Clinton and Boxer Discuss ‘Legislative Fix’ to 'Influence' Conservative Talk Radio

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

Coming coincident with the Thursday release of the Center for American Progress’s plans to assault conservative talk radio, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and Barbara Boxer (D-California) were overheard discussing the need for a “legislative fix” to the problem.

This information was relayed to radio host John Zeigler of KFI 640 AM Los Angeles by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) who witnessed the Senators talking about something that they heard on talk radio which upset them so that they said:

We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.

For those interested, an audio of this discussion is available here, with the transcript to follow:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE (R-OKLAHOMA): I was going over to vote the other day, and I was walking with two very liberal gals that were, they didn’t pay any attention to me being with them. They were outraged by something you said, or Rush Limbaugh said. Somebody said something that upset them. They said, “We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.” And as we got off the elevator, I said, “You gals don’t understand. This is market driven. And there’s no market for your liberal tripe.”

And that’s in, so I see…

JOHN ZEIGLER, HOST: You can’t tell us which Senators they were Senator? You can’t tell us who they were? Was that Boxer and Feinstein?

INHOFE: Uh, you’re halfway there. The other one’s running for president. You figure it out.

ZEIGLER: Oh wow. So, it was Boxer and Hillary. Boxer and Hillary told you that, you overheard Boxer and Hillary saying…

INHOFE: No, they were talking, they were complaining about the uh, talk radio.

ZEIGLER: And they were saying that we need to do something about talk radio.

INHOFE: Oh, yeah. Well, they do that, this is common chatter.

ZEIGLER: So, Hillary and Boxer were conspiring to end talk radio.

INHOFE: No, not to end talk radio. They just want to influence it. Anyway, the point is the market’s still out there, and it still counts.   

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Heil Hitlary! Viva la Boxer!

Heil Hitlary!

Viva la Boxer!

The new "Axes of Evil", battl

The new "Axes of Evil", battle-axes, that is.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment
vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

More Hitlary on tape 

A 'legislative fix'???!!!  I

A 'legislative fix'???!!!  I'm all for it.  It's called, "losing the next election" you banshees.  Voters, we've got to get out there and send these socialists packing for Siberia, where they belong.

Wait.  That would be too cruel.  For the people of Siberia.

Stop the Wenches!!!

Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar. 

So if you can't through the f

So if you can't through the force of reason convince people of your agenda and politics you force them via legislation to silence the opposition. Since the MSM is failing in it's mission to be an effective mouth piece for the Dem party we need to help them by limiting what people want to listen to.  Socialism for the debate of ideas, the bad ideas get equal time to propagandize and the public/advertisers are supposed to pay for this.  Boy, Chavez would be proud.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

A demolib victory = hello soc

A demolib victory = hello socialism.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Dissent must be silenced! Tha

Dissent must be silenced! That's how we achieve consensus.

Section 12, article 3 of the DNC handbook.

 When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

}}----> Noel, you missed it

Noel, you missed the real story the MSM will report.

Sexism at the highest levels of Government

Senator Inhofe refers to female Senator as "very liberal gals"

Incensed (D)Harry Reid and (D) Barney Frank demand apology

Cool

Cool,

I agree. If this gets reported at all, it will be the obvious sexist misogyny demonstrated by Inhofe.  :-)   ns

I'm not quite sure how the tw

I'm not quite sure how the two senators in question could ever be referred to as "gals".

C'mon PJ - this ain't a &quot

C'mon PJ - this ain't a "gal"?

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Clinton & Boxer dicuss fix

We can sit here and make fun of this all we want - I
like humor too. But the fact of the matter is, this is dead serious.
With Hillary in the White House and a Democrat majority in Congress, we
conservatives had better keep our heads down and our butts covered.Hillary
has always been a socialist if not an outright communist. She's
become brazen enough to talk socialism in her campaign speeches because that appeals to her base. And now she
wants to put limits on free speech just like any other good
liberal-socialist.The bad part of all this is,
they will work within the Constitution to get their agenda across so it
will all be above board and "Constitutional".We had better stand up now and get a clue.

You're so right, misterbee. H

You're so right, misterbee. Hillary's ultimate goal is to be President for life. Once in office, she's likely to do everything in her power to see to it that she can remain in power - even to changing the Constitution to extend the number of terms the President is allowed. In fact, she's already expressed interest in such a proposal, hasn't she? She's so delusional that she thinks only she and Bill know what's right for America. They're not much different from Saddam and his sons, IMO.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

Ha, right, that's just rich

Ha, right, that's just rich. Yes, Hillary will make herself President for life, just like Bill did, and did you also know that Bush personally blew up the WTC?

Get a life. Get over your Hillary Derangement System and focus your anger at the unconstitutionality of the fairness doctrine. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

It's great to see Hillary try

It's great to see Hillary trying this - fantastic repub promotion...

CatHerder: Calm down. I was e

CatHerder: Calm down. I was exagerrating and my commentary was based on what I believe is Hillary's motivation. She is obsessive about gaining power.  Her positions on anything change with every poll. If she truly wanted to be the POTUS because she thought she could make a difference, she would take a stand and stick with it.  I understand how the Constitution is amended.

Bill's long goodbye also leads me to believe that, if it were possible, he would love to live out the rest of his days in the White House.

BTW, Hillary did suggest that she would like to see the Constitution amended to extend the term limits of the President. She may have been joking. Hard to tell.

It seems you make the mistake of believing that everyone on this site who criticizes Hillary has no basis for such criticism other than she's a liberal Democrat. You're being just as narrow-minded.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

Queen,Who is this cat herder

Queen,

Who is this cat herder and why has he hijacked my profile?

Please don't tell me it's a new little dkos poster.  I'd hate to have to change my profile.  I like it the way it is.

misterbee241 Says: But the

misterbee241 Says: But the fact of the matter is, this is dead serious.

It is deadly serious.

We have people who call themselves Democratic Americans who want to put laws on the books that will make freedom of speech illegal.

This is a tactic of oppression used throughout history to gain power.

The people proposing this know that.

Next will be the "re-education" camps.

Guess what follows that?

D


Go here and here to let your reps know what you think!

Actually Barney demands and

Actually Barney demands and upgrade to 1st class with a mandatory cavity search.

Barney, an apology

Barney Frank would only need an apology because he also is a gal!!

Too many lies are being exp

Too many lies are being exposed. It's so crucial that Iraq be lost and columns such as Peters yesterday permitted conservative talk show hosts to elaborate on the current efforts which have created success.

JDW

News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

Hillary other concerns

Perhaps Hillary should worry less about suppressing free speech and captialism. She should worry more about her potential 2 felonies.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

The "good" news i

The "good" news is that they're attacking a target of the past, and YouTube is the future. The bad news is that YouTube is next.
JMR

They already have people work

They already have people working on You Tube. Why else is it that conservative videos are marked as hate speech and jihadi videos last for months?

Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law

sarcasmo Says: The "g

sarcasmo Says: The "good" news is that they're attacking a target of the past, and YouTube is the future.

Dunno sarc 'boy'. Radio is here to stay for now, I can't see having YouTube in my car till they make a car that drives itself (I know, I know, there are some out there in testing)!

Yes, YouTube (or it's better) is the future in the home starting now.

PS You can call me 'boy' anytime.

D


Go here and here to let your reps know what you think!

802.11 is only the beginnin

802.11 is only the beginning...I fully expect morons with heads-up displays to be surfing the 'net on I-95 as we drive together within 5 years. Already Verizon has a network (Windoze-only, dammit!) that allegedly extends out of Orlando from Brevard to the Tampa/St.Pete area, so it won't take much... Anyway, I hereby predict that YouTube will affect this coming election (good or bad I won't predict, though) and further predict the YouTube phenomenon will lower some talking heads' salaries (that's an absolutely good thing, in my book).
JMR

Talk Radio

OK, I'm sick of being polite.  I am going to be blunt.  These two women are not friends of democracy.  Hillary has been making more and more statements that are communist sounding.  More democrats are in bed with Soros and he is financing a lot of them and the 529 groups that support them. Using the government to silence anyone is censorship.  Communism by any other name is just being polite.  Let’s call it what it is. 

None of them are. Hillary

None of them are. Hillary is a proponent of censorship and socialism. Bush is a proponent of secrecy and cronyism. Vote out every single incumbent, that's the only way to change things.

No doubt they will ask for a

No doubt they will ask for a "legislative fix" so that the evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, NPR etc can be "influenced" to provide the American public a more balanced view of the world.

talk radio

what is the difference in what these "ladies" want to do and what Hugo Chavez is doing?  If this isn't enough to get real conservatives out to vote then this country is truly doomed. 

This should also get people w

This should also get people who think they're Liberals (because they've been brainwashed by the public schools, the universities and the MSM - including the entertainment business) to have an epiphany and come home to liberty.

How long will it take them to

How long will it take them to go after blogs on the web?  Liberal Talk radio has failed.  Air America went bankrupt and is barely hanging on.  Any liberal on a regular radio program is on late at night because there is no day time market and it doesn’t make money for them.

It is simple.  Talk Radio works and it just pisses them off.

 

I thought I heard that Hillar

I thought I heard that Hillary wanted some type of censorship on the internet.  My guess is that that wouldn't be for true obscenity either. 

Well, if she ever exposes her

Well, if she ever exposes herself to a non-biased interview, here's the question to pose to the Senator:

"Senator Clinton, do you believe that a 'legislative fix' is required to curb or somehow control the free speech of talk radio?"

If she says "Yes," they the questioning continues to pull that thread for specifics on scope and application, with her explanation about why we need to fix radio and not NPR and Network TV.

If she says "No," she's on record, and probably alienating more Far Left Dems.

}}----> Galvanic

Maybe she should "expose herself" to Frank DeFord and I could get my sports section back.

Oh Yuck Cool.....you just mad

Oh Yuck Cool.....you just made me sick...OH NO...Can't get image out of my head...

AF, you think that's bad?

Check out Joy Behar's humor

Ok Cool, I got to go lay down

Ok Cool, I got to go lay down now...that was sick.

Hillary's a lawyer ... She wo

Hillary's a lawyer ... She would never answer that question with a plain "yes" or "no" ... She would hop, skip, jump, and loopty-loop so much that you'd forget what the hell you even asked.  I always laugh how Bill Clinton is hailed as such a great speaker, and Pres. Bush is a stumble-bumble.  Yeah, and used car salesmen can sell you your own car if you stand there and listen to them long enough.

The left needs mind control over the masses.  Oh, you're depressed? Take a pill.  Your kid won't sit his ass down in class and pay attention? Give him a pill.  People are turning off the MSM and looking for news in other sources? Silence the opposition.

I'm telling you ... We may have to bring home our troops to bring this country back to the Constitution.  You know, when the lion's away the rats will play ...

Hillary keeps saying they have to "take back America" ... Take it back to where, Hillary?  Take it back to what? Seems Hillary's intent in government is to take whatever, whenever she feels necessary.  IF the Republican candidate who runs against her does not utilize that "take" tendency of hers, and the democrats, they are not only missing a great opportunity, but putting this country in major jeopardy of becoming slaves to the government. 

The government serves the people ... The people do not serve the government in this country.  G-d! How I am eager for the debates.

Senator Clinton is first and

Senator Clinton is first and foremost a liberal, and the liberal political philosophy is that government is the means by which human misery and inequality are eliminated.   She and the other liberal elites convince themselves that if government is in their trusted hands, then it can accomplish the goal.  Of course, we know that no matter how much the libs promise to make government work to fix things, it seldom does, and when it does, it's usually very inefficient. 

So, when she says "Take back America," she means take back control of the government.  She also means for government to then take back control of our lives.

The candidate who's most honest about it is Kucinich.  I listened to one of his speeches this week, and he made Huey Long sound conservative.  Kucinich wants universal, single-payer health care, a 21st Century of the New Deal's WPA, and a "WGA" (Greens) modeled after the WPA,  yadda-yadda-yadda.  He doesn't even address how one pays for all this stuff, but it doesn't matter because it's all about government taking control of our lives. 

The problem is that no democr

The problem is that no democrat has evered answered a "yes" or "no" question with "yes" or "no". 

Gee, I thought they were 's

Gee, I thought they were 'supposed' to be the party of tolerance. Guess not!

extreme right wing radio - no way

Talk radio is mostly conservative, no question about that. But to lable it extreme right wing shows how out of touch theses women are. This is along the lines of democratic thinking that liberalism is mainstream and anything to the right of that is EXTREME. We need to contact our Republician congressmen and let them know our feeling on this matter, as we did on the immigration bill.

Don't forget Trent Lott's bad

Don't forget Trent Lott's bad-mouthing of conservative talk radio last week re: the shamnisty bill ...

I know Lott was suppose to be

I know Lott was suppose to be on Sean's show yesterday but I didn't get to hear it.

Anyone catch that one?

He tried to explain away his

He tried to explain away his remark by saying what he really meant was that the people on talk radio just didn't understand the details of the immigration bill, blah blah blah.

Pretty unimpressive.

}}----> Trent's Lott

Trent Lott used to be plainspoken and straightforward.  He might be again if he would say some words he really believed.

Freedom of the Press is the first casualty of a Soprano style government.  Down with Antifrees Monty Hall - Let's Make a Deal

This is why they (big governm

This is why they (big government politician types- especially on the Left) hate talk radio and the Web: It's two way communication which includes the people in the debate.  They don't like that.  It reminds them that they are not our rulers, but merely our representatives.

Of course, the problem is tha

Of course, the problem is that opponents understand the details of the bill very well indeed.

Lott is a pork-barreller, and

Lott is a pork-barreller, and therefore, not a conservative.

again, typical of the left

Their ideas cannot hold up to free and logical debate so they want to legislatively force their ideas on others. They talk about "free speech" until it is speech that is opposed to their views, then it is something that must be stopped.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

c5then..."Their ideas ca

c5then...

"Their ideas cannot hold up to free and logical debate, so they want to legislatively force their ideas on others."

Exactly, exactly, exactly.  This is the same thing I run into when I try to talk to some of my friends and family members - as soon as you do something as simple as ask them a question concerning their beliefs, they are instantly emotionally charged, and can barely carry on a coherrent thought.  The only way they operate is to try and destroy opposing ideas, despite the fact that the majority of the opposiition bases their ideas in fact, not in emotion.

The reason liberals are unsuccessful on talk radio?

The reason liberals are unsuccessful on talk radio?

I heard a guest on a talk radio show yesterday say he believes that the the medium requires listeners to be able to deliver and understand arguments intellectually.   Conservatives, he said, are generally able to do this, which accounts for their talk radio success.

On the other hand, he believes that the reason liberals are unsuccessful on talk radio is that the majority of liberals need the simplification that visual aids offer.

Interesting theory....

Another possibility

A few days ago a liberal enlighten us...the only way to convert a conservative to becoming a liberal is with a lobotomy.

Thompson/Rice

RJ

RJ,

I don't like that argument, because it's too antagonistic and stereo-typical. Liberals aren't all stupid and incapable of understanding arguments intellectually. I know a lot of extraordinarily bright libs who could debate with the best cons at this board and do quite well.

I think the problem the libs have on talk radio is that the content is too invective-filled. The reason why Rush is the best on both sides of the aisle is because regardless of how the media depict him, he really is a cordial, pleasant, friendly host. His criticisms of the left though frequent are still done with some respect. As a result, Rush's audience, though certainly conservative, is also comprised of moderate Reps and moderate Dems.

By contrast, the Al Frankens and Randi Rhodes of the world are so filled with hatred for the right that only the people on the very far left are going to enjoy the content. What people forget about talk radio is that conceivably only a small percentage listen for reasons of information gathering. Most people are looking for some entertainment as well. And, a host just viciously lambasting America, Americans, and all politicians that disagree with him or her is not entertaining. Furthermore, it's so repetitive that it becomes boring very quickly.

This in my view is why lib radio fails. For them to be successful, they really need to mirror what has made Rush successful rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.  ns 

I agree, Noel.  As much as I

I agree, Noel.  As much as I love and respect Sean Hannity, I've had to ease off a bit from his radio program.  His tone and delivery just get too intense.  I think (as a former radio person myself) you can get across you message and passion without the barking stern tone.  I agree with what Hannity's saying ... It's just his delivery that gets on my nerves sometimes.

Rush, on the other hand, has crafted his delivery so that it's not so grating.  Glenn Beck has a similar manner, but is more prone to handle topics as a comic would.  That makes listening not only easier, but more entertaining.

Hannity is just too programme

Hannity is just too programmed.  You know what he is going to say about any particular topic because we've heard it all before.  He sounds like those Dems Fox has on all the time that have the talking points memorized. 

Plus the way he continually promotes Dick Morris, not to mention the Reverend Al, is just getting to be a bit much.

Hannity is very personable and Real

I disagree. Maybe on H&C he is a bit one-dimensional but on his radio program he is very warm, personable and not always predictable.

He has criticized Bush and put other Republicans on the hot seat.

I really like listening to his Radio Show, but I got sick of H&C because the times I want him to go after a liberal he takes it easy and other times I think he just goes for the throat when I want to let the lib hang himself on the issue.

but on his radio program he

but on his radio program he is very warm, personable and not always predictable.

Is that after you cut through the countless layers of smug?

Clueless Boa

Do you actually listen to his show?

I said radio, not TV. I agree his TV show is a bit of a "Show"

But the radio show is very real and personable.

He is very nice to liberals for the most post and only cuts off conspiracy nuts who just want to come on his show and filibuster.

I've gotten a little angry sometimes when he gives some guys a minute and then let's the liberal guy talk for 5 minutes.

The Hate-Hannity-Hotline is a riot.

You know it's actually OK to admit that someone you don't like is a real, warm, sensible person.

Yeah, it's OK!!

I've listened. It's not as ba

I've listened. It's not as bad as on the TV show, but I still can't take it.

I'd admit if he was sensible, real, and warm, if I thought he was any of those things. :-)

Just for argument's sake, Noel

I presented the idea in the form of a question, Noel, as something to consider...but just for argument's sake:

I didn't generalize and say "all" liberals are dumb or cannot debate well.  Of course, there are many, many who can.  Further, of course, boards like this don't represent the general population.

But I don't think the point he made is about a lack of intelligence.  It's more like laziness and a form of atrophy.   Many (most, even?) liberals are emotionally, not intellectually, convinced that their position is correct, and don't do well intellectually when challenged outside their sphere of belief.    Because they haven't had to support their views, they're unaccustomed to presenting them intellectually.   Talkers like Rhodes and Franken may even recognize that emotional root and believe they must play to it....which could also be why they reject the Rush template.

BTW, I don't know which talkers you listen to, but NONE of those I listen to (around 8-10 overall, on and off) practice any invective.  

RJ

RJ,

I'd rather not go on the record concerning which hosts practice invective. You can probably imagine why.

Suffice to say, as another member pointed out, there are a lot of times when I'm in my car listening to talk radio that I change the channel because I feel the host is being too negative either towards a guest or a politician being discussed. I yearn for a more civil debate, and a time when we could all just be Americans again rather than libs and cons, Dems and Reps.

It's all become too contentious, and I think there are more people that are part of the problem than part of the solution.

Fair enough?   ns

It's the substance, Noel.  S

It's the substance, Noel.  See my other post.

It's not a question of debating methodology or skills or tactics. 

Well, Noel....

Well, Noel....

I think there are many, many more conservative talkers who are NOT contentious than are.   Locally, I have yet to hear a conservaive talker who IS contentious. 

Meanwhile, the liberal talkers in my area (greater Hartford) are quite contentious.   In fact, the number one liberal talker is deliberately insulting and taunting.   

RJ

Ear of the beholder.  :-)   ns

Is that all you're going to s

Is that all you're going to say? 

Noel

ear of the beholder?.......why, you.....

I miss those days also.You co

I miss those days also.You could debate your views then go drink beers or coffee together.

Michael Savage comes to mind

Michael Savage comes to mind Noel. Though we agree on most things, he is too angry for me and rude and insults anyone who disagrees.

You have a point, but there s

You have a point, but there's definitely something to the other reasoning as well. But to me, the bottom line is the substance.

It doesn't take great debating skills to prove the Left is wrong, it only takes facts.  To discredit conservatism, on the other hand, you need to divert the attention of the public away from the facts and to something else - like scandal, or a negative stereotype. i.e. Republicans are racist, bigots, greedy etc.

These are all fact-avoidance techniques designed to steer the debate toward images and feelings.

Liberalism, or rather, socialism, fails every time it's tried.  The facts are all over the place.  So, if you're a socialist you can't deal in facts, you must avoid them...you can't do that on radio or on the web...unless you can control their content.  Which is what Ms. Clinton wants to do.

Noel, you should be concerned

I made this point a few months ago and I think it's a great point. 

I used to get off work at 8:00pm every night and driving home I could pick up a station that had the Randi Rhodes show and I would try and listen during my 45 minute commute home.  But I couldn't because all she did was yell, scream, and vomit hate at man, woman and child that was even the least bit conservative.  Even Rush on Friday's during football season takes call's about the upcoming NFL games and "takes a break" I guess you would say, from the political commentary. 

Didn't Bill Press have a show on in LA and he was supposed to be the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and it failed worse than a Democratic plan for the poor?

Yes, more civil debate is needed, however for the most part it needs to come from the left as from things that I've heard and listened too, it's the neo-libs that are blowing gaskets and not so much the conservatives.

A format that FNC follows as

A format that FNC follows as well very successfully... 

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

There is the anger factor. T

There is the anger factor. Their humor flops because you have to drink the kool aid, and thereby isn't funny (it has to have a element of truth in it to be funny). Which brings up another reason why it fails...because they are known koolaid drinkers, no one but other kool aid drinkers trust what they say...hence they can't convince anybody to buy their sponsors goods...no sponsors is death to free radio.

"I think the problem the

"I think the problem the libs have on talk radio is that the content is too invective-filled."

Agree, Noel. I consider myself a talk show junkie. But I find I need to back off sometimes for a few days because even some of the conservative talkers sometimes get too repetitive and harsh. There are certain issues for example that Laura Ingraham is particularly passionate about. I'm a big fan of Laura. Have been since her show started. Besides respecting her as a radio talk show host, I call her one of my personal heroes.   But if she spends too much time going over and over these same issues, I find myself looking for other options. It would be difficult to listen for any length of time to the likes of Franken. It's too bad the libs despise Rush too much to learn from him like the successful Conservative hosts have.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

Spot on Noel

I agree, I would also add two things:

1 - Liberals are supposed to be loving and understanding and such and the two you mentioned are neither. Even many true liberals would have a hard time listening to the hate.

Even though I must say that allot of my in-laws must listen because they are very loving and all except when you mention Politics and then it's all repeated sound-bites. I stopped having political discussions with them because I could write their side of the argument for them.

2 - It seems to me that the right has an ability to acknowledge it's flaws and aren't just rabid and rigid like the left.

When I try to listen to Olberman or anyone on the far left it's like their side is perfect. Read David Corn or guys like that. It's like you never hear them criticize their own.

Listen to Hannity or Rush criticize Bush, the only problem when they do it is that the MSM immediately puts their criticisms on the National News.

I just checked and our libera

I just checked and our liberal freind "Lyons" is MIA on this subject.  I think he knows he would get his backside handed to him on this one.

Is it just me, or have these

Is it just me, or have these neo-facist socialists already exposed themselves to the electorate?  I mean, seriously, does anyone think that any of the "democrats" will win the White House in 2008?  There's no way in Hades that any of these freaks will win.  They're scared of FoxNews, they've turned Congress into an impotent joke of a legislative body, and they have no plans for the future, except to unconditionally surrender Iraq, redistribute wealth, socialize healthcare, and apologize to the rest of the world on our behalf. 

Barack Hussein just hopes that he can keep smiling his way into the White House...NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!! 

Who's your choice, then?Giu

Who's your choice, then?

Giuliani, the corrupt-as-hell, thin-skinned lunatic who will undo everything social conservatives have worked towards for the last 3 decades?

McCain, Romney, and Thompson (yes, Fred Thompson), whose positions change with the wind?

Someone like Tancredo will be beaten even by Hillary.

There are no good choices on either side, really.

Even though I don't really care too much for Hagel and Bloomberg, if they run on a third party ticket like that Unity08 deal, I'll vote for it. If it has a chance of winning (and it might; Perot might have won in 92 if he had a clue what he was doing politically), it'd be a great "screw you" to the Republicans and the Democrats who offer us crap for candidates.

CH... Thompson/Hunter '08!Hag

CH...

Thompson/Hunter '08!

Hagel/Bloomberg.....

ROFLMAO!

Thompson is a fraud. He's

Thompson is a fraud. He's the Republicans' Barack Obama -- a rorschach test on which people project their hopes.

Gee, that's cute, catherder

gee, that's cute, catherder, but why is Thompson a fraud?

1) Like Romney, he is a fli

1) Like Romney, he is a flip flopper on abortion.

Fred Thompson, 1994: "I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions.
It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don't know in my
own mind if that is the case so I don't feel the law ought to impose
that standard on other people."

Fred Thompson, 1994: "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."

Fred Thompson, 1996: "I do believe that the decision to have an early term abortion is a
moral issue and should not be a legal one subject to the dictates of
the government."

2) Flip-flopper on campaign finance reform. He helped write and support McCain-Feingold. When it passed. Feingold (ultraliberal) wrote him a nice letter, saying "You were essential to our success."

Now he's saying he doesn't like a lot of it.

He publicly flaunts his disdain for US law by smoking fat Cuban cigars, but still publicly calls for sanctions. It would seem he thinks he's above the law.

When McCain ran in 2000, he was one of McCain's biggest supporters.

He's John McCain, minus the long history of very public implosions, plus charisma.

By your standards, catherder, Bloomberg is the biggest fraudf

By your standards, catherder, Reagan was a fraud, too...

Also by your standards, your apparent favorite, Michael Bloomberg, the Democrat-cum-Rebublican-cum-Independent candidate of minute-by minute political convenience, is even more of a fraud.

It's the same standard bein

It's the same standard being applied to Romney and others. We're talking quite a few flip flops, and pretty recently.

And I should clarify. Bloomberg is a loser. But if the GOP puts out one of the three (maybe four) clowns they're currently waving around, I'm half tempted to vote for the loser to tell the GOP to stop waving clowns around.

speaking of clarifying, catherder

Speaking of clarifying, considering your tag (which is telling), and considering that you're attempting to take the position of "Integrity Judge" for conservatives,

-did you vote for Bush (both times? if not, who?)

-did you vote for Clinton (both times?  if not, who?)

-who is currently likely to get your vote?

Bush, Bush, Dole, PerotNow:

Bush, Bush, Dole, Perot

Now: Depends who gets nominated, doesn't it. It's not going to be the Democrat no matter who they nominate.

Giuliani = Not voting for the Republican, either.

McCain = Not voting for the Republican, either.

Romney = Probably not voting for the Republican, either.

Thompson = Unless things change, probably not voting for the Republican, either.

Ron Paul = Well, he's not gonna get the nomination, but I wouldn't vote for him either.

Any of the other contenders = Yeah, I'd vote for them.

that's pretty funny, catherder

Thanks for the answer about your "voting", catherder. It gave me chuckle. "Perot" was a nice touch. And that's a pretty funny list, denying that there are any "Republican" candidates....

I can't make up my mind if you're a lib trying to behave as you think a "real" conservative would behave, or if you're just a completely unrealistic idealist. Either way, I can't seem to take you seriously.   But I will say you have provocative views that you present with a straight face, and that makes you kinda fun.    ;^>

But you kinda fudged on your current favorite. Of all the candidates who have a fairly realistic chance of winning the nomination, including Bloomberg, who would you prefer to vote for?

It's nice to have these discu

It's nice to have these discussions about who should or should not be the candidate. But I think it's ridiculous to try to evaluate the candidates at this point in time. The televised debates are a joke thus far. No depth and no serious debate. IMO, the real contenders won't be obvious until after September and until the Democrat field is more defined. Then we can decide which of the candidates is a bigger flipper than Hillary. LOL

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

Cat...That'll show 'em!ROFL n

Cat...

That'll show 'em!

ROFL now....

It showed Bush Sr., didn't

It showed Bush Sr., didn't it.

Guess that means you liked th

Guess that means you liked the outcome afterwards eh Cat?

Says a lot right there for me.

Do you disagree that Perot

Do you disagree that Perot taught the GOP a lesson? They haven't nominated anyone like Bush Sr. since '92, have they?

When did I say I liked the short-term outcome? I think the long-term outcome was good, though.

If Bush Sr. won re-election, the Democrats likely would have kept control of Congress, a Democrat probably would have won i '96, and had a good chance of being re-elected in '00, and we'd have a Democrat in office on 9/11.

Think about THAT one.

The Democrats lost the hous

The Democrats lost the house not due to Clinton so much as Newt and all the scandals that were going on at the time.

Perot didn't teach the GOP anything, ...else why did they lose last election? You can't win by losing. Instead of throwing out all Republicans you don't like, throw out the ones you don't like at the primaries. Unless of course you like the Democrat candidate, then vote for the Democrat. I am a conservative, which means I usually vote Republican, however I have voted for Democrats who are conservative and are a stronger candidate than the opposing Republican. Course right now I am close to saying throw them all out ( at least the ones who are for this amnesty bill...far more important issue than abortion IMO )

Do you disagree that Perot

Oops, double post.

So basicly you are just in t

So basicly you are just in the middle of the road?  You don't know which way you want to go.  Besides yourself, who do you trust? 

I'm most certainly not &quo

I'm most certainly not "middle of the road." I wouldn't vote for any of the Democrats running, but on the Republican side, the individual is important to me.

Hence why I'd vote for some of them, and I wouldn't vote for others.

Cat,  I can understand that.

Cat,  I can understand that.  Just trying to get some gage of where you were.

On abortion...what is his

On abortion...what is his position now that makes him a "flip flopper"?

On the cigars, how do you know they were cubans and not just cigars that looked cuban?

Are you making the claim that politicians can never change their policy, or think their way of thinking before was wrong? Otherwise they are guilty of flip flopping? That is a pretty tall order.

How is he John McCain?

For me, the abortion thing has never been a deciding issue (though I am against abortion, unless the candidate is pro-abortions and thinks we should mandate every third child be aborted) what is more important is security (like the war on terror and illegal immigration), spending, and taxes, and will he uphold the constitution like the right to property, the right for guns, freedom of speech etc.. The campaign finance thing is a big thing for me, because that is a direct assault on the constitution...so that is a big negative. He now says it was wrong to make that bill...so I am curious as to what he thinks would make it right.

Right now its between Fred and Mit for me, but I could comfortably vote for any of the republicans except for McCain. If McCain wins, I will vote third party.

If you are okay with Mitt R

If you are okay with Mitt Romney (and that's just a matter of personal choice), then you should be okay with Fred Thompson.

But I am not okay with Mitt Romney, and so far I have not been terribly impressed with Fred Thompson for the same reasons I have not been impressed with Mitt Romney.

Perhaps "fraud" was too strong. It's not like Fred is another Hillary Clinton, but I personally don't get the fanaticism.

"Same reasons" catherder?

"same reasons", catherder?

Two very different men, with two very different sets of experience.

Personally, I haven't decided yet.   But, in spite of all of them being flawed, I'll vote for any of the Republican candidates to keep the socialist Democrat fools out of office.

1)  Exactly how is Thompson

1)  Exactly how is Thompson a flip-flopper on abortion given what you said?  Last I heard from Thompson on abortion is that he would not shed tears if Roe v Wade was expunged.  That certainly keeps in step with what you've said.  Let's also get Fred, if he does run, to expand on what and why he believes/feels a certain way.  I'll bet he'll talk and be pretty candid for a politician.  If he doesn't then he's just another two-faced huckster.  A person can change/evolve in their belief's, though in your senior years sounds a bit suspicious to change your mind on abortion.

2)  McCain-Feingold was NOT a good piece of legislation due to all the loopholes and backdoors it created or maintained.   The 527's are disgusting propaganda mouthpieces for the most part (except my favorite of course, swift boat veterans for truth!).  What if Thompson recognizes the monster he helped create and wants to shore up those (a)holes?  Let's give him a chance to explain before branding him a two-faced huckster. 

How do you know what kind of cigars he smoked?  Where'd you hear it was Cuban's?

And what does it really matter who he supported 7 years ago.  I don't care if it was McCain, Goldwater or Pat Paulsen.  Two of those three were republicans and the other was a lot better choice than Clinton the 1st.  It's just like I don't care if he's been married twice and that his current wife is many years his junior.  I do care what he wants to do today and tomorrow and how he's going to do it.  Solid answers with a solid roadmap of action is what I am looking for.  Not pie in the sky, says everything just right, pandering BS.

For a guy NOT in the race, he sure is taking a lot of hits.

I disagree, he has some very

I disagree, he has some very solid credentials.  I also like pretty much everything he says.  Have you checked out his blog?  That was where I learned about him.  I also liked, that when baited to criticize Presidents Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, he did not take it, unlike every other republican candidtate who could not wait to trash the president's performance.  I may not agree with Bush about every move he has made regarding this war, but I am at least intelligent enough to admit I do not have all of the information to have a solid oppinion.  As people who have some influence, I think it is a terrible mistake to openly criticize the President in regards to the war, it sends a bad message to our troops and to our enemy.

You should criticize a Pres

You should criticize a President over his war performance if he deserves it, like Clinton in his little foreign escapades.

Not publicly, not if you are

Not publicly, not if you are in a position of influence.  The lives of our husbands, wives, daughters, brothers, uncles, ...are at stake. 

I wonder, have you ever served?  Just asking, not insulting.

No, I have not served.Howev

No, I have not served.

However, there is a HUGE difference between giving valid criticism to the President's handling of Iraq like many Republicans have... and saying crap like "the war is lost" like Harry Reid did.

The first isn't so bad, and can be helpful. The second, of course, should not be said!

The problem with what you jus

The problem with what you just said is that you think someone going on a debate or on Chris Mathews talking about the war is the same as giving valid criticizm TO the President.  It is not the same and should never be done.

But even if most Republican

But even if most Republicans think the war hasn't been handled perfectly, and you're going for the Republican nomination... do you think you should just completely shut up in public and in interviews?

My response would be, "I

My response would be, "I understand you want me to explain how I would handle the war differently or what I think the President has done wrong, but I just can not honestly answer that without all of the facts.  I can say that I believe we made the right choice to go to war with Iraq and I think this is going to be a long haul, but beyond that, it is impossible for me to give you an honest answer."

I understand what you're sa

I understand what you're saying, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think constructive, honest criticism is okay. Saying "the war is lost," is, of course, not okay.

that's fine.  I have to clea

that's fine.  I have to clean the house now, I should have left an hour ago.

People who have never served,

People who have never served, in general, do not think about how the actions of public figures can affect our troops, that is why I asked.  It is apparent you do not care or think it is even a valid argument.  I knew your answer would be no, I just wanted to be sure so I could place your comments in context. 

Please expand on his 'fraud

Please expand on his 'fraudulent' positions. The more specificity the better. thanks.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

Cat...Bloomberg has changed h

Cat...

Bloomberg has changed his party three times...

Hagel is a RINO wannabe....

Get a grip....smell the coffee...remove the rose-colored glasses...

Thompson/Hunter '08!

Hey, if it comes down to Gi

Hey, if it comes down to Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson (unless he does something to wow me), I'm gonna vote Constitution, or Libertarian, or perhaps just not vote at all.

Those 3 (perhaps 4) clowns don't deserve my vote.

Methinks Cat Herder is a Judas goat

Methinks Cat Herder is a Judas goat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat

RJ...Bingo.

RJ...

Bingo.

CatHerder

Methinks CatHerder is a defeatist who is angry that the United States isn't a parliamentary democracy.

You know, the only candidate I knwo for office who will run the country they way I want it run is the Unsane Party candidate, but as he is disqualified from running for office due to being too young, that is not going to happen.  Therefore, I have to evaluate ALL of the candidates on the basis on the Unsane Party platform, and go from there.  I won't get everything I want as CatHerder seems to want, but I am trying to get a compromise...of a candidate that gives me most everything I want.

Realistically, pouting and staying home, or voiting for thrid, fouth and fifth parties, is quite counterproductive.

MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!!  THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!

If Perot hadn't run in 92, C

If Perot hadn't run in 92, Clinton wouldn't have won. 

I'm well aware of that. Bu

I'm well aware of that. But if Perot knew what he was doing, HE might have won. Which would be better than Clinton (and maybe Bush I), now, wouldn't it?

Cat...Perot knew exactly what

Cat...

Perot knew exactly what he was doing.

Exactly...

From the beginning to the end.

Exactly. And the MSM LOVED hi

Exactly. And the MSM LOVED him. Hmmm, they don't seem to hold Nader in the esteem, do they?

No bias there, keep moving along folks

You think he didn't want to

You think he didn't want to win? I think he was in it to win, but he made some mistakes that sunk him.

*Shudder*

I shudder every time I read this. A 'legislative fix' to freedom of speech.

I'm sorry, but whether you're Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Illegal Immigrant, or Little Green Man from Mars, this should scare the holy crap out of you.

It does. And always has. Fr

It does. And always has. Free speech is a principle-issue, no matter what the medium.
JMR

OH Monty???

All hail Monty the prophet

Freedom of the Press is the first casualty of a Soprano style government.  Down with Antifrees

??JMR

??
JMR

Well, we can't have a &quot

Well, we can't have a "divided" America. We must all speak with one voice! And which voice is that? The voice of liberalism of course! Yes, lets finally bring the country together with the only true and valid opinion, that of the liberal elite!! In the spirit of the founding fathers we must all see "eye to eye" and never question the tenets of liberalism! I demand we obey the 1st Amendment's abmonition to allow only liberalism to be thought, spoken and taught in the United Liberal States of America (ULSA)!! Amen! and goodnight!

good grief. what a couple of bee oches.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

The real reason

The REAL reason wants conservative talkradio suppressed is because she cannot deal with The Truth.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Can anyone say "Straw

Can anyone say "Straw that broke the camel's back"

And we still have how many months to the elections?

"Legislative fix":

"Legislative fix": benign-sounding words for a terrifying idea...

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

Yesterday the local talk show

Yesterday the local talk show station was talking to someone from an organization that did a survey of talk radio who claimed that it was biased towards conservatives.

He was trying to make the point that since radio stations are on the airwaves for free via the FCC, they (the stations) have a responsibility to be balanced, served the community blah blah blah.

That is the tact the the Social Fascists are going to use.

Free speech can't be legislatively ballanced.

The stations do have a license from the FCC, but it CAN NOT be dependant upon their content. That would violate the 1st Amendment. Any restriction by Congress on a persons ability to say or publish what they think, is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It's that simple. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes an appeals court or the SCOTUS to re-establish that.

Any hate speech legislation, or other restriction on expression is blatantly unconstitutional. It may take a case that gets herd by the SCOTUS, but it will be struck down.

We have an example of liberal talk radio that did not survive too long. Air America was not popular and could not get enough advertisers because of low ratings to pay their bills. Why? It's because most people do not want to listen to rabid hosts that have nothing good to say about anything. They do not want to hear about how the "other guys" are stupid, dangerous, and conspirational without hearing about the alternative choices or plans. That's the difference on Conservative radio. They do not simply bash and demean the liberals. They put forth their alternative ideas and plans.

The liberals have proven that they do not have anything other than to bad mouth and demean the current plan or idea. They do not put forth their alternative plan because they really don't have one.

Americans will listen to: "That's a stupid idea, here is the way we should do it..."

Americans get quickly bored with: That's a stupid idea. Now on to our next guest."

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

I have a couple of friends th

I have a couple of friends that are dems (one because as a farmer he feels like dems provide him with the only way to survive).  They both only bash conservatives/republicans but are never willing to debate.  Once I start to argue the conservative view, they want to end the conversation.

}}----> Yo Fish

Does the farmer friend ever pay Illegals under the table?  I know Dems would never avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Fishface - you don't seem to

Fishface - you don't seem to understand. The debate is over. Ask big Al.

"Macaca" hillary?

Could this be hillary's "Macaca"?

Hugo would be proud of her.

"legislative fix" (communism) "it takes a village" (socialism), pro-choice (baby killing), experienced (carpetbagging senator), "i'll take that money" (anti-capitalism) empty pantsuit running on on someone's coattails

}}----> Good Point vrwc13

Macaca es Sucaca.

Sounds so Globally nice.

check it out...

hillaryis 44's new site (h/t Peggy Noonan)

}}----> Noonan nailed it

Good article.

It is dark, and pink on the inside.

oooh...won't touch that one w

oooh...won't touch that one with a 10 foot carrot stick...

Don't get distracted by it so

Don't get distracted by it sounding silly.  This is very serious business.  In every totalitarian state control of information is first on the agenda.  The Dem/Libs  found this out in the 80's when the original ,so called, Fairness Doctrine was changed.  They won't let it happen again.  Control of the Congress along with a Democrat President will make a new "Fairness Doctrine" a reality.  Don't count on the courts either. Liberal judges will continue to be the norm in the future.

Hill may not like free speech

Hill may not like free speech when it comes to conservative talk radio....she may even attempt to stop it along with her leftist cohorts....

Wonder if she is going to like the sound of her own voice...after all she gave it freely....

Time will tell....

Both Clinton's and Boxer's of

Both Clinton's and Boxer's offices are saying Inhofe was imagining the whole thing. 

I believe them, don't you?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/talk-talk-talk.html

Sadly, we've reached the po

Sadly, we've reached the point where I can't trust Inhofe or virtually any Republican, either. So who knows.

Cat...Why wouldn't you trust

Cat...

Why wouldn't you trust Inhofe ...or say Sessions...or say Bunning or Coburn to name just a few?

I would like some examples if you do not mind.

Inhofe thinks we should bas

Inhofe thinks we should base our Israel policy on the Bible and is pro torture (and I'm not talking our current policy on interrogations, I'm talking torture, and anyone who actually flat-out condones that is better suited to be an elected official in China).

Sessions is also pro torture and his actions make me think he is a racist.

Coburn and Bunning are either idiots or completely insane.

If you want more detail, let me know.

Laughin' out loud....Just as

Cat...

Laughin' out loud....

Just as I thought from the first post of yours that I have seen anyway....

We have another TROLLSTER.

Enjoy yourself.

I am deadly serious, and wo

I am deadly serious, and would love to be told why I am wrong.

Cat...How is Sessions a racis

Cat...

How is Sessions a racist? Just show me how the hell you got there.

Why would you say Coburn and Bunning are insane?

Where do you get to add pro torture in the mix just for the fun of it...

That is what the left does ALL the TIME.

Btw Cat...I am pro torture too...whatever it takes.

Sessions has a long history

Sessions has a long history, including allegedly referring to a white lawyer as a "disgrace to his race" for working in voting rights litigation; calling the Voting Rights Act a "piece of intrusive legislation" (and regardless of what you might think of it, it's still supported by a vast majority of Republican lawmakers); allegedly referred to a black US Attorney as "boy" and told him "to be careful what you say to white folks." He's denied many of the claims (or says they were off-color jokes), and he may indeed be the victim of a conspiracy, but it is indeed suspicious.

That being said, condoning torture (not just aggressive interrogation techniques) is unconscionable and immoral. It's the type of things terrorists do to people who they capture, and we should be above that.

Coburn has made some really bizarre rants about breast implants, lesbians and rape, his behavior during Roberts' confirmation hearings was erratic (working on a crossword puzzle and then becoming very confused when he tried to participate in the conversation), and he freaked out about NBC airing Schindler's List. He supports the death penalty for abortion doctors (sorry, you might agree with that, but most Republicans don't go that far). He's done some good work, but he's done some outright goofy crap.

Bunning made some bizarre comments about his Italian opponent looking like one of Saddam Hussein's sons and beating his wife, had to rely on a teleprompter in an extremely controlled debate. He seems to care little about legislation unless it involves steroids and baseball.  Perhaps he was hit by too many baseballs...

They have some ... odd tendencies, that's all.

You can't trust ANY republici

You can't trust ANY republician??? How about the dems? Do you trust them?

Lieberman, I kinda trust...

Lieberman, I kinda trust... does that count?

The others, uhh, not so much.

That's a silly assertion.Gr

That's a silly assertion. No offense.

Granted their are plenty of Republicans who cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form to espouse traditional conservative positions and defend what could be winning Republican issues. Specter (what a puke), Smokin' Crack McCain, Whole Lott a crappa goin' on...

And that's not even mentioning the joke called Bloomberg.

But Inhofe, for instance, is fabulous on exposing the fraudulent manmade global warming mob. Duncan Hunter is very impressive whenever I see him interviewed.

I saw Mike Huckabee on (H&C? Fox, anyway.) last week and he was great in defending his Christian faith, he certainly didn't seek to dodge.

But I know what you sort of mean when you look at someone like Kyl, who was described as a riock solid conservative perior to the shamnesty bill imbroglio.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

Yeah, you can keep Bloomberg.

Yeah, you can keep Bloomberg.  The guy skeeves me.

From Natalie Ravitz, Boxer's

From Natalie Ravitz, Boxer's communications director:

"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened."

And from Hillary spokesman Philippe Reines:

"Jim Inhofe is wrong. This supposed conversation never happened - not in his presence or anywhere else."

Tick-tock - how long before Inhofe claims he "mispoke"? Late Friday afternoon is always a good time to issue an apology.

Oh yeah ding...What the two l

Oh yeah ding...

What the two leftist ex-in-laws retort with must be true.....

ROFLMAO!

I'll take Inhofe's word any-day.

Ramble on.....

But, but he referred to them

But, but he referred to them as "gals".  That should make everything he says suspect.

bigtimer -   Inhofe imagin

bigtimer -   Inhofe imagined the conversation.  I'll wait for his, ahem, correction 

Well ding, answer my question

Well ding, answer my question. Are you for the fairness doctrine.

Yes or No.

ding...In reply to your reply

ding...

In reply to your reply to me....

I really really think Inhofe has much more important things to do every single day than make things up....

Unlike the leftist side of the aisle....

I dare you to have the guts to listen to your congress-critters every single day they are in session...then you get back to me about who spews imaginary things the like to call fact from their mouths..it is almost always absolute spin and lies...always...

IF everyone listened to these people our country would not be in the mess it is in now, or wouldn't of been previous decades.

I double-dare you.

bigtimer -  IF everyone list

bigtimerIF everyone listened to these people our country would not be in the mess it is in now, or wouldn't of been previous decades.

 Perhaps you are fogetting how many Republic Administrations there have been since Truman. (Ike,Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1, Bush2). So who's to blame for the "mess"?

ding....Try learning about th

ding....

Try learning about the power of CONGRESS....

Past and present....

Enrich yourself.

bigtimer - if its not veto pr

bigtimer - if its not veto proof - there's not that much power - for example,  the Democratic 110th Congress. 

Did you read where I said pas

Did you read where I said past and present ding?

Read some history who had power in Congress ect in the past too.

I am not debating this with you anymore....I also am not being argumentative with you...

...so far that is.....

I just think you need to learn a heck of a lot.

Btw...I didn't even mean that snotty...if we ever quit learning then it is sad day....I love my thirst for knowledge...wouldn't know what to do if I didn't.

"(Ike,Nixon, Ford, Rea

"(Ike,Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1, Bush2)"

And even all those administrations couldn't undo all the damage done by liberal judges, liberal congresses and the clown car administrations of Jimmy Carter and Billy bubba Clinton.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

bigtimer -  Right on schedul

bigtimer -  Right on schedule - late Friday afternoon and Inhofe issues, an umm, correction: via telephone on the Neil Cavuto show: 

Here's the funny thing Neil. I've told this story well over a 100 times on the radio, on TV, in the last three years. I was going up the elevator with them -- this was about three years ago -- to vote and they were yelling and screaming and complaining about right wing radio...

  So does Nexis have 100 references to this?

bt,The Hidebeast also said on

bt,

The Hidebeast also said once that she didn't have access to the Rose Law Firm billing records, the very same records that turned up on her desk with her prints and handwriting all over them.

The fact that they are denying the coversation ever happened only confirms for me that it did.

Yes, this is not the first t

Yes, this is not the first time that an awkward event has surfaced which Hillary initially denies.

Her word means nothing.  It is one of the many reasons she should not be President.

Dave R - the billing records

Dave R - the billing records that had Hillary's prints and handwriting on the then were copies she made of them while she was still at the Law firm to answer questions from the press.

When they moved to DC, those copies were packed in a box and in storage - they were not on her desk. 

ding,Every account I have rea

ding,

Every account I have read or heard related that, while Hillary had been busy holding off a congressional subpoena for, what, two years?, the records in question were found on her desk in her DC office by either a low-level staffer or the cleaning lady (I forget which). Her hand-written notes as well as her finger (claw?) prints were found on same.

Besides, Hillary has told enough fibs by this point that a great many libs no longer believe her.

For me it was much easier, as I beat the rush by never believeing her.

Dave R - Carolyn Huber, the

Dave R - Carolyn Huber, the aide who found the billing records,  testified and it doesn't match  the "every" account you have read or heard.  Imagine, that!

But aside from that, why shouldn't the billing records have her prints on them? She used them to answer reporters question while she was still in Arkansas.

He said she said... you deci

He said she said... you decide...

So ding, what is your whole t

So ding, what is your whole take on the fairness doctrine.  Are you for it or aginst it?

5_0, Ding is for it. He also

5_0, Ding is for it. He also wants it to apply to all those right wing newspapers and college professors.

Chad, you may be right, but I

Chad, you may be right, but I want to hear it from him.  I want to debate it. 

Good-luck Airforce....I think

Good-luck Airforce....

I think you will have the same luck with him as Mt lyin'.

LOL...

Good for you 5_0. I will obse

Good for you 5_0. I will observe from the peanut gallery.

:-)

Airforce_5_0 -  I don't kno

Airforce_5_0 -  I don't know very much about about the Fairness doctrine... but ideally, it would be nice if a non-partisan, non-profit enity took one cable channel and broadcast news produced by the leading liberal think tank and produced by the leading conservative think tank, alternating every hour.  

So ding you’re looking for

So ding you’re looking for a channel that looks at both sides of the issues in an alternating fashion. 

Would this channel have debate or is it just left propaganda for an hour than right propaganda for an hour?

ding,Looking for a channel th

ding,

Looking for a channel that has both sides of the issues in altenating fashion...

We already have two of them....

C-SPAN 1 adn 2...there is even three for some....you can even go to cspan.org and listen or watch live.

bigtimer - for the most part,

bigtimer - for the most part, C-Span is listening to people read speeches or  hour after hour of Bush Admin officials saying "I can't recall" when giving testimony.

It is obvious you do not list

It is obvious you do not listen to the House or Senate since you have been posting here ding...

Obvious.

Here I was trying to help ya.

I am done with this silly waste of time of a back and forth with you...someone else can play with you for awhile....

Later...

Have a good week-end.

"bigtimer - for the most

"bigtimer - for the most part, C-Span is listening to people read speeches or  hour after hour of Bush Admin officials saying "I can't recall" when giving testimony."

Are you really implying that officials giving the answere "I can't recall" means that they are lieing?  I'm not real sure you want to go down this road, but if you do, then so be it.

 Airforce_5_0 -  Think tan

 Airforce_5_0 -  Think tanks would be more balance than just talking head propaganda

Ok Think Tanks Ding.  Will i

Ok Think Tanks Ding.  Will it be a debate or just informational?

Ding, You might want to brush

Ding, You might want to brush up on it because it is coming and freedom of speech will go right with it.

Inhofe will do no such thing,

Inhofe will do no such thing, this is going to simmer all weekend, yum, tasty stew.  The more Boxer and Clinton deny it, the more everyone will believe they said it.  btw- didn't we have another thread on a similar accusation with John Podesta????  All the more reason to believe what Inhofe heard was true.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Hillary is a proven liar. S

Hillary is a proven liar. So we really can't place any credence in what she says.

Whereas Boxer is merely dumber than a box. Possibly the dumbest woman in the Senate.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

You're wrong, Jack

You're wrong, Jack.  She's possibly the dumbest person in the Senate.

RJ -- thanks for the correc

RJ -- thanks for the correction.

I was going to argue for a sec, but then remembered Murtha was in the House.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

Jack: I was listening to Rust

Jack: I was listening to Rusty Humphries' show earlier this week. Jackie Mason was guest-hosting. Boy did he rip Hillary a new one - primarily regarding her propensity for changing her position on issues depending on the polling and what the press is on her latest speech or sound bite.

I can't get an audio of the actual show. But here's an example of one of Mason's bits on Hillary.  Note: Some content may be mildly offensive.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

"We’ve got to do som

"We’ve got to do something about this."

Wasn't it liberal Tipper Gore who started the Parents Music Resource Center because she did not like the lyrics of a song she heard? Why is it that freedom of speech to a liberal means you can say what you want, but only if I like it? Pathetic!

"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

yes she did.

Hillary and Boxer

I saw on Fox News website a few minutes ago that Hillary and Babs are saying through spokespeople that conversation never happened.

Let's see... Whom do I believe, Inhofe.... or Hillary and Babs.... Inhofee.... or Hillary and Babs...

Sorry, guys, with Hillary's reputation, I'm going with Inhofe.

Of course they did, it was a

Of course they did, it was a trial balloon to see what kind of opposition would occur, like Sherly Crow and her one TP square silliness. This is what liberals typically do to see if they can get away with something, anything, run it up the flag pole and see who salutes. If no one salutes it dies quietly, if everyone howls in protest it was a joke they weren't serious, you heard us wrong, if on the other hand there is no opposition because people are asleep at their posts, they run with it.  Remember we are dealing with salesmen/con artists, they dish out whatever baloney you will happen to eat.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

dscott: Well done!We are not

dscott: Well done!

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

The extreme intolerance of

The extreme intolerance of the Left is in direct proportion to the
absolute bankruptcy of its ideas. Chavez was told by Castro to run
again for re-election because he was ahead and "being elected looks
good..." But the agenda after his re-election is the same as the
Democratic agenda will be if they by some disaster get both the
Congress and White House. Suppress all opposition----media and
otherwise, no matter what the US Constitution says about freedom of
speech.

The argument that the "airwaves" are public would be
employed----newspapers are "privately owned." But aren't radio stations
privately-owned, except for the far-left NPR? But aren't broadcast TV
networks emitted over the "public airwaves," and three of four are
relentlessly liberal and lefter than liberal?

The US pioneered the use of public airwaves by private companies,
unlike Europe, where the public broadcast space was long dominated by
public state-owned media. When I lived in France, there was no
privately-owned TV network. Is the US going to revert to European
standards of national ownership of radio and broadcast TV?

The intellectual level of Barbara Boxer is that of a soap-opera matron.
Hillary Clinton should be ashamed to troll with such a second-rate
scam-artist!

If the Democrats had better arguments, Congress would not now have a
14% approval rating. The answer is not, in the view of troglodyte Trent Blot, to squelch public discussion of issues in the "marketplace of ideas." Although Trent has few ideas and must be getting a big payoff from someone to trash the people who defended him when he was getting kicked by his betters.

Inhofe is crazy. I don't be

Inhofe is crazy. I don't believe anything he says.

So does this mean you believe

So does this mean you believe anything that Hillary says?  Just checking to see how gullible you are.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Sorry to break it to you, b

Sorry to break it to you, but the majority of the country dismisses everything he says, if they even know of him at all. Why else would Drudge originally post a headline "Senator" overhears discussion between Boxer and Clinton re: talk radio? Why didn't it say "Senator Inhofe"? Because if it did, people would immediately dismiss it. He's a lapdog. Nothing more. Move along. Dead issue.

Hi Harv....Nice to see you ha

Hi Harv....

Nice to see you haven't changed a lick....

.....a regular comedian.....must still be broke and out of work.

ROFLMAO!

Move along folks...dead issue.

Sorry to break it to you, b

Sorry to break it to you, but the majority of the country dismisses everything he says,

No they don't. That's a demonstrably absurd and childish comment. And I'm not at all sorry to break that to you.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

"...the majority of the

"...the majority of the country dismisses everything he says, if they even know of him at all...."

This is totally inconsistent.  How can the majority of the country know to dismiss "everything" he says if they don't even know who he is?

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing a link to some poll numbers or something substantial to back up this claim.

LOL! You absolutely cannot pr

LOL! You absolutely cannot prove that "the majority of the country dismisses everything he says" without providing proof of such, like polling data. I just went to www.pollingreport.com, and his name is never mentioned once-yet that site STILL carries a poll of Gary Hart!

Face it, facts are facts-a former Clinton aide (Podesta) has stated that his group will attempt tp re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. And since Podesta's group is a front for and is blessed by both Clintons, that makes what Hillary and Boxer are alleged to have said accurate.

The fact you're trying to insult the messenger shows you don't have much to prop up your "argument" that he's the one lying. Hillary is the one with a history of deception, such as her hilarious episode with the Rose Law Firm billing records. The only criticism I see of Imhofe comes from far-left blogs.

You're crazy. I don't belie

You're crazy. I don't believe anything you say.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

bloggers are bad journalists

Seriously, all this discussion over a story that is a non-story. The alleged conversation happened THREE YEARS ago (funny how you say it was "Coming coincident" with the report released Thursday), and both Hillary and Boxer have denied it. I'm all against it if true, but damn... it's a conversation that may or may not have happened three years ago with no action since then on their part to create any legislation relating to this.

Some sources:

http://www.foxnews.c...

http://www.citizenli...

Your sources are not links an

Your sources are not links and I cannot cut and paste to transport them to the address bar.

In the transcript above, Inhofe says "the other day".  When did this turn into three years ago and who said so?

Sources: Here and HereAppar

Sources: Here and Here

Apparently he made a mistake or changed his mind about it being "the other day".

Thank you.  This doesn't mea

Thank you. 

This doesn't mean it didn't happen.  But three years ago is not the other day.

Thank you! So yesterday sud

Thank you! So yesterday suddendly becomes "three years ago?" Suurrrre.

Cat...You may want to move yo

Cat...

You may want to move your comment to the open thread...

I am not going to follow three pages of posts flat listed or not...

I already know whatever you posted about Sessions had to be about what I posted to you....

You had better have proof.

Last post on this thread from me.

Barnum and Bailey need to t

Barnum and Bailey need to take their clown act to the universities. When I was attending,
and that was too many years ago to count, liberal professors far out-numbered conservative professors.
The liberal prof's ALWAYS spewed their liberal agenda while professing how fair and
even-handed they were. That was until you disagreed with their tripe. Then you became
their nemisis. My conservative prof's on the other hand, never drove any type of agenda.
They all seemed more concerned with getting the class material out in such a manner as to
guide each student to develop their own tone on a subject. Perhaps this was out of fear; they were
the minority, yet I believe it was their practical belief in each student's ability to make their
own decisions on the subject material. Long story short, if the clowns go after talk-radio, I
believe we conservatives ought to pressure our congress to impose the same standards towards our schools.
That should stop the Hillary/Boxer train dead in its tracks.