Now you know how Rush feels. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

to finally not to worry about how she will put gas in her car and how she will pay her mortage. I highly doubt Peggy is looking for a free ride. She's looking for an answer.

Again, this is all left up to interpretation of how you feel about Peggy's comment. Typical pubs will bash Peggy because they think they'll have to pay Peggy's mortgage, which is wrong.

There are already programs in place, i.e., welfare, section 8 housing, etc. Why does the government helping those in need surprise everyone at this point? I'll tell you why because the republicans have managed to smear Obama's plan and that's all they've got. The same old plans of Bush is what they have; that's it. Oh, wait they Governor Palin; yeah she's intelligent enough to fix anything with her overspending and "fixing of the books."

I don't think the good 'ole USA needs more "fixed books" to suit the suits. I'm off my soapbox now I guess.

I can't believe how many people on here honestly believe that Barack Obama is going to just let people have free gas and free homes. That's absurd.

That doesn't grow the economy.

This is an excellent article. It includes pretty dramatic graphs that I wasn't able to copy and post, and I would urge anyone who is unbiased and is truly interested in giving the President-Elect a chance to succeed -- JUST A CHANCE -- click on the link and see for yourselves.

The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.

Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.

The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's LA Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.

People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.

French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.

In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.

But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.

Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.

Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.

Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.

Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.

The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain.

In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.

Each newspaper involved in the survey used professional polling organisations, including ICM for the Guardian in Britain. Research was carried out this month, except in Poland, where polling took place in September.

Although the methodologies used differ - which may affect exact comparisons - the scale of Obama's lead everywhere outweighs any variation in results.
Research was carried out by: La Presse, Canada (1,500 telephone sample); the Guardian, UK (1,007 telephone, October 10-12 2008); Le Temps, Switzerland (600 telephone); Le Monde, France (1,000 face to face); Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (3,000 face to face); Reforma, Mexico (850 telephone); Le Soir, Belgium (1,007 telephone); Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland, (1,000 telephone)

q� This article was amended on Tuesday October 21 2008. A graphic showing the results of a poll on how the US is viewed around the world reversed the findings for Belgium. We stated that 39% of Belgians polled said their opinion of the US had changed for the worse since the start of the Bush presidency, and 52% said it had changed for the better. Those figures should have been the other way round.

censorship is unconstitutional. That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools. However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up. If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see. Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models. Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do. Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts.

I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography.

Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults. Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.

This is not a personal attack on Obama. I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography. I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub. I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.

What an evil, hateful, intolerant, ignorant person, but that explains the following he has with some on these boards. Birds of a feather stay together. Maybe it makes them feel more powerful somehow. If they weren't so hateful, I might even feel sorry for some of these poor misguided souls.

There seems to be an increasing movement of hate and intolerance in this country, wrapped around the Bible and the flag, neither of which is undeserving of such sacrilage by people who claim to love God and country.

It's becoming scarier every day to be an American who (1) might not belong to the "right" religion (no pun intended), (2) who thinks that Bush is taking us backwards in time, and (3) who supports our troops by wanting them to come home to their families safe, alive and intact, and to only be used when absolutely necessary, not at the whim of a president who has lies and who can't be trusted.

If you go to Rush's w/s, you'll see his "official Obama criticizer," aka "Bo Snerdley."

And speaking of the Jews, it was a Dem. strategist who made the comment in FL that the Jews wouldn't vote for a black man. That may well be on Rush's w/s as well. Even Rush hadn't heard that one.

If you actually studied this stuff you'd know what you're talking about. Even Greta played the soundbyte of what he said. It was printed on his web page, and is probably still there.

Regardless, if you think that having a Socialist in the White House is the answer and that border security means nothing, then vote away for one. Ironically, the person who wrote the book "Real Change" before Obama picked it up as his buzz word was Newt Gingrich. You may have no idea who he even is.

Try looking at JusticeOnTheBorder.com or EyesOnTheBorder.com if you want to compare what Obama & Clinton said about opening our flood gates even more as they pandered to all the illegals.

You probably also had no idea that he has over 20 million listeners daily. Literally nobody can touch him. When you're on top, they always try to topple you.

Rush is NO racist. Even so, there's no law against it, whether it be black against white, white against black, etc.

Did anyone hear R. Limbaugh's comments? I only caught part of it, but it sounded like he was talking about liberals as though we are satan or something. "You can't let them do this, or you can't let them do that". All the time saying "them" like it's a dirty word. Years ago I used to like him. Now he disgusts me. Now more than ever do we need a democrat president - just so I can see their faces and hear them whine.....oh wouldn't that be good.

hero of the great unwashed said SP was a "babe", "could wear a skirt", had "definable ankles." I thought sexism was sexism whether complementary or derogatory. I'll know more after my bath.

1) Why did the Bush administration suddenly declare a crisis during the final two weeks when Congress would be in session during his presidency? Is it maybe because, after the election, Congress would know it wasn't dealing with Bush anymore?

2) If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?

3) Why is it that Congress is supposed to bail out many banks and firms that are actually quite successful and profitable right now, and not just those that are failing?

6) Why is Paulson urging that debate on the matter be held after the legislation is passed?The burden of proof should always be placed on those who are demanding a huge government bailout, not upon those who are skeptical that one is needed. And yet the questions keep mounting, with no answers in sight.

I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all. Chris Bowers :: There Is No Crisis--Summary

The whole point of his show is to create controversy. Rush isn't just to the right....he's beyond right field. So, Gingrey had to grovel and apologize to Rush because he disagreed with him and ticked off his *base.* So, now we know who the *base* is. I was actually expecting that, and I personally hope it stays that way. It makes it easier for dems to win elections.

The funny thing to me is that Obama just mentioned Rush's name in what I took to be a joke. The pub party is so desparate for leadership that they took it to heart and managed to elevate Rush to a position of supposed power. Good luck defending Rush's background.....the drugs, the comments, etc.....ROFL.

Unless I missed something, I find it unbelievable that so many here either missed Rush on Saturday at CPAC. FNC ran it. I found out (as did Rush) that CNN streamed it, as did CSPAN. While I haven't looked any other places for what I've heard (and have known for years), Townhall.com has a plenty there.

Of course, the drivebys will still try to miss the boat on who conservatives are, either by stupidity or by wanting us to (continue to) appear as something we have never been. Of course, Rush has the entire transcript on his home page.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

"The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit. "

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." --on an ad by Michael J. Fox endorsing Claire McCaskill for Senate for supporting embryonic stem cell research

"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?" --on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal

"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs,
using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good
because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if
people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought
to be accused and they ought to be convicted and
they ought to be sent up."

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares."

"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the
homeless olympics...the 10-metre shopping cart relay,
the dumpster dig, and the hop, skip, and trip."

Rush Limbaugh critic Kevin Stevenson ousted as Marathon County Republican Party spokesman

The Republican Party of Marathon County has stripped its spokesman of his title less than three months after he wrote a column critical of conservative talk radio star Rush Limbaugh

Kevin Stevenson said he believes his March guest column in the Wausau Daily Herald criticizing Limbaugh turned local party members against him.

"They felt I was too moderate in what I was speaking and printing," he said.

Stevenson, who characterizes himself as a "John McCain-type of Republican," said the conflict was a microcosm of a national debate about what political message to put forward. A debate at a local Republican meeting on Thursday "got hostile and it got personal," he said.

When Stevenson criticized Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, other local Republicans wrote to the newspaper, arguing that conservatives ought to want Obama's policies to fail.

"This is just part of what you're seeing nationwide," he said. "(Party members) know that I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is hurting us more than helping us."

Kevin Hermening, the local Republican Party treasurer and a past president, said although Stevenson's columns were circulated among the party's executive committee, they did not always represent the views of most members.

�He was sharing a moderate view in his columns, which I think is terrific,� Hermening said. "If the leadership had wanted a more moderate position, we would have let him (continue)."

Stevenson, who lives in Lincoln County, was removed when the party adopted a new interpretation of residency -- but he said he considered that an excuse. Stevenson had previously been included because he owns land in neighboring Marathon County.

Party Chairman Joe Wachtel said he disagreed with the decision to remove Stevenson as spokesman, but that he also disagreed with a moderate position.

"I don't think the Republican Party and the conservative movement is going to be served by being Democrat-lite," Wachtel said.

___________________________

Side note: I wonder if Rush is going to kick Nancy Reagan out of the party since she said nice things about Pelosi......ROFL.

I've heard Al Franken say this on a television interview. He repeated it in an interview with Geov Parrish at WorkingforChange.com (05/02/05) to which we can conveniently link:

AF: I'm glad you asked me that. I use this example a lot. A few months ago, Rush was talking about the minimum wage. Conservatives like to portray it that no one has to raise a family on the minimum wage, the only people who get the minimum wage are teenagers who want to buy an i-Pod. So Rush says, "75 percent of all Americans on the minimum wage, my friends, are teenagers on their first job." And one of the researchers brings this to me, with a smile, and I say, "Well, can you look it up?" And they look it up, the researcher goes to something called the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 60.1 percent of Americans on minimum wage are twenty and above. 39.9 percent, then, are either teenagers or below twelve (laughs). I had several jobs as a teenager, so you figure, what, 13 percent might be teenagers in their first job. Not 75 percent. So where did Rush get his statistic? Well, he got it directly from his butt. It went out his butt, into his mouth, out the microphone, into the air, into the brains of dittoheads. And they believe this stuff.

So we get our labor statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He gets his from the Bureau of Rush's Butt. And that's the difference. We don't do that. That's one of the main differences.

I don't think I have wait for the liberal analysis of what Rush said. I was actually listening on the days he said all the things you referred to above, Of course, the so-called impoverished in this country are not the only ones with an obesity problem. Anyone who eats more calories than their body can burn on a daily basis will end up with an obesity problem it's not exclusive to race or class.

The UNICEF remarks were making fun of a U.N. charity program which, I believe, just last year was documented to be funneling money to Kofi Anan and his cohorts, but of course it was nicely swept under the rug. Actually, Rush was making fun of Sally Struthers for standing around truly starving people making us feel guilty for not sending money to UNICEF while she's standing there weighing all of 300 pounds herself, and I would bet my life she didn't miss a meal while doing that shoot.

That's not the point. I know what Rush said, because I heard what Rush said when he said it. It was satire whether you believe or not. Again, Rush does it, because he knows it will inflame liberals, and the PC crowd. He didn't talk about the bloated bellies of the starving people in the context you and the article want to spin it to be.

You don't get it, and I don't expect you to. I politely suggest you stick to Air America (for however long it remains on the air), and don't bother yourself with what Rush has to say, because when you call him or anyone else bloated or fat you are seriously defeating your own cause in being outraged that he called someone else fat.

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well , I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier kill ed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement beca use they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.