View Full Version : Limbaugh
Rush "Douche-nozzle" Limbaugh has issued a polite (that's sarcasm) invitation to Obama to debate him on his radio show. How can Obama resist honey like this:
You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the American that don't agree with you how wrong we all are.
...I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding -- and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel.
...we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden.
Yeah Rush - that's how you convince people to do something. Be a totally disrespectful jack-ass and why wouldn't they want to do what you say, right? :rolleyes:
dubman
03-04-2009, 12:12 PM
partying or flying around
hahahahaha
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-04-2009, 02:14 PM
If I was Obama: "Your double quarter pounder is waiting for you at your the nearest drive-thru."
Deckard
03-04-2009, 03:20 PM
I wouldn't worry. Obama has Limbaugh exactly where he wants him (and the funny thing is, Limbaugh has Limbaugh exactly where he wants him too).
Rush: the face of the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, less frothy conservatives like David Frum can only hold their head and weep (http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467).
A little more from Rush today (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/04/limbaugh-vs-president-obama/#comments) apparently:
He said the effort was being spearheaded by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who Limbaugh refers to as the "power behind the throne."
"Don't let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young," Limbaugh said.
What an asshole.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-04-2009, 07:36 PM
A little more from Rush today (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/04/limbaugh-vs-president-obama/#comments) apparently:
He said the effort was being spearheaded by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who Limbaugh refers to as the "power behind the throne."
"Don't let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young," Limbaugh said.
What an asshole.
Go figure, Sean's allowed to cuss. You left out the f-f-word. ooops, left out one of the f's. ;)
//\/\/
03-05-2009, 01:50 AM
You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the American that don't agree with you how wrong we all are.
...i guess rush must've missed the ELECTION. or doesn't he believe in democracy? if he doesn't, then he's unamerican and should be thrown in gitmo (where he'd have a lovely time because it's such a cushy place to hang out and eat chicken - i know because he told me so!)
Deckard
03-05-2009, 03:41 AM
Don't let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate...
Wasn't Rush saying similar things about Obama during the campaign? Effeminate, skinny, not a real man, feeble, effete...
Of course we couldn't possibly call Rush a misogynist because he was careful to mention the virtues of the "female rat". (RAT, ffs!) Clever Rush, very clever. But not quite clever enough.
Slightly o/t, and generalization time, but what is this correlation between Repubs and macho/aggression/hostility to intellect? Why for example is it so predictable that action heroes like Stallone, Arnie, Seagal, Norris, etc - star of many a "put brain in neutral" action flick - would lean that way politically? Sometimes the real political divide seems to be between the cerebral and the visceral, with a higher proportion of Repubs gathering around the latter.
Future Proof
03-05-2009, 05:06 AM
Wasn't Rush saying similar things about Obama during the campaign? Effeminate, skinny, not a real man, feeble, effete...
You have to be a macho man to be president in the US, some would believe. Then again, I'm sure that Limbaugh is threatened by anyone that doesn't have to ask for 2 seats on an airplane anyways.
Limbaugh really is a disgrace to anyone that would call himself a conservative or Republican. If I was a republican I wouldn't be able to stomach the idea that this buffoon was one of the most vocal spokespeople for my values.
Strangelet
03-05-2009, 08:35 AM
Wasn't Rush saying similar things about Obama during the campaign? Effeminate, skinny, not a real man, feeble, effete...
ann coulter employs the same tactics. Pretty much every time she describes a liberal it is with language that emasculates them or intimates they are homosexual, which is the same thing as emasculated in their eyes, or defeminizes them if they are female liberals.
Such obsession with sexual identity with conservative pundits is interesting to me. I mean there are a lot of ways to be a demagogue.
But then Utah is the capital in the country for online porn subscriptions, all other red states a close second, so I guess its all making sense :confused:. in some other universe anyway.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 09:10 AM
ann coulter employs the same tactics. Pretty much every time she describes a liberal it is with language that emasculates them or intimates they are homosexual, which is the same thing as emasculated in their eyes, or defeminizes them if they are female liberals.
Such obsession with sexual identity with conservative pundits is interesting to me. I mean there are a lot of ways to be a demagogue.
But then Utah is the capital in the country for online porn subscriptions, all other red states a close second, so I guess its all making sense :confused:. in some other universe anyway.
That's all right, some people are slow to catch on to what's really going on.
Glad you're finally up to SPEED. ;)
Sorry, I should add, as I LOVE being the thorn on a rose, I'm not at the half-full level of reminders. ;), ;)
OH, and also, I don't give a shit that the U.Z.A (Zombies) have a hard time swallowing the truth. It's wake-up time.
Deckard
03-05-2009, 09:24 AM
ann coulter employs the same tactics. Pretty much every time she describes a liberal it is with language that emasculates them or intimates they are homosexual, which is the same thing as emasculated in their eyes, or defeminizes them if they are female liberals.
Such obsession with sexual identity with conservative pundits is interesting to me. I mean there are a lot of ways to be a demagogue.
But then Utah is the capital in the country for online porn subscriptions, all other red states a close second, so I guess its all making sense :confused:. in some other universe anyway.
Hear you. That's one of the very very few things I'm looking forward to about our upcoming conservative government - a return to all those sex scandals. There have been far too few in these past 12 years of Labour. There's nothing quite like the exposing of hypocrisy from those who typically shout the loudest about family values and sin.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 09:49 AM
"...and did one of those slugs walk into those traps, no, not one of them..."
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 10:10 AM
"...and did one of those slugs walk into those traps, no, not one of them..."
(((((;))))))
All I know is that Rush Limbaugh is the last person who should be leveling criticism at anyone over their physique. Rahm Emanuel may be a little guy, but he's not gonna die of a fat-induced coronary any time soon. Or a drug overdose for that matter.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 01:33 PM
"...all leading the way to the juicy beans..."
"...and went on eating the juicy lettuce..."
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 02:23 PM
...i guess rush must've missed the ELECTION. or doesn't he believe in democracy? if he doesn't, then he's unamerican and should be thrown in gitmo (where he'd have a lovely time because it's such a cushy place to hang out and eat chicken - i know because he told me so!)
In regards to your comment on "democracy", please refer to my Song of the Day dated 02.27.09. Second choice in it's full length version. Not to crazy about it, but the samples are quite on the spot/mark.
dubman
03-05-2009, 04:15 PM
john SHUT THE FUCK UP
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 04:23 PM
john SHUT THE FUCK UP
...muva's, daawtah's, granmuva's...
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 04:24 PM
john SHUT THE FUCK UP
...muva's, daawtah's, granmuva's...
I'm sure they're all spelled wrong, but anything to piss of du(m)bman.
He's sexy when he's mad. too.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-05-2009, 05:06 PM
"...the sluuugs are eating all the lettuce Tim..."
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 11:27 AM
Ya know, how does a man like that have an affair? I want one too, and I'm not even married.
Awaiting dubman guy to get pissed...
So it does seem as if the White House and overall Democratic Party are using this whole Limbaugh thing as a way to take shots at the Republican Party. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Limbaugh has been a dishonest, moronic voice for all that's wrong with today's far-right conservatives, but on the other, engaging in this kind of gutter-debate is pretty counter-productive. Gibbs, the White House spokesman, has admitted as much (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/05/feeding-the-beast-on-rush-attacks/), but it does seem that the strategy is continuing.
But it's also hard to ignore that there's quite a bit of truth to the claim that Limbaugh appears to be the current leader of the Republican Party. There's a vacuum in the space that should be occupied by some kind of leadership on the right, so it has to be filled by someone, and Rush seems to have seized the opportunity. Hopefully something constructive'll come out of all of this - maybe in the form of some reasonable, moderate Republican stepping in to fill the void and bring the conservative movement into the 21st century in a way that actually helps the country. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 11:31 AM
Oh c'mon, sean, it's a sideshow circus act to keep our minds level in the real mess that mushroomed under the past 8 years of rule.
And I don't care what anyone wants to argue in the blame game. It mushroomed under the past Republican leadership, no doubt about it. As well as they more than few blind faith Republicans who refused to acknowledge the mess going on. I've said it before, and will say it again: Turn your back on something long enough and it will bite you in the ass.
Really, how do you think the affair was accomplished? I need info.
Oh c'mon, sean, it's a sideshow circus act to keep our minds level in the real mess that mushroomed under the past 8 years of rule.You say this as if I claimed something different? I just question how worthwhile it is for the Obama Administration to partake in the sideshow circus.
And I don't care what anyone wants to argue in the blame game. It mushroomed under the past Republican leadership, no doubt about it. As well as they more than few blind faith Republicans who refused to acknowledge the mess going on. I've said it before, and will say it again: Turn your back on something long enough and it will bite you in the ass.
Really, how do you think the affair was accomplished? I need info.Well, this thread is about the whole "Limbaugh is the new Republican Party leader" silliness, actually.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 04:06 PM
Well, this thread is about the whole "Limbaugh is the new Republican Party leader" silliness, actually.
Then ignore my spam, and answer the question about this "Christian" right's ability to get away with infidelity...
Really, I'm not expecting to get an answer. Just juggling.
Then ignore my spam, and answer the question about this "Christian" right's ability to get away with infidelity...
Again, this thread is about the Rush Limbaugh as head of the Republican Party story. If you have another topic you'd like to discuss, then by all means fire up a new thread for it.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 04:39 PM
Again, this thread is about the Rush Limbaugh as head of the Republican Party story. If you have another topic you'd like to discuss, then by all means fire up a new thread for it.
Aaahh, dodging questions that are relevant to the discussion. Never seen that one before.
Strangelet
03-06-2009, 05:13 PM
all I know is every time I get an urge to check out world forum I just see a half dozen threads with the last post being jOHN rODRIGUEZ and sometimes I'll even open a thread and see a bunch of posts, blocked of course, stacked up and interleaved with anyone else's comments (just like this one is bound to be) and I just assume the world forum is still about john talking to himself so I come back later hoping the nurse with the meds have come around the rehab house by then.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 06:48 PM
all I know is every time I get an urge to check out world forum I just see a half dozen threads with the last post being jOHN rODRIGUEZ and sometimes I'll even open a thread and see a bunch of posts, blocked of course, stacked up and interleaved with anyone else's comments (just like this one is bound to be) and I just assume the world forum is still about john talking to himself so I come back later hoping the nurse with the meds have come around the rehab house by then.
Only because I've been right about everything you've been wrong about. ;)
"Our Denial" still looping wit you.
"They'll tryyyy to rearrange,
but all the world is crashing at their gates..." wit me.
WHHOOOOOPPPPISSHHHHHH, biatch.
Strangelet
03-06-2009, 07:12 PM
exactly
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 07:32 PM
Borrow some of S.mo's chaps and it's a date!
Aaahh, dodging questions that are relevant to the discussion. Never seen that one before.
I think most people would agree that I'm not exactly one to dodge questions around here, jOHN. But a question about infidelity within the Christian right is not relevant in any way to a discussion about Rush Limbaugh being labeled as the supposed "intellectual force" and "voice of" the Republican Party. Feel free to point out how it is relevant, and then maybe we can talk. In the meantime, if all you plan on offering up is more of your typical verbal diarrhea, then I for one would appreciate if you could go do it somewhere else.
Incidentally - and this is a question to the moderators - what exactly does it take for someone to be banned from the forums? Is derailing thread after thread a legitimate reason? I mean, literally half of the replies in this thread - 16 out of 32 - are irrelevant ramblings from jOHN. I don't know about anyone else (aside from Strangelet), but even though jOHN's already the lone member on my ignore list, seeing threads hijacked like this has been a major factor in my coming around here far less frequently.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 08:05 PM
I think most people would agree that I'm not exactly one to dodge questions around here, jOHN. But a question about infidelity within the Christian right is not relevant in any way to a discussion about Rush Limbaugh being labeled as the supposed "intellectual force" and "voice of" the Republican Party. Feel free to point out how it is relevant, and then maybe we can talk. In the meantime, if all you plan on offering up is more of your typical verbal diarrhea, then I for one would appreciate if you could go do it somewhere else.
Incidentally - and this is a question to the moderators - what exactly does it take for someone to be banned from the forums? Is derailing thread after thread a legitimate reason? I mean, literally half of the replies in this thread - 16 out of 32 - are irrelevant ramblings from jOHN. I don't know about anyone else (aside from Strangelet), but even though jOHN's already the lone member on my ignore list, seeing threads hijacked like this has been a major factor in my coming around here far less frequently.
We put a former President on trial for infidelity. And I know your arguement will go back to "Lying under oath", but it stemmed from a cum stain on a dress.
Now, Lamebutt is being held as the voice of the party that put a former Pres. on trial for a cum stain on a dress. I don't see how it's irrelavant.
My God, sean, you're a whyknee(spell?) little bitch. You can borrow some chaps too now.
And I'm just razzing S.mo, I have no idea if he gets into the leather bit. (Damn, I really could use some smiley thingys at this moment)
Strangelet
03-06-2009, 08:06 PM
Incidentally - and this is a question to the moderators - what exactly does it take for someone to be banned from the forums?
Please. Its really nothing personal, but he's broken this forum. i'm happy to share news, thoughts, opinions with people who think i'm a fool, a jackass, or who simply don't agree with me, but its a real drag sharing anything thoughtful when someone just takes an austistic self absorbed mocking shit on everything. If this were truly a virtual coffee shop or pub, he is the guy tweeked on meth shouting about his bitches in a red sparkly cell phone. And this squares fairly well under the common respect side of forum rules.
I feel bad singling anyone out like this, and I'm not interested in a personal attack. But I have to be honest to the point where i am endangering my own membership. its that bad.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-06-2009, 08:10 PM
Please. Its really nothing personal, but he's broken this forum. i'm happy to share news, thoughts, opinions with people who think i'm a fool, a jackass, or who simply don't agree with me, but its a real drag sharing anything thoughtful when someone just takes an austistic self absorbed mocking shit on everything. If this were truly a virtual coffee shop or pub, he is the guy tweeked on meth shouting about his bitches in a red sparkly cell phone. And this squares fairly well under the common respect side of forum rules.
I feel bad singling anyone out like this, and I'm not interested in a personal attack. But I have to be honest to the point where i am endangering my own membership. its that bad.
"...strip you and defeat you
rob you of your clout
rob you of your clout..."
Don't know if you missed the press conference, "He's been right about everything else...", I did not.
Deckard
03-07-2009, 04:44 AM
all I know is every time I get an urge to check out world forum I just see a half dozen threads with the last post being jOHN rODRIGUEZ and sometimes I'll even open a thread and see a bunch of posts, blocked of course, stacked up and interleaved with anyone else's comments (just like this one is bound to be) and I just assume the world forum is still about john talking to himself
Sure and this is precisely the problem of troll-like behaviour. Several times I've posted up a reply to a thread, possibly resurrected an older one, perhaps wanted to share a link I've found - only for jOHN to come along and post some gibberish in it immediately after. And damn, I always know that as soon as he's done that, he's just diminished the chance of my post being noticed! Like you, I'm not saying these things to elevate my posting quality here or anything like that, but what jOHN is doing IS troll-like behaviour by any sensible understanding of the word, and unless there's some underlying condition which I'm unaware of, he only gets away with it because he's so longstanding.
Please. Its really nothing personal, but he's broken this forum. i'm happy to share news, thoughts, opinions with people who think i'm a fool, a jackass, or who simply don't agree with me, but its a real drag sharing anything thoughtful when someone just takes an austistic self absorbed mocking shit on everything. If this were truly a virtual coffee shop or pub, he is the guy tweeked on meth shouting about his bitches in a red sparkly cell phone. And this squares fairly well under the common respect side of forum rules.
I feel bad singling anyone out like this, and I'm not interested in a personal attack. But I have to be honest to the point where i am endangering my own membership. its that bad.
Yes, it is that bad. That's what I think should absolve you and everyone else of any guilt for pointing it out. And I think just about all the regular and less regular posters have tried to point it out at some stage, including some mods. God knows Sean has given him the benefit of the doubt more times than he deserves and tried to engage meaningfully with him - and look how he responds.
Look jOHN, no-one expects anyone to be on-topic and serious all the time, or even to make sense to anyone beyond themselves absolutely all of the time - but your posting behaviour comes across like a deliberate attempt to derail almost everything. Winding up other members can be ok if there's already a certain mutual connection and appreciation of the humor in place, but you must understand that there isn't - surely? Even having you on ignore gets tedious. Frankly I don't like putting anyone on ignore, and the ignore system is inherently flawed anyway when peers start to respond.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who posts regularly that a natural slowing down of this place is being greatly accelerated by your antics jOHN. Any reasonably self-aware person in your shoes would have picked up on that, felt a bit bad, and attempted to alter their behaviour. Instead you just seem to ramp it up, like a weed slowly spreading and strangling the entire orchard. (An orchard that is naturally becoming less populated, sure, but that's besides the point). Yeah I also feel like a cnut for pointing this stuff out, but then I know if you reply then you'll just quote some selective part of my post back and make some idiotic play on words that barely makes sense, or you'll post what appear like song lyrics, the essence of which will be lost on everyone but yourself, so I think, why feel guilty calling you on this shit?
//\/\/
03-07-2009, 04:48 AM
I mean, literally half of the replies in this thread - 16 out of 32 - are irrelevant ramblings from jOHN. I don't know about anyone else (aside from Strangelet), but even though jOHN's already the lone member on my ignore list, seeing threads hijacked like this has been a major factor in my coming around here far less frequently.
same goes here - i've said before that's it's just dull shit - if jr's got a point at any time, it's lost by the crap he serves up with it - i just skip anything he writes these days; but it's still clogging up this place so much that i'm utterly bored shitless with it.
john; maybe go seeking attention elsewhere; but please just STFU if you've nothing meaningful to contribute...
Deckard
03-07-2009, 05:05 AM
So it does seem as if the White House and overall Democratic Party are using this whole Limbaugh thing as a way to take shots at the Republican Party. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Limbaugh has been a dishonest, moronic voice for all that's wrong with today's far-right conservatives, but on the other, engaging in this kind of gutter-debate is pretty counter-productive. Gibbs, the White House spokesman, has admitted as much, but it does seem that the strategy is continuing.
But it's also hard to ignore that there's quite a bit of truth to the claim that Limbaugh appears to be the current leader of the Republican Party. There's a vacuum in the space that should be occupied by some kind of leadership on the right, so it has to be filled by someone, and Rush seems to have seized the opportunity. Hopefully something constructive'll come out of all of this - maybe in the form of some reasonable, moderate Republican stepping in to fill the void and bring the conservative movement into the 21st century in a way that actually helps the country. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
I know it's not high-minded behaviour by the Democratic party but I struggle to feel bad about it. I think the election was a turning point, the whole Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, "real americans" campaign deserves to be placed under the spotlight. The conventional political wisdom has always been that you don't draw attention to figures like Rush for fear of elevating their importance, so this eighty stone gorilla in the room (literally 80st gorilla in his case!) is awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly ignored while people only recognize the more measured or more politically established figures. There are certainly intelligent and intellectual figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party specifically, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we try to say that they make up the driving force of supporters, the "grass roots"? Perhaps the same argument could be used about the Dems. I don't know. I certainly can't fault the idea that, in terms of grass root numbers, Limbaugh really does seem to be the emotional leader of the GOP - plenty of senior Republican figures have said as much. For me, the crux is that given the way that whole grass roots idea was so central to the campaign against Obama for the last 12 months, sanctioned on high from the GOP, given the whole "Rush's Americans are the real American" tactic - I think they frankly deserve to be called on this.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-07-2009, 05:26 AM
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!!!!!
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-07-2009, 05:27 AM
GOOD MOURNING EVERYONE!!!!!
//\/\/
03-07-2009, 02:39 PM
oh, fuck off.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-07-2009, 02:43 PM
oh, fuck off.
You'll need to send your picture first. I'll think about it.
Strangelet
03-08-2009, 11:27 PM
my god i'm giddy. :):):):):):):):)
So where were we? Oh yeah. limbaugh. Read this and see if this isn't surprising to you as well. Its from David Frum.
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him. And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279?from=rss
Not surprising that its from David Frum. It makes perfect sense. Its surprising that people would buy into this "life long republican facing reality" shit. Rush is not a walking stereotype of self-indulgence. As above described he's a walking stereotype of corporate republicans. One of whom David Frum personally helped groom and foster. So we're expected to feel all nostalgic for the party of "buckley" after his own kid gets booted off the national review for endorsing obama? This from a bush speech writer, coiner of the phrase axis of bad guys, and wants "evil" removed from the world: ie non republicans. looks like a natural progression from frum to rush, and it smacks of cynicism to posture oneself as above it, let alone plead innocent of it.
Honestly Ron paul summed up the situation best: "sad."
cured
03-09-2009, 01:58 AM
Rush needs to up his meds, IMO ;)
Strangelet
03-09-2009, 06:51 AM
quote:
In November 2006, Vanity Fair published an article by David Rose that listed a number of "the War's remorseful proponents," those erstwhile supporters of invading Iraq who had shifted their views and/or withdrawn their support of the Bush administration after the situation in Iraq steadily worsened. These included Perle, Kenneth Adelman (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/982.html), Michael Rubin (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1345.html), Michael Ledeen (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1261.html), Eliot Cohen (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1100.html), Frank Gaffney (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1183.html), and Frum. Rose reported that, "To David Frum ... it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because 'the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them.'"16 (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1155.html#_edn16)
But Frum took issue with the magazine’s characterization of his views, proclaiming in the [I]Huffington Post that there was "nothing remorseful" about his views. "It's true I fear that there is a real danger that the United States will lose in Iraq. And yes I do blame a lot that has gone wrong on failures of U.S. policy." Nevertheless, he said, "My most fundamental views on the war in Iraq remain as they were in 2003: The war was right, victory is essential, and defeat would be calamitous."17
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1155.html#_edn17)
i guess this is my point.
We are in agreement that the republican party is being run by demagogues, like rush, who are garnering power by emotional persuasion and thuggery.
We are in agreement that the neo cons and the bush administration sat around complacent while these same demagogues fended off imminent political defeat from facts and logic with passion and the manipulation of people's base fears/desires.
And now that such strategy didn't ultimately keep them in power and now has run its course into a distasteful spectacle of lay anger, now its something to from which they must keep their distance, condemn, and lament about the old days when republicans had an intellectual dimension and college graduates actually bought into the reagan = jesus bull shit.
just all seems patently disengenuous.
I know it's not high-minded behaviour by the Democratic party but I struggle to feel bad about it. I think the election was a turning point, the whole Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, "real americans" campaign deserves to be placed under the spotlight. The conventional political wisdom has always been that you don't draw attention to figures like Rush for fear of elevating their importance, so this eighty stone gorilla in the room (literally 80st gorilla in his case!) is awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly ignored while people only recognize the more measured or more politically established figures. There are certainly intelligent and intellectual figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party specifically, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we try to say that they make up the driving force of supporters, the "grass roots"? Perhaps the same argument could be used about the Dems. I don't know. I certainly can't fault the idea that, in terms of grass root numbers, Limbaugh really does seem to be the emotional leader of the GOP - plenty of senior Republican figures have said as much. For me, the crux is that given the way that whole grass roots idea was so central to the campaign against Obama for the last 12 months, sanctioned on high from the GOP, given the whole "Rush's Americans are the real American" tactic - I think they frankly deserve to be called on this.I guess that what I question is this:
Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.
So I really don't know. On the one hand, a huge portion of the conservative crowd does deserve to fall under this Rush Limbaugh umbrella, but I hope it's not at the expense of alienating the ones who don't.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-09-2009, 10:51 AM
Man, I'm horny.
Could one of you hook me up with one of Rush's tramps?
I see that you're "final post" idea only lasted a couple minutes.
Re-posting my last entry since jOHN has tried to subvert this tread yet again...
I know it's not high-minded behaviour by the Democratic party but I struggle to feel bad about it. I think the election was a turning point, the whole Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, "real americans" campaign deserves to be placed under the spotlight. The conventional political wisdom has always been that you don't draw attention to figures like Rush for fear of elevating their importance, so this eighty stone gorilla in the room (literally 80st gorilla in his case!) is awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly ignored while people only recognize the more measured or more politically established figures. There are certainly intelligent and intellectual figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party specifically, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we try to say that they make up the driving force of supporters, the "grass roots"? Perhaps the same argument could be used about the Dems. I don't know. I certainly can't fault the idea that, in terms of grass root numbers, Limbaugh really does seem to be the emotional leader of the GOP - plenty of senior Republican figures have said as much. For me, the crux is that given the way that whole grass roots idea was so central to the campaign against Obama for the last 12 months, sanctioned on high from the GOP, given the whole "Rush's Americans are the real American" tactic - I think they frankly deserve to be called on this.I guess that what I question is this:
Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.
So I really don't know. On the one hand, a huge portion of the conservative crowd does deserve to fall under this Rush Limbaugh umbrella, but I hope it's not at the expense of alienating the ones who don't.
Strangelet
03-09-2009, 11:22 AM
I guess that what I question is this:
Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.
My perspective is that it isn't the "grass roots" (mob, more like it)/ rush side of things that are marginalized, its the conservative intellectuals that are marginalized. And that's why there is no check on Rush. But then I can't possibly see any difference between rush and hannity and coulter, outside of their different levels of success. Which, again, is why I'm arguing that rush is main stream and thus deserves to be head of the republicans out of power as well as volume.
That's why as much as I cna't stand people like david frum, his is a conservative intellectual and it is telling that he's constantly being attacked by right wing radio, also left the national review, the bastion of seasoned, british classical conservative intellectualism that really is no different now from hannity and colmes in agenda. But he's innefectual because he's sullied by the bad decisions that faltered conservative intellectual work. Sad but true. Its only people with clean hands like gov. of utah. john huntsman. who will be able to believably rebuild an effective conservative mind trust.
and john. I thought you were taking off for a bit. or was that just to trick the mods so you can continue spamming?
My perspective is that it isn't the "grass roots" (mob, more like it)/ rush side of things that are marginalized, its the conservative intellectuals that are marginalized.I say they're marginalized because of the broad shift we saw in the Presidential election that was a direct slap at the more radical, Limbaugh-type conservatives, with even some traditionally red states turning blue. But in another sense, as you say, it's absolutely fair to say that it seems the conservative intellectuals are being marginalized as well.
And that's why there is no check on Rush. But then I can't possibly see any difference between rush and hannity and coulter, outside of their different levels of success. Which, again, is why I'm arguing that rush is main stream and thus deserves to be head of the republicans out of power as well as volume. True dat.
That's why as much as I cna't stand people like david frum, his is a conservative intellectual and it is telling that he's constantly being attacked by right wing radio, also left the national review, the bastion of seasoned, british classical conservative intellectualism that really is no different now from hannity and colmes in agenda. But he's innefectual because he's sullied by the bad decisions that faltered conservative intellectual work. Sad but true. Its only people with clean hands like gov. of utah. john huntsman. who will be able to believably rebuild an effective conservative mind trust. I really am fearful of which branch of the conservative world will win out in the coming years. Will it be the John Huntsmans, or the Sarah Palins?
and john. I thought you were taking off for a bit. or was that just to trick the mods so you can continue spamming?
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-09-2009, 11:33 AM
No, it was a trick on you two.
Strangelet
03-09-2009, 10:06 PM
let me post some stuff from conservative websites and see if we can paint a picture where all this is heading.
Chuck Norris discussed the issue on Beck's TV program last week.
"It's interesting because I read about John Adams, you know, who said that our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people," Norris said. "It's wholly inadequate for the government of any other. Now, can you see this, Glenn? You see what's happening?"
"You are exactly right," Beck said. "When America listens to her gut and stops listening to all the experts, we're going to be fine."
One is Harry Riley, a veteran military officer who spent part of his career in the Pentagon. Riley said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow "the trashing" of their Constitution.
"Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution. The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis, in my judgment. How can an individual become the commander-in-chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?" he asked.
"The whole idea is that America cannot allow an individual to serve as president who isn't qualified. It destroys our Constitution. It's the bedrock of our nation," he said.
"In the worst case, in the long run, if he continues [to fight revealing his documentation,] it's going to be revolution in the streets," he warned.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.
Recently President Obama’s picture was removed (http://www.gazette.com/articles/petition_48700___article.html/picture_presidents.html)from a base commissary in Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, prompting a challenge by employees as it was allegedly removed after one customer complained noting Obama’s race.
While this may not be a trend, it is noteworthy that the hostility is so openly practiced by those sworn to uphold the Constitution. As President, Ronald Reagan started the practice of treating the military as an adjunct to the Republican Party. Senator Jesse Helms warned President Clinton that if he visited a military base in North Carolina he may be shot and President George W. Bush routinely used members of the military as props during public relations tours.
The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse (http://www.examiner.com/x-2071-DC-Special-Interests-Examiner%7Ey2009m2d25-Is-the-Republican-Party-fomenting-rebellion-among-the-armed-forces-as-a-political-tactic) the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state," he continued. "From the East Coast to the 'Left Coast,' America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government
He pointed to issues that in other times would have shocked: "George Washington (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91250#)advised, 'The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible.' Yet the Obama just pledged $900 million … to Hamas-controlled Gaza."
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Strangelet
03-16-2009, 08:39 PM
If the conclusion is not a violent right wing militia movement, it might be a blubbering mormon manchild?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ukdf4oSg4&eurl=http://newmajority.com/WatchNow_View.aspx?ID=56131ed9-1b9a-47b8-8808-9572a7672467
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ukdf4oSg4&eurl=http://newmajority.com/WatchNow_View.aspx?ID=56131ed9-1b9a-47b8-8808-9572a7672467)
what.
the.
fuck.
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
03-16-2009, 09:19 PM
If the conclusion is not a violent right wing militia movement, it might be a blubbering mormon manchild?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ukdf4oSg4&eurl=http://newmajority.com/WatchNow_View.aspx?ID=56131ed9-1b9a-47b8-8808-9572a7672467
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ukdf4oSg4&eurl=http://newmajority.com/WatchNow_View.aspx?ID=56131ed9-1b9a-47b8-8808-9572a7672467)
what.
the.
fuck.
Hey LOOK! I got my name back. It's still the turned inside out, but like you Dr. Stranglet, WTF. Consider yourself high and mighty as you get to spell it out.
In regards to your post: I thought you were one of them?
//\/\/
03-17-2009, 02:25 AM
If the conclusion is not a violent right wing militia movement, it might be a blubbering mormon manchild?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ukdf4oSg4&eurl=http://newmajority.com/WatchNow_View.aspx?ID=56131ed9-1b9a-47b8-8808-9572a7672467
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ukdf4oSg4&eurl=http://newmajority.com/WatchNow_View.aspx?ID=56131ed9-1b9a-47b8-8808-9572a7672467)
what.
the.
fuck.
(he's a fucking piss-poor actor)
i just checked out his website http://the912project.com/ - particularly good is the 'clever' pro-gun texas video clip - as good an advert against conceal carry as i can think of...
what.
the.
fuck.Pretty much sums it up. :eek:
BeautifulBurnout
03-17-2009, 01:19 PM
He really doesn't have all his dogs on one lead, does he? :eek::eek:
//\/\/
03-17-2009, 03:59 PM
even if that was in a send-up film, it'd be too unbelievable to be believable...
...sorry, i just, i just can't write any more.... it's GOD it's just TOO DAMNED IMPORTANT TO ME!!!!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.