Will the Republican Party turn out to be the only minority Liberals don't tolerate and want equal rights for???

LOL!

Rush isn't any more the "leader" of the Republican party than he was ten years ago. Obama's minions are practicing the age-old tactic of "if you say something enough, people will start to believe it's true." Since Obama, Emanuel and Plouffe won't shut up about Limbaugh, he becomes an issue.

The "fail" comment wasn't any different from what Rush says on a daily basis. Obama needed a bogeyman to distract Americans from the disaster that is the country he leads, whether it's really his fault or not. Step 1, single out Limbaugh. Step 2, call him out every 3 days and blame him for being "divisive." Step 3, call him the "leader" of the Republican party make all conservatives look bad for opposing what Obama is doing.

Brilliant, when your audience is a bunch of morons.

the drums of revolution are beating..Watch out America ' ' ' ' '

This question of leadership is probably academic under a parliamentary system. Can you imagine if there were elections and all of a suddent Michael Steele ended up as Prime Minister?

Under a presidential system, it's hard to really figure out who the real leader of a party is. As far as the majority party is concerned, the president by default. But what about the minority party? Is the leader the Comimitte president (a bureaucrat), or the House Min leader or some senator, or some governor? No one really knows until a leader kind of emerges and everyone follows that person, just because.

"All Hail the Grand Emperor of the Republican Party, High Warden of the Conservative Faithful, His Royal Highness Rush Hudson Limbaugh III".

No words could ever be more true since the bowing of U.S. Congressmen, Senators and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee to the will of Mr. Limbaugh after their public disagreements with his words. Is Mr. Limbaugh the de facto head of the Republican Party? Does he speak for all Republicans when he states that he hopes the policies of President Obama "fail"? Does this hypocritical admitted drug addict deserve the obsequiousness of elected leaders within the Republican Party?

I am guessing that the Republican Party has more to do than just find its soul again.

I've been scooped!

You know Rush Limbaugh aught to strip naked and put on a loin cloth and sit just like Buddha so the GOP can pay homage to their God Rush Limbaugh.

Larry

Step 3, call him the "leader" of the Republican party make all conservatives look bad for opposing what Obama is doing.
#2 | Posted by joe

sure, but you gotta admit there is something to it, substantively and tactically, when even GOP members and leadership have to publicly apologize to him for a perceived slight or diagreement.

I look forward to tuning in to El Douchebo
every day to see what I am supposed to be
thinking. He has inspired me so much that I plan
to gain 100 lbs.

"Does he speak for all Republicans when he states that he hopes the policies of President Obama "fail"?"

If you have to ask that question, you are stupid for many reasons.

The words minority leader don't impress me much.

It's like having your face pressed against a plate glass door . . . on the outside looking in . . . on a bitter cold and snowy day.

Rush isn't any more the "leader" of the Republican party than he was ten years ago. Obama's minions are practicing the age-old tactic of "if you say something enough, people will start to believe it's true." Since Obama, Emanuel and Plouffe won't shut up about Limbaugh, he becomes an issue.

The "fail" comment wasn't any different from what Rush says on a daily basis. Obama needed a bogeyman to distract Americans from the disaster that is the country he leads, whether it's really his fault or not. Step 1, single out Limbaugh. Step 2, call him out every 3 days and blame him for being "divisive." Step 3, call him the "leader" of the Republican party make all conservatives look bad for opposing what Obama is doing.

Brilliant, when your audience is a bunch of morons.

#2 | Posted by joe

You know Rush Limbaugh aught to strip naked and put on a loin cloth

#7 | Posted by LarryMohr

A rare glimpse into the secret thoughts of your average, every day Obama voter, like Larry here.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-03-04 02:21 PM | Reply

Hey at least I think. What do You do??? spew forth bloviations.

Larry

Rush isn't any more the "leader" of the Republican Party than he was ten years ago. Obama's minions are practicing the age-old tactic"

Yes, we know already --- it's always someone else's fault how we are perceived.

Sincerely

The Party of "Personal Responsabilty"

Rush is to the Republican Party as Al Sharpton is to black people.

#12 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-03-04 02:19 PM

Perhaps what Steele did was not out of reverence for Limbaugh, but instead to avoid creating a "rift" in the party or making the Limbaugh issue larger than it already is. That's my take on it. The proof that Obama stands to benefit more from this than anyone is in the fact that he and his puppets won't shut up about Rush.

#16 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Yes.

And it appears Rush agrees with Rev White.

Blechhhhhhhh

"Rush is to Republicans what Sharpton is to Black people." LMFAO

"#17 | Posted by JOE at 2009-03-04 02:31 PM"

Its becoming very obvious that it's actually "conservatives" who are terrified of rush hanmboughboortz --- with all of their recent genuflecting and spontaneous apologies!

So after failing to hang either Wright or Ayers around Obama's neck, Goppers are unhappy with their new limbow tie?
Hardy, har, har....

Hey at least I think.

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-03-04 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Citation needed.

Will the Republican Party turn out to be the only minority Liberals don't tolerate and want equal rights for???

LOL!

#1 | Posted by member2586

Naw, we'll put it on the Endangered Species list and give it a little bit of protected
habitat to survive in-maybe around Buttfuck Alabama or Klansville Mississippi or something. When it breeds back up, we'll cull it from helicopters. People can go see it-the largemouth rush wallowing in pools of oxycontin, the lesser jindal calling out, "piyushhh, piyushhhh" from under the maglev train tracks and the wild palin, mavericking about the fields of snow.

I want a pool of Oxycontin. Think of the street value of that!

Obviously The Big O should not demean himself by debating The Big L, but maybe could send Jeanene Garafolo or Amy Goodman, who even together would still give the latter a 150-lb. advantage. herm

Ever notice how whenever somebody expresses a conservative viewpoint on this site, some lefty moron shows up and tells them they "must be listening to Rush" or calls them a Rushbot? This is nothing more than Obama playing the same stupid game, on a national level. By having Plouffe and Emanuel say that Limbaugh is in charge of the party, the insinuation is that anyone who opposes what they are doing right now is simply having viewpoints fed to them by Rush.

Again, it works, when your audience is stupid enough not to see through it.

Perhaps what Steele did was not out of reverence for Limbaugh, but instead to avoid creating a "rift" in the party or making the Limbaugh issue larger than it already is.
#17 | Posted by JOE at 2009-03-04 02:31 PM

That's my take on it. The proof that Obama stands to benefit more from this than anyone is in the fact that he and his puppets won't shut up about Rush.
#17 | Posted by JOE at 2009-03-04 02:31 PM

"Again, it works, when your audience is stupid enough not to see through it."

The only audience being targeted here are conservatives and independents.

And it is working.

The leadership divorcing itself from Limbaugh would be wonderful imo.

Rush would end up with sole custody of the Party. The "leadership" is like an abused wife, who can only say "I'm sorry dear, I'll try harder next time. Please don't berate me in front of the neighbors again."

Remember, this is the Party that wants to forget they ever elected Bush or Cheney or ran McCain.

"By having Plouffe and Emanuel say that Limbaugh is in charge of the party"

So it was Obama and the democrats that forced Gingrey, Sanford, Steele, and no doubt coming soon Eric "wal-eye" Cantor to Apologize to rush hanmboughboortz?

That's a novel one!

So it was Obama and the democrats that forced Gingrey, Sanford, Steele, and no doubt coming soon Eric "wal-eye" Cantor to Apologize to rush hanmboughboortz?

That's a novel one!

#32 | Posted by Redneckville

"Who said that?"

#28

"Seriously dude, it's just after 3, put the bottle down."

Apparently, you missed this thread:

Americans wanted to turn the page on the politics of division and partisan pettiness

Total non-sense. Politics is nothing if not all those things. Democrats "war rooms" testify to this. Americans love a good fight--it is as American as apple pie! Only missing here is a good fight. That's yet to come.

Loving every minute of this!!!!!!

Only missing here is a good fight. That's yet to come.

Rush will, undoubtedly be unable to fight, having that butt boil and all....

"Obama and the democrats that forced"

Show me where I said anyone forced anyone to do anything.

Barry is afraid to debate Rush. All libs are cowards when they are confronted.

Yeah, the President of the United States needs to sink to the level of an uneducated drug addict for a debate.

Get fucking real.

So..we demonized Bush...but now he is gone so we have to find someone else to demonize. So it is Rush - "lets say he runs the republicans so that we can use him against them"

"Don't watch what I am doing with this hand watch over here"...a political magic trick so you won't pay attention as they force more and more socialism down your throat.

And of course - everyone one of you are being the good Nazi and following right along.

"Rushbot" et. al.

Why don't you stop and JUST ONCE think for yourselves - You know he isn't the leader of the Republican party...and given that you know that and that Obama and crew want to demonize him, don't you think this guy is in their pocket - and isn't this another reason not to believe the press?

You believed them when you voted for him....and we told you he was a socialist ....and he is...We told you he had no experience - and he is showing that with his appointments ( is it 6 now that have not paid taxes?), with his strange swings in policy (so now we are SENDING MONEY to Hamas?), and with his statements "The stock market doesn't have anything to do with the economy"

We said he was a crook coming from the Chicago political environment - and you said no - but we see massive payoffs in the lastest bill. We said he would not be Bipartisen, he would not "heal" and he would not stop the Ear Marks (1000 in the Omnibus bill)

We said he would not cut the deficit but would increase it radically - and that is what he is doing.

We said (and if you read Dick Morris book he predicted) that if Obama was elected there would be a major stock market crash...and it has.

So...be sheep..follow your leaders...Demonize Rush...and at the same time don't look around and wonder where your freedom and money has gone.

"Barry is afraid to debate Rush. All libs are cowards when they are confronted."

f*ck wad thom: Care to explain why the President of the United States of America, the Commander-in-Chief of all of the armed forces of the United States of America, the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of our planet, would stoop to "debate" a radio celebrity?

Especially when he can (very effectively) make that celebrity the face and voice of the opposition, completely turning off the middle ground of America necessary for winning national elections?

Good luck explaining that one, f*ck wad thom.

Hans

FW

I'd kinda like to see Obama being interviewed by Rush. Have you ever seen Rush interviewing anyone he feels inferior to?

He's like an eight year old in the principal's office.

"You know he isn't the leader of the Republican party..."

Rush Limbaugh?

Sure he is:

I think there are plenty of qualified and educated journalists in this country that we don't need an addicted blow hard doing the work of professionals.

Rush doesn't have the qualifications to interview a World Leader.

"Rush doesn't have the qualifications to interview a World Leader."

Apparently Obama doesn't either. He just sends them letters.

We said (and if you read Dick Morris book he predicted) that if Obama was elected there would be a major stock market crash...and it has.

Let's see, Under bush Dow drops 5000 points. Under Obama, 900.

Yup, Obama's fault.

I think what irks you righties is Obama is doing basically what he said he was going to do-from Iraq to afghanistan to gitmo to the economy. And he's doing it thoughtfully, something we haven't seen out of the WH since 2000. You just have to get used to an adult running the country again. And stop your temper tantrums.

"So what do you want? Encouraged poor lending practices to re-stack the house of cards? Or responsible lending? Though Obama promises it, you can't have both."

NG that is true for some but for many others we know there is another, much bigger, problem about Obama....psst......he's black.

"You know he isn't the leader of the Republican party..."

Perhaps you should have a little chat with Michael Steele.

It appears he could use a little of your advice.

all this the dems tryin to change the debate from issues to personality--they realize there is no easy way out of this mess and contrary to their pre election certainty-they don't have no more answers then did bush and the reps.so they decide to put the attention on rush-they are far more arrogant and overbearin then the reps ever was
jasman

Perhaps you should have a little chat with Michael Steele.

Mikey's rather occupied at the moment, daddy Rush's lawn needs mowing, his car waxed and Mikey has had permission to use the phone taken away for a week.

#28

#34 | Posted by Redneckville

"Maybe if you and fatwife..."

I haven't seen that fat bitch since she left for Buffalo...something about hooking up with some ex-military fuckwad she met in her younger days on Hay St. in Fayette Nam.

I haven't seen that fat bitch since she left for Buffalo.
#55 | Posted by Angrydad at 2009-03-04 03:44 PM | Reply

A fat bitch walked out on you, and moved to Buffalo no-less?

You must be a real "keeper". No wonder you're angry.

"All libs are cowards when they are confronted."

Old F.W. leaves himself a wider target than Rush with his preposterous "all;" but I will debate Thommy any time, any place, with one hand tied behind my back and my search engine turned off. herm

"Under bush Dow drops 5000 points. Under Obama, 900."

Good call, NG, but it's STILL Bush's drop. When it rises again, it will be a Big O market. herm

Your "search engine" has been turned off for at least a decade you senile old cowardly codger.

"Let's see, Under bush Dow drops 5000 points. Under Obama, 900."

Just when I thought liberals couldn't get any more ignorant on economic issues, Northgay scribbles out this gem. The stock market is a prediction of our nation's future economic health. When investors sense an economic slowdown, they stop buying and prices go down months ahead of time. Take a look at when it became clear Obama would win the election, and then check the DJIA that same month and look where it was. Then follow the line down.

"Old F.W. leaves himself a wider target than Rush with his preposterous "all;" but I will debate Thommy any time, any place, with one hand tied behind my back and my search engine turned off. herm"

Yet another thread where Lefties cackle about Rush Limbaugh.

Geez, what a bunch of sheep

"The stock market is a prediction of our nation's future economic health."

er...no it isn't, it's just the stock market. It doesn't reflect unemployment, housing starts, inflation or a zillion other indicators. It is one indicator that may or may not indicate future economic health.
IF IT WERE TRUELY an accurate indicator of future economic health it would never have inflated to twice its value.

Big Double Duh!!!!

Duh is right, Danni. Nothing in your post refutes what I said, since I was responding to Northgay's asinine suggestion that since the DJIA dropped 5000 points under Bush, that it's somehow a reflection of Bush policy and not the prediction that Obama would cripple American businesses with higher taxes, cap-and-trade, etc.

"I was responding to Northgay's asinine suggestion that since the DJIA dropped 5000 points under Bush, that it's somehow a reflection of Bush policy and not the prediction that Obama would cripple American businesses with higher taxes, cap-and-trade, etc."

What's fun about this comment is that it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

The American people rendered their judgment on whose fault it is this past November, and overwhelmingly they said "Bush and the Republicans."

And anyone's attempt to cast any future growth as "despite Obama, not because of him," will be met with equal derision.

If the economy is slow to recover, the response is "at least the GOP isn't in charge," or "If the GOP hadn't been such obstructionists..."

And if the economy is fast to recover it is all Obama, all the time.

Sort of a win/win for the Democrats.

And that's what makes this so much fun.

Hans

Danni,

"er...no it isn't, it's just the stock market It doesn't reflect unemployment, housing starts, inflation or a zillion other indicators"

Actually it does.

If Housing is going great guns - someone is building them, supply the lumber, supplying the labor, selling them ect. When that happens all the builder stocks, lumber yards and various home builder stocks rise.

If Unemployment it low - the extra labor costs (if you need workers in a low unemployment market they will cost you more) is reflected in the decline of labor intensive stocks.

If inflation is high - then things like durable goods that are build and then sold later go up as they can sell them for more money during inflationary times...bond prices go down as interest payments contend with other areas.

So for Obama to say it is not an indicator or it is not the economy is showing that he fundamentally does not understand the US economy.

It also shows that you do not either - and neither does Hans or most of the others on this web site.

Which is also why you think Obamas policies are sound and he is doing the right thing.

But you need to look around at your 401k, Pension fund, and your very job. The Market IS THE indicator of what is the future of the US economy under the current policies...and the people with money are voting with thier feet.

Limbaugh is nothing more than a demogauge for the vaginacrats to point at and go: LOOK! THESE MOTHERFUCKERS ARE SOOOO MUCH WORSE!

Meanwhile they continue almost all of bushs policies: iran/iraq, obama cabinet = finance industry, israel, etc.

Same old pigs at the trough.

"What's fun about this comment is that it doesn't matter whether it is true or not."

True, to the people who only care about "winning" and not "America." Sorry to see you're one of them.

"True, to the people who only care about "winning" and not "America." Sorry to see you're one of them."

I happen to believe that the Democrats winning is what will help America. That's the way I care about my country.

Sorry to see you're not one of us.

Hans

Big Double Duh!!!!

#63 | Posted by danni at 2009-03-04 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag: Irony

Hans - you are such a fuck wad. To you it doesn't matter if we are going to hell in a handbasket...just as long as the Dems are in charge.

I personally do not care if the Rep. are in Charge or the Dems. I DO CARE that who ever is in charge understands the basic of capitalism and knows what it took to make this country great.

At this point in time it is the Rep. (for the most part. Bush passing the drug bill and not clamping down on the liberal loan policies at Fanny and Freddy are two large exceptions)

At some point in time even you will come to understand that if you keep taking from those that work and give to those that live off the work of others (Octo Mom for example) the creation of wealth will stop and America will fall.

But maybe that is what you want.

Besides, Joe, I happen to agree with the majority of voters this past November in saying that your response to Northguy3 is bullshit.

Hans

"The stock market is a prediction of our nation's future economic health."

If that future is the end of the current quarter that prediction may be close. Otherwise, Wall Street has been _really_ bad at long term economic forecasts. As any fund manager who doesn't beat the I500 can attest.

"The Market IS THE indicator of what is the future of the US economy under the current policies..."

Until that comment runs right into Monday, October 28 and Tuesday, October 29, 1929.

Then it is "oops"!

Hans

"I DO CARE that who ever is in charge understands the basic of capitalism and knows what it took to make this country great."

Then you must be happy with the current administration. Lots of economic experts there. All capitalists and free-market types (regulated, of course).

"To you it doesn't matter if we are going to hell in a handbasket...just as long as the Dems are in charge."

I happen to believe that we were headed to hell in a handbasket.

But I feel confidence now that the Dems are in charge.

Hans

"The Market IS THE indicator of what is the future of the US economy under the current policies...and the people with money are voting with thier feet."

Fine, just explain how it got to twice its real value then. Til you do....it isn't now, never was and never will be the best indicator of the health of our economy. It isn't even the best indicator of its own future, it can be up 5000 points and lose it all, as it has, in a relatively short time.
You seem to ignore that one important fact.

#65 | Posted by Hans at 2009-03-04 04:52 PM

"At some point in time even you will come to understand that if you keep taking from those that work and give to those that live off the work of others (Octo Mom for example) the creation of wealth will stop and America will fall."

And you believe that borrowing and borrowing will keep America from failing.

Well, we tried that and it failed. So, get out of the way, fuck wad, and let the adults fix the situation brought on by George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Hans

"Not that I ever doubted it, but we know that Hans doesn't really care about truth in politics..."

You think that there is truth in politics?

You actually believe that?

Way too funny!

Hans

#79 | Posted by Hans at 2009-03-04 05:08 PM

Is it your contention that the US Government will not borrow money under Obama? Or that they will borrow less of it? How much less?

AILTD - There are two ways to invest - short term return and long term return.

Look up close and the market seems to swing wildly. Take a step back and look at the market over a 5 or 10 year period and you will see that it is pretty consistent and a very good indicator of long term health (or not) of the economy.

The fact that it has fallen over 50% since it looked like Obama was going to win the election is a good indication. The fact that it has fallen 40% since Obama was elected or 30% from the first of this year is also a good indication.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHH

Leader of the leaderless...

"The fact that it has fallen over 50% since it looked like Obama was going to win the election is a good indication. The fact that it has fallen 40% since Obama was elected or 30% from the first of this year is also a good indication."

Which sounds all so "smart."

Until, that is, when slammed up against Monday, October 28 and Tuesday, October 29, 1929.

Then it is "oops"!

Hans

"Is it your contention that the US Government will not borrow money under Obama?"

Nope. Not my contention.

Hans

"The fact that it has fallen over 50% since it looked like Obama was going to win the election is a good indication. "

Bush & Paulson came to Congress in need of a bailout after it looked like Obama was going to win the election. And Paulson knew about it much earlier.

I am sorry Rush for taking your name in vain. I want to be a good little republican.

Can you please forgive me???

You think that there is truth in politics?

You actually believe that?

Way too funny!

Hans

#80 | Posted by Hans

"Take a step back and look at the market over a 5 or 10 year period and you will see that it is pretty consistent and a very good indicator of long term health (or not) of the economy."

I have. It is not. It seems to be only because it eventually catches up with reality. Usually on its way to a bubble or a bust.

"The fact that it has fallen over 50% since it looked like Obama was going to win the election is a good indication."

False. It was reacting to all the bad economic news, especially the collapse of the housing market and the world-wide effects of this. The entire fuckin' world market collapsed. Did it do so because of Obama's election? Get real. Historical revisionism is not the best way to make your point.

Bush & Paulson came to Congress in need of a bailout

#86 | Posted by Danforth

Danni,

It was never TWICE the real value...there is no REAL Value..the value of a stock is based on a multiple for its industry (example: Utilities are apx. 8) times the FUTURE EARNINGS. That is why the market HATES not having a stable future to forecast against..if you do not have a reasonable expectation of what the future value of a stock is ..it is hard to put a price on it.

So...it was never twice its "real value" it could be twice its real value now...or it could be half its "real value" it depends upon a reasonable estimate of what businesses will make over the next several years.

What it is saying is that it is now reasonable to assume that over the next several years businesses will not be able to make (and KEEP) the profits that it had in the past..so they are now worth less.

Which is a true indication of what is expected from the Stimulas package and taxing policy's of Obama.

ALt. Bullshit. Is there economic problems - yes...it is said when the US catches an economic cold the rest of the world gets pnuemonia.

But had Obama just did TARP - just put a number on what the toxic assets are worth we would be out of it by now.

But the continued gyrations and the massive increase in spending (Hans - you were always harping about the Bush deficit..how about now?)and the massive tax increases - everything is going to be bad for while.

Gee, the liberals can never be happy so long as Rush is on air....

True, to the people who only care about "winning" and not "America."

Otherwise known as the Rushpublicans.

"it is said when the US catches an economic cold the rest of the world gets pnuemonia."

Because the world doesn't have the same problems? Get real. You really do credit us for having way too much influence. World economics has levelled off greatly in the past two decades.

"everything is going to be bad for while."

No kidding. The question is, what will happen 5-6 months down the road. No one knows, least of all Wall Street. However, I do know that I do _not_ want Wall Street to determine the economic fate of this country. Wall Street, in its barest form, doesn't care about the people of this country.

"massive tax increases"

Not on the poor. Not on the middle class. And none of the numbers I have seen indicate such on the wealthy class. Unless you are accumulating what will happen from now until well into the future.

Is there economic problems - yes.

#92 | Posted by foshaffer

Otherwise known as the Rushpublicans.

#94 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-03-04 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why don't you show up sometime with data on how many Republicans are "Rushpublicans" and then we can begin.

Hans,

What has 29 have to do with today?

The issue in 29 was liquidity and speculation - Instead of making money available to banks - the government screwed up and shut off the funnel. Then compounded it with taxes on imports..both served to expand the issues.

In this case both of which were addressed; Liquidity was addressed by the TARP, the FED opening up its drawers, the Government buying into the banks

(but NOT buying the toxic assets - and Obama and team still have not executed on that - do you ever stop and think why not...maybe they NEED this environment to push through the socialist programs?)

Speculation was address after 29 with legislation reducing the amount you can be leveraged by.

Alt - Obama has said he will let the Bush tax cuts expire

With the Bush tax cuts first everyone that had kids got a larger deduction for them...that goes away.

According to a nonpartisan analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, nearly 75% of all families got a tax cut, the average is $1,217

Families making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year are getting an average cut this year of $638. As to those making over $30,000 the amount of money is significant -- it increased their after-tax income an average of 2.7 percent above what it would have been before the Bush tax cuts.

For those farther up in the middle-class hierarchy -- making $75,000 to $100,000 a year -- the Bush tax cuts are worth an average of $2,543 this year.

Those all go away and are replaced by the Obama plan - which eliminates all of these and eliminates deduction for charities (why kill charities? Maybe so everyone is even MORE dependent upon the government?)

So..EVERYONE will see a tax increase next year. Don't believe it - do the math your self.

#95 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-03-04 05:29 PM

"massive tax increases"

Not on the poor. Not on the middle class. And none of the numbers I have seen indicate such on the wealthy class. Unless you are accumulating what will happen from now until well into the future.

The "rich" just don't have that much money.

Whoa. Wait. Solution. Just print money. Great idea. It certainly worked in Zimbabwe. Now we're recruiting Mugabe to write a program for Obama to execute in the U.S.

We need to emulate "solutions" undertaken in third world countries as we develop third world demographics, reduce our education and scientific and technological skill sets to third world levels (necessitated by the limitations of the burgeoning demographic), and import people trained abroad so that we have at least a smidgeon of third world leadership to give our efforts gravitas. We aren't just fooling around.

We are going to find ourselves in the typical third world situation, AILtd, after our destruction of capitalist wealth there will be no large storehouses of accrued value to pillage (in the Mugabe style seizing land and destroying productivity), and we shall be driven to attempting to rob each other for resources with which to sustain ourselves. The "rich" don't have "that much" so we'll experience the chaos that follows destruction of an economic and social structure, and secure the "benefits" associated with living in the post-Obama economy and society.

"EVERYONE will see a tax increase next year."

Obama has indicated that those making under $250,000 will not see a tax increase. This is what the various studies I have read indicate. The cuts he is making, re mortgage and charities, are on those making over that amount. So I'll believe what you state when I see it.

"Obama has said he will let the Bush tax cuts expire"

My understanding is that this refers to those with a sunset provision. That isn't a tax increase.

By the way FOSHAFFER, thank you for the most incisive and analytical commentary posted regarding the Obama initiatives and their consequences.

Why don't you show up sometime with data on how many Republicans are "Rushpublicans" and then we can begin.

How many GOPper Congressmen and Senators are there? Add in the conservatives....

Rush has a favorable rating with about the same percentage of Americans who support the GOP, so pretty well everybody in the GOP right of Mctoast.

""Not on the poor. Not on he middle class." ??? Then where pray tell will the money for payments originate?" - Johnson

Don't care how you try, you won't get "massive increases" on the poor. The middle class will get hit when the tax increases on the wealthy don't cover the requirements. If the economy doesn't improve enough, somewhere down the road they may become massive. Maybe.

"We need to emulate "solutions" undertaken in third world countries as we develop third world demographics, reduce our education and scientific and technological skill sets to third world levels"

Yeah, that's a solution I'm sure everyone can get behind. Nice sarcasm, though.

"We are going to find ourselves in the typical third world situation, AILtd, after our destruction of capitalist wealth ..."

Unless, of course, the destruction doesn't occur. Our past history, and that of the world, indicate we are in a prolonged decline, but one which will keep us in the upper tier for a very long time. Now, if you are talking millenium(s), then you are probably correct.

#101 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-03-04 05:51 PM

"Obama has said he will let the Bush tax cuts expire"

My understanding is that this refers to those with a sunset provision. That isn't a tax increase.

What will happen, whatever you call it, is that people will pay more taxes. That's what counts.

"By the way FOSHAFFER, thank you for the most incisive and analytical commentary posted regarding the Obama initiatives and their consequences." - Johnson

Says the choir to the preacher. I'm an atheist on that.

"Now we're recruiting Mugabe to write a program for Obama to execute in the U.S." -Johnson

Johnson's race-obsessed imagination is boundless.

Republicans were glad to accept Rush as their leader until people began pointing out they were glad. Rush, of course, is happy to accept that title on any given day.

"When I am done spending money we will be 9 trillion dollars in the hole and we will enter a new era of fiscal responsibility."

Barry the 1984 man

"What will happen, whatever you call it, is that people will pay more taxes. That's what counts."

And who, pray tell, were the authors of that bill?

Has anybody mentioned in this so-called Rush Limbaugh thread that without Rush,McCain would not have picked Sarah Palin for his running mate.

Now that was a great move - for Democrats - thanks Rush.

"What will happen, whatever you call it, is that people will pay more taxes. That's what counts."

Ah, no. The tax cuts were passed as a _temporary_ measure. Look up the word "temporary". If I lend you a car for a week, when the week expires, I'm not "taking" a car from you, your time merely ran out. That you are no longer driving it is _not_ what counts.

Bush apparently didn't think they were going to be permanent. Neither did Congress. Obama is going with the flow. Common sense 101.

Rush doesn't like a lot of people. Interestingly, these despised persons also seem despised by most Republicans in about one week.

I lost doubt Obama would win after Rush created pariah status not only for moderates, whome he loathes, but for the Paulistas, whom he reviles.

Not very many of these people voted Republican in November. They got the message they weren't wanted.

#104 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-03-04 05:58 PM

""Not on the poor. Not on he middle class." ??? Then where pray tell will the money for payments originate?" - Johnson

Don't care how you try, you won't get "massive increases" on the poor. The middle class will get hit when the tax increases on the wealthy don't cover the requirements. If the economy doesn't improve enough, somewhere down the road they may become massive. Maybe.

This seems to be a formula to arrive at a communist system by another route instead of armed revolution overthrowing the authorities. Instead we achieve the Marxist ideal, "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs," through the taxation process, and thus succeed in the redistribution of wealth to reach this goal, which is in the Obama tradition in being indoctrinated as a communist, and then working as an Alinsky street agitator.

What the inevitable outcome of the Obama borrowing program and level of indebtedness is, will be communism through taxation. Oh, along the road, "the government" is obtaining control of many formerly private functions, industries and businesses.

Communism is on its way, and shall arrive under the Obama administration. Why we even have the adjunct of a venerated "Great Leader," a man on horseback imbued with so many skills and virtues. He may be a cross between Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Mohammed.

"All people are equal, but people who don't pay their mortgage are more equal than others."

Barry the Animal Farm Pig

"Communism is on the way...."

Through lying your way through the history of WWII, JOHNSON?

Fuck Americans, let's send C-130's full of hundred dollar bills to the Iraqi insurgents.

~Chimpy McFlightsuit~

#112 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-03-04 06:08 PM

"What will happen, whatever you call it, is that people will pay more taxes. That's what counts."

Ah, no. The tax cuts were passed as a _temporary_ measure. Look up the word "temporary".

"Now (Palin) was a great move - for Democrats - thanks Rush."

Hey, he was nice enough to give the Dems the Senate in 2006 with his idiotic mimicking of a guy with Parkinson's. He seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.

"It's not "maybe," it's "surely." - Johnson

Only if you have come back from the future.

"This seems to be a formula to arrive at a communist system by another route instead of armed revolution overthrowing the authorities."

Only for those who think like JeffnD. For the sane and the astute, well, we will allow you your "dreams".

"Communism is on its way, and shall arrive under the Obama administration."

Communism is essentially having the people control the means of production. It looks to me like the people are the biggest losers in this recession so
I'm not really sure how they're going to get that control.

"My observation is that nevertheless, people would be paying more in taxes than they did previously. "

Why did the Republicans want to do that to Americans?

#116 | Posted by Zed at 2009-03-04 06:12 PM

"Communism is on the way...."

Through lying your way through the history of WWII, JOHNSON?

"My observation is that nevertheless, people would be paying more in taxes than they did previously."

Yes, that ugly concept, nuance. Coupled with that other ugly concept, situation. Both must be avoided at all costs, eh Johnson. The tax will increase. Obama will _not_ however, have passed a tax increase, nor will he be increasing taxes. The taxes will, the that glorious force the free market, increase of themselves, because of an existing law.

"My great loss..."

Just reminding everyone you lied about the Werewolves the other day. What does it have to do with this thread? Credibility.

I mean, why pay attention to what you say about the future, if you can't get 1945 down straight? Just asking.

"He may be a cross between Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Mohammed.

#114 | Posted by Johnson

Could be. On the other hand, you just might be a mental patient with computer privileges.

Johnson, still no rejoinder I see. Well, unfortunetely I must exist to dinner. I had forgotten how much fun it is to engage with you. Exploring your logic is quite entertaining. We must do it again some time.

#120 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-03-04 06:15 PM

It's not "maybe," it's "surely." - Johnson

Only if you have come back from the future.

"This seems to be a formula to arrive at a communist system by another route instead of armed revolution overthrowing the authorities."

Only for those who think like JeffnD. For the sane and the astute, well, we will allow you your "dreams".

Just what do you see as the outcome of such a program. After all, the poor are endowed with housing, food stamps, and what may be other creative schemes to provide them with sustenance at a preconceived level, and the taxpayers, rich and middle class, are reduced in standard of living. When that happy point is reached, where the lines cross, we shall be living in an ideal world.

Of course, functionaries of the State and the Party will enjoy privileges due them with dachas and their equivalents provided as an ex officio prerogative of such office.

"Communism is on its way, and shall arrive under the Obama administration."

Communism is essentially having the people control the means of production. It looks to me like the people are the biggest losers in this recession
so
I'm not really sure how they're going to get that control.

Today we also have the more pragmatic models employed in the PRC when China was more ideally communist so that other entities such as the Army would own enterprises, and bolstered them up, those that were often failing, with money funneled through them.

It's not an apocalyptic vision, AILtd, except that it is also a prelude to a secular paradise here on Earth.

So, there is government ownership of banking, securities, and manufacturing industries to start, and taxation and benefit distribution sufficient to equalize living standards for all. Hey, we're up and running. There are downsides, but as Marx also observed of the dialectic, "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Every situation is transitional and contains within it, the elements of its own destruction.

Sorry I missed you with the rejoinder AILtd. It was a bit lengthy.

I also need to attend to dinner now. I have been delegated to go and shop for ingredients.

Have an enjoyable outing.

Ciao.

#124 | Posted by Zed at 2009-03-04 06:21 PM

Just reminding everyone you lied about the Werewolves the other day. What does it have to do with this thread? Credibility.

I referred you to the link regarding the treatment of "the German resistance" after WWII by the Russians, the French, and the Americans. Even the Americans under orders from Eisenhower summarily shot the equivalent of today's Islamic terrorists, and also did not treat civilians gingerly, to say the least.

Just what is it that strikes you as misleading in what I posted in that regard, Zed?

Well, here are another couple of the links for your possible edification if you are capable of understanding their content.

The German resistance engaged in bombings, sabotage, sniping, killing of collaborators and defeatists, and the like. The response included such measures as those explicated here. You will note that even "innocent civilians" were killed in retaliation for attacks as a method of intimidating "the resistance."

JOHNSON---I apologize for calling you a liar. The truth seems to be you are honestly confused and I shouldn't have been rude in any case.

Having said that, a few light-weight links over the internet establishes nothing for your point of view. This is a time for journal citations from qualified researchers.

I'm quite capaable of chasing down any (solid) supporting information you think you can advance. No, I'm not interested in what Free Republic thinks. I want to know what John Keegan thinks.

Until that time, my own researches, which long predate the Bushite revisionist vogue, inform me the Werewolves (and other German resistance) went nowhere at all.

I'll tell you how sparse the resistance to the Allies was in Japan after the war, to trade theatres of war.

It was so rare that historians see fit to record the downing by naval gunfire of a Japanese private plane that seemed to be behaving oddly a few days after the Surrender.

We'll never know what that plane was really doing, just that he made someone nervous.

Gosh Zed, there are many sources other than Free Republic. A couple of others are cited here.

What I do wonder is what your point is. My point was not the extent of Werwolf activities, but the harsh measures that were undertaken to suppress them, and the pacification process in Germany.

Are you denying Eisenhower's order to summarily execute "resisters" captured without any "process?"

Are you denying LeClerk's order to kill five hostages for every sniping attack near Strasbourg?

Are you denying Adenauer's orders regarding treatment of the Werwolves?

All of this informaiton is in the archives.

My point was that our pussyfooting around in Iraq rather than taking strong action with summary executions of "guerillas" and their supporters, and destruction of property of those who aided and abetted the "terrorists," served to unnecessarily extend the period required for pacification, and actually prevented total domination of the Iraqis, and our ability to command them to do whatever we believed suited our purposes in concluding an agreement with whomsoever we installed as "the government." And our goal should have been installing a "government" that would act according to our instructions with the presence of absence of democratic forms not being a factor.

Again, are you denying the harsh measures that were used against the werwolves and those suspected of supporting them, regardless of how extensive their operations may have been?

By the way, here are the post-war Japanese. - 1955

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:

"Minority leader Limbaugh"

Nice try LIBS. But it isn't going to fly.

"Minority leader Limbaugh"

Nice try LIBS. But it isn't going to fly.

#137 | Posted by ozzieoswald

It's flying beautifully, thank you very much. And the best part is that it is causing most of you old ladies to wring your hands in consternation, spending hours on here seeking validation from each other that Obama is just soooooo mean.

"isn't going to fly"

Ooozie, it's already hit Mach-2.

sure, but you gotta admit there is something to it, substantively and tactically, when even GOP members and leadership have to publicly apologize to him for a perceived slight or diagreement.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
--------------
Really? Has it ever occurred to any of you that Steele felt he was wrong and did the human thing....he apologized?

I know that's an odd concept for those on the left but it does happen every day in the US. I've apologized to my subordinates when I was wrong because I realized I was wrong.

This does not mean that Rush is in charge of the party. Just because you libs wish he was in charge of the Republican party does not make it so.

Lonnie

f*ck wad thom: Care to explain why the President of the United States of America, the Commander-in-Chief of all of the armed forces of the United States of America, the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of our planet, would stoop to "debate" a radio celebrity?

Especially when he can (very effectively) make that celebrity the face and voice of the opposition, completely turning off the middle ground of America necessary for winning national elections?

Good luck explaining that one, f*ck wad thom.

Hans

#43 | Posted by Hans at 2009-03-04 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm still wondering why Obama stooped to the level of even acknowledging Limbaugh exists, much less this farce.

Obama has indicated that those making under $250,000 will not see a tax increase. This is what the various studies I have read indicate. The cuts he is making, re mortgage and charities, are on those making over that amount. So I'll believe what you state when I see it.

"Obama has said he will let the Bush tax cuts expire"

My understanding is that this refers to those with a sunset provision. That isn't a tax increase.

#101 | Posted by AILtd
---------------
Obama said there wasn't any earmarks in the stimulus too. Ooops, he lied to us again. Obama couldn't tell the truth if F. E. Baily personally notarized his tongue.

Lonnie

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs. Just what do you see as the outcome of such a program." - Johnson

What I see presently is that the middle class is shrinking and diminishing in worth. That, I feel, needs to be remedied aqap and as one of the priorities. That is not reflective of any one particular political or economic philosophy, so I cannot see any judgement of Obama in this.

"Communism is on its way, and shall arrive under the Obama administration."
"After all, doesn't the government now have an 80% or so interest in AIG, which owns a potload of other businesses. And the plans for the auto industry are what?"

Which, carried to the extreme, sounds like socialism, not communism. Communism being the topic under discussion here. Socialism and communism are two different philosophies as I'm sure you know.

"So, there is government ownership of banking, securities, and manufacturing industries to start, "

No, there is not. The government has or is making itself a player in those industries. Vastly different from controlling them. This difference is what makes all this talk of upcoming socialism and communism speculative fiction, lousy speculation at that.

"the treatment of "the German resistance" after WWII by the Russians, the French, and the Americans." - Johnson

The "werewolves" operated in the waning days of WWII, a few members a month or two afterwards. Other than that, there was no active German "resistance" post WWII. Per all the historians I have read. There was even a book published recently (forget by whom) which pointed out how exaggerated the "werewolve resistance" was.

"Obama said there wasn't any earmarks in the stimulus too." - Lonnie

Nothing to do with expiring tax breaks. Learn to stay on topic.

Yes, this is a brilliant display of politics by Obama. He has amazingly made right wing radio a thorn in the republicans side by pulling away the covers so main stream America can see what the base chews on every day. He knew since Rush is only in it for the money and fame, he would try and bask in this leadership glory and take the party down if anyone ever tried to take his power away. You have to admit, when 3 conservatives have to apologize to Rush the GOP has a problem.

Obama won the first chess match. The republicans have plenty of time to regroup before the midterm elections though.

"Obama said there wasn't any earmarks in the stimulus too." - Lonnie

Nothing to do with expiring tax breaks. Learn to stay on topic.

#145 | Posted by AILtd
-------------------
Actually, you proved my point! You quoted him, I showed where he's lied in the past and basically said how can you believe he'll keep his promise.

Thanks for playing!

Lonnie

"Actually, you proved my point! You quoted him, I showed where he's lied in the past and basically said how can you believe he'll keep his promise." - Lonnie

False. I did _not_ quote Obama. Note the "my understanding" part. I stated what my view was based on all that I have read about the topic and what my experience has indicated. Has nothing to do with Obama, which wa my point.

As I said, learn to stay on topic. And learn to understand what you read.

Oh look..... it's bash rush year... same game different guy.... This is all part of the plan.... They couldn't make the fairness doc. look good on paper spthey chose a new tack. How supprising. Either way you slice it, it all boils down to the liberal left dictating what will be said on the radio...

Oh look..... it's bash rush year... same game different guy.... This is all part of the plan.... They couldn't make the fairness doc look good on paper so they chose a new tack. How surprising. Any way you slice it, it all boils down to the liberal left dictating what will be said on the radio... Did anyone notice the attack on the other three reporters who didn't tow the line this week..... If they don't like what you say they silence you or attack your credibility...

How the GOP ever stumbled into it's current predicament is beyond me. Whether they admit it or not, and whether they like it or not, Rush is the face of todays GOP. And that is just about the worst news imaginable for them.

Whether they admit it or not, and whether they like it or not, Rush is the face of todays GOP

I'd be very ashamed to publicly admit that I swallowed an admitted propoganda campaign hook, line, and sinker. Gullibility is a personal property that should be kept to one's self.

"An admitted propaganda line...."

Sure. One handed to us wrapped in a bow. But, I will say this---Since Republicans haven't known what Republicanism is since at least 2003, they probably don't know if Rush is it's face or not.

How the GOP ever stumbled into it's current predicament is beyond me. Whether they admit it or not, and whether they like it or not, Rush is the face of todays GOP.

Not to mention he has a king size face and no chin.

Have another Pizza Rush !!!