamentally anti-American, subversive, revolutionary creed.
(Which brings up the truly remarkable thing: not so many decades ago we were hunting these people down and putting them--rightly--in jail for acts treasonous to the Constitution. Today, we're electing them President.)
More of the same...
January 25, 2009 - 19:40 ET by klchadwickNot only are liberals whining about the very things they themselves practiced, they are still whining about those of us that don't fall in line like good 'Obamatrons'. Of course, I think that the most disconcerting notion right now is that in he wake of the Obama v. Limbaugh controversy those of that are Conservatives and basically side with El Rushbo on this subject are being lectured by supposed Republicans.
We are being told that we aren't being fair by agreeing with Rush or that we are not getting in line with the program of bipartisanship. I find it absolutely ironic that WE are the one's that are being accused of unsportsman-like conduct while the newly inaugurated President is acting like a corrupt referee. Those of us that are standing up for our conservative values and have been doing so all along are now the bad guys. WE weren't the one's out there touting bipartisanship, transparency and a CHANGE in Washington. WE were the one's that were arguing that Obama was going to be more of the same. As soon as our predictions are shown to be reality ("I won"), WE are the problem.
God forbid that the liberals and campaign rhetoric be shown to have been one lie after another and true colors finally shown.
Notice no evidence?
January 25, 2009 - 19:46 ET by Richard RomanoNotice no evidence? Stewart and Co. manufacture a reality and then use it as a slur against conservatives. I don't know anyone who called Democrats unpatriotic for their opposition to President Bush; most of them were upset with their fellow Americans for the boorishness of their behaviour, but no one I know, including me, has ever said that reasonable dissent is unpatriotic.
Now, the stuff of truthers and terrorist-appeasers is anti-American, for you are saying your country is guilty of sins against itself and the world. Rosie O'Donell is a case in point.
Anyone
January 25, 2009 - 19:46 ET by NorthCoasterAnyone who does not believe in the Socialist Ideology has a responsibility to speak up as Rush, Hannity and Ann Coulter have.
All that I have seen the Socialist Beauracracy do, has been to tamp down initiative. The pay at many government jobs is great, with little incentive for change or improvement. Socialized medicine has negatively impacted the ability of providers to give the best care by reducing payment reimbursements below actual costs. I could go on but having seen this world from within, I'm hardly excited about the possibility of waiting in the que for anything provided through the government. The only government entities that I see functioning effectively, are at the lowest levels in villages, townships and smaller cities.
Article III, Section 3
January 25, 2009 - 19:54 ET by Rhymes With RightThe constitutional definition of treason is as follows:
<blockquote>Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.</blockquote>
Could someone direct me to the place where Limbaugh's comments crossed this bright line? On the other hand, we know that the words and deeds of much of the anti-war Left did on a regular basis, especially as regards adhering to the enemies of the US and giving them aid and comfort.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
NYT
January 26, 2009 - 09:06 ET by SeashellOn the other hand, we know that the words and deeds of much of the
anti-war Left did on a regular basis, especially as regards adhering to
the enemies of the US and giving them aid and comfort.
I think the NYT is the most treasonous of all after they outed our surveillance program. Talk about giving "aid to the enemy."
Ha Ha Ha Stewart is funny.
January 25, 2009 - 20:02 ET by JWFIt's funny cuz it's true. No, wait...
It wasn't Bush's war. It was OUR war. This war was approved by the 535 members of Congress in Oct 2002. Those were not Republicans fighting and dying in Iraq. They were 18, 19, 20 something men and women. Wanting the administration to fail in Iraq was TREASONOUS.
We still don't know what President Obama wants to do in Iraq. He is too busy appeasing Islamic terrorists by stopping torture except in approved cases, shutting down Gitmo in a year, possibly, halting the trials of cowards that took joy in targeting unarmed civilians and ignoring Medal of Honor heroes. But if we were to believe his talk on the campaign trail, he wants to cut & run as soon as possible.
I hope he fails too. Oh look, now I am a traitor Jonny.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Nice deconstruction, Noel,
January 25, 2009 - 20:09 ET by lotrNice deconstruction, Noel, of yet another comedian who ironically takes himself way too seriously, Jon-boy Stewart.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Seems to me Stewart ought
January 25, 2009 - 20:19 ET by ConservativeRexSeems to me Stewart ought to be the last one to bring up treason.
Honestly, liberals think they have no hypocrisy, or sense of irony.
I am not done Jonny.
January 25, 2009 - 20:26 ET by JWFYes. Sometimes you DO have to compromise your values.
I don't believe torture is right. But when it comes to cowards that specifically target unarmed women and children. I...where is that friggin power drill?
7: something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable <sought material values instead of human values
See Jonny? I DESIRE not to torture but Jonny has done pushed me into wanting to torture in this case, A COMPROMISE.
Ok, now, let's all laugh at O'Reilly. Ha Ha Ha. NOT!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Wrong Headline
January 25, 2009 - 20:36 ET by Red JeepDemocrats Arguably Treasonous Wanting Bush To Fail
There, fixed it.
So, Rush speaks out against
January 25, 2009 - 20:39 ET by R D HelmSo, Rush speaks out against PrezBo's stated goal of turning this into a freedom-less Marxist country, and this grossly overpaid waste of oxygen calls him a traitor for it.
Here's hoping Rush spends the second hour of his show tearing this mindless wonder a new bodily orifice.
LOL-We all know what he will be covering the first hour of his show tomorrow.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
"LOL-We all know what he
January 25, 2009 - 20:48 ET by Blazer"LOL-We all know what he will be covering the first hour of his show tomorrow."
I'll bet Rush is licking his chop's as we speak. These idiot's never learn. Never call the Maha Rushdie out by name.
"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."
Dave and Blazer
January 25, 2009 - 20:53 ET by Noel SheppardDave and Blazer,
Rush doesn't address folks like Stewart, Colbert, and Olbermann. He told me that Wednesday after I sent him my piece about Stewart claiming Obama sounded like Bush. ns
That's good stuff. They
January 25, 2009 - 21:08 ET by GregEThat's good stuff. They don't need to be addressed. They probably would like that anyway so he simply doesn't play the game. If he did, he'd use up alot of valuable time on his show that's used in much better ways.
O'Reilly does it to a degree. For instance, Olbermann is infatuated with him, but O'Reilly never mentions Olbermann. He'll mention NBC as a whole.
Noel,
January 25, 2009 - 21:09 ET by R D HelmI can see why he doesn't, as it would be affording them a certain credibility they don't deserve.
Besides, I am pretty sure we know what he thinks about those clowns, anyway. :-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Hey eveing Dave....I'm
January 25, 2009 - 21:30 ET by bigtimerHey evening Dave....
I'm only answering for myself...but Rush has never lowered himself to the likes of these left-wing loons....half-arsed clowns...seeking/craving attention all the time....he sees right through them and the games they play.
Oh yes...the games people play now....every night, every day now....
LMAO!
I, for one, am glad he doesn't.
They don't deserve their names even mentioned from the lovable fuzz-balls lips to 20 million listeners...not one name ...heheheee
No matter what...tomorrow will be precious.
Good for Rush. I hope he
January 25, 2009 - 21:24 ET by RMRGood for Rush. I hope he extend the same courtesy to that clown at the Miami Herald.
Blazer, I bet Rush's show is headed for record ratings
January 25, 2009 - 21:01 ET by R D HelmWhich means he will be able to charge advertising rates even more confiscatory than they already are. :-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Right on RD. I mentioned
January 25, 2009 - 21:18 ET by BlazerRight on RD. I mentioned yesterday that when one of these idiot's call Rush out by name and it makes national press, all it does is drive new listenership and advertising his way. They play right into his hands everytime.
"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."
RD, and if that is true........
January 26, 2009 - 04:46 ET by old crolook for the cost of anything he endorses to rise, because they, like every other good capitalist, will pass the cost on to the consumer. As it should be.
If they had refrained from
January 25, 2009 - 21:09 ET by RR GOPIf they had refrained from attacking President Bush so personally, viciously and constantly, I for one would be more respectful towards President Obamao.
But, this super-intellectual, all-knowing lot of scumbags showed us how to treat a president from the other party, so who are we to ignore the last 8 years of that education by the MSM?
No elected official is above ridicule, criticism or the voice of opposition. It is they who have set the precedent as to the depth that is acceptable.
BTW, why even publicize what Rush says? They must be getting rattled.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
How True
January 26, 2009 - 11:04 ET by Arelyou know they are getting rattled when Obama feels the need to tell Republicans to stop listening to Rush. What a joke!
10 minutes with Jon Stewart
January 25, 2009 - 21:11 ET by jefflebowskiI'm sure that I could talk some sense into him. I'm positive of it. And he needs a lot of sense.
Liberals believe that they can say or do whatever they want...no matter if true or not. These "tolerant" beings do not afford the same luxury to conservatives. 10 minutes Johnny!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Oh Rush is going to have so
January 25, 2009 - 21:20 ET by bigtimerOh Rush is going to have so much fun tomorrow!
Funny...they're showing his interview with Sean again at this very moment on Fox...
Talk about delicious...
This just keeps getting better and better.
The truth hurts...and the left can't handle it.
None of them.
More selective
January 25, 2009 - 21:23 ET by thomaspMore selective outrage from the left.
T
That liberal voters get
January 25, 2009 - 21:34 ET by rbosqueThat liberal voters get their news from a "comedy" network is why we have a baby-killer and Marxist in the White House. Very very sad.
Obama--
January 25, 2009 - 21:43 ET by misterbillTheday he was elected--I was quite depressed. The next day, I was fine. I decided--well, he is the prez--I hope he succeeds and helps America to get back on track. He and the Democrat congress have done absolutely nothing to reinforce my hope. Indeed, in the short span of three days they, (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and a host of others, drat, I must include Luis Gutierrez) , have scared the tar out of me. Today I read Dick Morris' column. His statements confirmed my worst fears. I now, deeply, pray that Obama is the empty suit I have always thought he was, and fails. Why??? Well if you read Morris' column, there is almost no road back to a republic if Obama succeeds.
There is no doubt in my mind, now, that Obama's beliefs mirror his late mother's. He will lead us to socialism and, if possible, to Marxism.
God save the United States of America.
I hope that those who have actively worked to support him and got him elected, without proof that he is eligible, are the first to suffer from his efforts.
This is going to be fun ...
January 25, 2009 - 21:57 ET by pmohbuckafter 8 years ... the hens are coming home to roost ...
if rush limbaugh is being labeled as "treasonous" ... what does the media have to say about the YEARS of statements that democrat SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN made wishing and encouraging nothing but failure and ill will towards george bush ... not to mention the ridiculous comaparisons to hitler, stalin and pol pot.
too bad ... obama is going to catch hell when he deserves to ... the liberal pundits need to shut up and deal with like the rest of us did for 8 years. hilarious
What a hypocritical...
January 25, 2009 - 21:55 ET by PrairieSkyjackass John Stewart is! Many on the left have been hoping that America would lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just so it would hurt Pres. Bush and the Republicans, and Stewart has the gaul to get upset with Rush for what he said about not wanting Obama's agenda to succeed? It's apples and oranges, folks!
Rush was referring to not wanting Obama's dangerous and extreme liberal agenda to succeed...He did not mean that he wants Obama to fail as president. That is a completely different thing from what the liberals were hoping and praying for with Iraq and Afghanistan...That was all about hurting President Bush and the Republicans. Period. How can any reasonable person actually want us to lose a war, just for spite?
I guess maybe a point as nuanced as that is just beyond Stewart's intellectual capacity.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Re: Distributionist In Chief
January 25, 2009 - 21:56 ET by imissamericaSaying that Obama, Nancy, Harry and the rest of the "dastardly Dems" are attempting to turn America into the Soviet Union is almost dumber than pre-empting two wars (yet failing to capture bin Laden) and bankrupting the economy, combined. Almost...
http://democralypsen...
JStewart.....
January 25, 2009 - 21:59 ET by sbourgUnfortunately John Stewart's mind as a critical analyst of what's going on in this country, is not working very well. The logic rarely adds up. He's partaken of the Obama 'kool-aid", and has NO concept of the damage Obama will do to our economy for generations, if his socialist policies go forward (as they most certainly will with Pelosi & Reid's help). We need the opposite of just about everything Obama's proposed. We're in big trouble, and JStewart is laughing his way to the bank, on the backs of his fans who are equally clueless.
I too must be 'Arguably
January 25, 2009 - 22:03 ET by Clear thinkerI too must be 'Arguably Treasonous' because I agree with Rush. I'm hoping for a failed presidency by Comrade Obama. His failure will be the best thing that ever happened to the USA.
Obama vs Rush - Rush By A Landslide
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Liberals owe me an apology
January 25, 2009 - 22:15 ET by moderncommentaries83Obama hasn't even been President for a month and, already, any conservative who doesn't fall down in adoration at "The One" is being accused of treason.
I told everyone that this thing would happen. After 8 years of them calling Bush "Chimpy McHitler", Bush assasination chic, and displaying levels of unmitigated hatred higher than Mt. Everest...that wasn't treasonous.
That was "patriotic." And every liberal said that we'd never be accused of treason or otherwise have our First Amendment rights violated by the Obama administration. They're liars. And they owe me an apology.
And now we're supposed to shut up, sit down, and let Obama do whatever he wants because now we need to be "unified."
Bull.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
mc83... I will take it
January 25, 2009 - 22:27 ET by Clear thinkermc83...
I will take it one step further only to show mad I am...
"Bull Shit"!
Obama vs Rush - Rush By A Landslide
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Is this for real?
January 25, 2009 - 22:19 ET by awffp1890With all the hate and venomous garbage that has poured out of the mouths of the liberals over that last 8 years, Stewart calls Rush's comments "arguably treasonous"? The left is just nuts, and this proves it. They don't have Bush to knock around anymore, so they will shoot at anything that moves. Amazing. I can only see them getting together and wondering what to do now that W is no longer in office. For the Hollywood crowd, I have one suggestion; "Shut your mouths and act. I don't give a rat's ass about your opinions."
"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning
Noel [or anyone else]...
January 25, 2009 - 22:31 ET by JerFirst, let me get one thing out of the way:
--Rosie O'Donnell is a political ignoramus, as are each and every one of the pathetically deluded 9/11 "truthers";
Having disposed of that, following are some additional points and questions:
--I rarely watch Stewart [don't particulary care for him], but I did happen to see this particular segment, and, with regard to the "arguably treasonous" phrase, I believe Stewart was simply trying--based on his concept of "humorous" irony--to deal the patriot card back against the O'Reilly/Limbaugh wing of the Republican party. It's a card frequently dealt against Democrats and the left--check out the constant comments on NB threads to that effect if you doubt it--but very rarely played by the Democrats [not that the latter don't have their own deck of unfair and unfortunate cards]. As such, I think you have little to fear from either the Founding Fathers or the liberal media regarding your--and your conservative bretheren's--love of country.
--O'Reilly's scolding lecture, in this instance, may have been triggered by the aforementioned O'Donnell, but, the subject has been raised by him numerous times, prompting similar finger-wagging charges conflating Bush-criticism with America-hating on the part of "left-wing loons". [By the way, what did you think of that 'rigorous grilling' of Bush by BOR? "You are getting pounded, pounded, pounded..." I saw all segments of the interview, and was surprised O'Reilly didn't call for a group hug for the President at its conclusion. Later, of course, he was bragging about how "tough" he had been on Bush. Gag.]
--Do you believe there should be any co-operation by the Republicans with Obama in formulating economic policy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if Limbaugh is counseling [demanding?] otherwise. What are your thoughts about the competence and philosophy of the economic team Obama has assembled or nominated for confirmation. Do you believe they are socialists?
--My recollection is that in 1993, there was not a single Republican--at least in the Senate--who voted in favor of Clinton's Deficit Reduction legislation. Gingrich on Crossfire guaranteed a recession within a year. The economic wizard Limbaugh bet a million dollars unemployment, interest rates, and the deficit would all increase. [I'm not completely sure those were the measures, but there were three key economic indicators which he referenced .] In any event, both Rush and Gingrich were comprehensively and ignominiously wrong.
--I'm neither a socialist nor an advocate of pork-laden bills. But, I tend to view this presently reeling economy--with the credit and lending mess seriously threatening the viability of the entire housing and banking industries, and with the real potential for an ever-deepening and far-reaching calamity--as something akin to a financial 9/11. At that time, Democrats immediately rallied behind the President, set aside partisan differences and worked together to enact responsive legislation. I believe the Republicans should do likewise now. And I believe Limbaugh is deliberately and regrettably hampering that prospect.
Jer
"Do you believe they are
January 25, 2009 - 22:34 ET by Clear thinker"Do you believe they are socialists?"
Yes, and a few Marxists.
The Lords Prayer
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Clear... Your opinion is
January 25, 2009 - 22:43 ET by JerClear...
Your opinion is duly noted. It will be interesting to see if Noel, if he responds, agrees with it.
Jer
"Democrats immediately
January 25, 2009 - 23:21 ET by ckc1227"Democrats immediately rallied behind the President, set aside partisan
differences and worked together to enact responsive legislation."
Yeah, and that lasted for, what, a week? Still, just because they came together then to do what was right doesn't mean they should come together now to do what's wrong.
"And I believe Limbaugh is deliberately and regrettably hampering that prospect."
He is deliberately hampering that prospect, and rightly so. Rush, unlike you, doesn't believe that more legislation is the solution to every freakin' problem that arises. People like you, Obama, Pelosi, etc, believe the rest of us couldn't figure out how to wipe our own asses without the guiding hand of government getting involved. How much bigger does government have to get before you finally figure out that more government isn't the solution?
If Republicans go along just to get along, and meet the Dems half way in screwing this country, they are just as guilty.
Wrong question, ckc
January 25, 2009 - 23:34 ET by Jer"How much bigger does government have to get before you finally figure out that more government isn't the solution?"
Wrong question, ckc. I don't believe that more government is the answer to every problem, but I do believe IN THIS CASE responsible government legislation is the BEST answer, perhaps even the only answer. And I think you'll find that most of the economic experts [and Rush Limbaugh does NOT qualify as an expert] across the political spectrum agree with that assessment.
Jer
Bzzzzzzt. Ill informed opinion stemming from flawed analysis.
January 25, 2009 - 23:49 ET by JWFThe current problem is a lack of confidence. Banks are afraid to lend. So unless you need money now, not that big of a crisis.
Unemployment is what, 7%? Certainly not at levels that would or should scare us into saying government is the ONLY answer.
No, there are many people saying - DO NOTHING UNCLE SAM. Any money you borrow today has to be paid back. Paid back by taking money out of the public sector, exacerbating the problem.
Oh and by the way, liberal media agree with you Johnny. Government is the answer. FDR would be proud. Uncle Ronnie, not so much.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF... Do you have any idea
January 26, 2009 - 00:03 ET by JerJWF...
Do you have any idea how many small businesses are dependent upon credit and revolving financing to survive?
Check the consensus of reputable, qualified economists of both parties and then get back to me--that is, if you will can the "Johnny" or "Johnny Bias" baloney. If you find it impossible to restrain yourself, then I'll simply ignore you.
Jer
Oh crud, I was having fun too.
January 26, 2009 - 00:21 ET by JWFI won't say a certain J.B phrase but you are parroting liberal media talking points.
Yes, I did say that unless you need money now, not that much of a crisis. That includes many small businesses.
Looks like I have homework again. I have to Check the consensus of reputable, qualified economists of both parties and then get back to Jer.
Sorry guys, no more posts tonight. Got homework to do. Been given an assignment by teach.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Finished my homework.
January 26, 2009 - 00:31 ET by JWFChecked with all the reputable and qualified economists of both parties.
They are all unanimous. Jer doesn't know poo from pine oil.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Mmmmph. Rrrmmmphhh. Rggrffffflllmmmmphhnn.
January 26, 2009 - 01:04 ET by JWFI can't hold it in any longer! I'm gonna burst!
Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias. Johnny Bias.
Dad blast it. Now he will never talk to me.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Most Economists Agree with Socialism? Not
January 26, 2009 - 07:56 ET by PopularTechThe reason you believe government legislation is the answer, is because you don't understand economics. As for most economists agreeing, that is ridiculous:
10 Reasons to Oppose a Stimulus Package for the States (PDF) (Chris Edwards, M.A. Economics)
Can Fiscal Stimulus Revive the US Economy? (Frank Shostak, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Does "Depression Economics" Change the Rules? (Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)
Econ 101: That Old-Time Keynesian Theory (Gary Wolfram, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
'Economy like an airplane. It needs to refuel' (Craig R. Smith, CEO of Swiss America Trading Corporation)
Government Spending Is No Free Lunch (Robert J. Barro, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Government Spending Makes Recessions Worse (Dominick T. Armentano, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Government Stimulus Means Growing Federal Debt Burdens to Come (Richard M. Ebeling, Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Learning from Japan: Infrastructure Spending Won't Boost the Economy (Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. Economics)
Paving Projects Won’t Boost Economy (William F. Shughart II, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Stimulus Plans Don't Work (Alan Schram, Managing Partner of Wellcap Partners)
The Economic "Stimulus" (Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The Latest Reported Bankruptcy: Mainstream Economics (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The Obama Stimulus Plan Won't Work (Dominick T. Armentano, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The World Won't Buy Unlimited U.S. Debt (Peter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capital)
There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession (Peter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capital)
We Can't Spend Our Way out of This Quagmire (Lawrence H. White, Ph.D. Professor of Economic History)
What Do the New Deal and World War II Tell Us About the Prospects for a Stimulus Package? (Price V. Fishback, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
What Is Economic Stimulus? (Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
"There are three ways government can get the money for a stimulus package. It can tax, borrow or inflate the currency by printing money. Congress ought to focus on measures that create greater long-term productive incentives such as reducing corporate taxes, estate taxes and personal income taxes as well as economic deregulation."
- Walter E. Williams, Ph.D. Professor of Economics
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Darn...Just learned I don't understand economics...
January 26, 2009 - 20:56 ET by Jer"The reason you believe government legislation is the answer, is because you don't understand economics."
Gosh, I had always wondered about the basis for my belief. Thanks for finally solving the riddle. Who would have thought the answer was so simple. Tell me, do you level the same accusation at those who hold doctoral degrees in economics or related fields of study and have been immersing themselves in the subject their entire lives--and yet recommend the same approach? [In any event, let me re-emphasize that I believe government intervention is the most appropriate approach in this case, not every case.]
Admittedly, Pop, I have not done a head count, and far be it from me to engage in a battle of dueling link dumps with the resident master--so my assertion may have been premature. However, it was based on my hearing the same from commentators of the left, right, and center--so I was simply following their lead. Maybe, I was being too presumptuous.
Jer
Following the lead of Commentators?
January 27, 2009 - 09:08 ET by PopularTechI am so happy you base your facts on what you hear from commentators instead of looking them up.
"Tell me, do you level the same accusation at those who hold doctoral degrees in economics or related fields of study and have been immersing themselves in the subject their entire lives--and yet recommend the same approach?"
You mean the ones that have been absolutely wrong about the housing bubble, the financial crisis and everything else so far? Yes of course. There are many economists who have never been taught classical or austrian economics.
I am glad you take your advice from people who have been wrong, it shows you have really thought the issue through.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Hey Jer
January 25, 2009 - 23:29 ET by Cool ArrowWhat's shakin'?
Do you believe there should be any co-operation by the Republicans with Obama in formulating economic policy?
Sure. I've seen a whole bunch of that bipartisanship from the President. What were those conciliatory words he spoke? "I WON!"
Yeah, they'll be singing 60s campfire songs after that, won't they?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Whole lot of shakin' going on, Cool...
January 25, 2009 - 23:48 ET by Jer"I've seen a whole bunch of that bipartisanship from the President."
I'm going to take a wild stab and guess you're being sarcastic there. Accordingly, I'll remind you of the address to the nation's governors where Obama specifically solicited input from the Republican governors in attendance; the bi-partisan dinners which he has held; White House conferences with GOP congressmen; his scheduled meeting with the Republican leadership on their turf one day this week; his signing on to certain tax cuts sought by Republicans that were opposed by many Dems--just to cite a few examples.
Jer
→ Jus' great Jer
January 25, 2009 - 23:57 ET by Cool ArrowHis meeting with the Governors was what it always is, regardless of the President attending.
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
How many of the States represented do you think aren't doing just that? How many Governors are saying "My people are already overtaxed!"
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Johnny carries the liberal media bucket.
January 25, 2009 - 23:59 ET by JWFI talk to you a lot Johnny Bias. You get LOTS of my input. What tiny little thing has changed in your liberal mind?
Ok, there ya go. It is all show now ain't it. Cuz he ain't gonna implement a single REPUBLICAN ideal.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Jer
January 25, 2009 - 23:55 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Don't have time to reply to all of this. Quickly, though, understand that Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 wasn't completely supported by Democrats either. In fact, it took a tie-breaking vote by Gore to get it through the Senate as six Dems voted against it. Squeaked by in the House with 44 Dems voting against it.
Hard to blame Republicans for not supporting that which so many Democrats didn't, dontcha think?
I further suggest that the lack of support by House Dems in particular was a factor in House Republicans beginning to come together and led to the Gingrich Contract With America revolution. JMHO. ns
Noel...
January 26, 2009 - 00:15 ET by JerNoel...
Interesting theory. I also recall reading exit polling samplings after the '94 mid-term elections when the Republicans gained control of Congress that indicated a considerable per centage of the voters--and especially those who listened to talk radio--erroneously believed the country was then in a recession, inflation was rising, unemployment had increased, etc.
But, I really would appreciate your taking just a moment and give your very brief assessment of Obama's proposed economic team. It appears that a significant number of posters here honestly believe they are a bunch of Marxist/socialists. Do you agree?
Jer
Jer
January 26, 2009 - 00:22 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Well, if folks believed we were in a recession in 1994, maybe it's because Bill Clinton and the media continued to report us being in a recession in 1992 despite the recovery beginning in the 2nd quarter of 1991. Maybe Clinton got what he deserved.
As for the leanings of Obama's economic team, I don't think Geithner and Summers are socialists. However, adviser Reich is. But, I don't think that matters. Obama is a socialist, and he's president. ns
Thanks for the response, Noel.
January 26, 2009 - 00:49 ET by JerThanks for the response, Noel. I'll just belabor the point a tiny bit more. Doesn't it seem odd that a socialist President who intends to impose a socialistic economic framework on this country would choose palpably NON-socialists to fill the administration's principal economic positions?
Jer
Geithner and Summers are Socialists
January 26, 2009 - 08:01 ET by PopularTechThey both support the Stimulus and yes Bush and Paulson are both fiscal socialists. Nothing is odd when you understand economics.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
So, Pop...
January 26, 2009 - 20:19 ET by JerThen neither Noel nor I understand economics. I feel like I'm in pretty good company.
Jer
No comment
January 27, 2009 - 09:11 ET by PopularTechBut I would say Noel is being nice and it is against his nature to criticize Bush much at all.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Jer
January 26, 2009 - 09:51 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Not really, because cabinet picks can be political in nature. Geithner and Summers were both viewed by Wall Street and Republicans as good choices by a Democrat. The whole purpose behind these picks might have been to garner support from the Street and the GOP.
Obama, with the exception of his slip-up with Joe the Plumber, did a fabulous job of hiding his socialistic beliefs from the public. And, of course, the media assisted his subterfuge. BUT, he is indeed a socialist, and will try to move America in this direction. It is my job as a conservative to stop him!
Please understand that this is NOT Bill Clinton. Clinton was a free trader, and appointed a former Goldman Sachser as Treasury Secretary. By contrast, neither Summers nor Geithner has ever worked in the private sector. These are government and academia employees. BIG DIFFERENCE. ns
Understood, Noel... And
January 27, 2009 - 02:43 ET by JerUnderstood, Noel...
And your assessment of Obama may turn out to be right on target. But, I heard the very same claim about Clinton before and after he was first elected--and, I could be mistaken, but I believe Rush was one of the prime purveyors of the charge. If indeed he was, I hope he--and you--are as wrong about Obama now as Rush was about Clinton then.
Jer
Rush was not wrong about Clinton he was a Socialist
January 27, 2009 - 09:17 ET by PopularTechClinton became a socialist when the times got tough and he bailed out Mexico.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Jer
January 26, 2009 - 00:26 ET by Cool ArrowAnd crooks. Unless you don't count Ways & Means tax cheaters, and Treasury tax cheaters.
Is that a Chiquita banana in your pocket or have you been running guns to terrorists with Eric Holder?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Cool... LMAO! Loved how
January 26, 2009 - 00:59 ET by bigtimerCool...
LMAO!
Loved how you Rangeled that all in there.
Jonny had some of that in his bit.
January 26, 2009 - 01:00 ET by JWFI saw Hannity's show that included that story. It was all new to me. I was in Guam or Japan at the time. Did not hear about it.
Nice. What is it with Dems and letting murderers of our soldiers and embassy personel get off scot free?
And what is it with the liberal media not seeming to mind?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Exit polls
January 26, 2009 - 12:48 ET by UpNorthoh really? Cite one, other than from the WaPo, NYT, ABC, CBS or NBC. I doubt you can, and exit polls are basically worthless to thinking people. People can say anything, and do, just to throw the pollsters off.
I'm not Noel, but as to the 0's team, at least one is a crook, and yes, most of the rest are socialists.
Jer . Are you claiming ...........
January 26, 2009 - 05:13 ET by old crodemocrat opposition to young servicemen overseas protecting this countries "God given" freedoms is a card dealt out of the deck of issues that Republicans use is "unfair and unfortunate"?
How so?
Of course you will spin words to make yourself a "shining light" but I'm not buying it.
Why should Republicans support Gay Socialist Economics?
January 26, 2009 - 08:18 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.
The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The problem with economic illiterates is they confuse reducing deficits by reducing the size of government with reducing deficits by increasing taxes. Only the former can help the economym, the later can only hurt.
You still don't understand what causes recessions and depressions (hint it is stimulus policies like this)
There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession (Peter Schiff, The Wall Street Journal)
Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Republicans should oppose all Socialist stimulus packages that increase the size of government, increase spending, increase regulation or increase taxes. The only solution is to drastically reduce spending, taxes and regulations.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
too late I fear
January 26, 2009 - 08:38 ET by AJBUnder the banner of reducing taxes for the middle class, we now read that Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader will not wait for the Bush tax reductions to expire. Oh, nay nay! He will have them expired early causing a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE on the middle class.
Its only starting folks. Hold on for the ride of your lives...
Obama supports a Homosexual Economist who disliked Jews
January 26, 2009 - 09:51 ET by PopularTechCan This Gay Sex Maniac Fix the Economy? (Gawker)
Some Problems With Keynes (NPR)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Keynes would love it
January 26, 2009 - 10:04 ET by Cool ArrowFor some economists, a massive injection of liquidity is always the answer.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
LMAO
January 26, 2009 - 10:42 ET by PopularTechCarbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The trick is...
January 25, 2009 - 22:41 ET by mawendt... to point out the Obama's administrations corruption and ethical failures each and every day. Don't exaggerate, or extrapolate... just lay out accurate truth.
The selections of Sec State, Treasury, and the like - each one has ethical failures, some would say potentially criminal. Address them. Call your congressmen.
No president should ever get a pass, but it's certainly going to be difficult with a liberal media - however, we're seeing the Obama decisionss even offending his former bedmates, with transpearncy a,d lobbyist issues.
Let it fail by itself, and mock for the next four years. Who knows - it may possibly get so bad, conservatives may even finally get some influence.
The truly funny thing is the length Stewart has gone to ignore a chance to mock real news at the expense of mocking non-news.
Isn't Hypocrisy a marvelous thing.
January 25, 2009 - 22:47 ET by pbthinkerRush Limbaugh has an amazing ability to bring out the hypocrisy in the liberals and then sit back and enjoy it. The Democratic Party, and their media wing, did everything in their power to diminish George Bush's presidency. They gloated as they helped drive his poll numbers down, down, down. They overlooked the fact that the words they were using to bring down President Bush's poll numbers were being repeated by al Qaeda and their supporters to prove we were wrong and they were right. The Democrats and their media wing know they didn't treat Bush fairly and expect the same from Conservatives.
All of this has the signature of another of those fair minded Democrats, Rahm Emanual. He would probably like nothing better than to have a fairness doctrine, in place, to squelch all criticism of HIS president. President Obama is putting on a show of bipartisanship yet the bill is pushing is loaded with pork, and he knows it. I'm getting the feeling he agrees with the pork but needs to show the Republicans approved of it and he doesn't want Limbaugh putting the Republicans on the spot and screwing up the plan.
It's time for President Obama to figure out a way to be president for all the people.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
Insane?
January 25, 2009 - 22:52 ET by nadadhimmiThe hysterical John Stewart sees no problem, or treason with Jhonny Taliban, John Walker Lind, killing American soldiers as he fought for the Taliban, But, Limbaugh is a traitor. These Hollywood assholes are dangerous, and not only stupid, infantile, or biased. Come on, this guy Stewart wants Obamas [expletive deleted by management] in his mouth so bad he can already taste it.
First, very classy post.
January 25, 2009 - 23:01 ET by balboaFirst, very classy post.
Second, did Stewart EVER say he had no problem John Walker Lind?
won't say this often...
January 26, 2009 - 00:15 ET by i was just thinking... but I have to agree with you, bal, on this one. This kind of crude garbage has no place on this site. I hope that the post will be deleted.
The Banal Show
January 25, 2009 - 23:42 ET by tomchrisStewart can string together all the clips and sound bites he wants. The reality is that it is going to be a long, tortuous four years for the Daily Show without the Bush administration to mock. Remember, this is a show who's stock in trade is "speaking truth to power." Well how is Stewart going to speak to idiological soulmates like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., now the most powerful pols on the planet. My guess is that his Emmy award-winning writers are now pounding down Jack Daniels with the prospect of having to (Gulp!) make fun of America's Anointed One and will keep barking "Bush!" "Limbaugh" and "Fox News!" till the last latte-sipping lib laughs.
The Daily Show is so 'last
January 25, 2009 - 23:26 ET by TN MomThe Daily Show is so 'last year's bird nest'. Same old. Same OLD.
Well I've been saying this
January 26, 2009 - 00:53 ET by Dave DWell I've been saying this for a bit now. The problem is that it's literally true. His audience is young(half is under 36) but Jon no longer is. His show is pushed as being hip and edgey but come on, when you're 45+ you're not cool or hip anymore.(Credits to KitH for that one.) Admittedly his got his one last big show, when Barry comes on in the first hundred days. (That will probably be his highest rated show ever. Ok, maybe he'll hold off and only come on some time in the first year of his term but you can bank that he'll be on the show.) However once past that the last thing his audience is going to want to do is listen to some ageing hippy who's old enough to be their dad while he tries to be cool. (And worse when he tries to make fun of a guy that neither Jon wants to make fun of or his audience wants fun made of.)
I agree on the Daily Show analysis
January 26, 2009 - 07:12 ET by thebutlerdiditMy kids are 19 and 20. The oldest wouldn't watch this stuff even if she had time. My son, and his friends, watch a lot of Comedy Central. They will watch some of Colbert, they think he is somewhat funny, however, Stewart is not doing it for them. My son said the other day, "That dude needs to let his hatred of Bush and that Governor chick,(that would be Palin), go. He is like rabid." I then explained BDS to him and he was diagnosing quite a few people with it, and I heard him telling his friends. It was funny.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
an interesting tidbit re Stewart/CNN
January 26, 2009 - 00:12 ET by i was just thinkingDid you know that CNN includes Stewart's show ("The Daily Show International Edition) on its international broadcast line-up? I have seen it regularly on CNN when I lived in Saudi and now in Lebanon.
That's one of the faces that we present to the international community.
But remember... there's no liberal bias in the MSM.
Wow iwjt... Now doesn't
January 26, 2009 - 00:19 ET by bigtimerWow iwjt...
Now doesn't this just figure when you think about it...Miracle they don't have Maher included too.
Stay safe wherever you are.
forgot to mention
January 26, 2009 - 00:26 ET by i was just thinkingThey also include The Colbert Report.
Thank you for your kind comment, bigtimer. I'm in Beirut. Calm now, and always praying that it stays that way!
Since Rush was mentioned in this post......
January 26, 2009 - 05:19 ET by old croDitto what bigtimer said.
[sarcasm on] But that can't
January 26, 2009 - 00:47 ET by Dave D[sarcasm on]
But that can't be true. Jon is just a simple Comedian. There's no serious point in his show, it's just comedy. Oh why do so many think this is a serious show, why won't they leave Jon alone
[sarcasm off]
So quick question did he say this with his clown nose on or off?
1994 On The Horizon
January 26, 2009 - 00:15 ET by rammingspeedPeople aren't aware of Obama's extreme leftism and his plans to create a pax-USSR. He kept it to himself during the campaign and the MSM covered for him. Anyone pointing out the truth at that time was brushed off as a rabid right winger.
People need the experience, or at least the certain threat, of having things being arbitrarily and illegally taken from them before they react. Confiscatory tax policies and giving privileges to those who haven't earned them will be furiously fought. Whacko social policies that are tantamount to violating the First Amendment, which are in Obama's plan, will also be furiously fought.
The Republican Party was a whipped puppy in '92 when Bush the Elder was tossed out and congress was still owned by the Democrats. Once people caught on, they threw the bums out in the 1994 election. They always throw the bums out. Always have, always will.
→ Big diff ramspeed
January 26, 2009 - 00:21 ET by Cool ArrowBush 41 wasn't exactly a loser.
Ross Perot just happened along to make sure Clinton won.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
CA
January 26, 2009 - 00:27 ET by Noel SheppardCA,
Indeed, but let's not discount Perot's impact on the '94 elections, for I suggest strongly that Perotistas liked the fiscal restraint proposed in the Contract with America. That 19.2 percent he got in '92 might have been a huge part of the Republican takeover two years later. ns
→ So True
January 26, 2009 - 00:33 ET by Cool ArrowI'm not sayin' Perot wasn't a great patriot. He certainly is that, and if he wasn't so matter-of-fact, down-to-earth, he wouldn't have gotten so much support.
It was just an observation that Clinton didn't have anybody siphoning off his votes like Bush did.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Yes and no, Cool...
January 26, 2009 - 01:15 ET by JerPerot also siphoned off votes from Clinton, but probably not as many as he did from Bush.
Also, I know the Nader supporters deny it, but does anyone seriously believe that Gore wouldn't have easily won if Nader hadn't been in the race.
Jer
I don't think those who
January 26, 2009 - 10:11 ET by fitzfongI don't think those who voted for Nader were automatically disposed to vote for Gore if Nader wasn't there. Some may have voted for Gore, but many others would have stayed away, written in Nader or found some other fringe leftist on the ballot to vote for. And since Gore couldn't even carry his own state, I seriously doubt Gore would have easily won with or without Nader. Though I suppose your question might have been whether or not Gore would have easily won Florida as opposed to the General Election...that might change my answer slightly...though I think the narrow focus on Florida in 2000 obscured other issues related to that particular election. For instance, allegations of serious voter fraud in California (relating to illegal alien voters) were set aside in favor of the Florida recount. Gore would still have won California, but it was alleged at the time that a significant number of irregular votes were counted in Gore's favor in California...enough to swing the national Popular Vote margin to Gore...and the Popular Vote was heavily used as justification during and after the recount in Florida as evidence that Gore was "the real winner".
"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
fitz... After performing
January 27, 2009 - 03:45 ET by Jerfitz...
After performing a somewhat quick analysis of the state by state tallies in 2000, I think I may need to amend or qualify my argument, although not necessarily my conclusion.
Frankly, I was surprised at just how many states Gore carried by razor-thin margins, and other contests--wherein if every vote of Nader had gone to Gore--the outcome in the state in question would not have inured to Gore's benefit. Consequently, in both of those instances, Nader was irrelevant to the analysis.
So, I must--as you suggest--hang my hat on Florida. But that particular hat I'll continue to hang on to for dear life. There, Nader received nearly a hundred thousand votes, and even if a significant number of his eventual supporters had stayed home had he not been a candidate, I believe there would have been a sufficient number still opting to vote to carry the state, and thus the election, for Gore. By the way, the only other state which might have come into play in a similar scenario--again based on my brief perusal--would have been New Hampshire, where there was only a 7000 differential in favor of Bush while Nader received approximately 22,000 votes.
Tennessee, as I noted below to UpNorth, didn't surprise me. It has become reliably conservative. And, as I also pointed out, despite the "sitting-out" argument advanced by the Greens themselves, I just don't find it credible--not with a green-tinted candidate like Gore in the race. [Personally, I think the Greens have been desperately trying to deal with an overwhelming guilt complex.]
Jer
Jer, what I believe is
January 27, 2009 - 09:34 ET by fitzfongJer, what I believe is particularly interesting about the 2000 Presidential Election is how quickly both camps decided to narrow the entire result down to Florida. Not being an attorney, but having some experience in litigation, I understand how that might happen. But I think that in narrowing the focus to Florida, the Bush campaign did its candidate a major disservice. They effectively conceded the national Popular Vote, gifting Gore a sense of grievance that he could capitalize on no matter what the ultimate result. Then, while the Bush campaign attempted to shed light on the recount in Florida, the Gore campaign kept using the Popular Vote as a red herring to create the public perception that the election was being stolen from him. I distinctly remember that before they called Florida for Bush the first time, national news anchors were discussing the possibility of Bush winning the national Popular Vote and losing the Election via the Electoral Vote (and one issue in Florida that has rarely been highlighted is that apparently some news outlets had called Florida for Gore just after 8pm Eastern Time...when most of the State's polls had closed...only parts of the more conservative panhandle were still open for another hour being on Central Time...an issue of voter suppression perhaps could have been raised there). All of a sudden, California's results start coming in...and they pushed Gore over the top in the national Popular Vote. Had Bush disputed the results in California, he would have taken away one of the primary weapons Gore had in the battle of perception...the "legitimacy" argument. From a legal perspective, I can understand it...from a PR perspective, I think it was a disastrous decision.
-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
Count me
January 26, 2009 - 12:55 ET by UpNorthas one who doesn't believe it. Gore couldn't even get his neighbors in Tennessee to vote for him. I don't think the outcome would have been any different, the greenie whacko's would have just stayed home.
Not buying it, UpNorth..
January 26, 2009 - 21:45 ET by JerNot buying it, UpNorth...
Tennessee is my "home" state, even though I've lived in Georgia for quite a while, and, frankly, both have become quite conservative in recent years. It's not at all surprising that Tennessee went for Bush.
Despite the "greenie whackos staying home" argument frequently being trotted out, it just doesn't wash. Gore was probably the most environmentally "friendly" presidential candidate in history. It simply makes no sense that all of those Nader-supporting greenies would have sat out the election if Nader hadn't run.
Jer
HW Bush was a loser by his own choice
January 26, 2009 - 08:07 ET by PopularTechHe went back on his tax pledge. Fiscal conservatives then voted for Perot, at least George W. got the message on taxes.
Bush Defends Reversal on Taxes, Citing Nation's Economic Needs (The New York Times, 1990)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Also correct PT
January 26, 2009 - 09:19 ET by Cool ArrowBush I made the same mistake McCain did. He took for granted the conservative vote.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
rs.... Sure hope you're
January 26, 2009 - 00:28 ET by bigtimerrs....
Sure hope you're right...
Seems a lot has changed though since then, including some of the msm.
Mainly for me it's groups like ACORN, $$$ backers and shakers like Soros, illegal immigration/voters plus fake double vote counts, most of all...law-suits after an election that is close, especially in a dem. controlled state.
I truly hope you are right though.
Another thing that sickens
January 26, 2009 - 01:14 ET by RR GOPAnother thing that sickens me about these types is how they practically rejoiced every time a GI got killed in Iraq so they could use it as political ammunition against President Bush.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Democommunist
January 26, 2009 - 04:52 ET by bknownstThis is typical of the "Demmocumunist" left. Anyone who does not want Commrade President Obama to succeed with his comunist aganda is a traitor. He is also not racist he just doesn't want TARP money going to "white male construction workers".
As for me I stand with Rush
January 26, 2009 - 06:46 ET by RD KingTo me it’s a no brainer that I would want the person that uttered the following traitorous words after lying about upholding and defending the constitution to fail in his goal;
"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
And then continued to say this which is a perfect description of himself and his democrat party;
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history”
Notice how he has already tried to quite the dissent by wanting Rush Limbaugh shut up. This looks to me like he and those who join his plan for the destruction of the America are the traitors.
I do not wish to live in a socialist or communist America.
In related news, medical
January 26, 2009 - 09:01 ET by HockeyKidIn related news, medical researchers reported that Jon Stewart is "arguably sentient".
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I agree with Rush in that I
January 26, 2009 - 09:12 ET by pitter43I agree with Rush in that I hope obama fails also, in fact, I think obama is a failure in life. But I hope he picks people that will succeed in fixing the economy and people that will succeed in keeping Americans safe. I hope his administration is a failure in every socialist effort they they attempt. I saw the interview with Hannity and that seems to be what he said also.
Rush
January 26, 2009 - 09:17 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat's exactly what he said. He does not wish B. Hussein Obama 'success' in implementing his socialist doctrine. Of course, Obamunists everywhere are crying foul and distorting what he said.
I saw Alan Colmes, failed TV show host and Obamunist, try this tactic on FOX & Friends this morning.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
I would be a lot more
January 26, 2009 - 10:14 ET by fitzfongI would be a lot more worried if Jon Stewart was "arguably funny" or "arguably intelligent". He's not.
"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
I wonder if he is doing the
January 26, 2009 - 10:17 ET by SeashellI wonder if he is doing the Oscar's this year. Hope not. He was terrible last time.
...as if the shallow,
January 26, 2009 - 10:27 ET by fitzfong...as if the shallow, self-congratulatory nature of the Oscars wasn't nauseating enough to avoid? I think they learned their lesson from the last time around. Jon Stewart isn't funny. Never has been. Never will be. I forgot who they said was going to be hosting this year (maybe Ellen? I don't know). They could pick Dennis Miller and I still wouldn't watch.
"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
Dissent
January 26, 2009 - 10:48 ET by misterbee241So dissent is no longer patriotic, but treasonous. We have a new sheriff in town, boys, and he aint gonna tolerate no saddle bums like Limbaugh talkin' bad about him.
Memo
January 26, 2009 - 10:51 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou didn't get the memo?
Bolton/KEYES 2012
"Fairness Doctrine" being set up
January 26, 2009 - 10:47 ET by kevinm13These comments demonizing Rush are the beginning of widespread lunacy on the part of the liberals seeking to re-institute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". it will be much easier to silent conservative talk radio if its hosts are demonized as being evil or unpatriotic. The liberal media just gets its talking points from George Soros.
Rush Limbaugh ismore patriotic than any liberal Senator or House member. He wants what is best for the country and not what 0bama, Soros, Reid and Pelosi and their small amount of minions want for this country. I will follow Rush Limbaugh before I follow B. Hussein 0bama and don't believe socialism is right for the USA.
Rush was right, the media is wrong.
Fight Back
January 26, 2009 - 10:49 ET by misterbee241Do we have any way at all to fight back? We know the repubs arent going to do it for us.
Fight back
January 26, 2009 - 10:58 ET by moderncommentaries83First, you write letters. Call your representatives, even if they're Democrats. Get their ear by never ceasing to communicate with them.
Make sure your calls/letters/emails are polite, but firm and brief.
Second, listen to Rush and any other conservative program. If you can't listen at work, turn on your radio at home to whatever station Rush is on and let it play. Download Podcasts or stream when you can. Even after the fact. Keep their ratings up.
Third, write to companies that advertise on conservative radio programs and the stations/media groups that support conservative programming. Tell them you like Rush, et. al. and will support their product if they continue supporting conservative speech.
Fourth, be prepared to protest. Station managers and average Joes - even bloggers - are going to have to come down on the side of the First Amendment at some point in the future. Liberals are going to try to silence us, and we need to stand up and tell them "NO!"
Fifth, keep the powder dry.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Modern......
January 27, 2009 - 06:25 ET by old croGood advice.
Stewart not Oscar host
January 26, 2009 - 10:51 ET by moderncommentaries83I believe Hugh Jackman will be hosting the Oscars this year. A rather non-offensive choice.
But I'm stil DVR-ing the darn thing and fast-forwarding through the inevitable "Thank goodness Obama's president!" self-congratulatory speeches. Mostly, I want to see if "Wall-E" wins for Best Animated Film...
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
You'd endure all that "who
January 26, 2009 - 10:58 ET by fitzfongYou'd endure all that "who are you wearing" crap and boring technical awards just to see if "Wall-E" wins for Best Animated Film? You have more patience than I.
"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
Wait, you're_not_upset that
January 26, 2009 - 12:21 ET by balboaWait, you're_not_upset that the Oscar host portrays Wolverine, a character who's all about using his animal instincts? This is obviously a slap in the face to all Republicans.
→ Absolutely bal
January 26, 2009 - 12:26 ET by Cool ArrowNot to mention he had the leading role in "OKLAHOMA", which gets plugged every time PBS has a telethon.
Truly a communist, that guy ;-)
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
I know! Boy, people are not
January 26, 2009 - 12:38 ET by balboaI know! Boy, people are not on their 'A' game today.
→ There's more bal
January 26, 2009 - 12:47 ET by Cool ArrowWhat self respecting American would allow himself to be paired up with Meg Ryan in "Kate and Leopold"?
Sounds awful "Frenchie" to me.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Exactly. The Oscars need to
January 26, 2009 - 13:28 ET by balboaExactly. The Oscars need to be hosted by a real Amurican, like The Rock, or Captain Kirk.
→ Kirk it is!
January 26, 2009 - 13:35 ET by Cool ArrowUnless Michael J FOX or Shania Twain are available.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
→ Besides
January 26, 2009 - 12:49 ET by Cool ArrowThe guy's an Aussie!!
Can you believe it? He's a friggin' Aussie!
I'm miffed!
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Saul Alinsky: Another Obama Influence
January 26, 2009 - 11:14 ET by RadiomanStewart hides behind the word "arguably" and rolls his eyes with that "Did I say that?" look. Rush has made it clear he is against socialism but any excuse to attack Rush is a good excuse. Rush has mentioned the works of Saul Alinsky and Obama's probable use of methods proposed by Alinsky who is a top influence among community organizers. Hillary is another fan of Alinsky. Alinsky once said about his book Rules For Radicals: "The Prince by Machiavelli was written for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules For Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. " The link below has some good info on how Alinsky has entered the White House.http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h
http://www.chalktalk-talk.blogspot.com
stewart the moron
January 26, 2009 - 11:54 ET by east tennessee johnIt's all part of the wider plan to marginalize conservatives and the market economy at the same time. Sgt. Schultz is a Marxist pure and simple. Do you believe Holder and Clinton are "moderates"? That's a hell of a definition of modereate. As they attempt to eliminate the foundation of capitalism by increasing government dependence, Barack gonna send you a check, and by making the recepients of this largess wards of the state by eliminating any tax liability, even for such Democrat programs as Social Security and Medicare, funded by regressive flat rate payroll taxes, by rebating them through "tax credits" we'l move more and more towards Sgt. Schultz's workers' paradise, even though the rest of the world moves towards lower corporate tax rates. The only thing that can stop them is, before the next elections, is a groundswell revolt by the public, a la the immigration bill in 2007 which was destroyed by talk radio. Marxists always eliminate or marginalize the opposition, look what happened in Comrade Pelosi's House. Power is their only goal.
It must suck to be jon
January 26, 2009 - 12:10 ET by wiwfIt must suck to be jon stewart, knowing that he'll never get as many viewers as limbaugh has listeners.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Stewart et al
January 26, 2009 - 12:45 ET by slickwillie2001Yes this is hilarious, but disturbing polls show that a significant portion of our voting population gets their 'news' from flakes like Stewart, Leno and Letterman. All the flakes are doing is reading lines written by a clever staff of jokewriters. Who knows what their political views are? That does not portend well for our democracy folks.
Flakes
January 26, 2009 - 16:04 ET by ZuccoZoid"they rush on over and wreck it some more... and we're so dumb we're lining up at their door..." - Zappa, FLAKES
We're back in WEIRDO TERRITORY, when al'Baldwin openly called for the murder of Henry Hyde and his family.
Anyone else noticed the crude, callous and casual use of the word NAZI-? You know, "Bush is a Nazi" etc; talk about historical revision - political dissent is the same as marching victims into industrial ovens... what really scares me about "the Left" is that I truly believe they would do the same to us, merely because we dissent.
Noel, I'm afraid you're on
January 26, 2009 - 16:53 ET by JasonCNoel, I'm afraid you're on very shaky rhetorical ground here. First, "the memo" and "the top story" are two different segments. One could argue that Bill followed one after the other for purposes of thematic continuity, but the fact is that this very black-and-white position -
this hate stuff, this rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq
and other areas is un-American, unbecoming and unacceptable
- is not directed solely at Rosie O'Donnell and others of her wild-conspiracy-theory ilk. The statement is clearly an opinion on hoping a presidential administration fails, period.
And even if BOR strictly claimed that O'Donnell is "un-American, unbecoming, and unacceptable", which he didn't - though I wouldn't be surprised if he actually does consider himself the final arbiter of who or what should be so considered - I would have difficulty seeing how this makes any difference per Stewart's take on the situation.
Frankly, the context that you impose is itself decontextualized. You say yourself that "the little snippet Stewart cherry-picked followed a video clip of O'Reilly interviewing Bush" - NOT the clips of O'Donnell. Besides which, Rosie was merely spouting the usual anti-Bush paranoia blather along with a comment about motives for an Iranian war that does not yet exist; she did not, at least in this segment, say that she wished he would fail in some way, in Iraq or in other areas.
I have no wish to defend O'Donnell's general idiocy. But her comments have no bearing on the fact that Stewart is demonstrably correct; if Bill has any integrity/consistency, he will denounce Limbaugh's remarks. Stewart has him dead-to-rights.
Look everybody! Johnny Bias' half stepbrother popped in.
January 26, 2009 - 17:59 ET by JWFWhy don't you try to decontextuatrilate this Johnny Bias' half stepbrother. YOU are treasonous.
Rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq WAS and still IS TREASONOUS. It is not Bush's War. This is OUR war. It is AMERICA'S WAR. Congress de facto declared war on Iraq in Oct 2002 and explicitly authorised the President of the United States to send United States troops into Iraq. Those were not Republicans dying over there. They were 18, 19 & Twenty-something sons & daughters of the UNITED STATES.
You are are coward, a traitor, and treasonous weasel to say that hoping they fail by way of hoping their commander in chief fails is ANYTHING OTHER THAN TREASONOUS.
Oh am I picking on you? Bill O'Reilly WAS talking about people that were rooting for failure in Iraq. That is black & white. Or would you like me to wrap it in 7 paragraphs of weasel words much as you did.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Well that was
January 26, 2009 - 18:42 ET by balboaWell that was lucid...
JasonC didn't root for America to fail in Iraq, as far as I remember. Not that that matters to you...
I have to walk the dog. Tired of collecting quotes.
January 26, 2009 - 21:13 ET by JWFNo. No. He did not cross the line and hope for failure. But the line was certainly within spitting distance.
We cannot base our foreign policy on the idea that the soldiers must be allowed to "finish the job" or some such thing.
This "aid and comfort to the enemy" nonsense has been spewed since the protests that took place before we even invaded Iraq. It basically boils down to "if you oppose the war in any way, it's like joining the opposition."
I'm just not sure "peace" is the thing it will ultimately attain, but now I sound like a washed-up 60s holdover
The war has done nothing positive for America. I have been against it from the very beginning. Watching Shock and Awe on CNN made me literally ill. This is not a judgement on the troops in any way, shape, or form. But we can't stay there because withdraw would be unfair to the troops who have fought and/or died there, as some have suggested. That is just more emotional coercion, and should have no influence over our foreign policy.
I'll refrain from a rundown of the usual reasons why this war is a sham and a waste, I've had this conversation a million times and I'm sure you know exactly what I'd say.
Do you have some sort of
January 26, 2009 - 21:37 ET by JasonCDo you have some sort of point?
Where do any of these quotations even begin to allude to hoping Bush et al. fails in Iraq?
Nowhere? That's what I thought
One can be against the idea of invading a sovereign nation that poses no threat to us, and still wish for the best (i.e. a swift end to it with few casualties and stability in the region of the war) just as a person can theoretically be opposed to Obama's economic policies and still hope that they succeed. Isn't this the point of this thread? Is Limbaugh claiming that he hopes Obama's policies fail in the sense that he hopes our economic problems worsen simply so that Obama will be discredited?
Frankly, I don't care about Limbaugh's remarks. What he hopes for, I imagine, will have little bearing on what Obama does. But the point of this story, which you have managed to veer us way the hell away from, is whether Limbaugh's statement is consistent with what BOR denounced. I have demonstrated that it is. You have demonstrated nothing. If you have a problem with some things I've said in the past, in unrelated posts, start up a woodshed thread and it'll be my pleasure to rhetorically kick your ass there. Until then, go post your drunken nonsense elsewhere and let us discuss the issue at bar.
Are you paying attention?
January 26, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Sergeant ROCKRush said that he hopes Obama's socialist policies fail for the good of the country. Meaning, that they never get passed or fail when executed. Rush doesn't hope that the problems worsen so as to 'discredit' him - that's a democRAT tactic. Try again.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Exactly
January 26, 2009 - 22:03 ET by general companyThey dont equate at all, unless you think like a lib, and use the double standard "theory"?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
What sergeant and general
January 26, 2009 - 22:52 ET by JasonCWhat sergeant and general both seem not to take into consideration is that, for me at least, the litmus test of success for a policy would be how well it benefits the American citizenry.
Thus, to say that Limbaugh is hoping Obama's plan fails because failure would be in the interest of the country, is a complete paradox.
However, since you are so willing to interpret Limbaugh's motives as pure at face value, I should think that you'd also be willing to take the anti-war crowd's hopes that Bush's policies fail as being for the best also, no?
Jason, you really are twisting things up
January 27, 2009 - 09:39 ET by general companyDo you think Socialist policies will work in the USA?
the litmus test of success for a policy would be how well it benefits the American citizenry.
The litmus test has already been done, by folks much more committed to it then we ever will be. To pretend we will magically make it work is ridiculous. To say we hope these policies fail, is not only fair game, it is also a fact they will. Most everyone here knows that the Dems want to force the citizens to be dependent on them. Next election just like past election you will here the Dems scream how Conservitives want to take this or that away from you, never mind the fact we cant afford it. The Dems dont have any tricks or magic to make this work, it is slight of hand, buying votes plain and simply.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
you're right general
January 27, 2009 - 09:56 ET by candanceI just love how Jason feels justified against the war because he's trying to help the American people, but if you feel that stopping socialism would be best for the people, you're just wrong.
To borrow a line from Ann, it's quite tedious when lefties act like they have a copyright on caring for people - as if conservatives are somehow against public good.
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
Hold on now, that's not
January 27, 2009 - 11:03 ET by JasonCHold on now, that's not what I'm saying at all. Doesn't pretty much everybody base their political opinions on whether it will be good for the country?
Stopping socialism from spreading, if you believe that it will be detrimental, is one thing - and I am not conceding that Obama is a socialist, by the way - but to me, hoping that his policies fail can be interpreted on two levels:
1. That one hopes they are never implemented
2. That one hopes they are implemented and THEN fail, thus screwing the economy up even further.
#1 seems reasonable. #2 seems f---ed up.
Now, I in no way believe that one should have to justify one's opposition to the war. Frankly, the burden of justification should be on those who supported pre-emptively invading a sovereign country that did not threaten us, not on those who said "Hmm, that doesn't seem like a good idea..." But surely you would acknowledge the fact that there is a world of difference between being against it from the very beginning, maintaining opposition to it and supporting politicians who wish to get out of there and put pressure on the Iraqi politicians who are basically just milking our resources at this point - and hoping for failure.
If a person had said in 2003 that they hope our troops get beaten back by the Republican Guard, or in 2004 that they hoped we would be unable to take Fallujah, or in 2006 that they hoped the surge failed - I'd be right there with you calling foul.
Jason, As a regular
January 27, 2009 - 12:00 ET by fitzfongJason,
As a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh, I can attest that his statement about wanting Obama to fail reflects the former, not the latter. He believes that much of Obama's agenda is socialist, that socialism is an ideology of failure and that he hopes Obama fails in implementing that agenda. It's not personal enmity that drives the desire for Obama to fail...if Obama embraced an agenda of free market capitalism, he would have Limbaugh's full support (not to mention the full support of many of us here at NB).
-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
More about ME!
January 27, 2009 - 12:35 ET by JWFNow, I in no way believe that one should have to justify one's opposition to the war. Frankly, the burden of justification should be on those who supported...
NO! It is all about ME. I opposed the war in the beginning. I am the Alpha. I am the Omega. I place the burden on YOU! I have no responsibility to refrain from providing moral support to the enemy! It must be YOU fighting the enemy! I have a strawberry poptart in the toaster.
But surely you would acknowledge the fact that there is a world of difference between being against it from the very beginning, maintaining opposition to it and supporting politicians who wish to get out of there.
It's ALL ABOUT ME not what is good for the country or ensuring the enemy is not further emboldened to kill our troops. ME ME ME ME ME ME!
I decide what countries we will declare war on. NOT the 535 duly elected members of Congress. ME! I will decide what is best for this country! ME! I am more important that any one of you. And since no one consulted ME before invading Iraq, I will go on a 6 year hissy fit reminding every one every day that I am obliged to provide moral comfort to the enemy because I had my feelings hurt. I updated the constitution. SO THERE! ME ME ME ME!
Jason, you can argue about one or the other
January 27, 2009 - 13:02 ET by general companyBut pretending they are relivent to each other? Well I dont see it at all. Not suprising though, this logic parrellels many other liberal complaints. The double standard is taken for granted if you are a liberal, but sorry, the rest of us cant relate to the hypocrocy.
put pressure on the Iraqi politicians who are basically just milking our resources at this point - and hoping for failure.
If this is truly how you feel, I highly recommend you start reading the daily press releases from Cent-com.
http://www.centcom.m...
and I am not conceding that Obama is a socialist,
Then please explain how Gov thinking it can creating jobs, buy into business, legislate banks and wall-street, isn't Socialist? Government handouts, and calling them Taxcuts, Government buyouts and calling them bailouts, and further Government regulating is what it is, Socialist. If it walks like a duck
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
JWF (or should I call you SportPolitics?)
January 27, 2009 - 13:24 ET by JasonCYour theatrics are certainly amusing.
Basically, you're contending that productive, tax-paying citizens have no right to express an opinion concerning the war, or anything else, apparently (unless of course it aligns with YOUR opinion) lest they imply that they know better than everyone else and symbolically beat up war widows.
My GOD, you are SO patriotic! Take a bow.
OMG Jason
January 27, 2009 - 12:53 ET by candanceNow you're dancing around the notion that Rush wants Obama to destroy America just to teach Democrats a lesson? Sounds like you're purposely muddying the water to keep lefties with an excuse to be suspicious.
I in no way believe that one should have to justify one's opposition to the war.
But Rush has to justify his opposition to Obama. Got it.
If a person had said in 2003 that they hope our troops get beaten back
by the Republican Guard, or in 2004 that they hoped we would be unable
to take Fallujah, or in 2006 that they hoped the surge failed - I'd be
right there with you calling foul.
Reallly? You and who else? This guy said that very thing in 2003. A bunch of his students held a protest to support him and according to David Horowitz the crowd cheered him on. I can link to a hundred lefty websites that defended him in the following years and accused Republicans of a witch hunt.
Lefties keep going on about Republicans hallucinations of people wanting our troops to die in Iraq. Those things were said, they were defended, and Republicans who complained were attacked. Jason I realize that you yourself did not defend those particular remarks, but you cover for these people constantly and act like conservatives are making things up.
But yet Rush Limbaugh better explain himself.
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
I never said Limbaugh had
January 27, 2009 - 13:11 ET by JasonCI never said Limbaugh had to explain himself. I understand why some people are opposed to Obama.
The point of this thread (theoretically) is whether Limbaugh's comments are consistent with O'Reilly's rubric for un-American speech. I would argue that, in the narrow way in which he articulated that rubric, it does. So the calling out here is directed at BOR, not Rush.
Okay?
I see Jason
January 27, 2009 - 13:17 ET by candanceSo you give us this jive about wondering if his comments meant this or that, but that doesn't mean you need an explanation and it doesn't mean you're questioning Rush.
I would argue that, in the narrow way in which he articulated that rubric, it does.
Hoping our troops die in Iraq (documented to have happened by more than just Rosie O'Donnell) is the same as hoping Obama spares us from unfair taxes. That's what you are arguing here.
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
Candance, you are wrong
January 27, 2009 - 13:23 ET by JasonCCandance, you are wrong again. Because, as you may recall, in my very first post, I argue that BOR was not explicitly aligning the Rosie segment with the statement about over-the-top Bush-bashers. On top of which, Rosie's specific comments (disdain them though I do) do not express the repugnant wish for soldiers to die, as you claim.
It's also highly disingenuous to say that all Rush said is that he hopes we're spared unfair taxes. What he said is that he hopes Obama fails, which could just as easily imply that he hopes Obama implements a system and that system fails, meaning further economic calamity.
But I'm not interested in that. Maybe Rush meant one thing, maybe the other. Fitzfong, the voice of reason as usual, has defended Rush and I take that into account. But...one more time...the agument is about BOR, not Rush.
wow Jason
January 27, 2009 - 13:38 ET by candanceYou just said two seconds ago that you would argue Rush's comments are as bad as Rosie's by BOR standards. BOR specifically said that when you start attacking our troops you've gone too far.
And here you go again, I'm not questioning Rush, but then again I am. Here's a full transcript of what he said and he didn't just say he wanted Obama to fail. Here's you a money quote:
We're
talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my
nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to
saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do
that?
Sounds to me like he doesn't want socialism brought into the country in the first place. But that part didn't make it to the MSM headline did it? It's highly disingenuous to peddle a theory that Rush might have meant something he never said.
But whatever, we're only talking about BOR...
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
OK Candance, well put.
January 27, 2009 - 15:37 ET by JasonCOK Candance, well put. And point taken.
Thank goodness
January 27, 2009 - 16:45 ET by general companyI was worried about you JC
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
That's a nicer way of
January 27, 2009 - 17:53 ET by JasonCThat's a nicer way of putting it than most people do...
Well put, but still wrong,
January 27, 2009 - 19:10 ET by JerWell put, but still wrong, candance...
BOR specifically said that when you start attacking our troops you've gone too far.
I would agree with that statement, and BOR may have said that somewhere, but of course that's not what he said in the Stewart clip, specifically or otherwise. What he did say was that "rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq and other areas is un-American." Choosing the politically imbecilic O'Donnell as his target is like shooting fish [or one extraordinarily large fish] in a barrel. But even Rosie, while peddling her nutcase 9/11drivel, said nothing about hoping for failure in Iraq.
Sure, O'Reilly will give lip service to the notion that he is not attacking the responsible critics of the war, but, if you watch him regularly, you will soon discover that in BOR's partisan universe what is "responsible" is defined by the party affiliation of the critic. [Guess to which party all of the irresponsible critics belong. Not surprisingly, he tends to overlook the "transgressions" of the war's many conservative critics.]
The moral dilemma presented by "dissent" becomes particulary acute when it involves the waging of a highly controversial war--especially when a.) it is revealed that one of the principal justifications for the original intervention was based on faulty intelligence, b.) the conduct of the war appears ill-conceived and poorly executed [by the administration, not the military], c.) there were immense miscalculations made with respect to the "post-initial military success" phase of the conflict, and d.) a continuation of the war distracts our national focus and diverts already thinly stretched military assets from the area where the black heart of Al-Qaeda actually resides. Are those, who in light of such realities have called for disengagement, invested in defeat?...hoping for failure?...not supportive of our troops?...un-American? Well, if you are a Democrat and outspoken in your criticism, O'Reilly seems to think so [although he would never admit it].
Sounds to me like he [Limbaugh] doesn't want socialism brought into the country in the first place. But that part didn't make it to the MSM headline did it?
Perhaps it didn't make it into the MSM headline because Rush wrote his own headline, pointed to it, specifically labeled it a headline, reveled in it, and said he would be "honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails'." Well, consider him duly honored.
I have read the full transcript three times now--twice before and once since your post--and the words still haven't changed. Rush's problem seems to be that he is still in full campaign mode--that the election hasn't occurred and the American people haven't spoken. He also falsely asserts that the he is doing nothing different than what was done to Bush [by "liberals"--the liberal media? liberal politicians?] before he was even inaugurated in 2000. So, as Limbaugh's argument goes, he gets to play by the same rules.
It is true that campaigns are hard-hitting contests and have always been played with intense passion by both Democrats and Republicans. But, frankly, Bush was not treated harshly by the media during campaign 2000--certainly not any more harshly than it treated Gore. More to the point, however...what major political or media figure said on the day of Bush's inauguration "I hope he fails." or anything close to that? Let's have it, chapter and verse. Because if that's simply "playing by the same rules", I need some proof. Let me see the evidence where a major media spokesperson [and not some obsure blogger, but someone of Limbaugh's influence and stature] on the day of Bush's inauguration, tried to intimidate Democrats who might dare speak of bipartisanship. Rush, if you should see this, start googling. Make me eat my words. Or, for that matter, show me a major liberal politician or media figure who on 9/11 said "Well, since I'm opposed to war, I hope Bush fails in the war on terror."
We have a potential economic Armagedon on our hands, a financial 9/11 in a sense, that requires urgent attention and action, and virtually begs for setting aside the partisan games of "we know what's best for America and you don't". Yet while Obama is holding bipartisan dinners, meeting with and assuring Republicans he wants to work with them, and that he wants them to play a significant role in the process, and is actually making concessions to them that congressional Democrats oppose, Rush is demanding obstructionism--that Republicans block the process, not even talk to the President, make him and his policies fail--while implicitly threatening anyone who dares to disobey with the brand of a rollover RINO.
To borrow a line from the wise sage, O'Reilly: Like him or not President Bush is the elected leader of this country. He deserves a fair hearing. Agreed. Now simply substitute the words "President Bush" with "President Obama".
Jer
few quick points for Jer
January 27, 2009 - 22:46 ET by candanceI watched BOR for many moons during the Bush years and I don't recall him saying that any criticism of the war was unamerican. In fact when Bush first proposed the surge BOR agreed that the war had been poorly managed, the American public was tired of it, and Bush needed to redeem himself. But unlike folks on the left BOR decided to give the surge a chance before passing final judgement. BOR himself was a "responsible critic" of the war.
a continuation of the war distracts our national focus and diverts already thinly stretched military assets from the area where the black heart of Al-Qaeda actually resides.
This notion of a thinly-stretched army has been popular among lefties but is not well documented by the actual military. We have soldiers everywhere from Germany to Japan to Guam. If we needed a bigger presence in Afganistan tomorrow we could get it.
CNN butressed this claim a while back by citing a survey of officers in which many claimed the military was stretched. But the fine print was a little more complicated - those officers said we were stretched too thin to fight another large war and a large portion of responders disagreed with even that. Then USA Today ran an article from a military "expert" who swore the surge wouldn't work for lack of manpower until, oops, it actually did work. The Army Times then ran an article about Colin Powell claiming Iraq left us weaker...in the same article Powell said the next president should be willing to meet with our enemies and attacked Bush for isolating countries like Iran. Military.com then ran an article written by AP that cited the "surge won't work expert."
So I'm waiting to see that point from a reliable source.
You still seem to cling to the lefty notion that we could all save our economy if it weren't for the war in Iraq. Let's see, a year ago it was "we could have free healthcare if it weren't for Iraq" and before that it was "we could cut the deficit if it weren't for Iraq." Amazing how lefties discover government spending just in time to criticize a Republican.
Oh I'm sorry I can't find you an exact quote about someone in the MSM hoping Bush fails before his inauguration in 2000. I was kind of distracted by the "hail to the thief" posters that lined the capital on Jan 20 and all the people on TV calling Katherine Harris a criminal. In fact, after his swearing in, Bush's limosine was pelted with eggs on the way to the White House and Secret Service had to secure a safe place for him to leave the car. The AP wrote a sympathetic cover on them here:
http://richlabonte.net/exonews/xtra4/crowds_protest.htm
Rush never said that major MSM figures rooted for Bush to fail. He simply said that many lefties treated Bush that way and it was only fair. So even though Rush is one guy being abandoned by dozens of Republicans and other talk radio hosts like Smerconish, he's far more influencial than an entire grassroot effort of thousands of lefties trampling the streets of Washington demanding Bush be removed. Yeah Jer, I totally see that.
virtually begs for setting aside the partisan games of "we know what's best for America and you don't".
Where was this when Republicans were pressured into voting for a bailout even though the majority of voters didn't like it? Where was this when Congress rushed through votes without giving anyone time to debate it and then criticized Glenn Beck for having the nerve to complain? Where was this when Kirsten Powers sat on Fox News lamenting because Congress was being "controlled by Betty in Des Moines" instead of just passing through bailout money?
American citizens having the gall to think that they can tell Congress what to do? Republicans having the nerve to suggest that we might want to wait for more information because the bailout might not work?? Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, especially during a war in which our boys are dying....but by God our economy is crashing and now we don't have time for no dissent!
meeting with and assuring Republicans he wants to work with them,
*Now that I've won the election I won't have you listening to Rush Limbaugh.*
while implicitly threatening anyone who dares to disobey with the brand of a rollover RINO.
There's a big difference between working with a president vs going along with whatever he wants. If my Congress critter starts voting against the very ideals and values I chose him to represent me for, you're darn right I would get ticked off. Thank the Lord I have a good one who respects the folks at home. It's great to find compromise, but Obama and Pelosi want Republicans to go along to get along even if that means selling out their platforms.
Once again dissent is a noble thing until it starts hindering a Democrat.
Obama deserves a fair hearing? He isn't asking for one. He told us to get over it since he won the election and there's not much we can do. That's the hope and change we've heard so much about.
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
candance... Just noticed
January 27, 2009 - 23:04 ET by Jercandance...
Just noticed your "few points" post. At first blush, I agree with some, but--not surprisingly I'm sure--disagree with most. But, I'll give them further consideration and respond more fully later.
Bye for now, Jer
treason
January 27, 2009 - 13:29 ET by lotrcandance, thanks for the links.
Reports such as these verify something that I have been suspecting as a peruse this thread, particularly some of the exchanges with JasonC, namely that there are elements on the new-Left who have indeed publicized their desire for a bloody rout of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and in this case, to the cheers of a well-indoctrinated mob.
And while I cannot prove it, it is not unreasonable for me to suspect that many others with a political affiliation of "D" hold the same private sentiments, even if they deny it.
This is treason. Rush Limbaugh, one of the most outspoken voices of the conservative POV, telling Sean Hannity in an interview that he wishes for Obama's socialistic policies to fail, is not even in the same ballpark.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
there are elements on the
January 27, 2009 - 13:35 ET by JasonCthere are elements on the new-Left who have indeed publicized their desire for a bloody rout of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and in this case, to the cheers of a well-indoctrinated mob. This is treason.
I agree with you here, that is treasonous behavior. However, I have not been comparing such fringe-left desires with Rush's comments. BOR's remarks were not directed only at this insidious sub-group. They were directed at those who wish for a presidential administration to fail in Iraq and in other areas.
I didn't mean to suggest
January 27, 2009 - 15:14 ET by lotrI didn't mean to suggest that you were. I was just providing a bit of rationale for some of the heated reponses to some of your posts.
I think a lot of us here suspect (like I did) that this deep-down desire (for our troops to fail in Iraq) is out there, perhaps a malignant symptom of BDS. Mind you, there is nothing in your posts that suggest this treasonous extremism (the opposite, in fact), so it is unfair to lump you in and respond in kind. But unfortunately it is precisely these "fringe" behaviors (and by the sounds of it, it wasn't all that fringe either, else this traitor would've been booed off the stage, fired and never allowed to teach at a U.S. university again) that do a lot to harm the "patriot" credibility of the anti-war cause.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Good post, lotr. I
January 27, 2009 - 15:40 ET by JasonCGood post, lotr. I appreciate your insight on what I've often perceived as the conservative impulse to too harshly dismiss those of us who opposed the war. And I appreciate your remarks about my posts as well.
-JC
Thanks -- I totally respect
January 27, 2009 - 21:32 ET by lotrThanks -- I totally respect anyone who desires rational dialog; but I also empathize with the frustration some of us feel about BDS run amok.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Rush is not as interested in
January 27, 2009 - 14:38 ET by balboaRush is not as interested in America being successful as he is in conservatism succeeding.
I would imagine that he
January 27, 2009 - 15:03 ET by JasonCI would imagine that he sincerely believes these two things are one and the same.
Of course he does. But an
January 27, 2009 - 15:06 ET by balboaOf course he does. But an America that succeeded under liberalism is not something he wishes for, IMO.
Nothing gets by you bal
January 27, 2009 - 22:08 ET by dvdaughtryThats because he thinks (he'd prolly say knows) that liberalism doesn't work.
(and he's right)
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Exactly..
January 27, 2009 - 22:12 ET by Sergeant ROCKThanks for stating the obvious for those that can't figure it out.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
One can be against the
January 27, 2009 - 07:34 ET by JWFOne can be against the idea of invading a sovereign nation that poses no threat to us, and still wish for
Nice try. We know the truth.
One can be against the idea of invading a sovereign nation when one turns it political and wishes to get his man in office.
You only opposed the war to get Kerry and other Democrats in to office and they only opposed the war for political expediency.
Still sitting there lying to me.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
First of all, I don't know
January 27, 2009 - 09:09 ET by JasonCFirst of all, I don't know what makes you think you know so much about my political opinions.
Kerry and most democrats did oppose the war for political expediency in 2004, that's true. OMG, we agree on something! The "against it before I was for it" thing was nauseating. However, let me assure you that my opposition had nothing to do with Kerry or the 04 election.
Wow, great post there Mr.
January 26, 2009 - 19:10 ET by JasonCWow, great post there Mr. Mentally Unbalanced. Especially since I didn't say or imply anything you claim I did. Did I say I hoped the Iraq War failed? Not once, dumbass!
Did I say that people who do hope it fails aren't treasonous? Not even close.
What I said was that Bill chose his words thusly: Those who hope the presidential administration fails - and here's the important part, Einstein - in any sphere of policy, is un-American (and unbecoming, &c.) Stewart called him out on this after Limbaugh flatly said he hopes Obama's policies fail. The only difference is that the Bush policies at hand involve foreign policy, and the Obama policies at hand involve domestic policy.
Whether Obama's policies are pseudo-socialist (which they're not) or Bush's foreign policies were fascistic (which they weren't) is not the issue. The issue is the wide-swath accusation of anti-Americanism viz. hoping for the failure of the executive branch. Bill spoke too casually and Stewart nailed it. No big deal, really. My point, my only point, in the above post, was to point out that Rosie's stupid remarks don't "add context" as Noel claims.
As usual, if your post was any stupider it would be drooling.
Yes. It was terribly stupid and I should probably apologise.
January 26, 2009 - 20:29 ET by JWFStewart is demonstrably correct; if Bill has any integrity/consistency, he will denounce Limbaugh's remarks.
Hoping the Commander in Chief fails specifically in a war in which we are currently engaged IS TREASONOUS. Those are not democrats or republicans dying over there, they are AMERICANS.
O'Reilly: this rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq and other areas is un-American, unbecoming, and unacceptable
That is a very clear statement and doesn't need to be decontextualized It could stand alone where it was in the "memo" or "top story" segment.
Arguing this statement is anything other than completely true is WRONG. This makes Jonny wrong for insisting Mr. O'Reilly should in any way back down from it.
Arguing Jonny is right adds moral support to the argument that hoping an administration fails in a war the American people are engaged in.
Did I say that people who do hope it fails aren't treasonous?
Therein lies your problem. JONNY WAS SAYING THAT. You should have countered it. People who do hope the administration fails in Iraq are treasonous. YOU TOOK THE EXACT OPPOSITE TACK.
So, no, I won't apologise after all. *
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
* I will counter my non-apology with this. If I were to hear the V word, in that you indeed you want the V word in Iraq, I will humbly apologise.
Hoping the Commander in
January 26, 2009 - 21:14 ET by JasonCHoping the Commander in Chief fails specifically in a war in which we
are currently engaged IS TREASONOUS. Those are not democrats or
republicans dying over there, they are AMERICANS.
Heard you the first time. I'll concede for the sake of argument that Rosie "hopes" the Iraq war fails. But that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
That is a very clear statement and doesn't need to be decontextualized It could stand alone where it was in the "memo" or "top story" segment.
Exactly my point. But the fact that they were presented as separate segments presents a problem to Noel's argument.
Arguing this statement is anything other than completely true is
WRONG. This makes Jonny wrong for insisting Mr. O'Reilly should in any
way back down from it.
Neither I nor "Jonny" said that it's untrue. Stewart claimed that O'Reilly should be consistent and call out Limbaugh, not "back down".
Therein lies your problem. JONNY WAS SAYING THAT.
In fact he was not. Unsurprisingly, you are dead wrong.
People who do hope the administration fails in Iraq are treasonous. YOU TOOK THE EXACT OPPOSITE TACK.
Wrong. I took the tack that if one is to believe this, they are obligated, for the sake of consistency, to also maintain that hoping Obama fails is also "treasonous" - even if that entails hoping for domestic rather than foreign policy failure.
Seriously, try to make your comments a little more relevant, sophisticated, and/or cogent. You're embarassing yourself here.
Heads up, Jason...
January 26, 2009 - 22:09 ET by JerI fear you will soon learn, as I have already, that neither embarrassment nor lack of a point serve as even slight impediments to young JWF.
Just wait until he really works himself into a frenzy and begins posting multiple responses to his own comments. I've actually had to wipe off the spittle on the inside of my monitor screen. ;-)
Jer
Look at this. He sits there and stone cold LIES to my face.
January 26, 2009 - 22:10 ET by JWFLike I watched another show in the video link other than the one everyone else watched? I saw it. In fact it is still available
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=216557
In fact he was not. Unsurprisingly, you are dead wrong.
YES. YES he was. He was DIRECTLY juxtaposing BOR's statement on people rooting on us to fail in Iraq with Rush's statement the he hopes the President fails. He was turning logic on it's head and calling Rush's words "arguably treasonous" and somehow contradicted BOR's words. Which by the way, was Noel's entire friggin point of this article.
How many times do you have to be told before it finally breaks down on the little liberal pretzel loops in your brain that rooting for anything other than victory in a war is treasonous. Mocking those who root for victory NEAR treasonous. Equating the rage at treasonous people with anything else whatsoever (including hoping the current President fails at everything except the current war) is the realm of cowards. Done with you.
I need to visit the medal of honor page and rid my mind of the absolute lies you attempt to implant.
http://www.medalofhonor.com/
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
He was DIRECTLY juxtaposing
January 26, 2009 - 23:09 ET by JasonCHe was DIRECTLY juxtaposing BOR's statement on people rooting on us to
fail in Iraq with Rush's statement the he hopes the President fails.
Yes...
He was turning logic on it's head and calling Rush's words "arguably treasonous"
He was claiming that, according to the logic BOR advanced, Rush was also arguably treasonous. It's called a reductio ad absurdum argument.
and somehow contradicted BOR's words.
What?
rooting for anything other than victory in a war is treasonous
No shit, moron, I never said it wasn't. You're doing your precious best to put words in my mouth, and it won't work. Even the quotations that you've dredged up from God knows when, without the slightest benefit of context or the courtesy of providing links so that others may inspect the context, don't prove shit. I stand by the sentiments I expressed, and I never stated nor implied the desire for Bush's policies to fail. Let me spell it out for you: I was mindful enough to express that I was opposed to his policies in the first place. But once they are put into place, one MUST hope that they succeed. I wish we had never invaded Iraq. Since we have, I very much wish that it have the best possible outcome; and my definition of a "best outcome", I assure you, is not much different from the former president's. This is where Limbaugh messed up. He doesn't just say he thinks Obama is going about things in the wrong way; he clearly expressed that he hopes they fail - which by definition entails America being even worse off - so that Obama may be discredited. Even I, having an extremely low opinion of Limbaugh, don't think he MEANT this. But it is what he said.
Nor have I mocked those who wish for victory. Victory sounds great to me in fact.
Equating the rage at treasonous people with anything else whatsoever
(including hoping the current President fails at everything except the
current war) is the realm of cowards.
Insofar as I can parse this poorly-written sentence, you seem to think that hoping the president fails when it comes to foreign policy is automatically worse than hoping a different president fails when it comes to domestic/economic policy. How? Why? I can't tell you how shocked I am that you don't even begin to back up this baseless statement. And as I said above, I consider the test for a policy's success or failure to be how it bears out for the American public, not whether it gets enacted in the first place.
Just as well that you're "done with me" because kicking your ass up and down this thread has gotten pretty tiresome. You've got nothing and you know it.
Have many mirrors in your house?
January 27, 2009 - 08:21 ET by JWFI never said it wasn't. I stand by the sentiments I expressed, and I never stated nor.. I was mindful enough to express that I was... I wish we had never invaded Iraq... Since we have, I very much wish... , I assure you.. Even I, having an extremely low opinion of Limbaugh... Nor have I mocked... Insofar as I can parse... I can't tell you how shocked I am... And as I said above, I consider...
It's ALL about YOU huh? You and your political expediency. Well it worked this time. Not so well in 2004 but hey you kept at it. That makes YOU the hero now doesn't it? YOU opposed the war when it was convenient and politically expedient. Oh look a mirror. POSE!
How about the men & women in the military. How about them? They did not join to express their sentiments or wish or assure or mock or parse. They joined to serve this country ( and possibly die for it). Most of them would not know a valid political opinion if it came up and hit them in the face. But they are dying in this war you so vehemently opposed and vehemently defend opposing. Hey, mirror right behind you.
So Congratulations to YOU. YOU roundly whipped me. Because it is all about YOU. YOU have the military. YOU hate Bush. YOU will do and say anything to get YOUR man in office. YOU love YOURSELF above all else. YOU are more important than our guys in uniform. Oh look, another mirror.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Does anyone else find it
January 27, 2009 - 09:06 ET by JasonCDoes anyone else find it amusing how posters who sign off on their malformed writings with the blustery "I'm done with you" generally keep posting anyhow?
So this is your latest tactic? Cataloguing how many times I use the first-person "I"? Brilliant. And ironic, since I began on this board by posting a respectful rebuttal to Noel's article. Gee, I really would have liked to get his feedback and/or counterargument on that; probably won't happen now, though, I certainly wouldn't blame him for not wanting to post on the clusterf--k this thread has become.
But anyhow, you are the one who made it personal. You are the one who decided to post some random old snippets of posts I made - from the looks of it quite awhile ago - in order to make me look like I hate the troops or something. But when I defend myself against your baseless accusations, as any self-respecting poster would, that makes me the narcissist, does it?
I certainly never said that my opinion is more important than the troops. You're inventing that out of thin air. What I said was that it would be irresponsible to make foreign policy decisions based solely on what the troops want. Sorry if that sounds insensitive, but it's true.
This thread was about whether Limbaugh's comments are consistent with what BOR denounced awhile back on his show. YOU are the one responsible for making it about me. As I said, if you wish to take issue with things that I have said in the post, start up a forum and I will gladly discuss it there. But what you are sloppily attempting to do here is getting pretty pathetic. I imagine that even the more conservative posters who have been following this thread are beginning to find you ridiculous.
And to save you time, I used the word "I" 13 times (oops, 14 now). It's hard to avoid when you're trying to defend yourself against absurd accusations.
I am writing my congressman today.
January 27, 2009 - 11:30 ET by JWFWhether the war is going well or not at this point does not in any way affect my conviction that the war was as wrong when we took Baghdad as it is now.
We need to get rid of those antiquated holidays like Veterans day and Memorial day and honor those true heroes that stood shoulder to shoulder with our enemy and said "oh please stop ta killin'!"
We can not have our enemy thinking he may be defeated on the battlefield now can we? We can't have him thinking this country is united in the conviction that we will prevail. He might get the silly idea that he would have to surrender or die.
So let's have a national day to honor the brave brave brave folks that opposed the war and gave comfort to the enemy. Everyone! Come on! We will call it Courageously Opposing War And Radiating Dissent In Concern for the Enemy.
On National C.O.W.A.R.D.I.C.E day, we would have these fun activities -
Kick a Gold Star mother and yell in her face - "JasonC is not a narcissist!"
Burning effigies of Sen. McCain & Gen. Petraeus and Gary Sinise and Bob Hope because silly rabbits, dissent is not telling us a better way to achieve VICTORY. It is blind opposition because you hate the current occupant of the White House. And supporting the troops is not making dozens of visits to the battlefield to entertain the troops. No we support them by bringing them home in the shame of cutting & running.
Throwing parties in honor of Rosie O'Donnel, Benedict Arnold, Tokyo Rose and JasonC!
Standing outside military bases and spitting on the troops while we yell that their opinion means nothing. NO! You can not win. No! you can not finish the job. No! It is not about you.
Because National C.O.W.A.R.D.I.C.E day is about us! me! N.O.W. Narcissists Opposing War!
Of course the symbal of COWARDICE day would be the disco ball cuz it is chock full o' da mirrorings!
Silly people, thinking that once the troops boots hit the ground in enemy territory, that somehow, we must automagically support them in their fight. NO! ME ME ME ME ME ME! I oppose the war and so does the enemy! Somebody hurt my feelings because I oppose the war and now that somebody must pay! Don't they know it is all about me and my feelings on the war. Don't they know that I do not care if I provide moral support to the enemy! I am more important than anyone actually fighting for our country on the battlefield. LEARN THAT NOW PEOPLE!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JC
January 27, 2009 - 13:16 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
Sorry for the late response.
I couldn't disagree more. Have you read the full transcript of this program? Do you have access to archived TV transcripts?
I do, and Bill's intro was indeed the subject and context of what Stewart cherry-picked. It was directed solely to folks in the media like Rosie who were wishing America would lose in Iraq and believe Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. He wasn't talking about folks who just hope the Bush presidency failed.
As such, there is no comparison between Rush wanting Obama's socialist policies to fail and Rosie et al wanting America to lose in Iraq. I frankly can't imagine any rational person seeing it differently. ns
Noel, now this is the
January 27, 2009 - 13:29 ET by JasonCNoel, now this is the conversation I wanted to have. JWF/SportPolitics Redux has made reasoned argument impossible. Thanks for your reply.
Do you have a link to the transcript in question? I've watched BOR enough that, from your excerpt, it seemed as though he was changing gears, that the comment in question was a propos his conversation with Bush, not the clips of Rosie. If I am incorrect, that certainly changes the dynamic of this argument. However, I would still maintain that Stewart is technically correct; especially because Rosie's comments, while idiotic as ever, do not refer to hoping we lose in Iraq or to soldiers being killed, as some posters are now curiously claiming.
JC
January 27, 2009 - 22:16 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
No link. You'd have to have a subscription to LexisNexis...or just trust me. :-) ns
Jon is such a tool
January 26, 2009 - 17:54 ET by Jnoblethe only thing this idiot knows how to do is make faces and yell at edited clips of people he doesn't like and repeat whatever the latest lefty talking point is in his "jokes".
Ever see how this pussy 'comedian' reacts when someone calls HIM out? He gets all pissy and mad. You know, 'cause it's just a comedy show! We make fun of everyone equally!
well well
January 26, 2009 - 20:51 ET by candanceI distinctly remember before the election lefties on here kept telling us, "stop freaking out! Obama won't go after talk radio!"
Took him less than 90 days to pick a fight with Rush. This is the beginning.
Oh, and as for Jon Stewart, I have one thing to say: dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Only dictators demonize anyone who dares question them.
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
well, well, WELL, candance...
January 26, 2009 - 21:21 ET by Jer"dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
That is precisely what the Democratic "left" has been saying for the past 40+ years. I agree...glad to see that you do, too.
Jer
?? Jer?
January 26, 2009 - 23:06 ET by candanceI've always felt that way and have never jumped on anyone for voicing legit questions about Bush or anyone else.
But as to the topic at hand...
hoping our troops lose a war > hoping Republicans save us from government healthcare
This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.
Fair enough, candance
January 26, 2009 - 23:14 ET by JerHowever...
neither does "dissent" = a hope our troops lose a war.
Jer
Precisely. As far as I
January 26, 2009 - 23:18 ET by JasonCPrecisely. As far as I can tell, Rosie is the only one advancing that sort of viewpoint. I've never seen a halfway sane liberal defend Rosie; but mainstream conservatives seem prepared to defend Limbaugh to the last.
And don't get me wrong, Limbaugh doesn't deserve to be pilloried; the issue is that BOR too broadly defined what constitutes being un-American, &c.
Jason...
January 26, 2009 - 23:37 ET by Jer"the issue is that BOR too broadly defined what constitutes being un-American, &c."
Very true. Note that BOR included Iraq "and other areas". As someone who for some ungodly reason has watched WAY too much O'Reilly, I can assure you his "other areas" encompass vast regions of Bush/policy turf.
Jer
Good evening jer
January 26, 2009 - 23:38 ET by cocodrieI agree with you here.
I have a problem with the democrat's apparent definition of dissent. What they have been passing off as fissent is more accurately defined as obstruction and character assassination.
I pray all is well with you.
Jesus Loves You
Hi coco...
January 26, 2009 - 23:43 ET by JerThanks, and don't misunderstand. Going back to the days when Viet Nam was regrettably splitting apart the country, I could distinguish between honest dissent and hell-raising, destructive radicalism.
Jer
Jer
January 27, 2009 - 00:21 ET by cocodrieAllow me to apologize for misunderstanding you in the past. Sometimes I get a little radical.
In WW2 The military commanders were able to win without the debilitating daily interference of politicians. Improved communications began to take its toll during Korea.
Vietnam was the first where instant communication allowed politicians to micromanage a military victory into a defeat.
During Vietnam and today you can lay most of the blame for our problems right on the doorstep of the old media. I can't figure out why they love socialism, communism and dictatorships so much. They would not be able to ply their trades under those regimes.
Jesus Loves You
They would not be able to
January 27, 2009 - 00:38 ET by bigtimerThey would not be able to ply their trades under those regimes.
...and the ungrateful, worthless, treasonous ba$tard$ are still going strong, they are the powers that be, enemies within... hard at work 24/7....I despise them.
I want to see the day they are defeated....run to the ground with nothing left anyone wants to hear.
Hope Springs Eternal.
Now who was that bald
April 4, 2009 - 02:31 ET by RizzoNow who was that bald southern democratic Cajun strategerist that stated that he wanted Bush's Iraq policy to fail when US troops first went in there?What's his name? You know who. The one you can't understand except for the fact that soldiers lives were at stake on a successful strategery there and the democrats and the Stewarts and other MSM made sure they did everything possible to make sure it did fail. James.....Carville? Was that his name? I could have just summed it up by saying all of Hollywood and the media wanted it to fail. Oh how they cried when they thought they were being labelled unpatriotic. They weren't disagreeing with policy, they were rooting for death of our soldiers to put up on air every night with glee. It's our duty to question our leader Uh-bama. Paybacks are a bitch
I'll sum up once again. Updated!
January 28, 2009 - 00:46 ET by JWF1. Wanting America/The President/The Military to fail in a war is treasonous and rational people are enraged by such statements.
2. Calling other behavior treasonous diminishes the word and should be roundly condemned by rational people.
3. You want to oppose this war, fine. Just don't wear it like it's a boy scout badge. It is not some kind of couragous behavior.
4. Congress declares war. Not the President. They did so in Oct of 2002. You had time prior to that, and then another 4 full months until Mar 2003 to voice your opposition. Once the troops hit the ground, and most especially once they are under fire, it is no longer the time to voice opposition. America should speak with one voice after that.
5. The only acceptable dissent after the troops come under fire is how we should best achieve victory. Sen. McCain & Gen. Petraeus were good examples.
6. You have a problem with the war or reasons for entry thereof. Take it up with the 535 members of Congress. They have had 6 years to withdraw funding. They have declined to do so every day of those 6 years. Why? Because they know doing so would diminish the respect of the United States on the world stage and would be Political Suicide. Don't bring your whining about the war here. We are seriously tired of the whining after 6 years and most especially when victory is within sight.
7. This is a right leaning site that draws conservatives like flies to honey. If you come here with what you PERCEIVE to be a valid argument from the left, you will have your weewee shoved in your watch pocket. Look at the motto, it is "COMBATING liberal media bias"
8. There are no valid arguments from the left. Keep your watch pocket empty and take some motrin. It's gonna hurt.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I have a question..
January 27, 2009 - 22:22 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhich is worse? Being correct about your assumption that Obama's socialist policies causing harm to the nation or being the one(s) responsible for implementing those same policies?
Bolton/KEYES 2012