Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRush Limbaugh says he wants Barack Obama to fail as president.
Fair enough.
Limbaugh says he is an entertainer, and entertainers have no responsibility to support what is best for their country. They swear no oath of loyalty to the Constitution and, it is fair to say, Limbaugh has displayed no such loyalty during a career defined by nothing so much as his situational ethics.
But Limbaugh also suggests that Congressional Republicans deserve to be treated with respect because, while Obama won the presidency, members of the GOP minorities in the House and Senate "also won."
Fair enough.
If we are supposed to take the failure caucus seriously, then we should ask who they represent.
A new analysis of the country's political makeup by the Gallup polling organization suggests what ought to be an unsettling answer for Limbaugh and his allies.
Because of dramatic increases in political engagement by women, young voters and people of color across the country--much of it inspired by Obama's candidacy, although some of it inspired by revulsion at the Republican rule that preceded it--Gallup determined that only five states can reasonably be referred to as "Republican." The states that are either reliably Republican or trending in a Republican direction, according to Gallup's study of voter identification and trend measures are Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska and Nebraska.
Democrats are actually gaining strength in a number of states that voted Republican in 2008's presidential race, such as Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota. And the party is solidifying its position in recently Republican states that Obama tipped to the Democratic column last year, such as Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
What this all adds up to is evidence that, even in states that send a lot of Republicans to the House and Senate, there is a growing enthusiasm for the Democratic party – and, presumably, hope that the Obama administration will succeed.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research survey found that 56 percent of Americans surveyed are of the view that the country is better off with Democratic leadership, as opposed to just 31 percent who would put the GOP in charge. And the new Diageo/Hotline poll has the Democratic party with holding a better than 2-1 advantage over the Republicans--a remarkable gap--in generic matchups for the 2010 House and Senate elections.
At this point, only 22 percent of Americans say they are inclined to vote Republican.
In other words, the post-George Bush Republican Party is less appealing than was George Bush.
Thus, while Limbaugh is right that Republicans "also won" some elections in 2008, there is reason to believe their successes may be even fewer in 2010. (This would explain why so many GOP and House and Senate members – most recently, Florida Congressman Adam Putnam, once considered to be one of the party's "rising stars" on Capitol Hill – are quitting Congress either for home-state political endeavors or the old political dodge of "more time with the family.")
So Limbaugh can hope for failure. And Republicans in Congress may secretly --or in some cases openly – share that hope. But America does not. And Obama and his aides, as well as Democrats in Congress should recognize this fact as they consider the extent to which they will work with the Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill.
Limbaugh is defining the GOP as the party that is enthusiastic about failure--not just of Obama but of the battered American enterprise the president and the Congress are charged with renewing.
But Obama will only fail if he compromises with Limbaugh's party of failure.
Cooperating with a party that is so out of sync with the American electorate that is on the losing end of almost every political measure – and that is on the march in just five states – makes about as much sense as listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Limbaugh says he is an entertainer, and entertainers have no responsibility to support what is best for their country."
It's too bad he doesn't feel responsible for actually being entertaining.
Although I suppose he's entertaining in a sad way.
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/02/2009 @ 10:37pm
Well, first....HAPPY happy to post that Rasmussen poll on the popularity of the stimulus plan. I figure he'll suddenly discover his "polls are meaningless" religion again real quick.
Seoond, as I said before, raising the prominence of Limbaugh was a brilliant move on Obama's part (I originally thought kind of dumb...I was wrong ((save that...heheh))).
The blowhard IS the face the Dems and Obama want on the Republican brand. He's actually worse than the memory of Dubya, because he has NO filter and his sole job is throwing red meat to the Hard Right base....e.g. his "I hope Obama fails" declaration with no backing-down, as Obama's polls are in the 70s and the GOP leadership in Congress is trying to hold Senate Repubs in line AND while they're trying to trot out Michael Steele to show they are "inclusive, but still principled" now.
Plus, the great thing is that same Hard Right base is vocal and will defend Limbaugh (note: Ginchey of Georgia's quick bitch-slap and apology tour of Right-wing Radio)....which helps even more, because the poor Repubs see their polling stay low or get worse with the general electorate...or their base smacks them around for not defending The Great One.
And really, could you pick a better representative, if you wanted to cripple the Republican Party...the party of "family values" and "protecting marriage"...of "tough on crime"...of "supporting the President in a time of war"...
than a THRICE-divorced man whose money and position got him out of a drug bust and who tells us 2 weeks into a Presidency that he wants it to fail????
Mega-dittos Rush!
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 10:39pm
than a THRICE-divorced man whose money and position got him out of a drug bust and who tells us 2 weeks into a Presidency that he wants it to fail????
Mega-dittos Rush!
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 10:39pm
Such is that particular brand of republican't moral hypocrisy.
Like I said, entertaining, in his own super-sad way.
Go pop some OCs Rush, I'm sure it'll make the pain of irrelevance go away for at least a little while!
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/02/2009 @ 10:44pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/02/2009 @ 10:47pm
WHAT IF the "waking up"...was this past November (and back to November 2006)?????
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 10:51pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/02/2009 @ 10:44pm
It IS a strange morality, TF.
Endless discussions of Clinton's failings at marital fidelity...but apparently if he had just divorced Hillary (and upto TWO subsequent wives) as Limbaugh did...that's "okay". Same for Gingrich now on Wife #3.
Or the drug issue. USC tried to claim that Rush using prescription meds and doctor-shopping "wasn't the same" as a crack-head bouncing around the streets looking for a dealer. The exact difference?....never came back on that one. I suppose since Oxycontin is only an opiate...or something.
While of course the REAL difference is...it's Rush, a rich white guy with expensive lawyers.
Some of us with memories (not 1984 "memory holes" like most ditto-heads) seem to recall how Rush was keen on "locking up junkies" and made endless jokes about Clinton "not inhaling".
That of course dried up with Dubya and his "misspent youth" as well.
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 11:00pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/02/2009 @ 10:54pm
Because naturally, the ONLY possible scenario for a constitutional republic is a laissez-faire capitalist eocnomy...right? And anything less than Reagan Republicanism leads to "3rd world status....er, uh....eventually (when the higher standard of living of some Euro-trash country is missing...okay?)!"
Larry, given you haven't even LIVED (in your entire life) under what YOU consider to be the Constitutionally-mandated economy (given you were born after 1932 under that Marxist Roosevelt)....
given your OWN STANDARD for what "should be"....why haven't we collapsed in the last 65 years???
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 11:03pm
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 11:00pm
Indeed, which is why when Democrats have extra-marital affairs, it's only distasteful instead of hideously hypocritical.
Ever notice how only the fire and brimstone religious fanatics seem to be the ones getting caught for sodomizing young boys and smoking meth?
Amazing! It's almost like railing against gays is just a way to hide their innermost feelings and desires from the rest of the world!
And don't ask Larry hard questions, he seems a bit confused.
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/02/2009 @ 11:10pm
Rush wants Obamas economic plan to fail since he disagrees with the plan. When the plan fails will Obama fail? Or just the plan?
I believe the plan fails not Obamas, or who ever is President. If the Obama plan fails and Obama tries something else, like taxcuts, and the econmy response like it does EVERYTIME it is tried, then Obama has not failed.
Ergo, Nichols not only has miss understood Rush yet again and again has clowned himself...and in any analysis Rush wins since be has been the focus of the discussion and the day.
Rush can not buy the publicity and attention that Obama has bestowed upon him. Big mistake.
I am sure Rush has no idea who Nichols is and I would guess neither do the other 300 mllion Americans.
I would guess if Obama would just mention Nichols by name it would send Nichols into paradise.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/02/2009 @ 11:21pm
Back in the late 90's my dad said he'd like to have a bumper-sticker made for his car that said:
If you don't know Rush... you don't know sh*t.
It still makes me laugh to this day.
Posted by ttr at 02/02/2009 @ 11:23pm
USC tried to claim that Rush using prescription meds and doctor-shopping "wasn't the same" as a crack-head bouncing around the streets looking for a dealer. The exact difference?....never came back on that one.
Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 11:00pm
ahem...not exactly, Mask...you appareantly don't read too well...I said the difference is one person got addicted while using a LEGAL medicine LEGALLY while the other started out using an ILLEGAL drug ILLEGALLY and got addicted...I have sympathy for the first example but not the second...get your facts straight
Posted by usc1 at 02/02/2009 @ 11:26pm
"given your OWN STANDARD for what "should be"....why haven't we collapsed in the last 65 years?"
liberty cannot answer that.
Posted by darladoon at 02/02/2009 @ 11:28pm
I seem to remeber the repubs made the same claim to a long term trend and end of the dems in 93.
I suspect the same claim here will eventualy meet the same fate.
I don't think the country woke up and decided it is socialist but I thnk the dems will try to keep it in that direction with more govt control over everything.
Question for all Fairnss Doctrine advocates ...... If Nichols is correct and Limbaugh and GOP are on the way out,then will Rush need a fairness law to keep him on the air?
The repubs were brought down by Bush and the repubs themselves for not being conservative in their principles that brought them to Washington in the first place more than a stampede to progressive dogma.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/02/2009 @ 11:34pm
If that is the case then our experiment as a constitutional republic has ended and we are headed towards 3rd world status.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/02/2009 @ 10:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person -----------------------------------------
Funny thing LVLiberty, most of the leftist are part of the 40% of America already dependent on a nanny state socialism to fulfill their fondest dreams so they could care less what happens to this nation!
They gleefull follow the leftist marxist they have elected who is more of a "follower" than a leader so far. Just as I predicted he is the ultimate YES MAN for the socialist Undemocrat party and there is little likelyhood that will change. Even if Obamanation wakes up to the truth of his reality it will be to late for him and us!
Pity we must suffer such fools and foolishness!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/02/2009 @ 11:38pm
Ergo, Nichols not only has miss understood Rush yet again Posted by YourJomamma at 02/02/2009 @ 11:21pm
Who is Miss Understood? Does She know Ted Haggerty? Or does he still like women? Or did he ever? Is is mere coincidence that the name 'rush' is used so often in drug jargon? So many questions and so few answers. One thing is clear... Rush has experience with both the noun and the verb.
Just to accentuate the outright goofiness of it all, go to Huffington post (if you can stand the ads) and check out Ashley Judds video commentary against Sarah Palin's campaign to kill animals from the air. She seems to be encouraging MORE slaughter, god fearing ideologue that she is.
Good posts by MASK and TEXASFLOOD.
Posted by ficheye at 02/02/2009 @ 11:41pm
The public ultimately goes where the economy is. If Obama sticks with the "stimulus plan" as barfed up by the house, the likelyhood of "success" will be small simply because it will not stimulate jobs until 2011 and later. Too late for the mid terms. The danger for hyper inflation is real. I remember how happy people were to get rid of the Republicans in 1976 and got Carter - that went well didn't it? all because of the economy. We lucked out though and got Reagan who turned it all around and won the cold war. I know you guys hate that.....let me guess..you didn't want him to succeed, right? Same as Bush, right? So why are you so outraged when negative feelings about Obama spring up? Could it be Politics? No surprise, its been that way our entire history. If the Senate and Obama change a large part of the bill and actually go for real job stimulation, like the infrastructure that improves efficiency, he could win this thing. Another thing, the EPA may end up crippling Detroit and the auto industry. Lets see, who did all those UAW members vote for? The same people who are about to cut their throats. That will go over well. Now the Republicans are no friend of the UAW and would be ok with the UAW going the way of PATCO, but they would try and keep The Big Three going and the workers would still have their jobs and would be on the same level as the auto workers in the south. You guys do not have a sure thing at all - it is so easy to "screw it all up" - in fact it is difficult Not to screw it up. No matter what the state of the economy, it's Obamas now.
Posted by pyeatte at 02/02/2009 @ 11:54pm
Rush is definitely getting on NICHOLS' nerves.....just as he did Magic's!
It is the FREEDOM of speech and the spirit of desenting opinions that Obamanation and Nichols are attacking. As usual the leftist lie about returning to constitutionalism and rule of law and that is the biggest hypocrisy they represent! It is all part of their ploy to "suspend" the right of free speech and replace it with leftist propoganda which NO ONE other than the "echo chambers" want to hear! That is my take!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/03/2009 @ 12:06am
Posted by ficheye at 02/02/2009 @ 11:41pm
Soory for typos..but the posts stands.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 12:08am
Posted by pyeatte at 02/02/2009 @ 11:54pm
Great post.
Happy,
"The young, much-hungrier economies--China, India, Russia--will suffer during this transformation...but being much smaller economies in terms of GDP but with very HUGE populations (at least China & India), they will adjust much quicker to our no longer being the engine of world growth....they will look far more inward.....the way America grew with its own large domestic market. "
I have seen this first hand and my export business is right on the cusp(sp) of Chinas internal spending...man they have problems we have even thought about, but they will do OK and it is important to be in stride with them for we can sell them many things over the generations..we may even become a manufacturing country again if the libs don't kill off business for saving the planet horseshit or having us become France of North America...or tax our base out of existance before we re adjust.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 12:14am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/02/2009 @ 11:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The Fairness doctrine certainly has nothing to do with "Fairness" and everything to do with contol of political propoganda specifically the limitation and elimination of desenting conservative and christian broadcasting! Any other charactorization of this anti free speech is someone blowing smoke up the posterier of the listener..
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/03/2009 @ 12:16am
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/03/2009 @ 12:16am
yup.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 12:27am
lvliberty1: Only one thing is certain. Nothing is forever. We will come out of this - but nobody knows when. The great American drive cannot be suppressed forever. We will get sick and tired of this and when we get sick and tired of being sick and tired, then it will change.
Posted by pyeatte at 02/03/2009 @ 12:42am
Posted by pyeatte at 02/03/2009 @ 12:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
How many laws and entitlement programs passed by congress have been eliminated? There is your problem.
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/03/2009 @ 12:45am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 12:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
Doubt you will ever make the 12+ hr. trip to Pingliang. China. But, there is a major commerce area there and AFB. My brother and sister in laws teach english at the Oasis center there along with about 10 or 12 other covenant church organization members rotating in and out. Intresting life, but sure not for me. I think the government does turn on the heat when it drops to 20F, but what does it matter when the chinese throw open the windows?
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/03/2009 @ 01:06am
Rush is certainly a fair target and by no means the prettiest face in the GOP, but it was a mistake for the president to pick a fight with a talk radio personality, a bit like George H.W. Bush attacking "The Simpsons." It demeans the presidency and the president to bring things down to such a level. If Obama wanted to pillory Rush, the task could have been delegated to one of many surrogates.
Posted by feinfein at 02/03/2009 @ 01:15am
Soory for typos..but the posts stands. Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 12:08am
No problems. Thanks for not unloading the guns on me. Just like to keep it light in view of the overall darkness being visited upon us all. You have every right to your opinion.
Posted by ficheye at 02/03/2009 @ 01:16am
i think this particular forum contains some of the most retarded comments from conservatives i have ever seen on the nation. let's briefly re-cap the inanity:
first, usc1's lame defense:
"I said the difference is one person got addicted while using a LEGAL medicine LEGALLY while the other started out using an ILLEGAL drug ILLEGALLY and got addicted"
liberty's anti-socialist fear-mongering:
"What you are suggesting is that they woke up and decided they wanted socialism....If that is the case then our experiment as a constitutional republic has ended and we are headed towards 3rd world status."
comanchenation's utterly ridiculous paranoia:
"As usual the leftist lie about returning to constitutionalism and rule of law and that is the biggest hypocrisy they represent! It is all part of their ploy to "suspend" the right of free speech and replace it with leftist propoganda which NO ONE other than the "echo chambers" want to hear!"
and, we just couldn't leave out the irrepressible jomamma's freak show:
"we may even become a manufacturing country again if the libs don't kill off business for saving the planet horseshit or having us become France of North America...or tax our base out of existance before we re adjust."
Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:28am
"Rush wants Obamas economic plan to fail since he disagrees with the plan. When the plan fails will Obama fail? Or just the plan? I believe the plan fails not Obamas, or who ever is President. If the Obama plan fails and Obama tries something else, like taxcuts, and the econmy response like it does EVERYTIME it is tried, then Obama has not failed. Ergo, Nichols not only has miss understood Rush yet again and again has clowned himself...and in any analysis Rush wins since be has been the focus of the discussion and the day. Rush can not buy the publicity and attention that Obama has bestowed upon him. Big mistake. I am sure Rush has no idea who Nichols is and I would guess neither do the other 300 mllion Americans. I would guess if Obama would just mention Nichols by name it would send Nichols into paradise." Posted by YourJomamma at 02/02/2009 @ 11:21pm
YourJomamma touched on the truth. rush clarified his statement. He said he supported the president, but opposed his policies.
That should sound familiar to Progs, who, after all "supported our troops, but opposed the war they were fighting", as if that made any sense.
Posted by twillie at 02/03/2009 @ 01:29am
"we may become a manufacturing nation again if the libs don't kill off business....."
that is a truly amazing statement. the liberals killed off business by shipping jobs overseas; and, once since the "liberals" have regained power and brought domestic manufacturing jobs back, they will only eliminate more manufacturing jobs because they are (wisely) concerned about climate change.
97% of climate scientists embrace the theory that climate change in human-induced. the other 3% either are petroleum geologists OR hacks subsidized by the oil/gas industry.
let me repeat that:
97% of climate scientists embrace the theory that climate change in human-induced.
who are you going to believe, maasch or the climate science community??
Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:32am
"That should sound familiar to Progs, who, after all "supported our troops, but opposed the war they were fighting", as if that made any sense."
uh, sorry, but first of all, not all progressives supported the troops. second, some of those who did were literally COERCED into saying they supported the troops, so as to not look like they were "America-haters" or "jihadists". last, other progressives DID support the troops in terms of:
GIVING TROOPS NEEDED HEALTH BENEFITS which the bush administration slashed.
Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:35am
"there is reason to believe their successes may be even fewer in 2010."
red at night,
sailor's delight.
red in morning,
sailor's warning.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2009 @ 02:23am
they don't want to be just another member of the European Union. Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/02/2009 @ 10:47pm
but how far have we ever left?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2009 @ 02:24am
If that is the case then our experiment as a constitutional republic has ended and we are headed towards 3rd world status. Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/02/2009 @ 10:54pm
there are plenty of third world pockets in all the "european union".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2009 @ 02:26am
Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:32am
"that is a truly amazing statement. the liberals killed off business by shipping jobs overseas; "
Or down south, if you're talking about jobs in the American auto industry. You'll only drive them overseas again if you get the "Orwellian Free Choice Act" through Congress.
"and, once since the "liberals" have regained power and brought domestic manufacturing jobs back, "
LOL! What, making windmills?
"they will only eliminate more manufacturing jobs because they are (wisely) concerned about climate change."
That's for sure! But what happened to 'global warming'? What is 'climate change'? Doesn't the scientific data show climate change for the last few eons, with and without the evil presence of humanity? Did I miss a propaganda memo somewhere?
"97% of climate scientists embrace the theory that climate change in human-induced. the other 3% either are petroleum geologists OR hacks subsidized by the oil/gas industry."
Source please? And am I reading your statement correctly that the only possible reasons that someone might disagree with you is that they are crooked and dishonest?
And the politicians and government funded research scientists who make their money and power grabs off of fanning AGW hysteria - they are pure of motive? Boy are YOU naive!
"who are you going to believe, maasch or the climate science community??"
Darla, wake up and come down from that high sweetheart. There are plenty of scientists in the 'climate science community' who consider AGW to be a swindle, and they're not funded by oil companies.
Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2009 @ 05:19am
97% of climate scientists embrace the theory that climate change in human-induced. the other 3% either are petroleum geologists OR hacks subsidized by the oil/gas industry. Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:32am
This is a BOLD FACE LIE! I'm with pontificus and would like to see the source of that manure. Well?
Posted by fram at 02/03/2009 @ 06:03am
I must say Mr. Nichols, you have again confirmed the Rush Limbaugh is the biggest pain in the neck for liberals everywhere. Rush is not in D.C. He cannot make policy, vote on policy, or influence policy. He's just a talk show host and yet he gets under the Democrat's skin at the mere mention of his name.
Posted by fram at 02/03/2009 @ 06:27am
97% of climate scientists embrace the theory that climate change in human-induced. the other 3% either are petroleum geologists OR hacks subsidized by the oil/gas industry. Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:32am
This is a BOLD FACE LIE! I'm with pontificus and would like to see the source of that manure. Well?
Posted by fram at 02/03/2009 @ 06:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
Check this out: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
This is a report from last month. A survey was sent to 10,257 earth scientists (geologists, geophysicists, climate scientists, etc.). 3146 responded, 90% of whom were American. Of those responding, 90% agree that temperatures have risen in the past 100 years, and 82% believe that 'human activity is a significant factor' in that rise.
Posted by Rintrah at 02/03/2009 @ 07:15am
I would say that we have been on a path to collapse that was slowed by Reagan.-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/03/2009 @ 12:22am
Thats a looooooooooooong "path"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 07:40am
Posted by Rintrah at 02/03/2009 @ 07:15am
"90% agree that temperatures have risen in the past 100 years, and 82% believe that 'human activity is a significant factor' in that rise."
So, what's 90% of 82 %? You guys aren't exactly math majors, are you?
Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2009 @ 07:47am
"I have seen this first hand and my export business is right on the cusp(sp) of Chinas internal spending..."-JOMMAMA
LUVVY, pay attention to the business man, a COMBINATION OF COMMUNISM and CAPITALISM seem to be the cure called for.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 07:59am
FRam and Ponti, call the GOP presidential candidate and ask him if climate change is a Great Big Hippy Lie.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:02am
Our very own Math Wizard:
[ You're right it won't be close; McCain will take 300 electoral votes, easy.
Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 10:53am ]
Obama is an empty suit. Little or no qualifications whatsoever, other than that he's black, and leftist
Posted by pontificus at 09/20/2008 @ 10:55pm
Our very own Patriot America Lover
[Did I tell you I predicted a McCain landslide? Of course, this is predicated on my premise that the good people of the USA have more common sense than, say, the OJ jury. Ah, the wild card!
Posted by pontificus at 09/20/2008 @ 10:57pm
"A you just called america stupid."
No I didn't. They haven't elected Obama, yet.
Posted by pontificus at 09/21/2008 @ 09:05am]
Rush wants America to fail, PontiFlogic thinks Americans are stupid and lack common sense...but it is "the left" that they say hate America?
What can we say about such loons?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:09am
Rin,
So, out of 10,000 surveys 3000 respond.
And, 7000 ignored the survey altogether ?
My math says 70%. Thought the premise was not worth responding.
I would fnd another poll if I were trying to site support for this thread of Darlaloon.
Hint: no one doubts GW or GC. This gas been going on since begining of time. The issue us whether it us mans fault or causes a change.
The jury is still out except in Lin circles and govt supported research circles.
What we have is Global Warming Funding disease.
Lastly, you are concerned with Darlaloons quoted numbers. Why? She is stoned most if the time.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 08:13am
Remember when your dad wouldn't let let you waste your money on that sports car when you were 16? Remember when he would let you spend the night at your boyfriend's house? Remember when he wouldn't let you get your ears pierced at 13?
Yeah, his popularity was less than 22% percent because when people want to do stupid things they resent people who are right.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 08:17am
So here's someone eles to resent for being right.
The UK just came out with a new study: I hope you are sitting down for this revolutionairy finding. Children raised in the mother/father nuclear family do best. Here's some comentary:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ article-1134441/BEL-MOONEY-Why-Left-hate- family-denounce-ignore-simple-truth-- confirmed-major-new-report--children- growing-mother-father-fare-best.html
Whoever wrote it down knew something about human nature. A simple maxim really; blindingly obvious when you think of it. ‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.'
Ah, but that little piece of wisdom -- an Old Testament proverb about hands-on child-rearing to impart values -- comes to us from around 400 years before the birth of Jesus.
Now, centuries later, a number of distinguished men and women have spent two years researching what children need...
This important study, commissioned by the excellent Children's Society which does so much work to help children in distress, is bound to have detractors.
What will offend liberal Leftwingers most of all is the conclusion -- wait for it! -- that children thrive best of all within what used to be called the ‘nuclear family', with a father and a mother.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 08:23am
Continued *****************************************
I can hear the snorts. Reading some of the feedback on internet sites yesterday I noticed, sadly, how people find it hard to imagine any truth outside their own.
So the single mother or widow says the report is nonsense because her children are well-brought up. The gay man says the report is nonsense because two stable gay men are better parents than sink-estate ‘slags'.
The anti-family Leftist says the report is nonsense because all lifestyles are equal and the nuclear family was always an instrument of oppression. Ironically, such responses only serve to prove one of the key issues raised by the report -- that people are too obsessed with themselves.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 08:24am
Good morning Crab,
The one thing I noticed in China was the lack of anything Mao or communistic. I thought it telling that as we sped along outside Bejing on a German built bullet train 150 miles from the tourists that there were walls covered with faded lettering. When asked I was told they were slogans about working for the peoples need ....socialistic encouragement. Never worked and ironiy runs wild as the Chinese put those slogans and the bulk of the system in the trash heap and ran head long as fast as it can towards the Amercan model of economics.
And the left in America pulled it from the trash and announced they found so ething new to try.
Crab,
What type of job do you have now that the industry you are in is in trouble?
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 08:24am
Earth scientists hate America, it is known. How else to describe their findings? How else to describe the findings of NASA and NOA? Those guys REALLY hate America. NASA is a well known refuge for liberal elites, somewhat like the State Dept and the CIA.
-----
"We believe in limited government"
Posted by pontificus at 07/30/2008 @ 10:40pm
the average deficit/surplus for Republican'ts is a deficit of $221,495,000,000
the average deficit/surplus for Democramps is a deficit of $43,793,000,000
hmmmm?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/31/2008 @ 12:03am
PONTI, math wizard!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:25am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 08:24am |
Who built the bullet train?
Who took the land from the peasants to build the bullet train? How much were the peasant reimbursed? (0)
Who cleared residents from their homes to build Olympic stadiums?
Who owns those stadiums?
Who subsidizes housing for the workers?
Who devalues their currency?
Who supplies basic healthcare to millions of workers?
Who owns the coal burning power plants?
The answer, my friend,is blowing through the Constitution:
"The basic task of the nation in the years to come is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism- Leninism and Mao ZedongThought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship and follow the socialist road, steadily improve socialist institutions, develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology step by step to turn China into a socialist country with a high level of culture and democracy. The exploiting classes as such have been eliminated in our country. "
Yes, John, tell Luvvy to look to China!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:31am
Article 3. The state organs of the People's Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism.
Are you saying that we should have a centralized govt, like China?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:34am
Article 9. Mineral resources, waters, forests, mountains, grassland, unreclaimed land, beaches and other natural resources are owned by the state,
Article 10. Land in the cities is owned by the state.
Article 11. The individual economy of urban and rural working people, operated within the limits prescribed by law, is a complement to the socialist public economy.
Article 12. Socialist public property is sacred and inviolable.
Article 15. The state practises economic planning on the basis of socialist public ownership
Article 19. The state develops socialist educational undertakings and works to raise the scientific and cultural level of the whole nation
Article 21. The state develops medical and health services, promotes modern medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, encourages and supports the setting up of various medical and health facilities by the rural economic collectives, state enterprises and undertakings and neighbourhood organizations, and promotes sanitation activities of a mass character, all to protect the people's health. The state develops physical culture and promotes mass sports activities to build up the people's physique.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:38am
I think Rush got a great hand out from the president today with the NYT front story about Daschle. I am from NC and worked hard for Obama, campaigning personally in neighborhoods and giving my small earnings to his campaign. I am saddened to hear about Daschle. I just lost my hope. I won't go as far as Rush, but I will probably resent paying my taxes this year more than ever before.
Posted by truthandjustice at 02/03/2009 @ 08:39am
Article 25. The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:42am
I love listening to the anti-tax people riding Daschle for not paying taxes.
He should step off.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 08:44am
This is a BOLD FACE LIE! I'm with pontificus and would like to see the source of that manure. Well?
Posted by fram at 02/03/2009 @ 06:03am
Here is a link for the dolts and morons.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 08:58am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 08:23am
Oh, goody...another lecture on the "nuclear family" from a guy who thinks that people with only one child are egotistical.
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:01am
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 08:58am
No point in going through GW Denial again, chaos.....
as of McCain, they have no political support and therefore (given no future GOP candidate will agree with them)...no political importance.
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:03am
Crab,
Thanks for quoting the Chinese constitution,but I am only telling you what I experienced...
Ther American constitution also was designed to protect Americans from Govt...yet you can lose your peasent farm if a better tax generating base can be found,...so what?
The train was built by Chinese and the cars bought from Germany. The people I talked to said health care system sucked and doctors were begining to open private practices.
The trains I was on went through the country side and enter villages at modern new stations. Trains ran on time and had a full hourly schedule in all directions and were full each time...not many foreigners on the trains. They were clean and had attendants like our flight attendants with out the attitude and offerd great service and food.
The small towns with the faded wall slogans had small hovels with animals inside and walled yards...they also had huge modern high rise housing next to theses hovels ..and the housing complexes were gigantic..complete with air conditioners in the windows..1000s of unit ...
peasants, yeah there were many of those too..and many young people in great positions..I am selling my scanners to an oil comopany over there..I gave a lecture to a room full of engineers in the chemical, oil, power and other industrys...a small woman came up to me and asked if I could demonstrate our system at her company in March or April, and if the guys at the test site like it, they would buy at least 2 per refinery, cost not an issue.. When I asked her her how many refinerys she was working with she said she is in charge of 105 of them and she is 36 years old. After talking to her she said the push is on in univeresitys to graduate engineers, scientists and computer specialists,ect...science fields..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 09:14am
Yeah, his popularity was less than 22% percent because when people want to do stupid things they resent people who are right.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 08:17am
Hey Troll, Did you have to fire up all two of those brain cells to come up with that jewel?
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 09:18am
Here is a link for the dolts and morons.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Posted by chaoszen
There is something wrong when we believe Politicians talking about science. To quote Daschle talking about NASA "This isn't rocket science!"
Posted by abell12ct at 02/03/2009 @ 09:33am
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:03am
You are correct, sir. I just can't help myself. I mean it's right there in black and white with numerous links in blue. These people just floor me with their willfull ignorance. As a truck driver I talk to knuckle draggers on a daily basis. They perceive me as a "liberal lefty loon." So it is a personal thing with me. Some of the guys I work with have nice stereos in their cars to listen to Limbaugh cranked up.. Im in the trenches 6 days a week..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 09:33am
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 09:33am
Forget it. Look at the numbers. These same folks think Bush was a great President....hell, think CHENEY was a good Vice-President.
Or the fact that not one of them will argue with my point that in 2012 and beyond, the Republican nominee will NOT say "GW is not only not man-made, it's not even real!"...aka the GW Denial talking point from guys like Limbaugh.
Same for Gitmo. For all the squealing and "NIMBY" foolishness and LIES about "terrorists moved from Cuba to YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!"...
they forget that MCCAIN said HE TOO would close Gitmo.
A good chunk of their issues?...their own Party isn't even supporting anymore. Which is why (back on-topic) it is BRILLIANCE to keep linking the GOP to Limbaugh, undermining their efforts to appear "mainstream" and (with Steele) "inclusive".
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 10:09am
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 09:18am
'ZEN,
You see, what the mouth breathers are getting at here is that the overwhelming majority of Americans...hate America!
Millions of jobs were created during the Clinton era of good, clean government and he leaves office with approval ratings in the 60s after 8 years. And despite endless harassment from inferior creatures with printing presses and microphones to promote CroMag resentments & vanity.
But Bush is affirmative actioned into office by Reagan & Daddy's SCOTUS appointees, leaves office with approval ratings in the *20s* after 8 years during which time the public had endless opportunity to see the whole tawdry program & the phoniness at its core. And by the final year of this disasterous farce, more than 2 million jobs vaporized. Thus, the public's disapproval, deep as it is broad, means that the Americans ARE the much loathed "Hate America" crowd aside from a tiny sliver of the population (PONTIFECES, DARIN, and other dime-a-dozen riff-raff) equipped with special x-ray glasses to see the Truth.
That riff-raff, dragging knuckles and grunting in agreement with each other's primitive Rush impersonations, goes beyond sickening in its shabby efforts to garland George W Loser in terms like, "He was a good man. He tried, did his best" which SUCKED. It would be a pitiful characterization for a Little Leaguer who whiffed every at bat all spring. To attempt to hail a POTUS with the same magnitude of worthless drivel is to say in so many words: "We are conservatives and we hate America with every fiber of our being. Hatred echoes thru ever corner of our minds. We resent success. We have nothing but spite toward the overhwhelming majority of people more talented than we are. George W Loser is our model."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/03/2009 @ 10:09am
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 10:09am
It was sheer brilliance to link Limbaugh with the GOP. Since Rush himself annointed Sarah Palin as the voice of the GOP. It would be wise to push that link even further. The message is the GOP is Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. What a coup. It will pit other GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boener(Boner) against their own and create chaos.. :D
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 10:40am
Oh, goody...another lecture on the "nuclear family" from a guy who thinks that people with only one child are egotistical.
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:01am
I'm glad you brought this up because the exact point of the study was that the children of "selfless" parent do much better in society than the children of "selfish" parents.
If you get divorced when your kids are still in school, you are being selfish.
In the post you are referencing, I made a similar point: Parents who are willing to trade a lower standard of living for more children are more selfless than parents who have only one kid in hopes of maintaining their standard of living. (When I said, "My experience leads me to believe Reps, on average, have more kids and Dems are more likely to have only one" you twisted into, "Dems don't love their kids.")
Hell If I weren't so selfish, I'd quit my corporate job and move to a small community and raise my kids on a farm. As it is, they play video games too much while I'm at work. But I'm too selfish to do that.
So, the $64,000 question is, "Why does this piss you off so much?"
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:46am
<<Nichols is dreaming of a socialist US....and maybe he will get it or maybe, just maybe the citizens of the US will wake up in the next 2 years and decide that they don't want to be just another member of the European Union.>>
A sober analysis of the current economic mess would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that capitalism has been so abused by capitalists that it may need a dose of socialism to save its ass. But that dose will be hard to swallow for those who cannot see through their own ideology.
Posted by robgo2 at 02/03/2009 @ 10:48am
Here is a link for the dolts and morons..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Posted by
chaoszen
I'm trying to think of something funnier than a guy condescenginly talking down to a bunch of "dolts and morons" and then, in the same breath mind you, citing wikipedia as an end-all be-all authority to stop discussion.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:49am
as of McCain, they have no political support and therefore (given no future GOP candidate will agree with them)...no political importance.
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:03am
It's almost as funny as the guy who cites McCain as the final authority on AGW.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:51am
...it is BRILLIANCE to keep linking the GOP to Limbaugh, undermining their efforts to appear "mainstream" and (with Steele) "inclusive".
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 10:09am
Indeed.
The DCCC asked for people to let the Oxyblob know what they thought of him:
http://dccc.org/blog/archives/stand_strong_against_rush_limbaugh/
Then Oxy-boy called upon his mindless dittoheads to strike back and take over the DCCC blog (same link as above). Interesting to read and unbelievable how they can be so stupid. The dittohead invasion is down to a trickle now but it's pretty entertaining reading. Some of them claim that Oxy has 23 million listeners. There are less than 2000 total posts on the blog.
Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/03/2009 @ 10:52am
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/03/2009 @ 10:09am
I see the entire Repug party as nothing but obstructionist. They have no ideas and they certainly don't want to risk any success by Democrats. It might prove that government can actually work. They can only talk the 5% across the board tax cut. Same old crap. If you do the math on that, lower income people get nothing. Middle class folks get crumbs (maybe $600 in tax savings for a family of four grossing a $100,000 a year). But guess who gets a significant tax savings? Of Course! Large corporations and individuals like wall street CEO's.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 10:56am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:51am
I don't cite him as the authority on AGW, Darin.
I cite him as an indication that your position on AGW is politically DEAD...since the only possible sympathetic candidate for President (the Republican) didn't agree with you.
and neither will any FUTURE Republican nominee for President.
Ergo...you don't matter...since nobody will enact (or oppose) policies on AGW in agreement with you.
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 10:58am
So, the $64,000 question is, "Why does this piss you off so much?"
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:46am
I'm going to open this up to more than mask. When us conservatives say (and present scientific studies that proove) the nuclear familyis the best institution for raising children, why does it piss you off so much?
You claim it's anti-woman, but it's not.
You claim it's homophobic, but it's not.
You claim it's racist (70% of black children in the US are born out of wedlock) but it's not.
Why do you get so enraged and hurl these non-sequitur epithets at us for pointing out the obivous?
(After a couple of you give the wrong answer, I will give you the correct one. Hint: TDFWTNF)
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:01am
As congressional Republicans appeal to their ever shrinking base, the Dems seem inclined to make unnecessary concessions to them on the stimulus package. Is this merely to prove a point that Democrats are reasonable and Republicans are not? If so, the country will worse off for the watered down, less effective economic stimulus that is likely to emerge.
Posted by robgo2 at 02/03/2009 @ 11:05am
I'm trying to think of something funnier than a guy condescenginly talking down to a bunch of "dolts and morons" and then, in the same breath mind you, citing wikipedia as an end-all be-all authority to stop discussion.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:49am |
Wiki is easy to find, known by nearly everyone and provides numerous links to other publications. For anyone willing to take the time and expend some effort it is a good place to start. It is not the end all and be all authority, but is by and large a good resource. I don't think anyone disputes that, except for people like you who have no ground to stand on.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 11:06am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/03/2009 @ 09:14am
So, your experience is that a combination of communism and capitalism makes for a growing economy.
---
When us conservatives say (and present scientific studies that proove) the nuclear familyis the best institution for raising children, why does it piss you off so much? ...
Most people agree that a mom and pop make the best environment in our culture. However, reality get's in the way of the being possible in all situations. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of kids in foster/state care, doesn't common snese dictate that if the perfect situation is not available, we seek out other alternatives. I am not sure you can show that kids from two mommy families are worse than foster kids. Maybe ask Mary Cheney why her kids will be raised in an inferior environment, and why the GOP VP is happy with it. Perhps if you won't listen to a lefty, you will listen to Dick?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 11:08am
I'm trying to think of something funnier than a guy condescenginly talking down to a bunch of "dolts and morons" and then, in the same breath mind you, citing wikipedia as an end-all be-all authority to stop discussion.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:49am
How about someone that calls himself a "Big_Fat_Troll" and can't seem to learn anything from the patient posters here. That's pretty funny. On second thought it's pretty sad.
Posted by BlackFrancis at 02/03/2009 @ 11:11am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:01am
Again, the genius of Darin on "family values"--
"No, I'm saying the parent of ONE child love themselves much more than the parents of 5 children. The parents of 5 children are more selfless than the parents of one child"----Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
Apparently use of birth control makes you an egotist!
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 11:13am
I could be wrong...
The Chinese government built the highspeed rail lines, using emminent domain to capture land.
The Chinese government owns and operates the Olypmic venues, having used emminent domain to capture land.
The Chinese government builds housing for workers, subsidizing the cost of labor to private employers.
the chinese government tells people how many kids they can have.
The Chinese government owns much of the power production and distribution systems.
The Chinese government does not tolerate dissent, freeing up the brainspace for production?
JOHN, have you been to a labor camp in China? They exist.
The Chinese Army exists to protect the government from the people, not from outside invasion. Even though the Law says otherwise, like much of the Chinese experiment.
So, why do you use a socialist/capitalist economy to bolster your argument against a capitalist/socialist economy?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 11:16am
I'm trying to think of something funnier than a guy condescenginly talking down to a bunch of "dolts and morons" and then, in the same breath mind you, citing wikipedia as an end-all be-all authority to stop discussion.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:49am
1: a guy that uses China as an exapmle of socialist free free markets?
2: a guy that predicts a 300 vote win for Mccain
3: anybody that accuses liberals of having a mental disease, or being a traitor, then derides liberals as being infit and unfair debaters, stooping to personal attacks.
4: a group of people that use George Bush or his office as a resource for accurate, unbiased information.
5: anybody that blames "the left" for holding the same views as Pat Buchanon, Peggy Noonan, Brent Scrowcroft, Ray McGovern, Bruce Fein etc.
Pretty damn funny
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 11:23am
No, I'm saying the parent of ONE child love themselves much more than the parents of 5 children. The parents of 5 children are more selfless than the parents of one child"----Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 11:13am
I'm glad you kept it.
This is exactly the point of the report. Children of selfless parents do much better than the children of selfish parents. When birth control is a method of maintaining you social status and standard of living, then it is a sign of selfishness.
So in a short eight months, I have been completely vindicated regarding my contention, despite your best efforts to characterize my point as simply Reps love their kids more than Dems.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:32am
Posted by robgo2 at 02/03/2009 @ 11:05am
I agree. Why should Democrats compromise on anything? I think maybe there are games within games within games being played out here. But while the politicians are busy with their pissing contest the average American suffers.
To be honest I don't have much faith in this "Stimulus Package". Every time I hear that I say to myself, "I've got yur stimulus package right here in my shorts." The abuses and consquences of deregulation and laissez- faire capitalism brought on by Reganomics and trickle-down economics (which makes us all peons) has devastated our economy. (I like the Horse and Sparrow analogy: The more oats you feed the horse at one end, the more droppings come out the other end to feed the sparrow).
I fear our ecnomic woes will not be solved by any stimulus package. It might delay the pain. But the piper must be paid..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 11:32am
Most people agree that a mom and pop make the best environment in our culture... Perhps if you won't listen to a lefty, you will listen to Dick?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 11:08am
Hey Crabman
Point 1) Thank you for your respons.
Point 2) Yeah, most people do agree with things that are blindingly obvious. However, most writers at the Nation do not agree with this. Since we are all blank slates, in theory, all families should be exactly equal when it comes to raising children.
Point 3) I know it get's confusing but to recap, I oppose court initiated efforts to redefine marriage and force gay marriage on the US.
I am a very enthusiastic supporter of legislative initiatives to change marriage laws to include homosexuals. I do this becuase I believe it will be very beneficial to the children of homosexual. I may be an asshole, but I've been perfectly consistent in this view, which I've expressed dozens of times over the last few years here.
But you didn't answer the question. Even though most agree, it still pisses you friends off. Why?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:40am
I'm trying to think of something funnier than a guy condescenginly talking down to a bunch of "dolts and morons" and then, in the same breath mind you, citing wikipedia as an end-all be-all authority to stop discussion.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 10:49am
Rush Limbaugh?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2009 @ 11:41am
OH MY GOD! Not another one.
The list of Dem tax cheats keeps growing.
All Franken, Charles Rangle, Elliot Spitzer (paying for hookers with campaign contributions), William Jefferson (no taxes on $90,000 in freezer), Marion Barry (didn't file a number of years), Tim Geitner, Tom Dashcle, and now, Nancy Killefer.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php? id=D9646DBG0&show_article=1
Official: Performance czar withdraws candidacy
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.
Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection...
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:51am
Children of selfless parents do much better than the children of selfish parents. When birth control is a method of maintaining you social status and standard of living, then it is a sign of selfishness. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:32am
Wow Troll you never cease to amaze me. I would have never known that people like you even existed in my wildest imagination. You are a source of endless amusement. You can lay down a few sentences with so much wrong with them that I never know where to start.
In this case people who use birth control are selfish because they might wish to maintain a sustainable level of economic security for the family and reduce their carbon footprint on the planet? But families who don't use birth control are selfless because they spit out kids into an unsustainable economic environment which causes stress in the family and on the environment?
Amazing.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 11:52am
I wish I had more time, but I got to run. As a class, the most selfless people I know are Catholic Priests, who have no children.
You can be selfless with zero, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc children.
If the REASON you only have one child is to protect the environment, you are sacrificing your desires for others. That makes you selfless, and probably a good parent. If you only have one child because you don't want to pay the cost of a second, you are selfish and your one child will have it rougher (on average) than the only child of the environmentalists.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:58am
It is the FREEDOM of speech and the spirit of desenting opinions that Obamanation and Nichols are attacking. As usual the leftist lie about returning to constitutionalism and rule of law and that is the biggest hypocrisy they represent! It is all part of their ploy to "suspend" the right of free speech and replace it with leftist propoganda which NO ONE other than the "echo chambers" want to hear! That is my take!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/03/2009 @ 12:06am
Now there's an utterly moronic post if ever I've seen one (and Rio, I've seen a lot of them coming from you). Has anyone tried to stop your drug-addled spokesman from spewing his drivel, Rio? Hell, has anyone tried to stop you, Larry, et al., even when you're posts head into your bizarrely paranoid fantasy lands, devoid of objective fact? You're one of those who whines about being called out on your lies, your bullshit, your comically absurd attacks, as if anyone's trying to muzzle you. You keep coming to this place in which people will counter you with reality, then you take offense when they do. A long time ago, Rio, I asked you, Larry, Happy, Ponti, and the rest of the right-wingers why you couldn't summon up the balls to fight your Dear Leader Bush's right-wing war/occupation in Iraq. Hell, as it turns out, you don't even have the balls to engage in debate without moaning about non-existent censorship. And that's pathetic.
Posted by jmusolino at 02/03/2009 @ 12:00pm
Rush was/is Cheney's mouthpiece. The 'full court press' that's in progress right now is their last ditch effort of smoke-screen defense... a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the 'recently departed'...
Is it beyond the reaches of imagination to speculate on the possibility that the economy has been 'tampered with' in order to tie Obama's hands and make him seem as ineffectual as Bush has been...?
These guys know that the economy responds negatively to pessimism and skepticism... especially when it comes to futures and change... especially at times of leadership change and ideological shift.
Watch them do their 'dirty work'. It's all about ad hominem knock downs and obfuscations... with their only goal in sight a dim and familiar dumbed down version of Economitopia's military-industrial fear-based control scheme... something akin to the fascist state... which, by the way... is unsustainable and remains noxious to all living things.
These guys love the 'journey'... a tangled brawl of one-upman snipes and attacks... a rumble... returning 'jungle rules' to the day to day lives of millions of Americans. This plan is dependent upon the cultural diminishment of the relative value of peaceful intentions in a violent world... the world of their making.
Are you 'entertained' by Rush's malignant attitude?
Don't bother.
Nothing 'Good for America' comes forth from Rush.
Posted by ttr at 02/03/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:32am
So only having one child is greed and selfishness.
And (as also discussed before) how many more kids do you and Mrs. Darin plan on producing....given your moral superiority?
Or are you "a little" self-centered and going to stop at 2 or 3?
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 12:07pm
Rush Limbaugh is just an air head with absolutley no substance, the right love him because he spews the same trash they love to hear. The Republican party is fading fast and now we have another joker in the pack..David Duke, the good old grand wizard coming out against Steele!!! He wants another party now as the Republicans have the nerve to appoint a black RNC chairman into the fold...albeit as a token gesture to look inclusive. Oh yes, they have lost their way for sure and the more sensible ones are turning toward Obama as the best hope for America now....even they see that their party is a total lost cause and will never come back.
Posted by Caj at 02/03/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:32am
I love it when they backpedal. It makes me feel that I might have accomplished a little something.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 12:19pm
chaos, always fun with Darin, because he's so predictable.
1. Say something generic and unfounded about how Democrats are bad.
2. Somebody else posts citations, facts, events, etc. how Republicans did the same or worse.
3. Darin backpedals many posts later and pretends he wasn't inferring what he was inferring and says "Oh, I'm not saying both sides don't do it" or "You're putting words in my mouth!"
Ex- (Note Date Stamps)
"Like when you said my original point was dems are worse than Reps when obviouly that was your original point stuffed into my mouth because my original point was Bush was called worse names than Hillary."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008
"Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008
Hillary's Exit Strategy posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 06/03/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 12:29pm
by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 12:19pm...
Agreed...
But bear in mind the reciprocating truth... that focusing your attention on their 'fakes and moves' keeps your eyes off the prize... if but for a moment...
Posted by ttr at 02/03/2009 @ 12:31pm
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 12:29pm
Nice to know someone is archiving posts for later reference. It is a great tool for reminding people what they said and when.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 12:37pm
But bear in mind the reciprocating truth... that focusing your attention on their 'fakes and moves' keeps your eyes off the prize... if but for a moment...
Posted by ttr at 02/03/2009 @ 12:31pm
Very true. Everything is a trade off. The whole strategy of the fascist right has always been to obfuscate, change the subject, blur the truth or whatever. It reminds me of the time I spent in the debate club in highschool. Those tactics were used then. And are used now. Little did I know that those lessons would ever come in handy later..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by Caj at 02/03/2009 @ 12:18pm
I tend to not underestimate Limbaugh as just an airhead. Evil yes. Airhead no.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 12:48pm
I don't see the controversy here. If the President tries to increase taxes or discontinue the "Mexico City rule" on family planning, then you would say his supporters want him to "succeed" and his opponents want him to "fail." Wouldn't you?
For example, the opponents of the previous President who were against the Afghanistan war were just opposed to the policy, they weren't cheering for a Taliban victory. Were they?
Posted by Mistral at 02/03/2009 @ 12:54pm
Limbaugh has been getting loads of attention, but in a bad way. Who speaks for the GOP? It's either Rush or Joe the Plumber. Need I say more?
Posted by justoverit333 at 02/03/2009 @ 1:05pm
Honestly, not to be TOO much of a snob, but does it really matter what a guy who couldn't hack one year at Southeast Missouri State U. has to say? It's high time we started to live out the much-derided 'meritocracy' Limbaugh, Brooks, etc... seem to fear so much. If you've got no credentials to back up you claims to wisdom, you've got no wisdom. This whole 'Polls are meaningless' nonsense could only come from (or be accepted by) someone too dumb to get through stat 101. Let the stupid be stupid.
Posted by Dr_Frogman at 02/03/2009 @ 1:13pm
Posted by Mistral at 02/03/2009 @ 12:54pm
But, Mistral, that's what RUSH said they were doing.
So, can we apply Rush's standard to...Rush???
Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 1:20pm
I do not want anyone to fail, Dem or Rep. As for entertainer vs. policy maker Rush is currently the only thing the Rep have with a megaphone. Fact is, the American public has a short memory, if the economy is bad or worse come 2010 you will see a Rep "comeback" that is the nature of things. As an example it was reported today that there has been a spike in demand for SUV's and trucks since the gas prices fell, they were at all-time highs three months ago and people are already forgetting, what makes you think they will remember Bush, Rush or any of this 15 months from now if the economy is not better ... remember the simple phase "are you better off now then you were ..." it could become the next catch phase just like "change" did this time around.
Posted by rloghry at 02/03/2009 @ 1:41pm
... the most selfless people I know are Catholic Priests, who have no children. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/03/2009 @ 11:58am
Is that an oxymoron? Or just a regular moron? Catholic priests don't have a good track record when left alone with children. I realize that is a pretty broad statement, but I'm not a big fan of 'organized' religion, especially catholicism. Spirituality: GOOD. God clubs: BAD
What happened to the Rush discussion? He's hard to defend, he's such a poster child for hypocrisy. So the subject always changes.
I don't think he has any kids, which is a good thing.
And even with cochlear implants the guy can't hear very well, which is kind of funny if it wasn't so sad. Even Campbell Brown is taking him to task, and that IS funny.
Posted by ficheye at 02/03/2009 @ 3:02pm
<i>Posted by ficheye at 02/03/2009 @ 3:02pm </i>
Since debate "club" has already been brought into the discussion, I felt it worth mentioning that you are committing a blatantly false broad generalization here. A few (though even one is too many) Catholic priests have abused children, and yes they should be dealt with, but to make sweeping generalizations about all Catholic priests from that is empirically false and dishonest.
And, if I might ask, what aspect of religious organization do you not like? Is it the communal aspect of it, or the more bureaucratic and structural? If the latter, I'd tend to agree with you to a large extent.
Also...yes, Rush is extremely hard to defend, for good reason. He'll SOMETIMES say smart things, but for the most part he's an obnoxious idiot. Michael J. Fox, anyone?
Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 5:27pm
Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 5:27pm
As a victim of abuse by a good catholic priest, I'd have to say that, even though I already mentioned that it was a pretty broad statement, I am owed a little crass generalization since I'll always find them, and now the church itself, repellent. I can understand your concerns if you can understand mine. I amend.
As far as what part of religious organization I don't like, I guess it's the more bureaucratic. From the beginning of organized religion, hypocrisy has been a staple of it's efforts to control. There truly isn't enough room to respond. The Crusades (did I say the Crusades, all nine, plus 7 others); the bible existing in only latin until Luther forced its translation; disparaging evolution and the teaching of it, especially when it comes to saying that the earth is ridiculously young. Hypocrisy and blatant sinning by those who are representatives of the faith, like Swaggard and Haggert(just to name the high profiles).
You'd expect as much from 'sinners', and I know that the 'christians aren't perfect, they're just forgiven' clause gives them a lot of leeway, but not from me, personally. That statement is pop bullshit. They seem to admonish and preach to the rest of us from a higher elevation, so it's perfectly natural to be able to hold them to a higher standard. And I do. Recent documentation says that many christians lie (a sin) about how much they go to church. I could go on. I know a lot of christians who have been married three times which always amazes me. A lot of non-christians I know seem to have a firmer moral center.
And Rush IS sometimes able to make sense, but 'open mouth, insert foot' is generally a fair description. Playing 'Barack the Magic' Negro was simply fomenting racial prejudice.
Posted by ficheye at 02/03/2009 @ 6:33pm
Posted by ficheye at 02/03/2009 @ 6:33pm
dittoes, Fish eyes.
hee
sorry, lame, but could not help myself
Hail Mary, full of Grace...
Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2009 @ 10:11am
sorry, lame, but could not help myself Hail Mary, full of Grace... Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2009 @ 10:11am
Hey, I caught the biggest trout of my life this year! No worries. More at microfiche though.
Posted by ficheye at 02/04/2009 @ 2:08pm