Limbaugh falsely claimed Reid and other Democrats "do not show publicly" with VoteVets representatives
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh, discussing Sen. Harry
Reid's floor speech criticizing Limbaugh's September 26 comments characterizing
service members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," asserted that Reid
"didn't mention VoteVets.org. They never hold press conferences with them."
Limbaugh continued: "I never see Dingy Harry with
members of VoteVets.org standing with him on the podium. Why is that? ... The
reason Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats do not show publicly with
members of VoteVets.org is because they don't know -- they don't want you to
know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and
elected Democrats in the House and the Senate. And that's why they never cite
them." In fact, Reid has appeared with VoteVets representatives at press
conferences, and Democrats have issued press releases citing VoteVets.
On the October 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh "suggest[ed]" -- without providing evidence -- that VoteVets.org, an organization of military veterans who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, "doesn't represent the vast majority of veterans out there." VoteVets recently produced television and radio ads criticizing Limbaugh for comments he made on September 26 characterizing service members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." On the October 5 broadcast, discussing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)'s October 1 floor statement that Limbaugh's comment was "beyond the pale of decency," Limbaugh asserted that Reid "didn't mention VoteVets.org. They never hold press conferences with them." Limbaugh continued: "I never see Dingy Harry with members of VoteVets.org standing with him on the podium. Why is that? ... The reason Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats do not show publicly with members of VoteVets.org is because they don't know -- they don't want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and elected Democrats in the House and the Senate. And that's why they never cite them." In fact, Reid has appeared with VoteVets representatives at press conferences, and Democrats have issued press releases citing VoteVets.
For instance, on July 11, Reid and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) held a press conference regarding Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) proposed amendment on troop deployments, featuring representatives from VoteVets and other organizations. From the press release:
The Senators spoke alongside representatives from Veterans for America, the National Military Families Association and VoteVets.org about Senator Jim Webb's amendment to begin the critical and long overdue process of rebuilding our badly overburdened military. The amendment will give our troops the time to properly train, prepare for and recover from battle, and ensures we do not leave our cities' and towns' first responders shorthanded.
Additionally, on February 7, Reid issued a press release that stated: "With Republicans in the Senate blocking a debate on President Bush's plan to escalate the war, Senate Democrats today joined veterans of the war in Iraq to demand the Senate be allowed to vote up or down on the single most important issue facing America today. Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray, Senator John Kerry, Senator Jack Reed, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, along with Jon Soltz and Andrew Horne of VoteVets.org, called on Senate Republicans to put the safety of America's troops ahead of providing political cover for the White House." The release went on to quote Soltz and VoteVets senior adviser Andrew Horne:
"On Monday, the minority of the United States Senate came out forcefully for an escalation of the war in Iraq, clearly ignoring the will of the American people and those of us who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Jon Soltz, Co-Founder and Chairman of VoteVets.org. "Many of those Senators in recent weeks said they were against escalation. Well, talk is cheap, and you don't support our troops with lip service. In the debate on the Iraq war and an escalation, there are only two sides - with the troops or with the President. You cannot have it both ways. Those Senators who have voted against the troops are now on official warning - vote in line with the will of the troops and the will of the people, or pay the price."
Said Andrew Horne, Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org, "Monday's vote to support escalation of the war in Iraq by the minority was a 'Profile in Cowardice.' A lot of Senators have puffed out there [sic] chests and spoken boldly about opposing an escalation of the war in Iraq, but when faced with pressure from their leader, buckled and wilted in fear. We Iraq veterans risked our very lives in service to this country, marching head-up into a field of bullets, IEDs, and rockets. These Senators ran scared because of political pressure from their party. It's clear who the true patriots are in this debate."
Further, an April 2 Associated Press article posted on USA Today's website features a photo captioned: "From left to right: Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org; U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Iraq veteran Jonathan Powers meet in Reid's office at the Capitol." The article discussed Reid's reaction to President Bush's then-impending veto of supplemental funding bill that included provisions for a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Photographs from Getty Images of the March 29 meeting can be found here. According to Getty, "The group discussed the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that would set a timetable for withdrawal of troops."
More recently, Democratic Sens. Jack Reed (RI), Patty Murray (WA) and Mary Landrieu (LA) announced on September 5 that they had "joined Iraq War veteran Peter Granato, Vice Chairman of Vote Vets ... to discuss the importance of providing funding for our veterans." According to their press release, the group expressed its support for "legislation that would provide $109.2 billion in funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration, which is approximately $4 billion more than the president requested."
From the October 5 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: All right, I want to go to the audio sound bites. Last night, on the Rusty Humphries Show, which airs 9 to midnight Eastern time, he had as his guest the vice chair of VoteVet.org [sic], which is a group running these ads and getting this "phony soldiers" smear ginned up. And I've got two bites here. Humphries -- the guy's name is Brandon Friedman. And Rusty Humphries says, "Why? Why are you doing this, honestly? What is your reasoning behind this?"
[begin audio clip]
FRIEDMAN: The problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is that he enables policymakers who have gotten our country into a lot of trouble. We're in a lot of trouble. I mean, we've got some serious problems with Islamic extremism globally and we can't address those problems correctly --
HUMPHRIES: Why?
FRIEDMAN: --because we're bogged down in another country's religious civil war.
HUMPHRIES: OK, so it's not what Rush said, it's who Rush supports. And because he helped get them elected, he needs to be taken down. Is that --
FRIEDMAN: No, it's a pattern of what he does. I mean, he -- this guy has a voice, and he affects people.
HUMPHRIES: Right.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: There you have it. I mean, the guy -- ladies and gentlemen, leading spokesman for VoteVets.org admitting publicly that the reason the liberal hit squad's attacking me is because they don't agree with my position on the war and that I'm influential. Now, let me ask you a question: Is that what we should be doing in America? I mean, knowingly smearing somebody because you disagree with his policy views, lying about what he said, trying to destroy his character. Because that's what this gentleman has just admitted doing. Anyone who practices these kinds of tactics ought to be ashamed of themselves. Whether they're civilians or used to wear the uniform or still wear the uniform, lying about somebody's statements to advance your own policy objectives is not honorable. And it'll -- it won't work because there's no substance behind it.
Let me suggest that the vast majority of men and women in uniform today, as well as those who have served before, do not want us to lose. They don't want this mission to fail. And they don't sign on to the anti-war movement led by the likes of Harry Reid. Let me further suggest this: VoteVets.org doesn't represent the vast majority of veterans out there. I think the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with literally millions and millions of members, are far more representative of the vets in this country than VoteVets.org. And yet they are portrayed, much as other fringe liberal groups, as huge, powerful, and influential, and they're not. And this audio clip indicates that they are feeling powerless to stop people like me and my influence, and so I have to be taken out with a smear.
Now, one thing I also want to point out -- you know, when Harry Reid went to the floor of the Senate this past Monday to denounce me, he didn't cite to this group, did he? He didn't mention VoteVets.org. They never hold press conferences with them, I mean, I never see Dingy Harry with members of VoteVets.org standing with him on the podium. Why is that? Could it be because they don't share the policy positions of Reid and his ilk? They want our combat forces to have the equipment and additional support they need to win the war, and this group doesn't really even like Reid. Maybe it is that Reid's embarrassed to be with these guys. You don't think that's what it is? It's -- well, meets with them secretly. Well, that's probably right, that's probably right. The reason Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats do not show publicly with members of VoteVets.org is because they don't know -- they don't want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and elected Democrats in the House and the Senate. And that's why they never cite them. That's why Dingy Harry didn't cite them. He made it his own words. He said, "Limbaugh said this." He had no idea what I said. He didn't care what I said. The VoteVet.orgs [sic] and the Media Matters types fed him the data. It worked. This is and was a coordinated smear, and they don't want the coordination noticed. Orchestrated from Day One here, folks, as I have explained repeatedly. And not thanks to VoteVets.org and one of its spokesmen, this fact has been underscored.
You know, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, these are organizations with literally millions and millions of members. And I side with them. I side with the American Legion. I don't share the views of VoteVets.org, which works closely with Harry Reid and a number of other elected Democrats. And because I share the same position as most of our soldiers -- and in this Fox poll -- because I share the position of most of the American people, who do not want us to lose. I support the troops in this war, as anybody with a brain knows. And I'm attacked over my support for the troops and the war and by claims I oppose the troops.
Jeez, it's wonderful how Limbaugh always has every liberal conspiracy figured out and wrapped up like a nice neat package...but devoid of factual basis or logic. This is Limbaugh's stock in trade.
I remember about a year ago limbaugh had on his show a 'caller' who claimed to be a military officer , but as it turned out, there was no officer in any branch of the military by the name that he called himself. Now that was a real phoney soldier. Of course, limbaughs audience totally forgot it. Ironic.
"The reason [George Bush] and the rest of the [Republicans] do not show publicly with members of [NAMBLA] is because they don't know -- they don't want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these [] groups and elected [Republicans] in the House and the Senate. And that's why they never cite them."
Hey, I like this game! It's fun and easy!
"The reason [George Bush] and the rest of the [Republicans] do not show publicly with members of [the KKK] is because they don't know -- they don't want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these [] groups and elected [Republicans] in the House and the Senate. And that's why they never cite them."
You're right - this game IS fun and easy!
:-)
Suggest all right wingers read the following books for some enlightenment as to the real truth about the Neo-cons. Conservatives Without Conscience, Worse Than Watergate and, his latest, Broken Government. He's also written a screenplay, Pentagon Papers.
Also, give a listen to the following, if you dare.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/video/audiopop.html?playertype=realmedia;mediatype=audio;speed=hi;media=%2Ftavissmiley%2Ftavisaudio20071008a_36.rm;playertemplate=%2Fkcet%2Ftavissmiley%2Fvideo%2Faudio.tmpl;basepath=%2Fkcet%2Ftavissmiley.new%2Fvideo%2Faudiopop.html;prefchange=0&tavisdate=October%2008%2C%202007&tavisname=John%20Dean
That's a good reading list, Sec. Might I suggest following it up with THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders Cure for Royalism?
<I>Now, let me ask you a question: Is that what we should be doing in America? I mean, knowingly smearing somebody because you disagree with his policy views, lying about what he said, trying to destroy his character.</I>
Project much El Rushbo?
A comment like that only helps Limbaugh with his full moon cultists. Anyone else will say to themselves that this guy really is just full of it.
referring to Limbaugh not Trone
once again we see that rush is always right but never correct
No kidding. For instance:
they don't want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and elected Democrats in the House and the Senate.Oh how I would LOVE for the Democrats to get coordinated over ANYTHING.
It's not an anti-war group. It's a pro-war group masquerading as an anti-war group.
Bitter remember what Will Rogers said "I belong to no organized party, I'm a democrat." That says it all about us dems, but I agree I wish they would organize something.
Rush has the microphone...
He's free to spread lies and filth at will. Conservatives are now so accustomed to being able to lie at will, that they get all bent out of shape when they encounter any resistance.
How much of the public--not to mention the brain-dead dittoheads--can discern Rush's lies?
Hmmm, VoteVets seems like another of those pro-war "anti-war" Dem front orgs that promote "redeployment" and continued occupation of Iraq. They seem to blame everything on the Republicans, even though the Dems keep voting FOR the war. There's a lot of those out there today, to the point that the real anti-war groups have written about the movement being hijacked by the Democrats several times. Just remember this, Cindy Sheehan, the figurehead of the anti-war movement, is running against Nancy Pelosi because Nancy will NOT end the war. Dems are trying once again to fool the masses. Any vote for a Democrat is a vote for more war. History has proven that.
Yup. I was right. Just do a google on Patrick Murphy, one of the Congressmen VoteVets is pushing. He's all for leaving an occupation force in Iraq, condemns the boycotts of Israel, and talks "tough" on Iran. Another one of AIPAC's pets that's perfectly ok with the ghettoization and ethnic cleansing of three million Palestinians. Another anti-human rights Democrat. Another warpig in a suit.
You're exactly right. The war in Iraq will go on no matter who the next President is. A Democratic President will not end the war. Hillary and Obama both said that they couldn't promise that we'll be out of Iraq even by 2012! What a disappointed the anti war crowd is going to be in for if we get a Democrat for President. The only thing different about having a Democratic President is that we'll have higher taxes, activist judges, and government run health care. But the situation in Iraq will remain the same. The Democrats have no intention of getting out of Iraq. Their rhetoric is simply posturing to the anti war crowd in order to get elected and implement their big government agenda. Because they know that without a popular position like withdrawel from Iraq they could never sell their big government agenda here at home.
You're exactly right. The war in Iraq will go on no matter who the next President is. A Democratic President will not end the war. Hillary and Obama both said that they couldn't promise that we'll be out of Iraq even by 2012!
The occupation of Iraq will be effectively over if either Clinton or Obama are elected. Both say they'll bring the troops home letting the Iraqis take the reins and if necessary, a small contingent would be left there to deal with Al Qaeda (I disagree with this last part). The Iraqis can deal with their brethren claiming to be Al Qaeda; they don't need us there.
The only thing different about having a Democratic President is that we'll have higher taxes
I think you meant to say higher taxes for the rich and super rich and taxcuts for the middle class.
activist judges
Reagan and Bush have already filled the courts with activist judges.
and government run health care.
Government financed health care.
No. The Dems have said that they want to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut. This would mean tax increases for the poor and middle class. The lower and middle classes got a much bigger percentage reduction in their marginal tax rates than did the rich, so getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would hurt the lower and middle classes much more than the rich.
How does rescinding tax cuts for the rich equate to tax hikes for the poor and middle class? PLEASE ELABORATE or desist with the Repub talking points. Seriously RINO I’m glad Jim Jones didn’t get his hands on you, you would be six feet under in Guyana if he had.
Because Bush's tax cuts were mostly for the lower and middle classes. That's the inconvenient truth. The lower and middle classes got a bigger percentage reduction in their income tax rate than did the rich. The Dems want to get rid of all of Bush's tax cuts, which would disporportionately hurt the poor and middle class. The Democrats' tax and spend policies hurt the poor and middle class, not just the rich.
No its a convienient LIE. The first tax cut had less than 15% go to the bottom 60% of the people. Spin all you want they were tax cuts for the RICH.
Solon, I think you need to take a class in economics
The lower and middle classes got a bigger percentage reduction in their income tax rate than did the rich. That is not the same as saying the the rich got most from the tax cuts.
While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income households pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.
In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfmI think YOU need an economics course. Do you know what disposable income is? The percentage MAY be a statistic YOU like because it gives the SPIN you like. That doesnt mean I NEED to focus on it. What does it say that the lower 60% of the people got a higher percentage cut (that is of course if you IGNORE the cuts on capital gains and dividends) AND there are more OF them yet they got less than 15% of the benifits? Dont presume to tell ME what I need to learn. My guess is I know a lot more about this stuff than YOU do.
Not so great comeback and bad guess.
I doubt it. Just because your DELUSIONS tell you something doesnt mean its true.
He presented actual facts. You just came back with meaningless rambling and a meaningless statistic. It makes sense that the bottom 60% only gets 15% of the tax cut when they only pay about 8-10% of the taxes to begin with. They still get a bigger reduction in their marginal tax rates than do the rich, as AA proved in his post. You had no comeback for that at all.
Sure I did. You guys just missed it there are NONE so blind as those who will not see. Lets make it really simple in deference to the two of you. You take a pie. You give 40% of it to one guy, representing the top 10% 25% to one guy representing the next 10% then 10% each to the next two guys representing the same. You can talk all you want about the other GUYS getting more than they usually get. It is STILL six guys sharing 15% of the pie. They may not have been paying as much in REAL dollars and yet they were certainly paying a MUCH higher percentage of their disposable income than the other brackets. Yet they got LESS of the relief in actual money. Lets say it takes 20,000$ just to LIVE. A guy making 35,000% a year and paying 10,000% a year in taxes is paying 2/3 of his DISPOSABLE INCOME in taxes. A guy making a million and paying say 100,000$ in taxes is paying only a pittance over 10% if the guy making 35 grand gets 2% of his income taxes back that is 200 dollars and his tax relief is still about 60+% of his disposable income and the rich guy got back 2000 dollars he didnt need and his percentage of disposable income is hardly rippled. You can tell me all you want how this FAVORED the poor guy but its ludicrous. The only way to believe it is that you WANT to.
Great post and not refuted huh, I guess their probably out hunting up talking points now. I've even heard a few economists of late comment on America’s dual economy and the differences between the Wall Street economy and the Main Street economy; just because the investors are doing well doesn't mean it's felt in the real world where most Americans actually reside. Even that wise old xenophobe Pat Buchanan concedes that what’s good for corporate America can often be very damaging to real Americans; but as long as the corporatists politicians can keep a substantial portion of the electorate accepting that the supremacy of the interests of the corporate world and investors classes are maintained we are going to sustain these two very different economies. Very sad.
Exactly look at the defense for the tax cut Rino gave. They pay more in taxes, that is ,they make more money so they deserve more of the tax cut, that is, since they have BEEN priveleged they deserve MORE priveleges.
It's very weird and so contrary to “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much require”:
"Lets say it takes 20,000$ just to LIVE. A guy making 35,000% a year and paying 10,000% a year in taxes is paying 2/3 of his DISPOSABLE INCOME in taxes. A guy making a million and paying say 100,000$ in taxes is paying only a pittance over 10%"
That's not necessarily true. The cost of living is different everywhere you go. A guy who lives in Kansas for example might only be making $40,000 per year, but his cost of living is also very low, and so he doesn't need to make as much as someone who lives in a rich place needs to make. Lets say that there's also a guy who makes $300,000 per year who lives in a high value part of California. This guy makes a lot of money, but he also has to spend a ton of money just paying the bills. His house payments and other expenses are very high. So his disposable income ends up being about the same as the guy making $40,000 living in Kansas, even though he makes much more money.
37 percent of the taxcut on income went to the top one percent and the bottom 99% split the rest.
And the only reason why the rich are paying a bigger share is that they're the only group doing well under Bush's economy.
Not that I doubt you but can you cite a source for your statistics?
The Brookings Institute.
Even if that's accurate the top 1 percent paid about 43% of the taxes to begin with, so it's only fair to give them back the percentage that they paid originally.
No it's not. They don't need it.
The top one percent paid about a quarter of all federal taxes.
Depending on whose numbers you take, it means that the top 1% of the population earned somewhere in the region of 25% to 40% of the all the income for the whole country for that year.
I see the light, Barney. If somebody making 50k a year gets a 5% cut, and somebody making 10 million a year only gets a 4% cut, the second guy is really taking a beating.
How many times are you going to copy & paste this BS?
Gomer,
When you gonna stop whining about my posts?
ps. Obviously you cannot argue intelligently on this matter. Most people believe it is better to be quiet and not show one's ignorance than write a few lines and prove it. But that never seems to stop you. Thanks for the laughs.
Take your own advice MORON he did argue intelligently. He made a point. YOU dodged it
Wow, Solon just lost another debate and has to resort to name calling. Go figure.
I did just what he did. Keep telling yourself that you wingnuts are winning this or any other debate. That is the ONLY positive reinforcement you will get. Its a delusion but then virtually everything you post is.
AA, calling it whining is easy. It only takes me a couple of lines to bust up your tedious copy and paste jobs.Work smarter, not harder, like they say.
SOLON:
RINO has chosen the "percentage" dodge to hide the truth.
10% of $10,000 is $1000.
5% of $5,000,000 $250,000.
Funny how that works, when the rich get a "lesser percentage" of what a poor person gets, it amounts to a fantastically larger chuck of cash.
Percentages can be useful, but NOT when they are used to purposefully obscure the truth of a claim, or to promote a LIE (like Bush's tax cuts DID NOT more advantage the rich).
Bush's tax cuts still made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger amount of the overall taxes than they did before. You should support the Bush tax cuts since they actually worked against the rich and made them shoulder more of the tax burden.
The lower and middle classes got a much bigger percentage reduction in their marginal tax rates than did the rich
The rich shouldn't have gotten anything.
The Dems have said that they want to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut.
Yeah. They're gonna get rid of it and rework it.
What do you have against paying your bills yourself? Do you think it's right to stick the kids who are fighting this war, and their kids, with the bills for it. Spare me this "tax and spend Democrats" tripe. It's nauseating coming from borrow-and-spend Republicans.
What we should do is cut taxes AND cut spending. That's where the Republicans went wrong. They should have cut spending to go along with the tax cuts. But I agree with you that we shouldn't have a deficit and shouldn't be borrowing money. I just disagree with you on how we should get rid of the deficit.
How do you propose to pay for the war, RH?
We cut spending from the bloated federal government and balance the budget. If we do that we'll have a surplus and will easily be able to pay for the war.
but there isn't any part of the Gov. that is more bloated than the military. Quite a dilemma, that one.
Please cite specific areas, RH. What needs to be cut?
You could start by getting rid of all corporate welfare. I think that that would save about $200 billion a year. You could then move to the agriculture department. The subsidy program that is in place now merely helps the rich. Almost all the subsidies go the the rich corporate farmers who don't need the money. You could get completely rid of the subsidies for the corporate farmers and give more of the subsidies to the small farmers who need the money. This would save a lot of money immediately as well. You could then freeze the rate of growth for all entitlement programs. Medicare and Medicaid are expanding rapidly, and these programs need to be brought under control. There is also a lot of waste in the military budget that needs to be cleaned up. We can pay for equipment and fund the troops while also making sure money isn't wasted. We need more oversight on the military budget.
It's a lot easier to see the intellectual dishonesty of Limbaugh when you see his words transcribed. You can pause and weigh up his words one comment at a time, without distraction from his next comment. This is his Achilles' heal and he knows it.
The occupation will CONTINUE if either of them is president, they've both said so. They might bring out half the troops, but they'll just send them back to rotate with the other half they leave behind. The American Empire marches on. The Iraqi people will continue to die.
The occupation will CONTINUE if either of them is president, they've both said so.
No it won't. The Iraqis will be running the show.
You're going to be so furious when you realized you've been duped by the fake anti-war crowd.
I believe what they say. The Iraqis will take the reins of their country and a contingent will be left there to fight Al Qaeda. I think Both Obama and Clinton can be persuaded to let the Iraqis deal with their fellow Iraqis claiming to be Al Qaeda. The Iraqis don't need the contingent there. They can deal with it.
"a contingent will be left there to fight Al Qaeda"...lol! Is that what they told you? Isn't that what Bush says when we ask why the troops are there now?
"a contingent will be left there to fight Al Qaeda"...lol! Is that what they told you?
Yes.
Isn't that what Bush says when we ask why the troops are there now?
No. Bush is there to look out for the best interest of the oil.
Which is why the Dems are also demanding Iraq sign the oil law that allows US oil companies to buy up the Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure? It's one of their benchmarks. And what "US interests" do you think they are referring to in their "redeployment" plan? Dems are after the oil, too.
Which is why the Dems are also demanding Iraq sign the oil law that allows US oil companies to buy up the Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure?
They're not demanding anything from Iraqis.
It's one of their benchmarks. And what "US interests" do you think they are referring to in their "redeployment" plan? Dems are after the oil, too.
The Oil Law has provisions in it about the distribution of oil revenues between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. This is the part of the Law the Dems are concerned about. They're trying to make sure the Sunnis don't get locked out.
You haven't been paying attention to the Dem bills. They DO demand the Iraqi government sign a law that lets foreign companies at the oil wells. Look under "benchmarks".
"Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership chose to ignore that knowledge and that opposition, and included in the supplemental a requirement that the Iraqis pass the oil law. If the Iraqi government fails to do so by September, the supplemental states that the U.S. government will cut off of U.S. reconstruction dollars to Iraq."
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2007/012007/interview-juhasz.html
Yup, Dems also after the Iraqis' oil. It's in the bills.
RinoHunter is right ! The Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans on some issues, so let's all vote Republican!
Yes, the Democrats are about the same as the Republicans on Iraq, so we should vote for the party that lowers taxes and lets us live our own lives without interference from the government.
No interference from the government?
Reference spying without warrants. You're life is an open book to the government if they wanted it to be. And you wouldn't even know it.
You are supporting a regime that is operating outside of the consitution. That makes you an enabler of a traitorous administration.
You are very un-American, in my opinion.
Until you are actually affected by these anti terror policies, you don't have a point. None of us are in any way affected by those policies. I wouldn't even know that these policies are in place if I didn't keep up with the news.
What a DUMB thing to say. You obviously dont even know what rights ARE. If anyone is denied them then NO ONE has them. So we were ALL effected when Jose Padilla was denied his sixth amendment rights. YOU have no way of knowing if you have been wiretapped or if the FBI has come into your home when you werent there and searched it. We are all effected, its just some of us are bright enough to understand that and some of YOU arent
If a Democratic President had these policies in place you wouldn't even care. Clinton had many of these same kind of secret programs, and nobody on the left even cared. It's simply the fact that Bush is running these programs.
Which ones did Clinton have? If he did I guarantee you I would be furious!
If you want to talk about smaller government, its time to get rid of the Bushes!
You are such a LIAR. Why do you LIE so much. Democrat OR Republican if they bypassed the sixth and fourth amendment I would be throwing the same fit. I know you think EVERYONE is like YOU. So since YOUR HEROES that is any conservative cannot do ANYTHING bad since if they do it then by definition it is good. I am not a brainwashed bot. I am not even a Democrat. I wouldnt care WHO violated my rights I stand UP. It is the only way to assure my children still HAVE those rights. You shouldnt judge everyone by your sorry example
Until you are actually affected by these anti terror policies, you don't have a point.
If any American is affected, I'm affected. No American should be wronged by their government.
Thank God people didn't think that way about slavery or it would still be around.
"Until you are actually affected by these anti terror policies, you don't have a point. None of us are in any way affected by those policies. I wouldn't even know that these policies are in place if I didn't keep up with the news."---RinoHunter
You are effected because this is one of the facts of life we all have to live with. Other examples of basic facts are that you have to pay taxes so you adjust your spending accordingly, and you have to die so you adjust your whole life accordingly.
You can't be sure that the government will only use the information gained for appropriate anti-terrorisism puposes. To put it into your frame of reference, what if H. Clinton were president and she asked for a dossier on RinoHunter, would you be so cocky? Are you so confident that there wouldn't be some info that could be used against you somehow.
And even if you are still not concerned, don't you know people, relatives or friends, who you would worry about not being able to stand this extra scrutiny by a bureaucrat on a fishing expedition who is ready to inflict damage anonymously.
Also, political discourse will be changed, people over time will be cowed. Gradually we'll become like the old Soviet Union where everyone was scared to say anything to anyone.
Fog,
Thanks for sharing your opinions and acknowledgment that it is ONLY your opinion that Rino is unAmerican. What I wonder is why you left off 'opinion' when making those other statements? I think you'll agree with me that it is also true that it is only your opinion that the administration is traitorous. And it is only your opinion that the "regime" is operating outside th constitution.
It's nice to hear your opinions, but without any facts included to back up your post, I have to admit, you sound like you're way out there.
I think you'll agree with me that it is also true that it is only your opinion that the administration is traitorous.
It's a fact.
Do you ever write more than one sentence posts?
It is an opinion to be sure. The problem is that to believe President Bush can just ignore the law as it pleases him is to believe he is more of an emperor or dictator than a president.
I don't really understand how that opinion is justified. It seems pretty self-serving to me, but that is just another opinion I suppose.
Rino, the fact that the GOP doesn't give us much of a return on our money doesn't mean they don't have an effect.
Just in the last few years, they've accomplished several things- increasing the amount most working Americans spend on gasoline, utilities, unsecured debt- oh, I'm sorry, those things don't really affect "the base".
Better yet, let's all vote Green and Libertarian, the anti-imperial parties. At least they aren't out to take over the world and kill people.
Either too subtle for RINO, or an example of conservative neural circuits in operation.
I vote both.
What do you think of governmental oversite of business Rino? Does it have a place in your world? How large would it be? What would its piorities be?
Oh sure, the Iraqis will run the show from that monster US embassy even the Dems are saying needs fully staffed and guarded. LOL! Wanna buy a bridge?
We have embassies all over the world and those governments are still able to run the show.
There is no embassy in the world like the US embassy in Iraq. It's massive. It's not built for an ambassador, it's built for a vice-roy. Edwards says he wants a combat brigade left behind to guard it. NO US embassy has a brigade guarding it or facilities to house them. This isn't an embassy, it's a control center. Iraq is to be ruled by a puppet government and US troops are to be left behind to back that government up with force, which means continued occupation, continued resistance, continued DEATH. Exactly the same situation we have now. So electing Democrats = NO change. This is what Aristotle called LOGIC.
I disagree with your prediction, assumption, speculation, hyperbole or whatever it is.
I've still got that bridge for sale.
And you're telling this because...?
If you think the Dems are not gonna try to keep US troops in Iraq for the next fifty years, then you'll buy anything. Now about that bridge, only one owner, a little old lady who only drove over it on Sunday, a real steal.
If you think the Dems are not gonna try to keep US troops in Iraq for the next fifty years, then you'll buy anything.
You're delusional.
Now about that bridge, only one owner, a little old lady who only drove over it on Sunday, a real steal.
Oh, I see what it is. Someone "sold" you the bridge and you're trying to recoup some of the money.
Their rhetoric is simply posturing to the anti war crowd in order to get elected and implement their big government agenda.
Clinton shrunk the government. Reagan and both Bushes grew it, Bush II grew it dramatically and increased our debt by almost twice.
Who's the party of big gubmint? Seems it would be the GOP.
"Clinton shrunk the government"
That's B.S. The government still grew under Clinton, and taxes certainly went up. It just didn't grow quite AS FAST as it did under Bush. And Bush never was a fiscal conservative. He's been a liberal on those issues. And divided government also leads to stalemate and less government overall. When one party gains total control there are no checks and balances, and the party in control gets drunk on power and grows the government. And with Reagan, he cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. That actually created MORE REVENUE which allowed us to spend more on domestic programs.
And with Reagan, he cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. That actually created MORE REVENUE which allowed us to spend more on domestic programs.
It did not create more revenue and that's why he had to borrow from other nations and the SS Fund. Reagan ran up more foreign debt than all other presidents before him combined.
Loonz,
I do believe spending went up even faster than revenue. Hence the deficit.
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm
In the first four years of Reagan's presidency, federal revenues remained flat and it actually dropped in 1983. And as you mentioned, federal revenues as a percentage of the GDP also dropped [for his entire presidency]. From 1985 to 1988 federal revenues did increase but I think it was due to tax increases passed in 84, 86 and 87. Reagan increased taxes with the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.
The economy always grows with the population over time but revenue DROPPED the first two. You need to understand those stats bubba. Just regurgitating them doesnt really show you KNOW what you are talking about. FACT. Reagan hurt revenues and tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves just because the economy keeps growing over time.
When the Republican party gains total control there are no checks and balances, and the Republican party in control gets drunk on power and grows the government.
There, I fixed you post.
Right. And the Democrats weren't drunk on power at all in 1994 when they got obliterated by the Republicans.
Uh - for your information, and I'm pretty sure this is a fact, not an opinion, the Democrats had control of the house, senate and the presidency for 2 years.
And they got out of control and started spending money like crazy, and they then got booted out by the voters. The Republicans ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and won. Because you see, conservatism works every time it's tried. It's just that the Republicans abandoned conservatism.
...And in just a few short years everyone was ready to throw the big phony hypocrites out of office. It took the Dems 40 years before their excesses got them the boot. It took your guys about ten minutes to start acting like pompous, money grubbing, warmongering, toe tapping jack asses.
Um, no, it was actually 12 years. We didn't get beat until 2006.
Bush has NOT been liberal in social issues. That is just your Limborg hivemind associating the word liberal with anything you associate with bad. Its pure ignorance. Bush's tax cuts were in NO WAY LIBERAL. A liberal would have focused tax cuts to the middle class or poor. They wouldnt continue to cut taxes on money you make with money instead of with labor. I dont care if you agree with that it is what a LIBERAL would do and NOT what Bush did. There is NOTHING liberal about Bush he is rightwing authoritarian. Where as YOU are more rightwing libertarian, which is what American conservatives have more traditionally been. Every post you make shows how little you know. I guess Rush can only put so much into your brain
"Bush has NOT been liberal in social issues"
You're right. He's been liberal on spending issues.
He hasnt been liberal on ANY issues. YOU never know what you are talking about and baseless assertions are all you ever have. I say he has been Martian on fiscal issues its just as meaningful as the bilge you spew day after day.
Trying out those precognitive powers of yours again? You wingnuts really arent very good at telling the future. Iraq has proven that and just because they wouldnt committ to an absolute without any room for changing circumstance doesnt mean they wont get out of Iraq. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Then comes the inevitable list programed into your hivemind by the Oxymoron himself doing your Limborg duty chanting what is wrong with Democrats. You dont know what you are talking about. You never do. Your guesses about what will happen are precious and WORHTLESS. We have had enough neandrathal judges appointed to the Supreme Court by President Gump we need some balance anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is not an activist just because that is what you hiveminders have been instructed to call them. Rent a clue.
Hey Rhino,
You know what I'm going to say to the next worker I see dying in the gutter because he or she doesn't have any health care? "Get off your ass, we don't have socialized medicine here in the good old USA."
Conservative filth.
Please don't compare Rino Hunter to filth. It's an insult to self-respecting filth everywhere.
:-)
What's the WZ stand for? Weird Zombie?
Rino,
Pay no attention. Those remarks are typical liberal rants signifying nothing.
Notice how few liberals here can make a statement here that is not filled with invective and vitriol?
Some can argue their points without sounding like children but many here can't. They are too filled with what has been described as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Barn, I don't think RH needs to be told to not pay attention any more than you do. But , of course, that's just the ranting of a child. ;0)
Gomer,
No need to carry a grudge.
Now skip on home.
Who would I have a grudge against , and why? Certainly not you or Rinohunter, who you implied are the same person, but RH denies.I would miss the one/two of you if you ever stopped posting here.
NAH it just seems that way to you morons afflicted with Bush Idolotry Syndrome
You're completely full of it. Anybody who has a medical emergency gets treated in this country. You just have to pay it off afterwards, which is the fair thing to do. The doctors give a service and deserve to be paid in return. If doctors had to work for free there would be no doctors and no one to help the sick and injured. Health care is not a right. You can't force someone else to take care of you.
"Anybody who has a medical emergency gets treated in this country."
But not everyone gets preventive care. Preventive care helps reduce the need for emergency care, which is far more expensive. Getting access to preventive care for more people will reduce the overall cost of health care.
"You just have to pay it off afterwards, which is the fair thing to do."
And again, emergency care is far more expensive, especially for those who don't have insurance. Another problem that can be positively affected by preventive care.
Emergency care may be able to stabilize someone in critical condition, but emergency care is not going to pay for additional long-term procedures, surgery and therapy that may be necessary for recovery. Even if you do have insurance, the insurance company, by power of the purse, always has the final say as to whether or not that further treatment is performed, even if it's life-saving.
"The doctors give a service and deserve to be paid in return. If doctors had to work for free there would be no doctors and no one to help the sick and injured."
Thanks, Dr. Obvious, but you forgot to name who is attempting to legislate or even advocate that doctors have to work for free.
"Health care is not a right."
And if it's not a right, that means it's a privilege, guaranteed only to those who can afford it.
Analysis of data from earlier Census Bureau and other government reports shows that roughly 7 million are illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million are persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million are persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
OK. Got anything other than a copy and paste from a partisan think tank? And this time, make sure it pertains to your earlier points and my counterpoints.
"You can't force someone else to take care of you."---Rino Hunter
Aply this attitude (I dare you) to our national defense in a crowd of Republicans when their overseas economic interests are threatened.
Tell this (but don't stand too close) to a Republican whose business has been ripped off when they are calling the police and then when they seek redress thru the courts.
You're completely full of it. Anybody who has a medical emergency gets treated in this country.
For approximately 18,000 Americans per year it's too late by then.
That wins the most idiotic post of the day award.
You are really an uncaring individual. I've got mine, everyone else can go screw themselves. From your posts so far I've gathered that you have a poor grasp on current events, political history, common sense, and general human decency.
Fog,
I know a guy who quit his job because he didn't like it. Since you are so caring and he is unemployed, will you send me a couple of hundred to help pay for his medical insurance this month?
No? How about $50?
No? How about I take it out of your paycheck? Surely you have no objection to that?
I've got a better idea. Tell him to vote for candidates that support national health care.
So that we can all pay for somebody elses health care? I think that was AA's point.
So that we all pay for EVERYBODIES health care just like we all pay for everybodies roads and everybodies education. Just like every other industrial country in the world. We are all in this together. We should CARE about one another and whether or not they suffer. Selfishness and greed might define YOUR world but that is such a sad and small world to live in. Caring about one another is the difference between a society and a large group of people living in the same geographic area. I keep trying to tell you Ebeneezer Scrooge was not meant to be a role model.
Amazing, isn't it?
We've all been providing for many aspects of the general welfare of our populace, like infrastructure, roads, education, police, fire departments, etc. for ages by way of taxation.
Somehow, the way we pay for a healthy populace, a critical part of the general welfare, has turned into a private, complicated, frustrating, and profit-driven endeavor.
"will you send me a couple of hundred to help pay for his medical insurance this month? "
How about we get $0.000001367 from each member of the 146.3 million strong American workforce instead?
You have a judiciary full of activist judges right now, Rino, the vast majority appointed by Republican presidents, with the help of misguided bipartisanship on the part of Democratic Congresses. Their activism has us on the slippery slope toward an elected monarchy/fascism.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Lying to about Rush's statements?? Why?? He lies all the time, who needs to lie about it!! He spends weeks railing about his own words, and we need to make up stuff??
Why do Veterans, or anyone whom has or is serving in the military want to know what this DRAFT DODGER has to say???
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
For the record - I'm willing to stipulate to the close degree of cooperation between MMFA, the Democrat Party, VoteVet.org and HRC campaign for Prez.
Obviously, MMFA is proud to support the Democrat Party, and to campaign for HRC.
The prosecution is always willing to stipulate to the defendant's guilt on virtually any charge.
Would you, as a devout hate-winger, stipulate to Gumbaugh's status as the leading liar of our time; to Bungle's as the least effective of all those ever residing in the White House; and to the various solid statistical proofs that both the 2000 and the 2004 elections were flat-out stolen?
Then we can talk.
Be nice to BJ Surrender monkey. He was humiliated and disgraced last week as he was forced to admit to being a sucker and a liar. His post may be just a reflex, like a death rattle, the involuntary elimination of years of absorbed propaganda.
It's just a grammar issue: democratIC party. I am sure that was just a typing error and not more newspeak from the Right.
I am willing to stipulate you are delusional. There is NO such thing as a Democrat Party. Since you are too ignorant to even KNOW the name of the largest political party in America no one can possibly take anything you say seriously. Adult Education, look into it.
Do any of these following words sound familiar?
You wingnuts
your hivemind by the Oxymoron himself
doing your Limborg duty
President Gump
I'll have to admit your posts now make me laugh. Calling BillyBob delusional when you can't bring yourself to simply type in the name of the President or Limbaugh or Republican is too rich!
Your uncontrollable vitriolic outbursts puts you so far out there that none of what you write can be taken seriously.
Take a look in the mirror sometime. You might be surprised at the black kettle staring back.
Yes I know you were so much more comfortable when us liberals DIDNT fight fire with fire and just TOOK you guys petty insults without returning them. I dont think that worked out so well for us. I couldnt possibly care less who you take seriously. I mostly amuse myself here and am pretty sure most of the liberals I am not excoriating when I return serve to you wingnuts take me plenty seriously.
"Yes I know you were so much more comfortable when us liberals DIDNT fight fire with fire and just TOOK you guys petty insults without returning them"
AA simply comes here and sticks to the issues. He presents reasonable arguments without any name calling. But you're simply uncapable of debating him on the issues and have to resort to personal attacks. You act more childish every day.
The whole posting under two names bit gets even sadder when you get to the point of doing PR for yourself.
Sorry, we're not the same person. I wouldn't have the energy to write that many posts under two different names.
"But you're simply uncapable of debating him on the issues..."---RinoHunter
Nah, nah, nah, hold it right there pal. Solon is like maybe the best pure debater around here. But when you bring into play a lot of minutia on a complicated issue in which one doesn't have specific expertise, it's dificult to refute your arguements authoritatively, especially when not sure of the credibility of the sources or the person who introduced them.
Another thing, funny people can say things most wouldn't try. Think of it as an honor to be set straight by a Solon, like a shot from Don Rickles. You can brag about it to your buds over at FreeRepublic.
Is uncapable even a word? I wouldnt expect you to be any less delusional on this issue than you would be on any other. When you guys BRING some issues we will see. By the way since I know you are UNCAPABLE of understanding this. Baseless assertions, false characterizations and flat out delusions are NOT issues, nor are they points.
Sorry. Meant incapable.
So-called conservatives complain that "libruls" are angry about everything. Can't we just simply take their name calling and corruption quietly and politely, as we did for many years?
Seems like it should be a pot. Liberated voices can be messy. Oh well.
By the power of my keyboard I declare all further vitriolic outbursts shall be of the controllable variety.
Say what.
all I see when I look at the Media Matter's logo is Stalin
media matters = Joseph Stalin
canadians not getting better 'cause they cant get quality medical care in the U.S. anymore = hilaryCare
less of my check coming to me = hilaryCare
1,000 in 401K for my vote. sorry, don't buy my vote, i can do it on my own. is this for real?
and you guys make fun of Rush, right.
Man this group needs to rename itself Media Matters but the truth doesn't lol I listened to Limbaugh the day he made his phony soldiers comments and I KNOW what I heard and it doesn't match what this pack of unabashed liars says . Limbaugh specifically referred to people that claimed to be soldiers from Iraq like Jesse MacBeth that lied about their service. It is laughable to bme the extent this site goes to to misrepresent what people say. But then Hillary Clinton helped get this site started so I don't expect any truth to be reported here. It is rather ironic that Media Matters purports to be unbiased in who it covers but you don't see any reports about what the NY Times or the Washington Post or CBS or NBC et al reports. So we do know where these liars are coming from don't we? lmao Keep up the good work and see to it that the Dems do not get elected in 08 thank you hahahaha
Rush Limbaugh must have read Hitler's Mein Kampf. The man he most resembles is Joseph Geoblels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister. Geoblels theory was "If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough people will believe it"
Limbaugh is a despicable person who says he is an entertainer when he really is the propaganda minister for the Republican party. I don't think he has ever spoke the truth.
This is the best site I have ever seen that makes people want to go listen to Rush. Look they even do transripts for the folks without radios. How nice. Ohhh look at the cute take action. Wow go ahead and let the local radio station know that you do listen to Rush. Wow that will realy make em drop Rush. Roflmao Liberals really can't be this stupid can they????
UPDATE ON RUSH LIMBAUGH -
Complete list of stations that carry Limbaugh
http://www.rtis.com/nat/pol/rush/radio.htm
As of this date not a single station has canceled the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Not one.
And if anyone checks the latest news reports, the "phony" controversy has just about died out - except for die hards like Conason, MMFA, and Keith Olbman(sp?), there is just not much interest in rehashing this tired and pitiful attempt by the Democrat Party, HRC and their loyal Soros-funded staff at MMFA to smear RL.
To all my good, good liberal friends I only want to say, nice try.