This is "a great leader for conservatives"? Media Matters looks back at some of the worst of Limbaugh
SUMMARY: In light of Limbaugh's continued prominence as a major figure among conservatives, Media Matters for America looks back at Limbaugh's history of inflammatory, controversial, and "ugly" remarks.
Former President Ronald Reagan once reportedly dubbed Rush Limbaugh, "the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country." According to The New York Times Magazine, "In 1994, he was so influential in the Republican Congressional landslide that the grateful winners made him an honorary member of the G.O.P. freshman class." Limbaugh is once again in the headlines with his attacks on President Obama. In a March 2 appearance on CNN's Larry King Live, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) stated, "I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about."
On the March 1 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel stated of Limbaugh, "[W]henever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him and say they were misunderstood." Indeed, as blogger Greg Sargent noted, after Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) stated that "it's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks," Gingrey issued a statement in which he sought to "clarify" his comments by stating, in part, that Republicans "need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats." In his statement, Gingrey described Limbaugh as one of the "conservative giants [who] are the voices of the conservative movement's conscience." Also, as Think Progress noted, Gingrey called into Limbaugh's radio show to express "very sincere regret for those comments." Gingrey reportedly said: "I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments. ... I regret those stupid comments."
In addition, according to the Politico, after referring to Limbaugh as an "entertainer" whose rhetoric can be "incendiary" and "ugly," Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele "reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense." According to the Politico, Steele stated: "My intent was not to go after Rush -- I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. ... I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."
In light of Limbaugh's continued prominence as a major figure among conservatives, Media Matters for America looks back at Limbaugh's history of inflammatory, controversial, and "ugly" remarks:
- In a January 22 interview on Fox News' Hannity, Limbaugh said of media coverage of Obama: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Limbaugh had previously declared in June 2008 that Obama's "only chance of winning" the presidency "is that he's black." During the 2008 presidential campaign, Limbaugh also called Obama "an affirmative action candidate" and asserted during the May 14, 2008, broadcast of his show, "If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago."
- Limbaugh has repeatedly invoked right-wing conspiracy theories that the Clintons were involved in the death of then-deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, whose body was found in Northern Virginia's Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, despite multiple official investigations that determined Foster committed suicide. On July 8, 2008, while discussing reports that a plane carrying then-Sen. Obama had been forced to make an emergency landing in St. Louis, Limbaugh referred to Obama's flight "aboard Fort Marcy Airlines." Limbaugh later commented on a "conspiracy theory" that "Mrs. [Hillary] Clinton, through Mr. [Terry] McAuliffe, is gonna massage things out in Denver so that [Obama] doesn't get the nomination." He added: "You couple this with Obama's plane, Fort Marcy Airlines, having to take a detour to St. Louis for a mechanical problem."
- In September 2007, Limbaugh characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He later argued he had been taken out of context by Media Matters and claimed he was not talking about "the anti-war movement generally," but rather about "one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." To support this, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26, 2007, broadcast of his show, but, in fact, the clip he aired had been selectively edited. Limbaugh later included Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), a Vietnam veteran, in the group of "phony soldiers."
- On the August 21, 2007, broadcast of his show, a caller said to Limbaugh: "I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur." Limbaugh responded by claiming Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." The caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."
- Responding to a Reuters report on a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated form today's government," Limbaugh asserted on February 5, 2007: "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
- Discussing Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) speech following her election as the country's first female speaker of the House, Limbaugh stated on January 5, 2007: "[L]ook at Ms. Pelosi. Why, she can multitask. She can breastfeed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House, all while the kids are sitting on her lap at the same time."
- Limbaugh has made numerous controversial remarks about women, including frequently referring to feminists as "feminazis." For example, on the November 30, 2006, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh proclaimed: My "cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life" because his pet cat "comes to me when she wants to be fed," and "[s]he's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually [a] very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it."
On January 24, 2008, Limbaugh claimed that then-Sen. Hillary Clinton is "in the Northeast. She is surrounded by her good old, white female -- white female new castrati male base, while her husband [former President] Bill [Clinton] pays penance -- left to deal in South Carolina, while she's up with her people, the whites and the less-than-blacks." Later in the broadcast, referring to Clinton, Limbaugh asked: "How did that woman go from inevitable, to down-and-dirty, to the testicle lockbox, to her red-faced husband showing that even he, too, gets PMS?"
On January 10, 2006, Limbaugh suggested that some women "would love to be hired as eye candy."
On March 1, 2005, Limbaugh claimed that "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier."
- In October 2006, Rush Limbaugh accused actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, of "exaggerating the effects of the disease" in a campaign advertisement for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who was then a Senate candidate. In the ad, Fox endorsed McCaskill for supporting embryonic stem cell research, which her opponent at the time, then-incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent, opposed. Noting that Fox is "moving all around and shaking" in the ad, Limbaugh declared: "And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." Limbaugh added that "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."
Later in the broadcast, Limbaugh stated, "I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances." However, Limbaugh then returned to criticizing Fox, stating that "Michael J. Fox is using his illness as a way to mislead voters into thinking that their vote for a single United States senator has a direct impact on stem cell research in Missouri. It doesn't, and it won't."
- On August 23, 2006, discussing the CBS reality TV program, Survivor, in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves."
Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."
- On February 14, 2006, Limbaugh invented a racial component to explain Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett's departure from the Ohio Democratic Senate primary race. While reporting on Hackett's decision to withdraw from the race against then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Limbaugh asserted: "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too," adding that "the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." In fact, Brown is white -- a point on which Limbaugh was corrected later in the program.
- Following the disclosure of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, Limbaugh claimed in 2004 that the U.S. military personnel involved were just "having a good time," and that their actions served as an "emotional release." Limbaugh called the abuse "hazing," referred to it as "an out-of-control fraternity prank," and agreed with a caller that the abuse "was like a college fraternity prank."
- In 2003, Limbaugh made controversial comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, which led to Limbaugh's resignation as a commentator on ESPN. During the September 28, 2003, edition of ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown, Limbaugh said that "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" and, therefore, that McNabb "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn't deserve."
- According to a June 7, 2000, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article, "[w]hen Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the 'Movin' On Up' theme song from TV's 'Jeffersons' when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting 'ax' for 'ask'-- when discussing black leaders." FAIR also reported that "[i]n 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: 'Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out.' "
- The late columnist Molly Ivins reported:
On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.
When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea -- which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.















Do you mean the heartless, vain, insensitive, insane national disgrace, nasty, insulting, basically revolting concentrated pile of human waste we've been hearing about? ;-)
http://bootnewt.tripod.com/imanazi.htm
And all of those examples do not begin to approach the level of inflammatroy, controversial, and ugly remarks made against people such as bush or justice thomas. Like when "expert" Julianne Malveaux hoped thomas would eat more eggs, butter, and fried chicken and get heart disease like a lot of black men.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/01/15/abcs-race-expert-woman-who-longed-death-clarence-thomas
Or the 100s of times bush was called a nazi and worse. The left needs to grow up and stop crying.
The right needs to grow up, period.
Worse than a nazi? These discriptors, they would be?
The left needs an acurate accounting and an indepth stategy to prevent the third coming of neocon control.
We passed on a though look at the Nixon administration. Its junior leading lights were back in positions of power within a decade.
This time, no way can we afford to ignore what happened in the recently excused administration. Or their laughing boys like conservative-leader-for-life (I'm) Rusty.
There will be no investigations, and no prosecutions. You better accept that now or you will be very unhappy in the fututre. I
The only way that's not gonna happen is if reichwingers manage to pay their way out of another prosecution. And if it should happen, I will be disappointed - but not unhappy. I amuse myself every day watching the reich implode. Enjoy another 40 years in the desert whining about how it's so unfair that the middle and poor class gets to vote too.
pov, should rush be jailed? didn't he want to jail drug addicts? of course, that was only until he was caught. and he made himself deaf by taking too much oxycontin, and then lied about and said it was because of some mysterious autoimmune disease.
Investigations are already underway. I'll settle, like most here for due process. We gonna keep at it. Who did what? If a few democratic incumbents have to be removed to get the point accross, then so be it.
Having you never answer questions is usual. Remind me why you have any credence again? The long string of insults from you at various posters below helps your argument how?
though there should be. and you damn well know it
>>Like when "expert" Julianne Malveaux
Oh yes, the infamous Julianne Maveaux, who is the leader of the Democratic party. That Julianne, who is a guest speaker at many Democratic events and is practically a household name.
Seriously, POV. Is there a liberal talk show host who is championed by Democrats and who spouts hateful stuff?
You are just being Funny right.......a collection of the just the things Jesse Jackon or Al Sharpton alone have said would be enough to fill several pages.
>>You are just being Funny right.......a collection of the just the things Jesse Jackon or Al Sharpton alone have said would be enough to fill several pages.
No, I'm not. Read my post more carefully, please. I asked for a liberal talk show host who was embraced by a champion by the Democratic party. You failed on both counts.
What's several pages compared to the Webster's unabridged dictionary of lies and distortions the reich created? 26 volumes of crap...
Once again, you ignore a vaild point made agianst your view. How shocking, how unexpected!!!!!
>>Once again, you ignore a vaild point made agianst your view. How shocking, how unexpected!!!!!
I don't think so. You just don't like his answer.
Really, POV, why not put your money where your mouth is? What liberal was embraced by the Dem party who spouted the bile that Limbaugh spouts?
I already gave you two examples.
In poker, it's a bad idea to reveal your entire hand before the next card is dealt.
>>I already gave you two examples.
No you didn't. You failed to show me that either leader is embraced by the Democratic party, and you failed to show how their rhetoric matches Rush's. You know this, of course.
No doubt. As an example, did Howard Dean ever have to apologize to Sharpton or Jackson, at the risk of being shunned by the Democratic base, for some mild criticisms?
Of course not. POV is just upset that the right no longer control the terms of the debate. He's mad that lunatics call the shots in the Republican Party. He's mad at the world, so he does what he's been programmed to do: blame liberals for his misery. He has a great deal in common with Jim David Adkisson in that regard. That and his admiration for right wing talkers
Please, quotes? Please, show something that tells us Jackson or Sharpton are anywhere NEAR the level at which Rush is with regards to Republicans.
You won't because you can't. The fact is that hateful, nasty, bigoted discourse was standard in the GOP fringe, and has now been elevated to standard in the GOP inner circle and leadership. All thanks to Rush.
But let me get this straight, you're saying that what Rush is doing is BAD right? Because I can't see why you'd bring up counter-examples otherwise. You disagree with Rush? You think he's wrong?
Oh.....so Jackong and his attacks on the Jewish faith and his attacks on Bush, Sharpton and his racial attacks on republicans dont count? The quote I gave you attacking Thomas and black men in general dont make it either? How NEAR in your view to we have to get fawlty. Does either of those two calling Justice Thomas an Uncle Tom do it for you?
Ann Coulter was right.......liberalism is a disease!!!!!
Yeah, Ann Coulter. She's a good one to cite. She stands at the podium at CPAC this year and wishes for terrorist bombings on American cities.
>>Oh.....so Jackong and his attacks on the Jewish faith and his attacks on Bush, Sharpton and his racial attacks
If either was as bad as Rush, you would have provided a full page of quotes rather than just some vague references. And you would have shown how they are embraced by the Democratic party.
Actually Sharpton & Jackson were both widely rejected by the Democratic party. They both ran for president and got no where. Whenever Jesse makes derogatory comments he is condemmed by all. Please point to large portions of liberals that support either of their vitiriol. Did either have a prominent place at the DNC? Do dem pols have to retract negative yet factual statments about because they are scared ot the wrath of them.
You use someone who can not tell the truth if her life depended on it to show lieing then you are sick yourself.
Your little tit-for-tat is a complete joke.
When did anyone in the Democratic Party ever have to go crawling back to Jackson, Sharpton or Malveaux apologizing and insisting they were misunderstood?
i agree up to the ann coulter thing. she is a horrible american
I think Rush should remain the true voice of the Republican Party. He keeps your boys out of office.
who has a mike and calls 50% of the country traitors for not supporting the president? Even you can answer that.
"Is there a liberal talk show host who is championed by Democrats and who spouts hateful stuff?"
So who are the liberal talk show hosts? Talkers .com has complied a list of the top 100 talk radio shows @ http://talkers.com/online/?p=267 . They have #10 Thom Hartman, #16 Alan Colmes, #18 Ed Shultz, #23 Lionel, #30 Stephanie Miller, & #46 Rachel Maddow. Are there any more liberal talk show hosts you want to include?
So from the above group, identify those who are championed by Democrats. Anyone? <insert the sound of crickets here>.
OK, try working from the other condition of "who spouts hateful stuff". That would be Al Franken but he's not championed by Democrats. Hence he's a former talk show host.
Al Franken didn't spout "hateful stuff" unless you think the truth, with jokes, is hateful.
Okay Pointy I'll bite. You gave one example and no doubt their are others but last check Julianne Malveaux is not the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party. As far as Bush being called a NAZI, I think torture, bombing innocents, putting people in jail without charges or a trial indefinitly, wiretapping citizens without a warrant and the recent YOO memo's that even justified suspension of the 1st admentment along with the destruction of over 92 interrogation tapes,not to talk about the hundreds of signing statements, and the deliberate politicization of the Justice Department, along with attacking a country that did not and COULD not attack us and occupying it qualifies GW Bush to be ranked as a dictator and thus apt. comparison to Hitler. Rushbo on the other lies and distorts, plays on prejudice and emotions like a true demagogue. Oh, as far as being thin skinned and growing up who runs a screams foul more than Limpballs and Republicans. I have never seen a Republican take responsibility for anything, it's always somebody elses fault. OHHH the press is not fair, I was taken out of context,boo-hoo the economy was bad, wah-wah-wah. Your bunch of whiners and it's the Democractic Party, the party that kick your butt the last 2 elections, not the democrat Party, get it straight.
The left needs to grow up and stop crying.
Good grief POV, you whine about Liberals yet YOU have the nerve to tell Liberals to grow up?
The GOP is OWN by right nut radio!
No matter what outrageous bull that comes out of right nut radio's mouth, Republicans grabs their ankles! It's not a coincidence that Limbo mentioned, grabbing your ankles", Republicans has perfected it.
Not a SINGLE Republican has the balls to call out Rush. YOU don't even have the human decency to acknowledge what Rush said was WRONG! You just regurgitate the same whine, all Republican a** kissing Rush listener do.
I just have one question..........doesn't your back get stiff from all that bending?
It stretches out their uptight back muscles. Kind of a yoga for dummies...
Good to see you Pearl. I have missed you and was starting to get concerned the the nursing home put you on lock down.
I never said Rush was always right or never out of line. But the fact that you can ignore all the evil things said about Bush and Thomas shows how you are not really concerned that hateful mean ugly things are said. You only care about who says them about who.
amazing, always looking to start with an insult before you try to make a response. typical of the reichwing. Why stop with the nursing home though? I'm quite sure there are other insults floating around in that vast space of yours...
One. If you follwed any thing Pearl and I ever say, you would not it was not an insult!! Two. Again, you fail to even consider or address the point I made. Suprising.
One. I don't recall any of Pearls responses to you resembling anything on the friendly side of life. Two. You have been repeatedly asked to provide some quotes and prove that what was said against bush and thomas even remotely approaches claims of nazi, or communist, or even traitor (terms the right attributes to democrats on a daily basis). Three. you can count to two. That was quite "suprising".
You are right. I really misunderstood last post when she asked how my holidays were and how things were going. Thats right, as a dumb dog, you know all.
Pearl is polite to everyone, it doesn't mean she likes you.
Snoopy, I try to be nice to everyone.
In the case of POV, this is his second time making his nursing home joke. I think because I ignored him the first time and simply wished him a happy new year, he thought I was accepting his "joke".
I'm not living in a nursing home, and don't find anything funny about my friends who actually live in a nursing home.
POV whines about cruel comments but thinks that nursing home jokes are acceptable.
OUCH...Pearlene tells the truth and smacks down POV...Double OUCH!!!!
>>Good to see you Pearl. I have missed you and was starting to get concerned the the nursing home put you on lock down.
You can always tell when someone doesn't have an argument: just start with an insult.
So Funny and Snoopy. Lets address you two directly. Do you condem Jackon, Sharpton, Malveaux, and all the others who have attacked Bush, Thomas, the Bush Twins, and all other republicans on Personal grounds, and compared them nazis and other horrible things? Will you condem those attacks as wrong and ugly, or are you all talk?
I don't even consider them leaders of my party, so having said that, do you condemn limbaugh, hannity, coulter, o'reilley, maulkin, beck, and not only talking heads, but republican politicians who call democrats traitors, commies, nazi's, and insult them for their looks, speech, height, weight, color and any other characteristic used by the right to denegrate anyone they disagree with, or are you only concerned about the left?
Never mind, I found my answer up above.
POV: And all of those examples do not begin to approach the level of inflammatroy, controversial, and ugly remarks made against people such as bush or justice thomas.
Posted Tuesday March 3, 2009 7:19:36 PM EST
So once again, you simply refuse to amswer a simple direct question. Jackon runs for president, but he is not a leader. Sharpton is a major power broker, yet you refuse to admit it. You are so blind, and you refuse to acknowledge a simple fact.
>>So once again, you simply refuse to amswer a simple direct question. Jackon runs for president, but he is not a leader. Sharpton is a major power broker, yet you refuse to admit it. You are so blind, and you refuse to acknowledge a simple fact.
Good grief! Pat Buchanan ran for president, too. Does that mean every Republican has to denounce Buchanan? And a "major power broker" is just a restatement of an assertion--not proof of anything. And you still haven't provided any quotes that show how either man is a vitriolic as Rush.
the simple fact that you demand democrats to draw and quarter everyone you don't like while you turn a blind eye to republicans who do much worse? No, I acknowledge that you are being a two faced partisan on a witch hunt.
i don't recall clinton subverting the constitution
"Jackon, Sharpton, Malveaux, and all the others"
None of whom are running the Democratic Party (unlike Rush).
>>So Funny and Snoopy. Lets address you two directly. Do you condem Jackon, Sharpton, Malveaux, and all the others who have attacked Bush, Thomas, the Bush Twins, and all other republicans on Personal grounds, and compared them nazis and other horrible things?
That is a total strawman argument. You fail to meet the challenge I pose to you: show me a liberal who has spouted as much vitriol as Rush, and is embraced by the Democratic party. So far you are just vague.
I condemn any stupid attack on any politician, but what do I have to ferret out every stupid comment and condemn it before I can point out the problems with the Repubican party embracing Rush.
But the fact that you can ignore all the evil things said about Bush
The difference is that all the "evil" things said about Bush are TRUE!
Point, set , and Match. This proves my point!!!!!
Your point? You mean that liberals want to hold bush accountable for his illegal subversion of the constitution? Boy, ya got us there, POV. Nice one.
What do you want us to say? Julainne Malveaux was wrong for saying she hopes Thomas dies. Done it is said. Now please appologize for Rush saying Ihope Obama fails.
So does that make it right for Rush to say what he says? Do you enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh?
If the right is so "grown-up" and above "inflammatroy [sic]" retoric, why do they listen to Rush?
POV, first of all, BUSH deserves most of the critisism sent his way. He is one of the worst leaders i've lived through. Second I cant think of one LIBERAL equivelant of hate mongers like LIMBAUGH, HANNITY, LEVIN, COULTER, HEWITT, PRAGER, GALLAGER,INGRAHAM. These jerks spew out nothing but hate and venom against anyone who has the misfortune to disagree with their FAR RIGHT WING views. I know. i've listened and have seen all of them. The only one that isn't really hatefull tward the opposition is MEDVID. But he still blows out RIGHT WING HOT AIR. The entire AM band is poluted with these clowns
In light of recent memos that have leaked, I don't feel all that bad that Bush was compared to Hitler. Other than that, ha ha ha!
well.......thats because bush laid the foundation for Naziism. i mean just look at those justice dept memos
Once Again, proves my point!!
That bush nearly created a tyrannical government much like nazi germany? Boy, got us there. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Bush_terror_memos_are_definition_0304.html
Bush and Thomas are both public figures and grown adults. There is nothing that was or even could be, said about any of them that would come close to the level of inappropriateness of a natioanlly syndicated talk show host using his bully-pulpit to make fun of a 13 year old girl. He's scum. If your a fan? YOU'RE scum.
I am confused. Are you talking about Tawayna Brawley, and what sharpton did to her. yet you support him, and that makes you worse than scum.
Sharpton did to her? Try again, it was her who lied to everyone. Nice spin though. Love the insults too, keep them coming. It proves what a two faced hipocrite you are being.
First of all, I loath Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson too. Both do more harm to their own cause than good.
As for my post, I'm talking about Chelsea Clinton. The bit about the Clinton's having a "pet dog"? Petty, mean and utterly innapropriate.
(Where the hell do you get tawana brawley and al sharpton from? Nice distortion.)
Wow you are equating Julianne Malveaux to Rush Limbaugh. Every one here had to google her to know who she is. The hatred for Bush is because of the pre emptive war that he started that caused over 4000 American lives and mamed over 50000 soldiers. Not to mention the over 1 million dead Iraquis. I won;t even get in to his economic policies. What you dont acknowledge is that liberals like myself can denounce statements like ms Malveauxs while you applaud Rush rooting agianst AMerica.
That lady you linked about is some nobody out of nowhere. And you can't trust Newsbusters to even be quoting her accurately. How can you compare one nobody with the leader of the Republican Party who goes on the radio three hours a day telling lies and making hate filled comments like" "Dems hate God" ; "Dems want to destroy America" ; "Dems are only happy when they watch others suffering" ; "Dems want everybody to be poor so they can enslave them?"
I don't remember anybody calling Bush a Nazi. Right wingers make up lies like that because they are unable to defend their behaviour. The response is always another accusation.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
"I don't remember anybody calling Bush a Nazi."
Try: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler%2C-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html
“America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.”
I have never heard of Julianne Malveaux ....and I read a lot!
Not that I know everyone, but I don't think she is well known..Rush is ..and The Clarence Thomas reference seems dated....what Rush is doing is NOW and he is being inciteful, insensitive, incorrect and downright nasty..in a time of crisis
I have not heard one constructive thing from him..he seems to appeal to a very base base
I cannot think of a single person to compare him to on the Dem/liberal side
This is a wonderful article that needs to be read by all wingnuts. I emailed this to a lot of them.
Limbaugh is a sick man. He's a burn out who is so off the map that he won't mean anything to anyone sooner rather than later.
Spot on. And if the republicans don't realize this pretty soon, niether will they!
I would like to apologize to Rush Limbaugh on behalf of all my fellow MMFA posters for our thoughts, our words and our deeds. Forgive us, Messiah. We shall sacrifice a bull in your honor tonight...a really, really fat bull. ;>)
Irony, I, the POW, 102nd your remarks. But for POV, thank God the Cons/Repubs treated Pres Clinton with such tremendous respect...before his election, thru his two terms and even now. Oh, those wonderful Cons. (At least the Dems back Pres. GW after 9/11)....never did they back Clinton and they waited at least 30 seconds before hammering Prez Obama. Hypocracy at its finest
P.S. Prez GW Bush was not a nazi...other members of his family tree...not so sure.
No he didn't waer the uniform, and your right the US is not a fascist country and quite frankly the Hitler comparison is overused until it really has no meaning. But in most peoples mind dictatorial control and the Bush Doctrine(attacking countries that haven't attacked you) make him seem Hitleresque. OK!
Just pretend I'm not here.
Col
How racist. claming that republicans are like a gorilla. I cant believe you would drop to such a racist level. Your picture should be flagged and removed. There should be an investigation. Your boss should be contacted and you should be fired. It is clear to me and many others what you are trying to say here, and it is racist.
POV, how are you, this is POW. Long time no read. Hope all is well with you. I agree with you about that darn Col. How dare he insult gorillas? I recommend his immediate promotion to General where he will have to accept more responsibilties and have less time to browse and play funnyman..without pants. Darn Colonel.
POV is right. I was going to brew up some far-fetched story about testing out pasting images with a new browser, but I think it's obvious that I was leveling a hateful smear at our innocent primate cousins.
I apologize to gorillas everywhere.They don't deserve that.
great sarcasm point. the col.s wasn't even close to being rasist but if you are a PC wackjob you can see it everywhere.
COL, Good picture of EL FLUSHBO.
By the deffinition of a fascist country given by Musilini the founder of fascim the US has become a fasist country under GW Bush.
PRINCE, good post. I almost forgot how wonderful the RIGHT WING NUTS treated President CLINTON. Real classy.
His Grandfather a member of Congress no less was a known Nazi simpathizer. Bush himself is in debt to the Bin Laudin family and the Saudi royal family both witch have ties to Bin Laudin despite denning them.
"We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president."
Unless, of course, that black politician is a Republican, in which case it's the black politician who has to "bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward" before the almighty Limbaugh.
As usual, I am a little confused by this DA Limbaugh thing.
When the Cons babble on and on about Streisand or Sean Penn being spokespersons for the Liberals, it is suppose to be widely accepted as the truth. When DA Limbaugh does the same thing day after day, he is expressing his right of free speech as an American? POV, if anyone can explain this it is likely to be you. (On another website, I was"informed" that DA Limbaugh gives 'commentary' while those liberal-types preach socialism and want to destroy America, DUH!!!!). If I had a billion for everytime I've heard that, I would personally pay off the debt of AIG. But only for the CEO/Chairman job.
If I had a billion everytime I heard that I could pay of the US national debt as well as AIG's debt and that of many other companies.
He's a Nazi
They say that I'm sleaze, An elitist, if you please
Everybody disagrees with my rap (with his rap)
I'm horrendous, I'm appalling, My ratings now are falling
'Cause I'm so full of bull, so full of crap (full of crap)
With condescending cries, Making money selling lies,
You might say everybody hates my guts (hates his guts)
I'm offensive, I'm a bigot, I'm a fraud - Can you dig it?
I'm a sexist, racist, homophobic, fat, pathetic putz
I'm a nazi (he's a nazi), That's right, I really am,
'Cause I'm a nazi (he's a nazi), That's right, you're being scammed
I'm a nazi (he's a nazi). I don't care about the middle class
'Cause I'm a fat conservative butthead, With the face of a horse's ass
(He's a fat conservative butthead) Hey!, (With the face of a horse's ass)
I have a sub-human figure, a huge rear end, My brain? That's another story (it's quite another story)
I have a face the size of a wash tub, And my ass is as big as Missouri - Yes!
(This bastard is sick, he's a fat, pompous pig, and his ass is as big as Missouri) Yessiree, Bob!
Manipulating statements, exaggerate the truth, I can't believe the hate my show inspires (the hate his show inspires)
It's not just because I'm stupid (oh no), It's not just because I'm scum (uh huh)
It's just because Republicans are liars (those dirty, filthy liars)
I am heartless, I am vain, insensitive, insane, They say that I'm a national disgrace (disgrace)
I am nasty (yes!), insulting (no!), basically revolting (uh huh), I'm a concentrated pile of human waste (he's human waste)
I'm a nazi (he's a nazi), (Sieg heil!) I really am
'Cause I'm a nazi (he's a nazi), That's right, you're being scammed
I'm a nazi (he's a nazi), I don't care about the middle class
'Cause I'm a sick Republican sleaze ball, With the face of a horse's ass
(He's a sick Republican sleaze ball) Ho!, (With the face of a horse's ass)
They say that this is not about my vanity, They doubt my sanity
They think I'm nuts (so nuts), I am a cyst on the ass of humanity (eww!)
New Republican slogan: "Read My Putz", (read his putz)
From the bowels of Adolf Hitler, Comes the voice of Rush Limbaugh, heh heh
In closing, let me say: that each and every day
I'm an evil, rotten, egotistical snob (evil, rotten)
I'm the cop of the cop of Joe McCarthy-like gestapo
The right wing, foam-at-the-mouth, jackbooted slob
The Democratic-trashing, years of liberal bashing
With the equivalent compassion of a grommet (a grommet)
With the I.Q. of a fig; I'm a fat, obnoxious pig
And the truth of the matter is... I'm vomit (he's vomit)
'Cause I'm a nazi (he's a nazi)
(Sieg heil!) I really am
'Cause I'm a nazi (he's a nazi)
(Sieg heil!) You're being scammed
I'm a nazi (he's a nazi)
I don't care about the middle class
'Cause I'm a fear mongering scum bag
With the face of a horse's ass
(He's a fat conservative butthead) Hey!
(Sick Republican sleaze ball) Ha ha!
(Fear mongering scum bag) Ho!
(Egotistical ass wipe) Yes!
(Mean-spirited, hog wallowing, fat, conservative putz)
(With the face... of a horse's ass)
Mega-dildos, Rush!
http://66.113.208.149/misc/rushnazi.mp3
I put a link to that song up above, but it got yanked. Rush at his most honest ;-)
i don't much care for el rushbo but thats a bit long winded and childlish
Let's not forget this:
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes
How come no one defends the indefensible?
Rush is a great leader for the Conservative party. There is no R party anymore, Steele proved it this weekend. The R party is no better than the D party when push comes to shove. As far as I'm concerned, to hell with both of them. Steele is just afraid that Rush has the ability to bash him 15 hours a week, and wants no part of that., thus the apology. The C party still has core ideals, lower taxes, smaller govt, etc. Steele is not it, but he is the head of the RNC, not the C's. Go Rush.
What's the "C" for? Corruption?
You just hold on to that attitude, Dave. Keep elevating Rush as an example of what being an American is.
Good luck to ya.
Fair enough. I will. If being an American means I advocate allowing illegally invading parasites over the borders, spending us out of a reccession so generations not born yet can pay it off, allowing the taxes to raise on the success of those who've made something of themselves, and paying for my neighbor's debts, healthcare, mortgage, etc. I'll be happy to be anti American, as well. This is the problem I'm having with Steele and the R party, they appear to be advocating this crap by hoping BO succeeds. The D party is about the same, but at least I expected that from them. Rush is the only one not afraid to say it....he is correct....again.
You do realize Barack's failure means catastrophe for the rest of the country, including you? You may not care about anybody else, but you are in the same boat as the rest of us.
Your narrative is flawed by the way. Those same people you say have made something of themselves, as if everybody else are leeching, are the same reckless fools who stopped at nothing to achieve greater material gains at the expense of the economy at large. If you want to reward that kind of behavior with low taxes and greater advantage, so be it. The rest of us have moved past our adoration of the corrupt, the selfish and are nurturing a sense of national togetherness and mutual responsibility.
No, everybody else are not "leeching", they are given a free pass if they pay less than $250,000 for this bailout and up to date on their bills. They are only "leeching" if they are benefitting more from the spending package than they are receiving. And unless you can show me where every CEO or successful business owner have been reckless and in need of taxpayer money, I suggest that you are simply lying. And IMHO, this massive bailout is already a catastrophe. Togetherness and mutual responsiblitity sounds expensive to those of us that BO is coming for. But you can explain that to your great great great grandchildren.
I accept the idea of reincarnation, so you can explain your reasoning to yourself. It's flawed at the core.
Flawed how? Explain it to me, Mary. It may be different from yours, but explain flawed.
Coming for you? Yeah right. You've had it made thanks to the rest of us keeping you afloat by funding for you all the public investments that allow you to thrive in business. You just try to go it alone again without all the benefits of living in a society that has no government provided infrastructure.
Every CEO has ben reckless in that they have contributed to the massive inequality of wealth we have today. They took more and more for themselves by giving less and less to the working people who became more and more productive over the decades. You cannot argue that any CEO is 500 times more productive than average employees.
This recovery may sound expensive to the tin eared con, but the cost of doing nothing is greater.
You are serious?
I've been successful by having a unique skill, a small market of competitors, hiring the best and brightest, and using that skill to expand and make money. That's the way it goes. It has nothing to do with exploiting anyone, abusing the infrastructure, but there's no use in advising you that I pay my taxes on time, everytime to pay for that infrastructure. You say that I have not paid for this success that I now have, but I can back it up with tax receipts. The govt provides nothing without my help, they do not have the means (taxes) to do it, and I pay them. I simply wish they were lower. The inequality of wealth in this country is not my problem....its BO's now and good luck to him. I have no problem with anyone making more money, just don't take it from me to do it. I do my share. And a CEO who makes 500 times more than his employees got a sweet deal from his shareholders, who obviously think he's worth it.
Your income still depends on everyone else having an income to buy your goods & services with. Therefore you will benefit from this spending package, whether you get a gov't check or not. If you don't get a check yourself, chances are that many who did are speding some of it at your business. (Or spending part of someone else's check that found it's way ito their business at yours.) The money doesn't just evaoprate. It moves from consumer to business and back to consumers (via income) only to go back to a business (via consumtion) and the cycle continues and repeats. For some who apparently knows how a company works, you are demonstrating remarkble ignorance about how the economy works.
I know how a successful business works. Obviously, more than one way to run one. But I just feel that trickle down economics is better than trickle up poverty.
Well, it would be, except that we've seen niether, and both are theoreticlly impossible. First off all "trickle down economics" is a joke concept, and George Bush '41 knew this to be true. "Voodoo Economics" he called it. Great man - best 1-term Republican President in our country's history, by far. As for "trickle up poverty" again, you fail to realize that if the people "below you" have more money then YOU will benefit. (Hallmark of every good businessmen - being good at getting their hands on everyone else's money.) But how do get more money (make an income) if all of your customers are broke? Answer: YOU DON'T. That's what trickle-down, supply side economics gets you in the long run. A population that can't afford to buy the stuff they make or the services they provide. That is the inevitable result of Voodoo-Reganomics. To say otherwise is to ignore history, economic theory and common sense.
Dave fails to see that once the stimulus checks and tax cuts take effect, he could end up rolling in even more money than he had before.
But instead, he's being pig-headed and refuses to care about anyone but himself, as evidenced by his hope for the failure of Obama and this nation.
Dave also doesn't realize that by hoping for failure he will end up being just as poor as everyone else!
How did your best & brightest get educated? Who protects your money? Who built the infrastructure where you live and work? Is there a Police Dept. and Fire Dept. there? How about schools? Did you go to school?
If we looked at every service that you have taken advantage of, you believe your taxes completely paid for it? Then you must be amongst the top 2% in wage earners!
I always love that response. Fire depts, police, roads, schools, etc. I do pay taxes, I really do, in spades, so I expect coverage from the PD and fire. I just want them to be lower. And yes, I believe that my taxes have completely covered what I've taken out. My employees would be on their own to explain their shares to you. But since we are on the topic of who would get covereage, if you are blaming me for not paying my fair share of my already high NY taxes, I propose not sending fire trucks to a 5 alarmer in the projects. Afterall, they have not paid like I have. Sound ridiculous to you, too?
Sounds a bit Nazi to me, actually. Kind of scary-angry there dude. What ever happen to the "sanctity of life" your lot keeps going on about. Fetuses haven't paid any taxes either, and many of them are bound to end up poor.
Mind the slope, it's a bit slippery.
Nazi? Nah, just factual. And that sanctity of life thing is for the compassionate Con bunch, the McCain crowd, which I think was a ploy at getting votes....can't be both. As far as fetuses ending up poor, I suppose its better than the argument from your side which allows them to end up in little tiny pieces.
Wow. So not only were you were serious about letting the ghetto burn, but you cynically mock the idea of life being sacred. If I thought it would do any good, you might have been the first conservative I'd have prayed for in some time. Well, to each his own I guess. Enjoy your AM Radio.
Of course....anything you diasgree with is Nazi.....I did not think you were really that dumb eddie, but I guess so. Going to start a count. How many things can you label Nazi in one day?? Can you learn a new term?? I doubt it
Hmmm.... I actually use "Nazi" fairly sparingly, if ever. Now FASCIST... THAT'S one I use a lot, but only to descirbe right-wing things that I disagree with and only on civil libertarian grounds. Believe it or not, I've also been known to throw out "commie" (albeit a bit more humorously) whenever I've called "liberal b-llsh-t" on someone. (And I've done that more times than you'd know, becuase I generally don't do it here. (This site isn't nearly as radical as you lot make it out to be. They stay fairly factual, not that you lot would know a fact if it schooled you.) But there are plenty of liberal groups and peole that I call BS on fairly regularly.)
The reason I called "Nazi" in this case, it's fairly simple:
"I propose not sending fire trucks to a 5 alarmer in the projects. Afterall, they have not paid like I have."
Now... Even if I assume that this was intended as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek exageration, allowing the poor and the blacks to burn, just so you can save some tax money... Well, if systematically eliminating minorites isn't "Nazi" then what is? Is letting the ghetto burn really that much better (morally speaking) then concentration camps? Marginally I guess. But I sincerely hope, for the sake of his soul if nothing else, that his (humorous?) exageration was greater than mine.
Stop paying taxes then, and go for it all by yourself. See how far your unique skill set gets you without any support. That skill set of yours, by the way, you had no help attaining it, right? Nobody taught you anything, nobody helped educate you. No public schools no university.
You make everything you sell, right? You collect the raw materials by hand, you built the machine that manufactures the material to product, you advertise it yourself, you sell it in person and you do all of this without the benefit of having your assets protected and enabled by federally insured banking network, legal system or publicly funded police and highway system. Got it.
See, we are all dependent on one another. Some of us like you reap greater reward from all the protections you receive because you have more to protect. It only makes sense that you carry you're own weight, too. We've been piggy backing the rich too long in this country. Your free ride is over.
As for CEO's taking more than their worth to the company (it's no isolated phenomenon, it's disgustingly the norm) tell us why laying off people and sacrificing quality for quarterly profit gains is accepted by share holders?
If I could stop paying taxes, I would. But my accountant advised that it wouldn't be a good thing.
Thanks for the lesson in running a business. I never realized that I needed to depend on other people. If I ever need help again, I will call you. My point, because I know you missed it, is that I pay for all of the stuff you listed...its not given to me, and I pay taxes on it. I also pay for the roads that its transported on, I pay the insurance on the vehicles its transported on, I pay school taxes on the local district, police, fire, etc. What's your point? I am sick of my taxes going up, and I'm tired of paying for other people's expenses. As far as CEO's salaries, take it up with them.
I'm sick of you whiny rich bums, sucking the life out of the rest of us for your own selfish gratification. That's my point. Since you missed it. You pay a mere pittance compared to the benefit you receive. So stop bawling for more, more, more.
We're sick of subsidizing the coddled rich. Your free ride is over, Dave.
Perhaps they have a mere pittance of the education he has, or work a mere pittance of the hourse he does, or put NONE of their own time, money, and sweat into his business.
Whatever. You Republicans are lazy and selfish. You have erected a welfare state for conservative zombies. All you have to do is sit on your butt and repeat for the camera, or the microphone, or on blogs what you're told. In return, you morons are subsidized by elites who have a stake in controlling the debate.
Your kind float from tv, to think tank, to public office in a constant revolving door. Writing legislation that favor the rich, making arguments that blame the poor and writing commentaries that sing the praises of material accumulation.
But you guys have sold out your core principles. Conservatives used to hold materialism and consumerism in the highest contempt, now it's your highest aim.
All valid points, but money doesn't come through hard work alone. Someone else still has to HAVE money to give you. The Right has fought minimum wage laws, unions, welfare and the broad idea of "government spending" for decades now. Add to that the rampant closing of our own plants so that jobs can get sent oversees (where people are paid almost nothing) and inevitably you will end up with NO ONE being able to buy your goods and services. Nobody likes to pay taxes (or high wages for that matter.) But Dave, and every other business owner benefits MORE by paying more in taxes themselves and having the other 98% of teh country have more to spend AT THEIR BUSINESSES. I don't begrudge Dave his living or his profits, but if he wants them to keep coming in, increasing taxes on every one of his customers will have a far greater impact on his income than having him pay a little more himself. The big reason he's not buying this is that he can IMMEDIATELY SEE what increased taxes cost him. The slow dwindling of his income due to taxing everyone else - people who are living paycheck to paycheck as it is - would not be as evident, even though the negative effect would be far greater over time, because it takes longer and he isn't forced to write a check for it. And he wouldn't be the only one hurting - ALL businesses would suffer from such a policy. But these business owners are too stuck in "the now" to see this, and too in love with the idea that they are "entitled" to "their money" to give any objective thought to where it actually comes from. Knowing your business and understanding economics are two completely different things.
A business is to the economy, what the weather is to climate. So it's no wonder you guys aren't understanding this.
I gotta ask:
You're upset that the deficit we're creating will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren (maybe even great-grandchildren). I can understand that.
Did you feel the same way when Reagan was pushing all of his deficit spending? How about Bush I?
Seems to me that the only government surplus I've heard of in my lifetime was during Clinton's term. Hhhmmm...imagine that. A Democrat comes to the White House and fixes yet another Republican's mess. Then along comes another Republican claiming to be a fiscal conservative and he pi$$es away all of that surplus, putting us back into deficit spending.
Were you angry in the 80's at Reagan's massive deficit spending?
If not, why are you angry now? Is it because a Democrat is in the White House?
I'm never in favor of deficit spending, not from Reagan, not from Bush, etc. The difference is that those two did it by pushing taxes onto everybody, which was not good, but it was fair. Clinton and Obama did it by passing it onto people who make the most. While everyone receives the benefits of spending, the so called "rich" bear the brunt of it. What I would advocate is either a payroll tax reduction or a flat tax. But increasing the debt by 3t and/or corporate bailouts were never an option, and Reagan or Bush have never done that at this level.
So, you were angry at Republicans deficit spending, just as you're angry with Obama's deficit spending. Equal opportunity anger. That's good.
Bottom line: If you make more, it's a pretty good chance you use more of our resources and infrastructure. You should pay more.
If you think otherwise, you're greedy. Sorry, but how much money DO YOU NEED to live comfortably? $1 million? $10 million? $100 million?
If you are indeed a wealthy individual, it's a pretty good chance that you made your money off the sweaty backs of the poor. It's too bad you cannot see that the more you elevate those who are below you economically, the more you elevate yourself economically.
Its not up to anyone else to dictate how how much I need to live comfortably. That's up to me. Just as I don't dictate to anyone else how much they should make, that's up to them.
I never said that anyone should dictate how much money a person needs to live comfortably. Please don't put words into my mouth. Obviously you have some chip on your shoulder about something to twist my comment into somethat that it isn't.
My question was largely rhetorical. Personal wealth is a good thing, but not when it's acquired by the hard work of others who make a fraction of what you do, but work immensely harder than you do. The workers are responsible for the wealth in this country; they deserve better than just a 'living wage'.
Right on. It's about valuing the contribution to the bigger picture by even the most menial laborer. It's often repeated but it's true; we are greater than the sum of our parts.
Your arguements would mean some thing if the facts supported you. The top 10% of the country controls 70% of the wealth in this countyr and wages for the wealthy are going up while average american wages are going down. This redistribution of wealth that republicans speak of is actually happening the other way
What facts am I disputing?
What I would advocate is either a payroll tax reduction or a flat tax. - dave
Guess what, dave? April 1, 95% (IIRC) of working Americans are going to receive a payroll tax deduction!!!
See, there is something you can hope that doesn't fail! There is something you can support Obama on. Or, do you not want to support Obama because he's a Democrat?
Do you forget, dave, that more people became millionaires than ever before under Clinton and his economic policies? Why is that not possible anymore? Why can you not get behind someone trying to do something to bring us all above this mess, instead of those who have the most?
Deficit spending in a recession is no vice. Deficit spending in boom times is gluttonous. (As is CREATING deficits but cutting taxes, in boom times, without matching spending cuts. McCain knew what he was talking about, back in 2000.) Reagan's deficit spending helped fix the economy he inherited. (Not all by itself, bit it HELPED.) Clinton's balanced budget showed that democrats could in fact 'live within thier means,' and that higher taxes don't always lead to ruin. Bush's deficit spending has largely been destructive, because so little of it was done in response to economic recession, and by the time it was, he'd already piled up tons of debt. Nothing is ALWAYS good or ALWAYS bad. But these 'Pubs that all want to be the next "Reagan" should realise that it's not 1980 anymore.
The Bail Out was Bush's bill
Yes it was....agreed.
OK Dave, with your beliefs it's going to be a long 40 years wandering in the desert. I'll see you in 2049.
I'd rather be in the desert than sell out my core principles like the R's and Steele are doing.
What are these the core principles you're speaking of?
Mary, simply put....less taxation, less govt spending, less govt regulation, more border security, and less govt intrusion.
What GOOD will those do, net in net? Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. (And the majority of america, apparently.) What good are principlas that no good can come of?
Less government spending, huh? I'm sure Dave didn't vote twice for W, then, did he?
Less government regulation? Really? Isn't that part of what got us into this mess in the first place?
Less government intrusion? You mean like reading e-mails, listening to phone calls and the like, correct? Didn't W do that as well?
But, but, but W. wasn't a real conservative. Neither was Reagan. Neither was Nixon. See, conservatism never fails, it is failed by mere mortals.
Rush Limbaugh is the world's only real conservative dontcha know!
Well, you're never wrong if you're are really good at coming up with ad hoc hypothesies. But nonsense is still nonsense to those who know the difference.
Less government regulation? You can't be serious. You just summed up the cause of our current economic situation which was Wall St. running amok without anyone keeping tabs on them. And you want more of the same? How did Einstein define insanity?
Regulations or lack there of did not advocate banks lending to those who never should've been lent to, or those lenders not checking incomes of those applying for loans. That was greedy business practices and greedy want- to- be homeowners hard at work. Both are guilty. And Einstein would define insanity not only as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, but also spending/printing 3t dollars expecting to get out of debt. That's insane as well.
lack there of [regulations] did not advocate banks lending to those who never should've been lent to
In a word? BALDERDASH.
dave, i can appreciate your principles. they the same as my own.
the problem being is, that right now there isnt really time to stick to them. as much as i hate to say it being conservative myself, we need to kick things into gear. then i say lets pull it back.
Then you can go ahead and sell your principles out for expediency, I cannot and will not.
I'm not sure thejbomb is selling out his/her principles.
What we have here is an attempt at bipartisanship. I can get behing conservatives who say, "you know, we're in a real mess. The last president didn't do anything about it - and now this one is trying. Let's agree on what we agree on and move forward instead of constant lies and obfuscation." And then reapply your principles when the economic climate is right. Conservative economic principles are part of what got us into this mess. Conservative economic principles will NOT get us out of it.
While I disagree in large part with conservative economic principles, I can get behind people who are genuinely interested in the common good, instead of furthering political agendas or careers.
How is trying to fix America's problems considered "selling out your principles"?
Evidently, you do want America to fail.
I'm not interested in bipartisanship. I liked Reagan's approach of bringing them over to your side. The left has too many crazy ideas, such as spending 3t to get us out of debt, and only relying on 5% of us to pay for it....sounds like a Mrs Dave idea, I spent 2000 bucks but I saved 40. BO has won and I accept that. but I don't agree with the spending package, and at no time did I wish America failure. I wish he would fail.
So what your saying is that you would rather be right and have Obama's policies fail and our economy fall further in to depression than have Obama be correct, lead us out of the recession, cut the defecit and make sure that every one has health care.
Makes sense
IMO, BO is already wrong, same as W in these bailouts that both kept signing. And even if he can cut the deficit, where are the final numbers going to be after he signed all of this crap? 2t? That's like being validictorian of your summer school class. Its nice but nobody cares. And of course, only a few of us will be paying for it. And who was talking about healthcare?
2t is good start.
What you completely miss is the fact that Obama's plan is for America's success. Calling for Obama's plan to fail is, in fact, a call for America to fail. Obviously you would rather be correct than get us out of this mess.
Your argument with regards to the whole 5% pays to get us out of this mess is disingenuous. Your assertion comes off as the top 5% are going to be paying for this mess, when in actuality (and you know this, hence the disingenuous nature of your response) everyone, including the middle and working poor classes, will continue to pay taxes (even though some of us will get a tax cut). You make it sound as though the middle and working poor will pay no taxes and that people of your oh so high and mighty stature would be paying for all of it. The fact is, all of us are in this together. We are all suffering in some way, shape or form. Yes, people who make over $250,000/year will see a tax increase. That tax increase will be approximately 4%. BIG WHOOP. If you make over $250,000/year, that's a drop in the bucket, and you know it. I wish I made over $250,000/year. I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes. What you refuse to realize, (or maybe you do realize but you don't want to admit), is that by you paying a higher amount in taxes, you will see greater profit in the future. But you belong to the party that believes in instant wealth. You want your money, your prosperity, NOW. You preach that others get theirs on their own, in their own time, but for you, yourself, you want it NOW. Greed is an ugly thing, man.
Finally, if you want to have honest debate, you have to be honest with your posts.
Too many crazy ideas on the left, Dave? That attitude is why the right is losing in the arena of ideas. You simply have no ideas, no inclination to try an idea to see if it works and scrap it if it doesn't. You are inflexible in your opinion, you are rigid in you ideology despite all the evidence that your way has failed to bring prosperity to our country.
You were right on one point in your post. The approach of bringing people over to your side is better than bipartisanship. In case you missed it, that is exactly what Obama is doing. He's new Democrats into the fold everyday. The right is hemorrhaging voters. If you were to tell tell the truth, that's why you hope for Obama to fail. You fear losing control of the terms that define government to a generation that is passing you by.
To be fair, their are crazies on both the left and the right. I sat down the other night and wrote an essay: 10 liberal groups or people that I can't stand; just to prove to myself that I wasn't one of the left-wing crazies. (Turns out, I'm not! Yay!) (I'd write a conservative version, but just the LIST would be as long as the whole first essay was, so... no.)
The difference is that while the Democrats have some crazies in their party, they've managed to capture all of the center-left, most of the center and some of the center-right. The republican's have almost nothing left in there party BUT the crazies. (And rather a few moderate, center-rights, but Rush and Dave are apparently in favor of alienating them and going hard core with the crazies.)
Has it never crossed your mind that your principles are wrong? As you said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and exepcting different results.
Agreed...my principles have never been tried...nobody wants to cut spending and reduce taxes at the same time. It does make economic sense. But alas, there are too many people with their hands out.
How many loopholes did your accountant use when filing your taxes? Isn't that akin to 'having your hand out'?
Your wrong about your ideas never being tried...Hoover tried them and it drove us into a the Great Depression heard of it?
It DOES NOT make economic sense. That would shrink the economy. But we've had this discussion already.
DAVE, Sounds like the last 8 years. I think thos core values may need a little modifying.
Let me ask you what you propose be done to fix our country. What does it mean if Pres Obama fails? It is one thing if you say I hope the policy fails to get enacted because it will lead to xyz. Rush would rather have Pres Obama fail than have himself proven wrong.
That's exactly what it is.
If the Republicans believed otherwise, that they oppose the stimulus package based on principle, they would come up with different ideas as to how this could be done, other than their tired 'tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts' mantra.
LISTEN UP, CONS:
If you don't like what you see happening, come up with some fresh alternatives instead of your stale economic principles which have been tried, but have failed miserably. Tax cuts for rich folks don't get the middle class and the working poor to spend money, no matter how much you scream that it does!
DAVE ,If you think that EL FLUSHBO is a great leader for the REPUBLICAN PARTY then they are in DEEP trouble. If you want to have a racist, sexist individual who spits out venom and hatred for ANYONE who who disagrees with his FAR,FAR RIGHT WING views, then good luck to you and your party. You'll both need it.
Rush himself he has said that he has no interest in being the leader of the R party. Rush has said the R party is a joke being led by Michael Steele. The R's and D's before the names in congress are almost interchangeable these days.
DAVE, RUSH has no interest because he dont want the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with the job. HE is a COWARD.
Mindreading again? From what I've heard him say, the R's are a complete disaster under Steele, and not worth fighting for right now.
So the Republican party is not worth fighting for?
A Conservative said this?
It's about time.
mindreading?, no, just asessing the man's character( or lack therof).
That picture looks like it has shades of Nikita Khrushchev and his famous shoe
Now second famous.
)O(
i have heard some horrible stuff from left wingers, mike malloy, olberman, san francisco talk radio that shows the hippocrits that they are. rush is a pig and has more of a audiance than the other put together. making fun of lib is easy pickens
Please provide a "horrible" quote from Olbermann. I've never heard him act inappropriately towards anyone on the air. Provide a quote or admit you're a liar.(You do realize that there is some satirical hyperbole intended in the "Worst Person in the World" awards, don't you?
And doing only that which, as you say, is "easypickens" would therefore require very little talent. Liberals, on the other hand, put some thought, research and analysis into what they do. And, you know, use actual FACTS. Granted it's harder, and requires more intellegince to grasp, but it's also worth something at the end of the day.
as a long time keith fan, i can honestly say that even if he does say something even remotely bad. he prefeces as to why is saying and gives the context.
i watch olberman. entertaing sometimes. but you see what you want to see. just like people who love hannity, they think he to puts everything truthful and honestly. both are arogant jerks.
One lies (Hannity/O'Riellly/Beck) and one exposes the other's lies. There's no comparison. Arrogant or not, only one has the truth on his side.
CRAIG, So is making fun of RUSH and the rest of the RIGHT WING LOONIES.
San Francisco talk radio?
REALLY?
You mean like Michael Savage, right? He's a pretty hateful bastard.
What about liberal talk shows in SF? Can you name ANY? If so, can you name a time when a leftie on liberal talk shows in SF has said horrible things?
He mentioned Malloy, who can get very emotional. Malloy can however back up his points with regularity.
But has Malloy said some hurrendous things, comparable to hoping for death for Supreme Court justices (as Ann Coulter has), etc...?
Maybe that means conservatives are more easily had or perhaps liberals have better things to do than listen to someone say essential the same thing year in and year out. We kind of get it after the first day.
I think he's playing you like a fiddle and doesn't the red meat get a little ho-hum after eating it for several years.
PS - Is Limabugh the owner of a Burger King franchise - good lord is he fat or what?
PS - Is Limabugh the owner of a Burger King franchise - good lord is he fat or what?
I was thinking that too. Another 50 pounds and he'd look like a few of the images I saw of some of the Hurricane Katrina victims. Geez, no wonder they couldn't get out of the way of that storm. <sarcasm>
Malloy eats his fiber?
My favorite was during the build up to the Gulf War he suggested that the parents of the soldiers and marines should place GOLD STARS on their windows or doors, the more people who placed the stars the more patriotic the war would become. Posted by retired soldier and son of a soldier who went.
How to finish of Rush:
Make the hated Limbaugh the face of the GOP. For the GOP to kneel before the evil one or get their heads cut off by Rush. Watch them all fight each other! Already, Rush told his audience to stop donating to the RNC.
The real kicker comes if Obama's people know how to play this, and they probably don't. Once Limbaugh is established as the GOP image, bring up his lies. Not just big sensational lies, we want the most indefensible lies. Repeatedly bring up Limbaugh's selected lie with the public. Then, get on Limbaugh for all the hatred he spreads, like saying, "Dems want everybody to be poor" ; "Dems get their joy by watching others suffer" ; "Dems hate God" ; "Dems want to destroy America."
Let the moderates and independents learn what Limbaugh, the leader of the GOP is up to. Work him from there.
For example: Last week Limbaugh told big lies to his audience about Obama's tax cut. Limbaugh said the newly passed tax credit is itself taxable, and therefore no tax relief passed with the stimulus package. Rush needs to be called out over and over by lots of Democrats for a single lie like that. Establish Limbaugh as the liar he is. Then go into Limbaugh's motives. Point out the Limbaugh portrays himself as a champion of tax cuts but works against them whenever the Democrats push them for ordinary people. Bring up how Limbaugh also opposed the original $600 rebate tax cut stimulus package, which was a tax cut for the working and middle classes. From there, point out that the only thing Limbaugh cares about must be his side winning power. Point out how that's because Limbaugh hates the other half of the country.
Limbaugh must be kept on defense. Otherwise, he'll create major problems for Obama for the next four years.
Umm, WHAT hateful stuff the Al Fanken spout?
And the reason he is not a talk show host is because HE RAN FOR THE SENATE IN MN.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:24.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning:18.0pt; font-weight:bold;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
"Umm, WHAT hateful stuff the Al Fanken spout?"
Example #1: From the StarTribune: http://kerstenblog.startribune.com/kerstenblog/?cat=176
"In 2006, he and a guest on his Air America radio show joked about Eucharistic communion wafers — sacred to Catholics as the body of Christ — and compared them to chips and guacamole. In “Dog Confessional,” a proposed sketch for Saturday Night Live, Franken depicted “a series of dogs, played by cast members, confessing to a priest,” according to the Washington Post. NBC refused to air it."
Example #2: From the Catholic League: http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1506
Example #3: Al Franken Jokes about Al Queda Killing Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loVTU-ASWZAFranken's humor goes over the line, I think, at times, to bad taste. However, not hateful, IMO. His wife is a Catholic, and he sometimes attends church with her. He's said he enjoys the feeling and reverence of the Mass.
I like Franken personally, so I'm not joining in the attacks of him, but goig to church does not make a person good, and neither does "enjoy[ing] the feeling and reverence of the Mass." One's acts may not get them into heavn on their own (according to the funny-mentalists anyway) but likewise one's beliefs will not make them a moral person independantly of the acts that follow from them. Franken wants to do good, and (perhaps) hates those that he percieves as causing harm. While that's not necissarily different from the haters on the Right, the argument will be settled over who can PROOVE that harm (or good) was done. Lib's/Dem's can do that, honestly and objectively with evidence and history on their side. Con's/Pub's can only do that with blantant distortion, transparant revisionist history and outright demonstable lies. Liberals mainly hate haters. Liberals are mainly intolerant of intolerance. Con's cannot make that claim. (Not without anyone with half brain laughing their azz of anyway!) THAT'S what makes him a "good man," assuming he is. Not his feelings about, or attendence at, a religious ceremony. They are irrelevant. (Just as they are irrelevant when used as evidence that the Con's/Pub's are somehow "good people.")
"And the reason he is not a talk show host is because HE RAN FOR THE SENATE IN MN."
Wrong. He ran for the US Senate because his radio talk show was not economically viable and could not sustain itself on donations from rich liberals. I doubt that if he was making $40 million/year from talk radio that he would have left that to run for the US Senate.
You're spouting fiction. He ran for the Senate out of conviction that he should. He had a successful run as a radio host, and felt he needed to let it go to run for office. Air America has been a bit of a mess, true, but not because of Al.
You really have to hear it. It's a song in Rush's own words, set to German music. Try this link: http://www.bartcop.com/rushnazi.mp3
One, the spelling is hypocrite, and two, speaking as a Texan, you mean easy pickin's, not Slim Pickens.
Just when I thought I could not dislike the man more!! Turns out I can!
What a poor excuse for a human being! And ,after viewing his comments about women, he wonders why he does not have more women listeners??!!!
I am no Rush fan, but I am SURE that Rush adores this liberal website and ALL of the libs that enjoy bashing him. The more you speak his name, the further his notoriety booms.
Maybe I should give my name out for some of that! I cannot stand Keith Obermann, except back in the day when he would say, "From way downton...BANG" or "he who arrives late gets no fruit cup". In politics, when you have the differing viewpoints from an opponent to yors, I would not bash that person! You guys are turning this guy into a giant. NOW, if Republicans like me were basing him continuously that would not be good for his PR. The question is why would I do that? It's fun reading the posts. He has the hornets swarming. lol
NOW, if Republicans like me were basing him continuously that would not be good for his PR. The question is why would I do that?
Because he's destoying the party and the country. That's why.
I was at the meeting here of the county Republicans last night. You are dead wrong!!!
We are seeing more concern than even before the election. We barely had a seat for them all. What you just said was more damaging actually!
Yeah, you go with that. The Democrats will keep their just over 50% voting block. What's left will be moderate Republcans and, a new party of hard-righties. So how, pray tell, does a smaller percentage of an already minority party win ANYTHING more than a game show?! And every moderate you alienate will either LOSE/RETIRE or beocme a democrat just to stay relevant. So... yeah, by all means, go ahead an embrace the lunatic fringe movement of your party, and assume that because you can fill a room, you can win an election. I love you guys. I'll sleep so much better knowing that you don't even intend to TRY and appeal to moderates. Go ahead and embrace you inner hard-liner. Not only will you be closer to being honest for the first time in about 20 years, but you will finally also be as irrelvant as you deserve to be. I God DOES bless the USA after all!
(If the 'Pubs gain a single seat (net) in 2010 or the WH in 2012, I'll buy you a Coke.)
who is crying now? Left right all a bunch of whiners. Lets get together as a nation and move forward. Rush is just a mistake of the past. They lost to ;bad, you deserved to lose.
O.K for all the people who make over 250,000 a year, this is not a tax increase.It is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts which the wealthy have enjoyed for a long time. It is strange to me that according to the republican model this tax break should have created more jobs, well where are they? Under president clinton there was record job creation and a surplus for the fisrt time in decades and shucks he was a democrat oh,my!!! Even with the piddling little extra you will pay you are still making 250,000$ a year face it America has moved on and moved forward and perhaps you haven't
Following this text is a link to an article I submitted to Buzzflash in 2005. Mr. Limbaugh had referred to Jerry Garcia as "just another dead doper" after Mr. Garcia had passed away. It seems Mr. Limbaugh vociferously touted his disgust for those who he thought were "weak" because they had "chosen" to take drugs. I thought that was a bit hypocritical, given Mr. Limbaugh's own little problem, so, here it is: Talent On Loan From Drugs
Chuck Muziani
Pittsburgh, PA
Whether due to his girth or his audacity, you will likely never find a BIGGER hypocrite than Limbaugh.
That would be the case if the Republican party stayed as before. That will not happen. Honestly, I feel there should be a 3rd party now. These lefty repubs need to make up their mind. Big spender, big government Republicans need to go. Moderate democrats are starting to murmur over Obama's half-truths and we don't want em.
We are angry that folks want to lower the American standard of living to France. The United Socialist States of America.
Rush is giving a lot of people in America a Limbaughtomy! This man makes me sick!