Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort being guided in part from the White House. The seeds were planted in October after a Democratic pollster found that many Americans just don't like him. "His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent," Carville recalled with amazement -- lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and domestic terrorist William Ayers.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

angrydad

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

The Democrats should be focusing on the economy and not Rush. They're going to overplay their hand as they get drunk with power.

"They're going to overplay their hand as they get drunk with power...."

Words Rush has put into actual practice for half-a generation now.

I could care less about Rush.

It's pretty damn sad to watch the childish behaviour from both sides in Washington these days. I hope future generations remember what happened and are smart enough to correct it.


Operation Dumbo, more like.

i swear to pete - i don't know a republican who listens to him - i do, however, know many democrats in my family who listen to him and wish everything from herpes to death on him. poor guy. you'll never hear him on any of my stereos - not as long as there's a southern gospel station within range!

It's just the Dems way of helping the members of a shattered GOP as they figure out who they are and what face it is they'll present to America.
:>)

Oh, and solidfying the Dem base and drawing in more Independents.

Judging by the degree to which GOPiggy loyalists object, it must be working.

i swear to pete - i don't know a republican who listens to him

Posted by nanc

The Republicans who "don't listen to Rush" are the same ones who "didn't vote for George W. Bush".

-drawing in more Independents

Ding! We have a winner!

Indies don't like Dittoheads, and Indies decide elections.

Next.

Rush says: "The administration is enabling me...They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence"


Carville says: "It's great for us, great for him, great for the press"


We are being fooled. Guess what we are not talking about right now because of this:


1. Iraq
2. Afghanistan
3. The Stimulus Bill
4. The Economy


We are all day suckers and we are open all day.

Quotes from the article.


*Reposted from other Rush thread.

Rush is to B.O. what the fiddle was to Nero.

Oh, and solidfying the Dem base and drawing in more Independents.

----

Not drawing this Independent in...turning me off and making me realize the problem is this country is both the parties.

They don't give a rip about Americans. All they care about is making their party look good and the other party look bad.

* the problem with this country is both parties suck rocks

Well, it's up to you, then, isn't it? You can: (a) opt to vote for someone who hasn't got a chance but with whom you are in the greatest agreement; (b) decide to vote for a candidate who represents ideas with which you may not totally agree but which you find least offensive, harmful, etc; or (c) conclude that participation at this point isn't for you.

I think Americans can think about serious issues and laugh at the Republican cowards who kiss Rush's big fat ass at the same time. Michael Steele embarrassed himself and his party in a very big way and you betcha...us Dems are laughing at him and the Republican party big time. It's hilarious.

Michael Steele basically admitted yesterday that Rush runs the party and not him. I oppose the Fairness Doctrine, but yesterday provided pretty good evidence that one may be needed if played right by the supporters of it.


Actually, I like it that the Dems are responding to the "socialism", "failure" meme. It's good strategerizing.

A Kerry or a Gore would have ignored this, trying to keep hold of an imaginary political high ground.

Rush slapped Obama and Obama kicked him in the nuts.

Rush gets to be even more popular with his Dittoheads, and Obama gets to look formidable, which he needs to give his policies time to work.

"All they care about is making their party look good and the other party look bad."

The problem is that too many Americans are like Pirate....always complaining about what "they" do.
If you don't like what the parties do then quit whining and get invoved in a party. Fact is parties have, do, will always be the major players in American politics. The answer isn't to whine about the party system, it is to get involved in a party of your choice, help form its agenda, get it enacted into law. Personally, I like the Democratic Party, what it stands for and what it is trying to do. Does that mean I like every Democrat or that I approve of every single thing they do??? Of course not but I realize that to make change we need a majority consensus and and agenda which is a compromise of many points. If you don't like that then you really just don't like democracy. That's how it works. That's reality.

Well, it's up to you, then, isn't it? You can: (a) opt to vote for someone who hasn't got a chance but with whom you are in the greatest agreement; (b) decide to vote for a candidate who represents ideas with which you may not totally agree but which you find least offensive, harmful, etc; or (c) conclude that participation at this point isn't for you.

----

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy to a degree. People think only a R or D will win so they'll vote for a R or D. Add whomever has the money wins and you have recipe for crap, which is what we get.

The parties are leading the people and it should be the people leading the parties.

always complaining about what "they" do

----

yea, you never complain about what "they" the republicans do.

I'm surprised you could type with that redwood in your eye.

Pirate,
The "They" she is speaking about is political parties and not one specific party. She is saying people like me should devote our energies to either fixing one party or starting our own rather than condemning all parties.

She is saying people like me should devote our energies to either fixing one party or starting our own rather than condemning all parties

----

I complain about the political parties because they do the same thing. The 2 major parties are like a bitter divorced couple and the American people are the kids caught in the middle.

I complain about the political parties because they do the same thing. The 2 major parties are like a bitter divorced couple and the American people are the kids caught in the middle.

#23 | Posted by Pirate

Excellent analogy.

She is saying people like me should devote our energies to either fixing one party or starting our own rather than condemning all parties.
#22 | Posted by kanrei

I don't know... in the first place, I criticize, I don't condemn. And my criticism is in an effort to improve the democratic party specifically, but both parties in general. My sticking point with Danni is that she considers a third party vote a waste, while I consider it active inducement to change. You don't rock the boat while you're sitting in it and you certainly don't reinforce it while its sailing. The most you can do is stick your finger in the holes in the hull and/or bail water.

I complain about the political parties because they do the same thing. The 2 major parties are like a bitter divorced couple and the American people are the kids caught in the middle.
#23 | Posted by Pirate

Hey ma and pa...what the hell is wrong with y'all ...

Hey ma and pa
Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Ma and Pa went to the Circus.
An Elephant kicked Pa in the chin.
Ma and Pa got even with the Circus,
They bought 2 tickets but wouldn't go in.

I'm pissed off at the whole Burris deal.

Quinn is now saying let's move on after calling for his resignation. Durbin said race helped Burris get the seat.

My sticking point with Danni is that she considers a third party vote a waste, while I consider it active inducement to change.


That's exactly right, Hag.

Let's look to history....

From the beginning of the 19th Century to the Depression, the Socialist party garnered more and more votes. Some historians argue that this trend was a contributing factor regarding FDR's massive expansion of government - he recognized a trend, read the mood of the people and "sort of" tried to play the middle by offering up a watered-down version of the Socialist platform.

Given what the GOP has become, I am thinking that it may take growing swells in the Libertarian party before the GOP is able to right-the-ship.

"Let's look to history....

"From the beginning of the 19th Century to the Depression, the Socialist party garnered more and more votes. Some historians argue that this trend was a contributing factor regarding FDR's massive expansion of government - he recognized a trend, read the mood of the people and "sort of" tried to play the middle by offering up a watered-down version of the Socialist platform."

A more accurate picture would be that FDR knew that he had to do something to prevent America from embracing what he thought would be something worse.

See: Huey Long and "Share Our Wealth"

Hans

A more accurate picture would be that FDR knew that he had to do something to prevent America from embracing what he thought would be something worse.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

I could care less about Rush...#3

Meaning that it would be possible to care less about Rush but it's difficult to see how? Seems easier to say that you couldn't care less about Rush meaning that you don't care about him at all.

Regardless of all that why does anyone at all care about a grossly overweight, drug dependent, obnoxious windbag validated only because radio stations can make money off him. Anybody that size, whether they actually weigh 400 pounds or not, obviously has difficulty controlling what goes into their mouth which makes it even more puzzling why anybody at all should care about what comes out of it.

They're going to overplay their hand as they get drunk with power.

#1 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-03-04 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


this was a statment made by someone on fox even before the inaguration..bernie goldberg maybe
and they are sure doing that arent they?

and stewart got into the act of course but at least he was funny

lettermen the other night with kaite was just mean and very UNFUNNY.....

come on dave...dont turn into a george carlin where you become just a mean old man

come on dave...dont turn into a george carlin where you become just a mean old man
#33 | Posted by afkabl2

that's funny coming from a... wait for it... mean old man. ;)

j/k, ya coot!

I agree with third party voting and fight with Danni often about the value of parties, but my post was pointing out to Pirate that the "they" she spoke of was not Republicans, but the anti-Party people.

A more accurate picture would be that FDR knew that he had to do something to prevent America from embracing what he thought would be something worse.

Yup. You only need look at what happened in Europe to see what FDR was avoiding.

The Rushpublicans, on the other hand, seem to be heading (rushing?) to their extreme on the ideology spectrum, blindly ignoring where America is at.

The CPACcers showed this when they refused to acknowledge Bush or Cheney (now they were actually socialists) or McCain.

The irony of the whole Rush thing is that the Dems are using, effectively, the same technique the GOppers tried against Obama with Ayers and Wright.

Voters may love or hate you, but when they laugh at you, you're toast. When Joe Scarborough makes fun of Steele, you know its time Mikey went back to cutting checks for non-existent companies.

lettermen the other night with kaite was just mean and very UNFUNNY.....

"wah, wahh, wahh. I like rush's manboobs."

Suck it up aflac. I occasionally snicker when Leno does a Clinton sex joke.

From the article:

"Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman..."

That says it all.

Does that mean I like every Democrat or that I approve of every single thing they do??? Of course not...

#19 | Posted by danni at 2009-03-04 11:03 AM

Whether you approve in secret or not, you certainly will DEFEND every single thing they do till your last breath.

The "They" she is speaking about is political parties and not one specific party. She is saying people like me should devote our energies to either fixing one party or starting our own rather than condemning all parties.

In actuality, if you've ever paid attention to Danni when she goes on one of her anti-libertarian rants, she doesn't want you to form a party and help form its agenda. She thinks people who challenge the status quo are ignorant and are part of the problem.

She wants you to be a democrat, and if you're not a democrat, you're a republican. And if you're a republican, you should shut the fuck up.

My point exactly, Axiom.

That is the very definition of a "political hack".

MOOMANFL

I just dropped you an email ...

Rush slapped Obama and Obama kicked him in the nuts.

And Rush likes it!

The Dems knew Rush's ego was so huge that he would ride the GOP into the dirt for a even a perception that he had any power over what happens in Washington.

It worked like a charm and won't quit working until Rush gets enough.

Which, given his history and current girth, is likely to be never.

It really IS fairly preposterous when the nation's No. 2 political party is embodied in Rush, Coulter, Malkin, Jindal, Palin. Newt WHO? But face it, that's the best they have if you don't count. Johnson, Nancy and "101" herm

Rush would debate obama, but obama is to much of a pussy to do that. McCain PROVED that....

You put the Heffalump trap right where the Heffalump is!

Winnie the Pooh

McCain PROVED that....

Which is why O mopped the floor with PW Songbird at the debates.

Rush would debate obama

After Letterman had Fat Fuckbaugh sweating like a piece of rancid pork, Tubby will never leave again leave the friendly confines of Dittoland.

Just Keep feeding Limbaugh rope, his hubris will be the end of him yet.

Rush's "Trophy Wall of Shame"

Rush would debate obama, but obama is to much of a pussy to do that. McCain PROVED that....

#45 | Posted by DavetheWave
_________________________

You jest. Rush can only yell and overtalk people. He is totally incapable of debate. He has no clue as to the meaning of the word. Wnat proof -- listne to his radio show and to anypne who questions or challenges his "bull crap".

After Letterman had Fat Fuckbaugh sweating like a piece of rancid pork

Seems that some people only see what they want to see.

Tubby will never leave again leave the friendly confines of Dittoland.

Well it isn't like it was Obama challenging Rush to a debate... so it seems you are again seeing what you want to see. Reality need not apply.



You clowns kick and scream what Obama wont debate Rush (as if that is somehow even remotely presidential) after whining on and on for weeks about him not wearing a jacket in his own office.

Which is it going to be?



Correction:
"kick and scream THAT Obama"

Why should Obama Debate Rush Limbaugh?? Unless Rush runs for President in 2012

Have Rush run for President in 2012, and the debate will happen.

"Why should Obama Debate Rush Limbaugh??"

I was wondering the same thing.

"The Democrats should be focusing on the economy and not Rush."

Agreed.

Hey Lisa hows it going?? LTNS. Hope all is well with You. Nice to see You again.

Larry

Hi Larry!

I'm laid up for a bit, otherwise too busy to be here.

It's nice to see you again as well.

Have Rush run for President in 2012, and the debate will happen

Why the hell would anyone want Rush to run for president?

Hey, Lisa -- good to see you again!

Good to see you too, Goatman.

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort being guided in part from the White House.

How very, very sad that this administration is already failing so badly that they can't stand on their merits. They have to launch a full scale campaign on trashing the republicans in order to make themselves look better. If they were doing a good job, this would not be necessary.

The age old trick, "If I can't make myself look good, I'll make my enemy look bad."

If this isn't an admission of failure by the democrats, I don't know what is.

Yeah--let's talk about Rushbo--

Anything to deflect from the economy.

Bloat Limbaugh! Finally made it big.

All this brouhaha just increases his listeners.

When you have the POTUS calling you out--then Operation Rushbo--hehehe--Rush makes the gains--not the Dems.

Anything to deflect from the economy.

A year ago, folks like you were talking about how great the economy was and that the fundamentals of our economy are "sound".

Now, you're worried about the economy. When was it that you started worrying?

November 3?

Or

November 5?

"Anything to deflect from the economy.

#63 | Posted by MURPHY "

Deflect from the economy? Who in the hell wants to deflect from the Bush economy, Goofy?

"Rush makes the gains--not the Dems."

Oops:

The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Stanley Greenberg, included Limbaugh's name in a survey and found that many Americans just don't like him.

"His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent," Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.

Hans

"If this isn't an admission of failure by the democrats, I don't know what is.

#62 | Posted by non-partisan goatman at 2009-03-04 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag: "


There goes Goatman, shilling for the retardicans...again.

You can almost bet while you liberals were focused on Rush your side was seeing how much pork they can stuff into the budget. They should at least thank you guys for the assist.

Lonnie

Axiom--I have been posting constantly about the over spending by the repubs when they were in charge. I can't count how many friggin emails I sent to folks including Bush.


Then we have someone or some cabal of people who sold off 550 billion dollars in money market accounts on Sept 18, 2008 and crushed our economy. It was done with corrdination and with malice.

No one is reporting who did that.

The first TARP was bullshit under Bush and everything under Obama is bullshit.

And Mccain was stupid to say the fundamentals were sound or whatever he said--

And folks here are ok with the program because Obama is doing it and not Bush.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!! The only difference is that Obama has tax cheats running his administration and Bush had cronyism.

NO DIFFERENCE!!!!

There goes Goatman, shilling for the retardicans...again.

And if I say I like BMWs, I am shilling for the Germans. If I say I like like Szechuan chicken, I am shilling for the chinese. If I say I like to make car trips, I am shilling for big oil.

Whatever you say, nullbrain. As long as you get to post your 'flag:non-partisian' and get to play with the ensuing chubby you get from it, it's fine with me.

"THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!"

I can't wait for the Supreme Court nominations.

Hans

Look at Obama's cabinet and you know he'll nominate a person who supports killing the unborn, gay marriage and practices judicial activism.

Look at Dubya's cabinet and you know he'll nominate a person who supports killing married gays,thinks evolution is junk science and practices judicial activism

FTFY

Take a gander--


Mary L. Schapiro Madoff/son involvement
Bill Richardsonunder investigation and withdrew
Tom Daschletax cheat --withdrew
Eric Holderpardon the punpardon Clinton's quid pro quo Marc Rich, along with 2 Weather Underground convicts and 16 FALN terrorists for Hillary votes in NY.
Carol Brownerwrote the book on how to outsource the country's jobs
Leon Panettaearned 700k from troubled banks for speaking
Tim Geithnertax cheathired!
Greg CraigWH counsel who was Clinton impeachment attorney
Sanjaya GuptaI am not a real Surgeon General, I only play one on TV
William LyonRaytheon lobbyist now Deputy Defense Secretarywaiver for ethics violation
Simsanother ethics waived lobbyist
Killifer Tax cheatwithdrew
Charles Freemanhead of NIChates Israel. Blames America for 9/11, believes China did not do enough to quash the protestors in Tiananmen Square
Kathleen SebeliusHHS and pro abortion and gets money from Tiller the baby killer
Judd Gregg(R) withdrew based on honesty
Rahm EmanuelTax Cheat with kickbacks
Hilda Solis Labor Secyfailed to pay taxes
Ogden for Deputy AGACLU hatchet man, defends porn and hates filters for libraries
Julius Genachowskipicked to head FCCcronyism donor
online.wsj.com
Ron Kirk Tax cheat
www.dallasnews.com

And who supports killing married gays Rein?

Putz.

"Look at Obama's cabinet and you know he'll nominate a person who supports killing the unborn, gay marriage and practices judicial activism."

Wow! What if that comes out before November, 2008?

That just might be the key to President McCain's election.

Hans

Its a very sad day when the US govt decides that it is okay to openly attack a private citizen. I don't care much for Rush, but my Govt going after someone who does not hold office is BULLSH*T. So if Obama doesn't like my blog or comments is he going to try to silence me? Is the govt going to ship me away to a FEMA camp and tell my family I died in a car crash? Govt is overstepping its power. Obama is taking us down a road that cannot have a good ending.

"Take a gander--"

Well, that's it!

So much for Obama's election possibilities.

Hans

"Its a very sad day when the US govt decides that it is okay to openly attack a private citizen."

You're either with us or against us.

Hans

Just admit it Hans you don't care.

Pathetic.

"Just admit it Hans you don't care."

Murphy, I have been here since June, 2005, and until this president was elected I never saw you so concerned about the Executive branch.

Pathetic.

Hans

Rush Limbaugh is FAR from being a Private Citizen. Please do try again

Larry

Judd Gregg(R) withdrew based on honesty

Just struck me as funny, that's all.

Murphy, honey, haven't you heard about Gregg's awkward little situations?

Rush Limbaugh is FAR from being a Private Citizen.

These are the first three definintions that come up when you google 'private citizen'. Maybe you can tell us which public office Rush is holding, Larry.

Please do try again.

A person who is not holding public office. Voters are private citizens. Someone like the governor of California is not a private citizen. The baker at the supermarket is a private citizen

answers.yahoo.com

A private citizen is one who does not possess or exercise any authority or power of court, government, law enforcement, or military.

wiki.answers.com

private citizen - a citizen who does not hold any official or public position
citizen - a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community

www.thefreedictionary.com

Rush is not a private citizen--quite the opposite.

Hans you missed many posts when you went on sabbatical.

I complained plenty about Bush.

Go google "email" in the Drudge archive and see what you find.

GOATMAN

You have a "Political Officer" like the Soviets did aboard their ships monitoring your posts? From the tone of every post it seems that way. LOL

Rush is not a private citizen--quite the opposite.

According to lexicographers, he is. My post #86 came from the first three definitions when you google private citizen. I looked at three more since then and they say the same.

Hey Dumbshit Goatman please do try again for You know not what You speaqk about like usual.

en.wikipedia.org

[edit] U.S. law
The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:

a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.


Rush is not a private citizen--quite the opposite.

#87 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-03-04 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Murphy }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Big ole smoochy right on the kisser for You.

Larry

Hey Dumbshit Goatman please do try again for You know not what You speaqk about like usual.

And as usual, Larry moves the goalposts in order to 'prove' he is right. First, Larry, you said that Rush is not a private citizen. I gave three links that proved he is. So what do you do? You do what Larry does best. YOu move the goal posts and post a linjk to public figure

I never said he wasn't a public figure, did I, Larry?

So let's stick with the original statement and not move goal posts, OK? You said Rush is not a private citizen. Please provide a link that defines private citizen in a manner that describes Rush.

NO MOVING GOAL POSTS!

There is NO Moving the Goal Post You dumb fuck. A Private Citizen would not have His own rqadio Show that has Millions of Listners. No That is far from a Private Citizen Goatman You know it I know it so why even try to declare Him a Privatye Citizen. Damn dude Intellectual Honesty ain't one of Your strong suits now is it.

Larry

Fucking useless trools.

There is NO Moving the Goal Post You dumb fuck.

???

Rush Limbaugh is FAR from being a Private Citizen.. Please do try again

Larry

#84 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-03-04 10:41 PM |

a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.

#92 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-03-04 11:07 PM |


HMMM. I don't see the words "public figure" in post #84 or the words "private citizen" in post #92. LOoks like moving the goal posts to me. LOL

In fact, neither the words "private" nor "citizen" are even contained in the phrase "public figure"

Please do try again, Larry

You know it I know it so why even try to declare Him a Privatye Citizen.

I gave you three definitions that said a private citizen is a non-elected official basically. If you can provide three that say a private citizen does not have to be elected, it would be a tie, but I'll concede and say you won.

Your links, please?

Just for the hell of it:

The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:

* a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
* a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.

en.wikipedia.org

Goatman-
Why do you do that?

The biggest problem with the GOP is its lack of credibility.
Now, to prove to the world it has no credibility at all, the GOP has concluded:

1. It needs to recollect its self
2. It needs to study conservative polls
3. It needs to remarket it's self in the image of a conservative party

That means:

1. What it is now is what it is at heart
2. What it wants to be is whatever the GOP thinks will fool conservatives again into believing it is instead

How does that represent credibility?
Wouldn't it be better to have a political party that is in its heart what the GOP wants to fool you into believing it is on the surface?
2010 is the time for a total abandonment of the GOP and hand monopoly power to the Democrats for the final years of our republic.
It would only take a few short years to pile up full blame for the collapse of the USA at the feet of the only party left standing.
Then, from the ashes of catastrophe, 2 or 3 Phoenix Parties emerge.

Let me be clear that I am not kidding about this.
It is a statistical certainty that the US will collapse in the near future and neither the GOP or the DNC are equipped to prevent it.
As the point of collapse, the party in power will be blamed 100% and the extinct party will be vilified for not stopping the monopoly party.

This is what is called "Big Picture Thinking" and trying to see the silver lining on every cloud.

Why do you do that?

Do what?

This planet does not revolve around Rush Limbaugh.

Though God knows he's big enough.

Who the hell cares about Rush, just an entertainer that seems to get rational people riled and righties shaking head with agreement.

I missed the silver lining part. Was that the part about the US collapsing? I don't guess I follow you.

....oh, I see, the silver lining is the roving bands of bandits who think like you do (phoenix parties)...

I still don't get it - the silver lining bit.

Goatman-
You knew precisely what Larry meant, and yet you did the whole semantic dance for hours. Is there nothing on TV tonight?

Mary-
I wonder if a wobble in Earth's orbit could be detected by alien civilizations searching for intelligent life. They could then scratch us off the list and keep searching.

You knew precisely what Larry meant,

Of course I knew what he meant. But he was correcting townl7 in post #79 who did use 'private citizen' in the correct context.

So I guess you are saying that it is OK for Larry to 'corrcect' someone erroneously, but it's not OK for me to correct Larry? Is that your premise, boyd?

If someone has already posted this article by Bush's speechwriter David Frum, my apologies.

Frum nails it:

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.

But read the whole thing:

newmajority.com

Goatman-
You knew what Larry meant. You know Larry. You were just being a pissant about it.

Holy Fucking Shit!

Obama and company are on a fucking freight train headed towards socialism!

And WE can't even stop them. Anytime a republican mentions anything negative towards the Boy King, CNN, NBC and PMSNBC have a fucking cow!

I am ready to lead the revolt to succeed from the union.

Let's start in Texas and go from there.

Hey Goatman:

Usually you entertain me and have logical points but that one's pretty lame. You argued pointless semantics. Private citizens who are public figures very much ARE legally and morally targets for the treatment Rush is getting.

"I am ready to lead the revolt to succeed from the union."

A bus leaves every hour, Beachbuzz.

"I am ready to lead the revolt to succeed from the union."

Better than leading the revolt to fail.

Or did you mean...secede...?

Private citizens who are public figures very much ARE legally and morally targets for the treatment Rush is getting.

You are right and I don't argue that point. I never did. BUt the fact remains that a private citizen is non-elected official. That was my original argument.

A bus leaves every hour, Beachbuzz.

#113 | Posted by BetelG at 2009


So you agree with your socialist President
ehh Boyd?

Governmet checks for all. Government cheese for all too?

Can we all agree that Goatman's anal retentive, irrelevant hair-splitting hissy-fit point is correct and move on?

Dumbass goatman again picking a word and trying to dismiss the validity of the argument by trying to change the form of the word outside the sentence structure it was intended.

WOB!

Can we all agree that Goatman's anal retentive, irrelevant hair-splitting hissy-fit point is correct and move on?

No, he is not correct, but yes, lets move on.

I merely agree that you should secede from the union if that's what you want to do. As I said, a bus leaves every hour.

soheifox, to clarify my 115 on your 112: I agree that any public figure, be they a private citizen or not is open to public criticism. But I don't think the government should be engaging in that public criticism unless it is criminal. In fact I can't recall ever a major elected public figure (podunk mayors and school board members don't count) engaging in the attack of a private law-abiding citizen.

Gopatman-
re: "the attack of a private law-abiding citizen."

What? Please give an example.

Dumbass goatman again picking a word and trying to dismiss the validity of the argument by trying to change the form of the word outside the sentence structure it was intended.

So let me get this straight, runnysore: It was OK for Larry to tell Townl in his #84 that he was wrong in that use of the word (I presume you think so since you didn't admonish him), but it is NOT OK for me to correct Larry?

Got it. Different rules for different people. What else would anyone expect from you, runnysore?

What? Please give an example.

ummm, that's what this thread is about, boyd.

soheifox, to clarify my 115 on your 112: I agree that any public figure, be they a private citizen or not is open to public criticism. But I don't think the government should be engaging in that public criticism unless it is criminal. In fact I can't recall ever a major elected public figure (podunk mayors and school board members don't count) engaging in the attack of a private law-abiding citizen.

#121 | Posted by goatman at 2009-03-05 12:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'll accede that point. The President really shouldn't be picking stupid fights like this, or even MENTIONING figures like Limbaugh. It's beneath the integrity of the office. If ANYONE had reason to slam Limbaugh, it was Clinton. And he did not lower himself to even admit Limbaugh existed.

It's like a lot of southern mammas told their kids, "If someone says something rude, then behave as if they didn;t say anything at all."

I don't see an "attack". I would like to see an example of an "attack". I see a response, but not an "attack".

Has "Rush" claimed that the harmless little fuzzball has been attacked?

Last I heard Rush, he was welcoming his new listeners and talking about his "army", in between calls from GOPers apologizing for strange words coming out of their mouths that they didn't mean...

I don't see an "attack". I would like to see an example of an "attack". I see a response, but not an "attack".

#126 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-03-05 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag

Of course not, because you're a barely sentient partisan hack.

Oooh look, this time I attacked you pointlessly before you could do it to me! Yay! I got off a personal attack before BetelG could. Be sure to imply I'm racist for my next statement, you tool.

Fact is Obama lowered the office by even mentioning him. I realize you believe that He can do no wrong, but the fact is thanks to His actions, the Democrats are now rolling around in slop.

"Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you, irritates the pig, and covers both of you in slop."

Dumbass goatman again picking a word and trying to dismiss the validity of the argument by trying to change the form of the word outside the sentence structure it was intended.

Kind of like what you were doing with the word 'manufacturing' on another thread tonight? Have you ever heard this saying about glass houses and stones and the people who live in them?

Sohei-
The Democrats are pretty much just spectators in all this at this point.

Has "Rush" claimed that the harmless little fuzzball has been attacked?

Usually I can figure out these childish and bizarre iterations of 'republican' and most people's names, but you've stumped me with 'fuzzball'.

Sohei-
The Democrats are pretty much just spectators in all this at this point.

#131 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-03-05 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

...what? Did you even read the article? Have you read a newspaper? Even for you, that statement is a new, amazing level of partisan hackery.

Oh I suppose Carville and Begala and good ol Emanuel aren't Democrats, then?

Usually I can figure out these childish and bizarre iterations of 'republican' and most people's names, but you've stumped me with 'fuzzball'.

#132 | Posted by goatman at 2009-03-05 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rush calls himself a harmless lovable fuzzball.

You'd know that if you listened to his show.

The Democrats are pretty much just spectators in all this at this point.

The Democrats don't think so.

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh...

Goatman-
If you haven't read this, check it out:

newmajority.com

I'd like to hear your comments on it. Seriously. In either case, I thought it was interesting as a glimpse of a certain part of the Republican Party (Frum's neighborhood).

#134 Thanks, soheifox.

Goatman and Sohei-
No. no. no. What I'm saying is that this is in the hands of Republicans. It's a loud and embarrassing conversation that has "end of Republican Party" all over it, but it wasn't created by Democrats, you fuckin' morons. Democrats appreciate it, and appreciate it well, but a few words here and there is all they have done to help it along.

Goatman and Sohei-
No. no. no. What I'm saying is that this is in the hands of Republicans. It's a loud and embarrassing conversation that has "end of Republican Party" all over it, but it wasn't created by Democrats, you fuckin' morons. Democrats appreciate it, and appreciate it well, but a few words here and there is all they have done to help it along.

#138 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-03-05 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh so... the.. Democrats.. DIDN'T create this... when Obama showed public distaste? The magical fairies did it? Maybe it was the Trilateral Commission that started this?


I merely agree that you should secede from the union if that's what you want to do. As I said, a bus leaves every hour.

#120 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-03-05 12:07 AM


Join me brother....can you say the same?

Let's go for the gold!

Or is Betelg a pussy?


Jeff, get in here! Bring bOoB! I think we've found another thing the Jews or Bigfoot are responsible for!

Buzz-
I don't want to join you. I like it here.

Sohei and Goatman-
OK. Have it your way. Democrats are playing the Republicans like a fiddle using only Rush Limbaugh's enormous ego as a weapon. Their goal is to destroy the Republican Party.

Y'all are screwed.

Jeff aint going to save you!

SOHEIFOX - looks like a pussy too...

Obama not treating you right? Need some more cheese? Lube for yer crotch?

Bunch of damn pussies....

Y'all are screwed.

That's what I'm afraid of. But we can't un-elect him, so we'll just hope he shapes up better before 2012

The Democrats are pretty much just spectators in all this at this point.

#131 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-03-05 12:24 AM


but a few words here and there is all they have done to help it along.

#138 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-03-05 12:35 AM |

I wonder what the story will be in 30 more minutes?

Betelg - It's cool.....chow brother!



You'll note he didn't actually admit that the only reason this happened.. and it's not helping the Democrats, it's only childish and sad, is because Obama isn't as strong willed and clear thinking as Clinton.

Apparently it wasn't Obama's ego that started this, it was Limbaugh's.

Obama is a bold face liar Soheifox!

No more ear marks, remember that lie?

And what is the $787 billion erection bill full of? Fucking earmarks! At least 8,000 at last count.

How can you defend that?

How can you defend that?

#149 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-03-05 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

What the hell are you asking me for? I may not like Limbaugh or Republicans in general, but I don't like Obama either. Pay attention.

I think everything from the hideous way Hillary was treated to secure his nomination to this latest embarrassment have dragged the Democrat party through the mud and made them no different then the Republicans.

but I don't like Obama either. Pay attention.

Soheifox...Well then, we have common ground.

I underestmated your cause. My fault.

This White House fixation on Limbaugh is really weird. If it were Bush obsessed with some leftie, we would wonder if he was paranoid. Really--the guy sitting in the most powerful office in the world, putting a 24/7 watch on some radio host's microphone?

Weird. I guess it's okay, though. It's not like we have anything else to keep him busy.

If any staunch conservatives slip up and utter what could be construed as a negative comment about Rush, here's an easy form you can use to apologize to him:

ImSorryRush.com

Just admit it Hans you don't care.

Pathetic.

#82 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-03-04 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag:


Awwwwww.....your new found concern is so cute.

"This White House fixation on Limbaugh is really weird."

No, it's not. According to Politico's Jonathan Martin, it's something Democratic pollsters picked up in findings going back to last October. Limbaaaaw stepped right into it and so have the GOPiggies whose oinking protests can be heard from here to breakfast. The Party of No, the Party of Nothing, is becoming less a political party than a parody of a political party. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they've already arrived. Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe had it right a day or so ago when he wrote in a WP op-ed that we may yet see what it's like for a political party to hit rock bottom.

For the method behind what the GOPiggies whine is "madness"---we're just a millimeter away from cries of "poor Rush"--- see "Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh Plan" at www.politico.com

And here's another aspect of the story: Obama can change the subject any time he wants by stepping up to the presidential bully pulpit and shifting the focus, leaving Limbaaaw baaaawling to his faithful (who are never going to back Obama or his plans anyway). If the GOPiggies want to remain joined at the hip to Limbaaaw, they're going to pay a very heavy price for it. If some want to come to their senses, peel off from the obstructionists and work with Obama in a time of national emergency---I'm telling you, this is where the argument's going (and it's one the GOPiggies cannot win)---then so much the better.

The reason you hear the GOPiggies complain about this, or say it's "irrelevant" or whatever, is because the tactic is working.

I wonder why it is that of all the republicans I know, not a one of them think to much of Limbaugh. I wonder why the Democrats have fabricaed this thing. Was it to create a diversion from Obama's lackluste performance so far? Americns tire of scandals quickly. I wonder what the next deflection will be and if it will work as well? But sooner or later the democrats will learn they can't run interference forever for their god and someone is going to have to perform for the American public

As I said, the reason you hear the GOPiggies complain about this, or say it's "irrelevant" or whatever, is because the tactic is working.

I agree it is working.

What a shame working diversion tactics are needed. I would hope that the democrats would do a good enough job that diversion was not needed. People who do good jobs don't divert the attention away from themselves.

Maybe one day

People who plan on winning the next election do what they can to hobble the opposition. It's called "politics," and it is and ever has been part of human culture. If you want to affect the political situation you do what you can to increase the strength of those who seek what you seek---in this case, some major changes---and that can only be done by reducing the power/influence of those who stand in opposition.


i swear to pete - i don't know a republican who listens to him -

#6 | Posted by nanc

Sure you do, they are just too embarrassed to admit it.

ANGRYDAD "Operation Rushbo"

Sorry Libs, it isn't going to fly. Especially when someone like Carville (The man from MARS) comes up with another brainless idea.

FOR GOD SAKES GET A HAIR PIECE!

If it's not working, Oozie, why are the GOPiggies squealing so loud?

Especially when someone like Carville (The man from MARS) comes up with another brainless idea.

#162 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Oh, you mean the guy who masterminded the election of a President of the United States, defeating an incumbent President?

Yeah, brainless. Right Ooze.

SANOBAMA: "Oh, you mean the guy who masterminded the election of a president."

NO! I'm not talking about Karl Rowe.

"If it's not working, Oozie, why are the GOPiggies squealing so loud?"

I don't know about the "GOPiggies," but what bothers me is all the "brainpower" the DEMOdummies have assigned to trash Limbaugh when the economy is going down the tubes. Limbaugh doesn't write any bills, he doesn't vote in Congress, he doesn't sign anything into law etc. etc. These assholes in the administration need to focus on REAL problems and forget about what some entertainer says on the radio.
I have to laugh at the DEMOdummies that are so afraid of him. Hell, even the president of the United States gave Limbaugh legitimacy by bringing him up on national TV. Who's stupid here? Doesn't look like it's Limbaugh or the GOPiggies to me.

NO! I'm not talking about Karl Rowe.

#165 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Which incumbent President did Karl Rove's candidate unseat?

Dip.

I have to laugh at the DEMOdummies that are so afraid of him. Hell, even the president of the United States gave Limbaugh legitimacy by bringing him up on national TV. Who's stupid here? Doesn't look like it's Limbaugh or the GOPiggies to me.

#166 | Posted by jestgettinalong

It very nearly as funny as all the hand-wringing and validation-seeking little old ladies running back and forth to each other for reassurance that Obama and his minions are just big ol' meanies.

I think it was eight years of immoral democratic control of the white house. REMEMBER?

I'll bet the BANKING QUEEN remembers.

The people who should really be afraid of Limbaaaw are the Republicans. What they've allowed him to let themselves to to themselves has them bleeding from the eyes.

I think it was eight years of immoral democratic control of the white house. REMEMBER?

I'll bet the BANKING QUEEN remembers.

#169 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Which part of those years did you hate the most... the peace, or the prosperity? If you can remember back to your elementary school days.

"What they've allowed him to let themselves to to themselves has them bleeding from the eyes."

I'm not all that familiar with his talk show, but what I know is that he champions conservative values. IMHO, getting AWAY from true conservatism is what has hurt the Republican Party. I hear his show sometimes when I travel and generally listen for the parodies. He doesn't have to indoctrinate me with conservatism, I was converted after LBJ long ago. (I LOVED barney Frank's rendition of "Banking Queen.")

"I'm not all that familiar with his talk show, but what I know is that he champions conservative values."

Conservative values: The Republican unicorn.

You can define it, even draw pictures of it.

It's just that it doesn't exist, nor has it ever existed.

Hans

the white house has attacked santelli, cramer and rush. you crowned him the leader of the repub party he has drawn the line, debate him, gibbs, geithner and obama against rush. it will never happen and you look even more the fool now. should have listened to carville.

"debate him, gibbs, geithner and obama against rush. it will never happen and you look even more the fool now."

Of course that will never happen. Rush would end up like ground Kobe beef on a hot grill, oozing through the grates.

Ask yourself this fundamental question: In the 20+ years that Limbaugh has been an "entertainer," how many times has he appeared on a venue where he wasn't the only one there? Meet the Press, Face the Nation, Leno, Letterman, The Daily Show?

"should have listened to carville."

Oops (from the linked article):

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," Carville said Tuesday, a day when cable news played images of Limbaugh seemingly on a loop. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."
Hans

Hans,


the 20+ years that Limbaugh has been an "entertainer," how many times has he appeared on a venue where he wasn't the only one there?

That is an excellent question and is certainly an indictment of Limbaugh. The sad thing is I think he would easily out-perform Hannity, who is quite frequently sharing time.

"Conservative values: The Republican unicorn.


You can define it, even draw pictures of it."


That's the problem...neither party observes conservative values any more. Those values are...used to be, at least...low taxes, small government, self-reliance, personal responsibility, close knit family units, observing the Constitution (including states' rights, etc. etc.
A true conservative is disgusted with the nanny state we've become. Thanks LBJ and just about every president since.

Where are ya' when we need ya', Harry?

"What happened to Harry Truman after the
presidency--very interesting!

Harry Truman, from Missouri , was a different kind of Ppesident. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House. Historians have written that the only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in
Independence , Missouri . On top of that, his wife inherited the house from her Mother.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There were no Secret Service agents following them.

When offered corporate positions at large
salaries, he declined, stating, 'You don't
want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale.'

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was
preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, 'I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason
for any award, Congressional or otherwise.'

He never owned his own home and as president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth.

Today, many in Congress also have found a way to
become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices.

Political offices are now for sale.

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he
observed, 'My choices early in life were either to
be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference'

After Truman left office, he wrote Congress asking for a favor. There had been a sign on his desk, and he wrote to ask--despite the fact it was given to "The President", and not him--if he could have it. Congress allow it.

That's why the first thing visitors see when they go to the Truman Museum in Independence, MO, is a sign that says THE BUCK STOPS HERE.

"That's why the first thing visitors see when they go to the Truman Museum in Independence, MO, is a sign that says THE BUCK STOPS HERE."

I was too young to vote for him but I remember him and he is truly one of my heroes. I did vote for JFK and he is also one of my heroes, a different kind of democrat. I voted for LBJ in '64 and have never voted for a democrat for president since. His "Great Society" has been a curse.

As soon as Bush was elected, the Liberals went full steam insulting him. Now they are going full steam promoting Obama.

I am not surprised they are targetting Rush to enhance their collective need for approval and feeling of dominance.

Rush and the Dems are 'mining' each other.

"I am not surprised they are targetting Rush to enhance their collective need for approval and feeling of dominance."

I hope Obama isn't too stupid to realize that Limbaugh isn't the burr under his saddle. Rush can't hurt Obama in the least. To find the REAL burr under his saddle who CAN affect him, he needs to look West, to California, and to.....NANCY PELOSI.

more jobless people filing

banks getting billion dollar bail out

market CRASHING AROUND US

iran about to get bomb if not already

north korea making more noise

russia stretching its muscles more every day


and our hope and change president is right on top of it


eating HUNDRED DOLLAR STEAKS while grovin with stevie wonder and
GOING AFTER RUSH..


all right...now this guy is on the ball isnt he????

remember nixon's hit list?the press were wild with outrage and indignation and calling for impeachment,not a peep now.

remember nixon's hit list?

#183 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-03-05 12:36 PM

LOL, I watched the same show last night on CNN. I couldn't believe it when that random pundit made the comparison then, but its even funnier when some random simpleton echos the comment on this board. I can see you watching that and saying, "hmmm, thats a good point, lets compare Obama to Nixon for no apparent reason. It was funny then and even funnier now.

Advice: Start thinking for yourself and stop reaching for sound bits to make your failing theories more palatable.

"remember nixon's hit list"

No. Nixon had a "hit list"? You mean, a list of people he was going to have killed? Got any details? Because, if you do, you've got yourself quite a scoop.

Now, if you're talking about an "enemies' list," why, yes, I do remember that. And when it gets to the point where Obama's ordering illegal break-ins, illegal wiretapping, and harassing the opposition by having the IRS turn their lives inside out, do give the rest us a call, okay?

God, the sheer depth of historical ignorance is mind-numbing and brain-chilling.

remember nixon's hit list


I remember "I'm Not a Crook" at number 5, but what other hits did he have and how high did they climb up the charts.

Speaking of Nixon (while awaiting the revelation of details attending that schmuck's "hit list"): www.youtube.com

Has anyone else noticed that Rush is morphing into Fatty Arbuckle? Check out www.silent-movies.com/
arbucklemania/home.html
It's quite remarkable. Imagine the damage Fatty could have done if he had Viagra.

It really IS fairly preposterous when the nation's No. 2 political party is embodied in Rush, Coulter, Malkin, Jindal, Palin. Newt WHO? But face it, that's the best they have if you don't count. Johnson, Nancy and "101" herm

#44 | Posted by herm at 2009-03-04 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag


Herm you're right. You nailed 'em. They don't have Alan Colmes. Nor do they have Keith Olbermann or Bob Beckel or Whoopi Goldberg or the hilarious Joe Biden and Al Franken. Sigh...

Herm you're right. You nailed 'em. They don't have Alan Colmes. Nor do they have Keith Olbermann or Bob Beckel or Whoopi Goldberg or the hilarious Joe Biden and Al Franken. Sigh...

#189 | Posted by MrFair at 2009-03-05 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude. Alan Colmes is a Straw Golem created specifically by Fox to embarass Democrats.

Dude. Alan Colmes is a Straw Golem created specifically by Fox to embarass Democrats.

#190 | Posted by soheifox at 2009-03-05 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag


Wrong. Alan Colmes was a Lefty commentator with a face for radio. Which may explain why people put up with a lot of Hannity's BS. He is simply not as ugly as poor old Lizard Boy Alan.

it's funnie when a political party is defined by a radio personality
jasman

Wrong. Alan Colmes was a Lefty commentator with a face for radio. Which may explain why people put up with a lot of Hannity's BS. He is simply not as ugly as poor old Lizard Boy Alan.

#191 | Posted by MrFair at 2009-03-05 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

All hilarity aside, have you ever LISTENED to the guy? He's rude, illogical, and really makes Dems look stupid. I listened to his show for a while until i got sick of it. Talks over the guests, cuts their mics, bitches people out for asking how he is doing... he sucks.

The thing that really makes me stand in awe is how often he will interrupt a caller to tell them not to interrupt him. He has a nasty habit of making complete sentences, and then pausing for response; then claiming he wasn't finished yet.

Putting him on the air as representing the Left is like putting Takeitez on to represent Christianity. While technically they ARE what they represent, they're _really_ obstinate, illogical, and sure to send all sane persons running directly away form their viewpoint at top speed.

Alan Colmes may not KNOW he's a living Straw Man; but he definitely is one.

Alan Colmes may not KNOW he's a living Straw Man; but he definitely is one.

#193 | Posted by soheifox at 2009-03-05 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm very familiar with Alan "Close Encounters" Colmes. And you're right about all those things you said about him. This is why I sarcastically used his name in association with the Dems in response to Herm's list of Righty commentators.

Alan Colmes may not KNOW he's a living Straw Man; but he definitely is one.

There are two possible expalantions for Colmes appearing on FOX:

1: He's fucking stupid- unaware that he's being made into a caricature of a stereotypical liberal.

2: He's a fucking whore- knowing full well that his salary comes from his service as FOX news' ideological punching bag.

Neither speaks well for him.

He's a fucking whore-

We are all whores to some extent.

We are all whores to some extent.

#196 | Posted by goatman at 2009-03-06 05:18 AM | Reply | Flag:


Maybe Goat, but the oil rig gig doesn't scream "prostitution" to me.

Maybe Goat, but the oil rig gig doesn't scream "prostitution" to me.

I'm their whore for two weeks at a time. When I get here on Friday, I don't leave for two weeks. They've got me. I guess what I meant by being a whore is that I sell my body to them. I make my body do what they tell it to do -- which is to make electronic things work and the drill pipe go round and round.

Goat OK - I guess I'm one too then. Sigh. But at least I have a heart of gold.

But at least I have a heart of gold.

You're OK by me. But that could be the kiss of death on this blog! *grin*

Yeah don't jinx me! lol

remember nixon's hit list



I remember the outrage from dems and other libs

and isnt it ironic that they now excell at the VERY SAME FUCKIN THING

lets see

any woman who clinton screwed
palin
joe the plumber
rick santelli
rush
hannity
savage

It's a long way to the primaries. I'd suggest to Dems to work on the issues we have at home. Play Rusho all you want, but results will be what get you re-elected. No results = No re-election.

This Rush stuff is just a distraction.


The Democrats should be focusing on the economy and not Rush. They're going to overplay their hand as they get drunk with power.

#1 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-03-04 10:31 AM | Reply |

I tend to agree, but you can't just let the other side of the isle keep stabbing you in the back without fighting back.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable