21
   

LIMBAUGH, "I HOPE HE FAILS..."

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:18 pm
@joefromchicago,


Little Joe, I didn't know you wore glasses... and your mom
takes a good picture, but she needs to look at the camera.

http://www.legionxxiv.org/trooper124/124novavadar.jpg

Little Joe picture between PrezBO and Princess Pelosi.
Prince Reid is in the picture but refuses to pose with the special little tard named Joe.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:34 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ha! I know you are but what am I?

Buuuuuuuuuurn!!!!!
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:51 pm


Will these liberaltards ever grow up?

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:42 pm
@H2O MAN,
Up you consistently crack me, you enormous conservatard.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:31 pm
@joefromchicago,


Laughing Laughter is good.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2411416416_e7317fed7b.jpg
genoves
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:35 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O man. I hope that you noticed that Joe From Chicago's avatar is Richard J. Daley--the father of the Daley clan. Joe from Chicago is a prize winning hypocrite. Joe from Chicago poses as a LIBERAL who is for the little guy, yet, his hero, on his avatar, was a fascist who decreed that the police should shoot to kill in the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 11:07 pm
@farmerman,
Please, Mr. Farmerman. Don't you know you should not be "conversing" with me? Mr. Setanta, the resident Fascist has descended to the adolescent use of pictoral graffitti. What you may not be aware of, Mr. Farmerman, is that Mr. I cleaned Mr. Setanta's clock thouroughly a few years ago and now he is practically urninating on himself in fear when he sees my posts. Why else would he try to censor me?

With his massive intellect, Mr. Setanta could embarrass me completely by showing just how wrong I am in my ideas. But, as he and Joe from Chicago discovered, they cannot defeat my ideas so they descend to adolescent tactics to silence me. They have adopted the tactics of the Nazi Goebbels, who met with German Editors every day and told them what to print and how to slant the news.

But, I must really respond to your post.

First of all, you seem to be unaware that the US has a tradition of listening to and reading extremists. They usually don't last too long because they appeal to a fringe element.

Father Coughlan, in the thirties, was a Roman Catholic Priest who had a large audience. He was also rabidly opposed to "evil" corporations and preached Antisemitism. His views fell by the wayside when the pressures of foreign events became all important.

FDR's brain trust were duped into extolling the virtues of Soviet Russia and Joe Stalin. If they had been allowed free rein by the American people, they might have taken us to the far left much sooner. They were, of course, aided by the Depression when many looked for any solution to the downturn.

I do not think that Mr. Limbaugh will realign his rudder to become more in line with the (apparent) new direction that the party will be steering. He is primarily an entertainer and, secondarily, an ideologue. Many of FDR's "brain-trusters" never swayed from their attachment to the Soviet Union until the cold war started.

We shall see how President Obama leads the country. I will confidently predict that if the economy has not materially gained by 2010, the Democratic Party will lose dozens of seats. It will be Bill Clinton-1994-deja vu.

Even more ominously, the Democratic Party and its leftward direction may be shattered if the prediction of Vice President Biden comes to fruition. You will recall that Vice President Biden held that President Obama would be seriously tested by the enemies of the USA in his first year. If, God forbid, a nuclear device is triggered in an American city, the American people will not forgive the President's inability to keep us from harm.

We shall see, Mr. Farmerman.

You may not wish to answer this post. I do understand if you are also, like Mr. Setanta and Mr. Joe from Chicago, unable to engage in a test of ideas.
I can tell, from your avatar, that you would not, like they, shrink away in fear, unable to respond.
mwn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 10:47 am
Rush is a freak of nature...he failed long ago...he represents all that is crazy in the USA...a born- again far-right hypocrite...anti-drug zealot turned pain pill addict...married 3 times, no kids, pro-family value advocate-he is probably a closet gay, with many women issues he never resolved as a child-he probably never was a child...he was born an adult with his wierd way of viewing the world already imprinted in his mind...
he should move to Alaska with sara palin and compare notes with her...hopefully they will both fade into the past with their archaic ideas of life in the dark ages...the USA is great because we weed-out prejudiced people like him and try to improve the future, not live in the not so good past...
if people like him were in control they would bring back slavery, fight religious wars, build walls to keep people out, and outlaw behavior they don't like...sorry... we just ended 8 years of that kind way of government rule...
let the far right fade into the past as they have in the past......

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 12:12 pm
@genoves,
Please dont invoke any acrymony that you may have with setanta or joe/chicago. This topic lives on its own. Ive had my runins with your many personalities in the past (abuzz years) and thought that you had a lot in common with D John. But, that be another topic.
Ive made several allusions to the Schulberg character "lonesome Rhoads" as the radio demagogue in the 1940's. Limbaugh is closest to reality version of Lonesome that Ive ever heard. I think that he realizes his best audience numbers when he can whip up a dose of fomentum dealing with faults, or perceived faults of non republicans.
Im amused as to how he made the easy transition of blaming Clinton as the root cause of Bush's shortcomings, to immediately translating Bush's problems over to Obama. ALl done with nary anything up his sleeve. Its obvious where his loyalties lie . I wonder of the fairness doctrine review has him scared?
Plum Zizzie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 12:57 pm
THERE IS NOT TIME FOR FAILURE!!!!

Ecclesiastes or Preacher
1:1
"The words of the Preacher, the son of David, King in Jerusalem."

3:1 To everything there is a season and a time to do every purpose under the heaven;
3:2 A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3:3 A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break down and a time to build up;
3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to morn and a time to dance;
3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
3:6 A time to get and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
3:7 A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

DOTJ ZIZZE





















0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 01:47 pm
'A time to chop and a time to slice"
"A time to gather shiny cans of metal, and a time to redeem these cans for cash"
A time to plant garlic and a time to pluck up the garlic which was planted"
A time to write Christmas Cards, and a time to make sopaipillas"

A time to use a Swiffer and a time to vacuum.

Mine is more relevant to the world of today
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 02:03 am
@farmerman,
I do not doubt that Limbaugh may be running scared of the fairness doctrine but then there are so many other venues to shut down--Fox might be the next to go after Limbaugh.

You realize, I am sure, that there would be no Limbaugh without an audience of Millions. This, I feel is a comment on the massive imbecility of the American Public as a whole. You know,of course, that illiteracy is endemic among Americans, especially African-Americans and Hispanics. They are prone to getting as many twisted and erroneous messages as the Limbaugh sheep.

I don't know what Limbaugh did to blame Clinton for the cause of Bush's shortcomings. I think that is a stretch. Clinton is sui generis. The best comment I ever read about Clinton came from the Presidential Historian- Dr. Fred Greenfield,Political Professor and Director of the Woodrow Wilson School of Leadership studies at PRINCETON.

Dr. Greenfield wrote in his book-"The Presidential Difference" P. 188

quote

"The politically gifted, emotionally challenged William Jefferson Clinton provides yet another indication of the fundamental importance of emotional intelligence in the modern presidency...he is likely to be remembered as a politically talented underachiever".

I appreciate your gentlemanly tone, Farmerman. To me it is an indication that you are secure enough to converse with others who may not agree with your philosophy.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2021 12:06 pm
HE DIED!
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2021 01:21 pm
@hightor,
Yeah, I just read it. Didn't know what to say considering I think it is disrespectful to speak ill of the dead.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2021 01:22 pm
@revelette3,
Thanks for saying what I was thinking.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 05:16 pm
@revelette3
revelette3 wrote:

Yeah, I just read it. Didn't know what to say considering I think it is disrespectful to speak ill of the dead.


@roger
roger wrote:

Thanks for saying what I was thinking.

I know the social convention, but I've always wondered why that is.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 05:25 pm
@InfraBlue,
Dang if I know, Blue, but it's a convention worth being aware of.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 05:40 pm
@roger,
Oh certainly, but, does it apply to everyone, say Josef Mengele?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 06:52 pm
@InfraBlue,
No, and probably a bunch of others.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2021 07:48 am
Must We Dance on Rush Limbaugh’s Grave

Speaking ill of the dead needn’t mean cackling over their demise.

Quote:
“Not proud of this,” a friend wrote to me in a text message mere minutes after the news broke on Wednesday, “but feeling really good about Rush Limbaugh dying.”

I understood. I myself wasn’t mourning the passing of a man who had been so contemptuous of people who didn’t share his political views, so prone to cruel mockery, so proudly prejudiced, so recklessly divisive. In his last months he sought to undermine democracy by ardently promoting the fiction that the 2020 election was stolen from his beloved Donald Trump. The world will hardly be worse for Limbaugh’s absence.

But it’s the “not proud” part of my friend’s message that compels me to share it. It’s the “not proud” part that makes him one of my nearest and dearest. He’s a humanist, he’s decent, and he was acknowledging that death isn’t a moment for rejoicing or gloating — that the only thing served by that is our own debasement. He was making clear that what he was confiding to me he wouldn’t be stitching on a throw pillow, posting on Facebook or putting in a headline.

“BIGOT, MISOGYNIST, HOMOPHOBE, CRANK: RUSH LIMBAUGH DEAD.” Those were the words, capitalized and adrenalized, that HuffPost splashed across its home page. Several other left-leaning sites took the same tack and tone.

Of course, they were positively restrained in comparison with Twitter, which is basically talk radio’s less windy bastard child. “Rest in piss” had currency there. The F word, followed immediately by Limbaugh’s name, was taken out for a spin. There was speculation that Limbaugh had gone to a very hot place reputed to have nine circles and a red, horned ruler. There was wishing that he would rot there. One tweet said that Limbaugh “brought a lot of people a lot of joy by dying.” It was liked by more than 35,000 of the morbidly contented. I don’t begrudge them their relief that he’s no longer ranting. But is that really what they want to lavish a cute little heart symbol on?

I also don’t quibble with the accuracy of the nasty nouns in HuffPost’s damning litany. But were they necessary at that exact moment and in that particular context? All of them were justly and repeatedly slung at Limbaugh when he was alive. In real time his critics labeled his hate and his ignorance — which were his steppingstones to fame and riches — for what they were, exposing them and pushing back at him. That was just. He earned it. If you’re going to fling your opinions at the world, you must be braced for the world to fling its reaction back at you. Those are the terms of the contract.

And it would be journalistic malpractice and morally wrong to publish obituaries about Limbaugh that merely noted his role in the rise of talk radio and his adoration by millions of listeners. Those appraisals were obliged, for the sake of history and accuracy, to note and be reasonably blunt about how he used his format, what listeners were thrilling to and what impact it had on the country’s political culture.

The Times’s obituary did precisely that. I don’t always agree with the approach and decisions of the news organization that employs me and have never felt any pressure to play cheerleader for it, but I think it handled Limbaugh’s death expertly.

The headline: “Rush Limbaugh Dies at 70; Turned Talk Radio Into a Right-Wing Attack Machine.” That nails his significance and signals his destructiveness without hurling slurs. Below those words, in a subhead, came these: “With a following of 15 million and a divisive style of mockery, grievance and denigrating language, he was a force in reshaping American conservatism.” Again, no sugarcoating Limbaugh’s behavior, no hedging about his tactics, but also no taunting, no seething, no celebrating. The paragraphs that followed that subhead also followed suit.

They certainly didn’t pay homage to him. But the nastier stuff that I saw elsewhere did, in its way — by accidentally reifying his aspersions against liberals as merciless jurists and by inadvertently validating his own style. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Limbaugh was just flattered to a fare thee well. He got posthumous company in the gutter, and I’m hard pressed to identify anyone who benefits from that.

There’s another way. Remember — who couldn’t? — when Trump cheapened the Presidential Medal of Freedom by bestowing it on Limbaugh? The best response that I read to that was, as it happens, in The Times, by my colleague Talmon Joseph Smith, who didn’t wring his hands and beat his chest and overwork his thesaurus for synonyms for “shameful,” “abomination” and such. He simply put together a greatest-hits compilation of some of Limbaugh’s least charitable statements about women and minorities, laying Limbaugh’s sexism and racism bare without ever affixing those labels to it.

nyt/bruni
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 07:08:53