Success is a journey
not a destination----------------- Ben sweetland
Roxxxanne wrote:As far as Randi goes, I knew her in Miami and she developed her own style following Neil Rogers at WQAM (or was it WIOD) Neil got tired of doing "issues" and started doing "schtick" Randi kept doing issues and built an audience with people who wanted to talk about and listen to issues. Then she moved up to Palm Beach and was involved in that whole Florida vote fiasco which she witnessed firsthand and was on the air at 9am election day reporting problems. She got a lot of traction out of that and wound up on Air America. Randi is just Randi and often gets out of control with her passion. Although the end result may be similar, she is almost the exact opposite of Rush in that she is entirely uncalculating for the most part. Doing stand-up comedy is not her forte and I guess she got out of control again. Randi is not too popular with feminists today.
If by "uncalculating" you mean the stupid bigmouth bitch is clueless about what kind of commentary is productive or informative in any way, then yeah, she's "uncalculating". She is just as bad as Coulter or Limbaugh - a rabble rousing, shoot-from-the-lip goof. And I wish to hell she'd find work someplace where she wasn't displayed as if she has some kind of original or even minimally reflective things to say about any damn thing.
To compare Rhodes to Limbaugh is an insult to Limbaugh. Limbaugh does not bully or yell at callers, that I have ever heard. He may sound a bit impatient with callers that he disagrees with, but he makes a rule of being pretty courteous. Some of the most impatient I've heard him get is if the caller lies to the screener about what the subject will be that the caller intends to talk about.
Foxfyre wrote:snood wrote:kickycan wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You haven't ever listened to Limbaugh have you?
I have.
Foxfyre wrote:He absolutely gives at least up to twice as much time to people who call in to criticize him or present a leftwing perspective as he does the people who call to praise him or present a rightwing point of view.
This is either a bald-faced lie, or you are delusional. I can't decide. Probably both.
Foxfyre wrote:And I don't recall that Rush has ever raised his voice or disrespected or been rude or dismissive of a single one of those callers.
HAHAHA!!! How ridiculous can you get with this crap. Wow. You're so good at lying, we should start calling you Bill Clinton.
I know. I hate a stinkin liar. It's hard to even humor myself with the illusion that we are carrying on reasonably intelligent discussion when I try to talk to a bald-faced unrepentant stinkin liar like foxfyre.
I don't know if it's a state of delusion or just a bedrock-deep flaw in character, and on that level its sort of interesting as a sort of study of mental pathology, but I won't ever make the mistake of trying to take that stinking liar seriously again.
If you will listen to Rush for one week's radio shows, Monday through Friday, and then tell me the time and date that you heard him be disrespectful to a liberal caller and the name of that caller, I'll send you a gift certificate for a steak dinner. (I can retrieve it I believe on the website.) I'm not saying he is never disrespectful or uncomplimentary in his remarks about certain people because he certainly is. But I have NEVER heard him be rude, dismissive to any caller or not give any liberal more opportunity to say what he or she wants to say than he usually allows the rightwingers. He will certainly disagree with them, both right and leftwingers when he disagrees, but he is not rude or dismissive.
Kicky is lying through his teeth because if he had ever listened to Rush for any length of time, he would know that.
And you really aren't going to admit that you were out of line accusing me of something I didn't do either, are you.
You see? This is how she operates. You point out her horseshit, and she gives you an assignment to do. No thanks, I'm busy.
I think I see the problem here though. It's all just a simple communication breakdown. I believe that Foxfyre defines her words differently than other people.
For instance, when she says, Rush "absolutely gives at least up to twice as much time to people who call in to criticize him or present a leftwing perspective as he does the people who call to praise him or present a rightwing point of view," she means that he speaks for twice as long after hanging up on them. And when she says, "I don't recall that Rush has ever raised his voice or disrespected or been rude or dismissive of a single one of those callers," what she actually means is, "I don't recall that Rush has ever done all of these things
simultaneously to a single one of those callers."
So you see, she's not really lying, as far as she knows. It's all a big misunderstanding! Now let's all have a nice big group hug.
Fox will misinterpret the hug.
kickycan wrote:You see? This is how she operates. You point out her horseshit, and she gives you an assignment to do. No thanks, I'm busy.
I think I see the problem here though. It's all just a simple communication breakdown. I believe that Foxfyre defines her words differently than other people.
For instance, when she says, Rush "absolutely gives at least up to twice as much time to people who call in to criticize him or present a leftwing perspective as he does the people who call to praise him or present a rightwing point of view," she means that he speaks for twice as long after hanging up on them. And when she says, "I don't recall that Rush has ever raised his voice or disrespected or been rude or dismissive of a single one of those callers," what she actually means is, "I don't recall that Rush has ever done all of these things simultaneously to a single one of those callers."
So you see, she's not really lying, as far as she knows. It's all a big misunderstanding! Now let's all have a nice big group hug.
From what I've heard of Rush, when I've listened to him, he is exactly as Foxy is describing. He is WAAAY more patient with the wacko leftists who call his show than he needs to be. When he ought to cut them off, when he WANTS to cut them off ... and you can tell he does ... he doesn't. He lets them say what they want to say, and he doesn't cut them off rudely, but treats them respectfully, and politely.
He then proceeds to explain why they're full of ****, but that's a horse of a different color, isn't it?
I've certainly never heard anything other than courtesy and patience when he is talking to callers, Tico. You're right, he'll talk about them after the call is completed, but he does not hang up on them as Kicky says. And I believe him when he says he puts liberals who call in at the head of the line to talk to him - otherwise there sure wouldn't be as many who get on his show as there are.
Hannity can be curt and short with an obnoxious liberal, yes. along with a clip of Mark Levin (who once subbed for him)snapping in his decidedly New York accent: "Get off the phone you big dope." And Savage can be downright brutal to callers.
But not Rush.
It's funny how much power these folks falsely accusing him do give Rush though. If Rush had half as much influence as they attribute to him, Bill Clinton would never have been elected President - twice - John Kerry would never have received the nomination in 2004 - I'm not sure who would be the Democratic nominee in this election - possibly Obama though--Rush has been exceedingly gentle with him - but John McCain sure wouldn't be the GOP nominee.
Foxfyre wrote:I've certainly never heard anything other than courtesy and patience when he is talking to callers, Tico. You're right, he'll talk about them after the call is completed, but he does not hang up on them as Kicky says. And I believe him when he says he puts liberals who call in at the head of the line to talk to him - otherwise there sure wouldn't be as many who get on his show as there are.
.
As anyone who reads your bullshit knows,you only hear what you want to hear and tune everything else out.
I can see why psychomaya loves him however there might be a little cigar envy going on there.
To be fair, we all are somewhat blind to our own prejudices. Where a partisan or ideological divide is drawn so sharply, as it is now with many, that blindness tends to be even more acute. Liberalism, in the sixties, got arrogant and a bit stupid about all this and our radical voices looked to us to be almost centrist, certainly they looked to be correct, wise and even heroic in their radicalism.
Some years up the road, tico and foxfire too will have a better grip on what it is they now support.
Quote: 81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed on the Wrong Track
By DAVID LEONHARDT and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Published: April 4, 2008
Americans are more dissatisfied with the country's direction than at any time since the New York Times/CBS News poll began asking about the subject in the early 1990s, according to the latest poll.
In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track," up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002.
Although the public mood has been darkening since the early days of the war in Iraq, it has taken a new turn for the worse in the last few months, as the economy has seemed to slip into recession. There is now nearly a national consensus that the country faces significant problems.
A majority of nearly every demographic and political group ?- Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school ?- say the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was better off.
The dissatisfaction is especially striking because public opinion usually hits its low point only in the months and years after an economic downturn, not at the beginning of one. Today, however, Americans report being deeply worried about the country even though many say their own personal finances are still in fairly good shape.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/04poll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
There could be hope for Blatham to some day understand what it is that Tico and Foxfyre actually support which so far he has demonstrated that he doesn't have a clue. But yes, prejudices are certainly a factor in lack of understanding.
Is it legal for Obama to do this, and does this explain (at least partly) why he seems to have such big crowds?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804030466
Quote:As former President Bill Clinton was extolling his wife's credentials, Obama's campaign office in Bloomington began giving away tickets to Sunday's Dave Matthews concert at Assembly Hall.
Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they'd left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.
"I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure," he said. "The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here."
Isnt this like buying votes?
mysteryman wrote:
Isnt this like buying votes?
So they have to vote for Obama now?
mysteryman wrote:Is it legal for Obama to do this, and does this explain (at least partly) why he seems to have such big crowds?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804030466
Quote:As former President Bill Clinton was extolling his wife's credentials, Obama's campaign office in Bloomington began giving away tickets to Sunday's Dave Matthews concert at Assembly Hall.
Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they'd left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.
"I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure," he said. "The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here."
Isnt this like buying votes?
Is it classy? No. Shrewd? Yeah. Don't think it is illegal.
Back in the 60's and early 70's, television stations didn't broadcast all night but around midnight or so generally signed off with the National Anthem and maybe some kind of inspirational or poetic offering with appropriate visuals to go with it.
I can't remember who the two candidates were but both were scheduled to give a television speech one night following the evening news. The first guy got up and gave his speech, but in the last ten minutes of his allocated time, he had the time filled with the National Anthem with fighter jets zooming through the clouds and fireworks and such.
So most of the people thought the station was signing off, turned off their television sets, and went to bed, leaving the second guy with almost no television audience.
Ethical? Well...........
But you have to give the first guy some credit for smarts.
it reminds me of bread and circuses..... or let them eat cake..... you know... change
Obama's economic advisers are brainy academics
Obama's economic advisers are brainy academics
Part of a continuing series on economic issues in campaign 2008
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, April 4, 2008
WASHINGTON ?- Barack Obama is surrounded by bright but untested academic economists who are on the cutting edge of research on health care policy, social insurance, technology and taxes.
A lawyer and former community organizer, Obama has no economic expertise himself.
His chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He's young, quirky and a rising star in academia. He's written extensively, both as an academic researcher and as the author of a monthly "Economic Scene" column for The New York Times and a "Dismal Science" column for Slate.com.
Goolsbee's media columns touch on a range of topics, including China's weak banking system and high fees charged by administrators of some state savings plans for college, called 529s. He even penned an economic defense in March 2007 of the sub-prime loans that have helped trigger the nationwide housing crisis.
Goolsbee's a member of the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research, but while the University of Chicago is identified with free-market economics, he doesn't have an identifiable ideological bent.
"I would describe him as nonideological. Whether this is good or bad for political reasons, I don't know, but he is somebody you could easily imagine being a Democrat or a Republican ?- whatever he is, he is near the center," said Peter Klenow, a Stanford University economist who's published two research papers on technology with Goolsbee.
"I've known Austan since he was graduate student at MIT. He's a smart guy, a sensible guy, and I think it is a good thing that Obama has a chance to hear from Austan," said Martin Feldstein, who served Ronald Reagan and now advises the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. Feldstein also teaches at Harvard University and heads the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Several of Feldstein's Harvard colleagues also counsel Obama. They include health economist David Cutler, who was on President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.
Another is Jeffrey Leibman, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and an expert on social welfare programs and Social Security. He's studied how tax policies favor the very poor and very rich at the expense of the middle class.
Klenow taught with Goolsbee at the University of Chicago and described him as "a bread-and-butter applied micro-economist who is very creative and a very good communicator."
Microeconomics is the study of how and why businesses and consumers make economic decisions in specific markets, for example automobiles. One measure of his passion for communicating economics is clear on Goolsbee's Web site: He posted a picture of himself in a tuxedo delivering an economics lecture hours before his wedding in 1997.
One innovative proposal from Goolsbee comes in a 2006 research paper done for The Brookings Institution, a center-left Washington research center. He concluded that the IRS could save some 40 percent of taxpayers ?- those who have no tax deductions or freelance income ?- about $2 billion that they'd spend on tax help, as well as countless man-hours. The IRS could send them tax returns already filled out based on the W-2 forms sent in by their employers, and they could verify them and send them back without doing anything more.
Goolsbee, who earned a Ph.D from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1995, didn't respond to requests for comment.
He's been out of public view since a campaign controversy in which a Canadian government memo leaked to the press days before the March 4 Ohio primary. The document said that Goolsbee had given a Canadian diplomat the impression that Obama's campaign threats to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement were political posturing, and not to be taken seriously.
The incident was an indictment of Goolsbee's political skills, but few question his economic acumen.
If Obama were to win the presidency, he'd also be likely to fill economic posts with Clinton's more experienced advisers from her husband's administration, since the two Democratic hopefuls support similar economic policies. They agree on the need for universal health care coverage, and both want to roll back parts of President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 to force the rich to pay more.
"Many of them will be the same people. If they're asked ?- but they are now advising Clinton ?- you better believe they'd be there," said Chris Varvares, the president of Macroeconomic Advisers of St. Louis, Mo., one of the nation's top economic forecasters.
mysteryman wrote:Is it legal for Obama to do this, and does this explain (at least partly) why he seems to have such big crowds?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804030466
Quote:As former President Bill Clinton was extolling his wife's credentials, Obama's campaign office in Bloomington began giving away tickets to Sunday's Dave Matthews concert at Assembly Hall.
Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they'd left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.
"I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure," he said. "The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here."
Isnt this like buying votes?
Only if there is a quid pro quo... Is there any evidence that those who got the free tickets were required to make any sort of obligation to vote for Obama?
Hillary's Waterloo
Tuzla was bad news for Senator Clinton.
By Charles Krauthammer
Hillary Clinton met her Waterloo at Tuzla. She'd been regaling audiences with tales of a dangerous landing under sniper fire in Tuzla 12 years ago and then running for cover. None of this occurred. When CBS provided the tape, she was forced to admit to "a misstatement."
Now, confabulation is a fairly common psychological phenomenon. We all have internalized childhood stories so oft repeated by elders that we come to falsely "remember" the actual experience. Adult memories are less susceptible to such unconscious inventions, but past experiences embellished over time by repeated recounting can reach the point where we actually believe the elaborate trappings of our own retellings.
Clinton's problem, however, is that a corkscrew landing under sniper fire is the kind of thing that is hard to forget and harder still for memory to invent. This is confabulation on a pathological scale.
A Clintonian scale. And that's the problem. Barack Obama has been gaining on Hillary in part because Tuzla reminds Democrats what they had largely succeeded in banishing from consciousness: the Clintons' rather arm's-length relationship with truth. The great New York Times columnist William Safire once called Hillary Clinton "a congenital liar" and made it stick. And that was more than a decade before snipergate.
The revulsion at the Clintons' lack of scruples remained latent as long as the focus was on her relatively unknown opponent, a blank slate being filled in with Tony Rezko's shady dealings and Jeremiah Wright's racist rants. Tuzla not only provided a distraction from Obama's problem with the raving reverend, it created the perfect setting for the press to pronounce the Wright affair closed.
In his swoon-inducing Philadelphia speech, Obama had instructed the nation from on high that America was greatly in need of a national conversation on race ?- a need curiously absent before his pastor's words sent his campaign into a tailspin ?- and that he, Barack Obama, was ready to lead it. Everything was now on the table, except his association with Wright. Because to "play Rev. Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election" would simply be a "distraction" from the suffering of the American people which, of course, is the work of the usual suspects: corporate outsourcing and "the special interests in Washington."
This invitation to move on, as it were, has been widely accepted. After the speech it became an article of faith that even referencing Wright's comments was somehow illegitimate, the new "Swift-boating."
It is not just that Obama surrogate Rep. George Miller denounced the Clinton campaign for bringing up Wright when talking to superdelegates as trying to "work the low road." You expect that from a campaign. Or that Andrew Sullivan called Hillary's commenting on Wright "a new low." You expect that from Andrew Sullivan.
But from the mainstream media? As National Review's Byron York has pointed out, when Clinton supporter Lanny Davis said on CNN that it is "legitimate" for her to have remarked "that she personally would not put up with somebody who says that 9/11 are chickens who come home to roost" or the kind of "generic comments (Wright) made about white America," Anderson Cooper, the show's host and alleged moderator, interjected that since "we all know what the (Wright) comments were," he found it "amazing" and "funny" that Davis should "feel the need to repeat them over and over again."
Davis protested, "It's appropriate." Time magazine's Joe Klein promptly smacked Davis down with "Lanny, Lanny, you're spreading the ?- you're spreading the poison right now," and then suggested that an "honorable person" would "stay away from this stuff."
Amazing. We've gone beyond moral equivalence to moral inversion. It is now dishonorable to even make note of Wright's bigotry and ask how any man ?- let alone a man on the threshold of the presidency ?- could associate himself for 20 years with the purveyor of such hate.
Watching such a display, you get a full appreciation of Hillary's challenge. The mainstream media are back in the tank. The Saturday Night Live skits parodying media obsequiousness toward Obama, followed closely by the revelation of the Wright tapes, temporarily forced the media to subject Obama to normal scrutiny. But after the "speech" and Tuzla, they have reverted to form as protectors of the myth of Obama.
The hagiographic treatment of a newly emerged Democratic leader is a recurring theme in American journalism. At the dawning of the age of Clinton 15 years ago, the cover of The New York Times Magazine featured a woman dressed entirely in white. The heading read: "Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Politics of Virtue."
Inside, under the title "Saint Hillary," the late Michael Kelly wrote a brilliantly detached, coolly ironic deconstruction of his celestial subject. Saint Obama awaits his Michael Kelly.
Shrug. It's like having Elton John give a concert for ya, which Hill did last month.
No biggie
Cycloptichorn
