October surprise? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

The Jays

10-25-2006, 08:51 PM

The Fox commercial is a stroke of brilliance. The Democrats know that neo-con hosts always get in a tizzy whenever someone actually affected by a major issue is brought into the arena of policy and politics. To Republicans, the most alien thing to do is to have people criticize issues that come up due to the effects of existing policy, and whether it's widows of 9/11 criticizing policy on terror and compensation, mothers of sons who die in Iraq, or victims of diseases that might be cured through stem-cell research, the Republicans only line of defense is to complain that those directly affected by policy shouldn't be used by the opposing party because they are unfairly affecting policy by telling truth. And half of the country actually buys into it! It's other-worldly!

Most of all, it is frustrating. It makes me throw my hands up in the air, because I just wish I knew what to do other than submit my vote for someone else, because it simply isn't enough. If it was, then we wouldn't be dealing with this second term of Bush, or this Republican controlled government.

HeyGuy

10-25-2006, 11:40 PM

epo wrote: With October drawing to an end, the major political talking point of the moment is the Michael J. Fox ads and the dust-up with Rush Limbaugh that followed.  Is this the "october surprise" that Rove speaks of and how ironic that news finally turned on the neo-cons?I'm guessing that this is the major "moral issue" that the election will be turned on.  Everybody has a theoretical viewpoint, but when a Parkinson victim (albeit famous) is put in front of Middle America...it's hard to deny its effects.  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo</a>I dont see it as a moral issue. I its goo sitting in a freezer not being used. Everyone has different morals. To me its more important to save a life thats here already living. Not one that could, maybe, hopfully.... whatever.http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/CampoNJ/5749AgainstAbortion.jpg

Yerdaddy

10-26-2006, 12:21 AM

I personally think Limbaugh is scum that doesn't give two shits about the best interests of America, but instead thinks only in terms of being a crusader in an ideological war that makes him a shitload of money. So while I'm not surprised that he would attack and accuse Michael J. Fox for political reasons, I don't think anyone would predict that his comments would have become the national story that it has. So I don't think it was intended an October surprise, especially since it's still not going to have half the impact on the voting public that I think the Foley scandal potentially has. And I say potentially because I'm not holding my breath that there's anything that republicans will actually punish their leaders for at this point.

A.J.

10-26-2006, 03:08 AM

Why is a Canadian telling me how to vote?<img height="170" src="http://www.evenmonkeys.org/swift/images/blamecanada.jpg" width="220" border="0" />

epo

10-26-2006, 04:36 AM

A.J. wrote: Why is a Canadian telling me how to vote?Why is an Austrian running California?

TheMojoPin

10-26-2006, 05:01 AM

Michael J. FAUX!!!!  LOLERZZZZOMGHAHAHAHAHAHEEEHAWHAWLOLOMG!1!!!!!1!1!! 1

furie

10-26-2006, 05:06 AM

A.J. wrote: Why is a Canadian telling me how to vote?<img height="170" src="http://www.evenmonkeys.org/swift/images/blamecanada.jpg" width="220" border="0" />

becAUSe the only research canada is capable of is in sweeter maple syrup.

an october surprise implies a planed operation to affect the outcome an election. i don't see a big surprise being wasted on a midterm election.

Tenbatsuzen

10-26-2006, 06:22 AM

I returned my HDTV... the picture was all shaky.

johnniewalker

10-26-2006, 08:01 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: I personally think Limbaugh is scum that doesn't give two shits about the best interests of America, but instead thinks only in terms of being a crusader in an ideological war that makes him a shitload of money. So while I'm not surprised that he would attack and accuse Michael J. Fox for political reasons, I don't think anyone would predict that his comments would have become the national story that it has. So I don't think it was intended an October surprise, especially since it's still not going to have half the impact on the voting public that I think the Foley scandal potentially has. And I say potentially because I'm not holding my breath that there's anything that republicans will actually punish their leaders for at this point.  It has been a weird how some stories get turned in shitstorms and others don't even get mentioned. I think if Rush's true argument is that there is better ways of doing this than stem cells, let them do research to disprove it and we can get this pointless argument.

Yerdaddy

10-26-2006, 09:32 AM

This has become the funniest thread I've seen in a while. You guys make me so proud I might just protest myself.

Tenbatsuzen

10-26-2006, 11:09 AM

More importantly, where does Ron Kind stand on this issue?

El Mudo

10-26-2006, 07:00 PM

<img width="120" height="144" border="0" src="http://www.3rdgop.org/images/nelson7a.jpg" /> I'M PAUL R. NELSON...

epo

10-26-2006, 08:10 PM

Ron Kind represents that hick area of Wisconsin.  I say F that...be consistent.<ul><li><div>I'm pro-death penalty</div></li><li>Pro-women's rights.</li><li>Pro stem-cell.  </li></ul>Pick a side...be consistent.

empulse

10-27-2006, 02:10 PM

.::*RaDIO Psychic!*::.October Surprise:The battle group Eisenhower and the battle group Iwogima (These are Navy for those who don't know) are no currently stationed off the coast of Iran, and going to begin randomly stopping ships comming and going from Iran.  My guess  is to provoke an incident with Iran.  Or Nutty McShithead (our President) and Meltdown Rumsfeld will just launch an attack to get everyone all fired up and afraid again. These two battle groups consist of aircraft carriers, misslie cruisers, and submarines armed with cruise missiles.  Good times.  Fuck Bush.

johnniewalker

10-27-2006, 02:13 PM

Here's something you didn't see coming out a canidate's mouth this month...<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061027c.html">Boy's Penis in Father's Mouth 'Not a Sexual Act,' Webb Tells Radio Host...  </a>

empulse

10-27-2006, 03:48 PM

johnniewalker wrote: Here's something you didn't see coming out a canidate's mouth this month...<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061027c.html">Boy's Penis in Father's Mouth 'Not a Sexual Act,' Webb Tells Radio Host...  </a> just taking that as a blanket statement you would think he was an evil fuck. except Jim Webb was a published, and accomplished author, and this is an event that happened in one of his more famous novels.  Not a bad writer not sure how he eneded up in politics tho.

El Mudo

10-27-2006, 07:01 PM

The one book I have of Webb's, "Fields of Fire" is on my short list of all-time favorite books...the guy is a great author As
for the other thing about the little boy, Webb is right, that is used
in some cultures as a way of pacifying a male infant or small child, I
knew it was particular to Russian peasant culture, but I'm unsure how
many cultures its acutually practiced in

A.J.

10-28-2006, 08:03 AM

El Mudo wrote: As for the other thing about the little boy, Webb is right, that is used in some cultures as a way of pacifying a male infant or small child, I knew it was particular to Russian peasant culture, but I'm unsure how many cultures its acutually practiced in   "My father never sexually abused me.  I guess he didn't love me."<img height="114" src="http://www.spalliance.net/art/epvault/318.gif" width="190" border="0" />

johnniewalker

10-28-2006, 09:21 AM

El Mudo wrote: The one book I have of Webb's, "Fields of Fire" is on my short list of all-time favorite books...the guy is a great author As
for the other thing about the little boy, Webb is right, that is used
in some cultures as a way of pacifying a male infant or small child, I
knew it was particular to Russian peasant culture, but I'm unsure how
many cultures its acutually practiced in  At some point can we stop calling things culture, and put some things in the wrong column.

empulse

10-28-2006, 02:13 PM

Yes. we must never question the state. only do what pleases everone, and never offend.  Art is made be the devil.

armedguard06

10-28-2006, 07:14 PM

Hey  buddies, my brother was investing the october surprise, including the bcci scandal drugs in columbia and the promise software and was murderd in west va, in aug of 1991. You may remember he was found in a pool of blood in the bath tub. Look it up on the net, some friends wrote a book about, its called October surprise. One of the authors who wrote the book was killed some time after it was published. My brother had a book published it is called the ICE KING. God rest is soleRon and fez may remember this.....

Don Stugots

10-28-2006, 07:17 PM

armedguard06 wrote: Hey buddies, my brother was investing the october surprise, including the bcci scandal drugs in columbia and the promise software and was murderd in west va, in aug of 1991. You may remember he was found in a pool of blood in the bath tub. Look it up on the net, some friends wrote a book about, its called October surprise. One of the authors who wrote the book was killed some time after it was published. My brother had a book published it is called the ICE KING. God rest is soleRon and fez may remember this.....    would it wrong of me to say "god rest his shoe?"?

johnniewalker

10-28-2006, 07:24 PM

empulse wrote: Yes. we must never question the state. only do what pleases everone, and never offend. Art is made be the devil. Alright say we pacify our baby boys by doing this, I just have to question where this ends.  Wouldn't something else do just as good of a job.  What age does this end?  10, 12 years old?  Is this going to become the equivalent of a father blowing on his kids stomach?  I buy your argument, but we have to put some limits on this.

keithy_19

10-28-2006, 07:37 PM

furie wrote: A.J. wrote: Why is a Canadian telling me how to vote?   becAUSe the only research canada is capable of is in sweeter maple syrup. Now I'm starving. Earl, do we got any maple syrup back there?

cougarjake13

10-28-2006, 08:06 PM

i really wish that a 3rd party could rise up and become a threat to the reps and dems so we could do away with all this gossip mongering and non political bullshitalthough the 3rd party would prob just engage in the same tactics so it would all be for nothing

johnniewalker

10-28-2006, 08:19 PM

cougarjake13 wrote: i really wish that a 3rd party could rise up and become a threat to the reps and dems so we could do away with all this gossip mongering and non political bullshitalthough the 3rd party would prob just engage in the same tactics so it would all be for nothing If there was ever a year for a 3rd party it was this year.  The republicans aren't governing like republicans, and the democrats have few clear ideas.  I hope someone can pull off something.

Yerdaddy

10-29-2006, 12:54 AM

johnniewalker wrote: empulse wrote: Yes. we must never question the state. only do what pleases everone, and never offend. Art is made be the devil.  Alright say we pacify our baby boys by doing this, I just have to question where this ends.  Wouldn't something else do just as good of a job.  What age does this end?  10, 12 years old?  Is this going to become the equivalent of a father blowing on his kids stomach?  I buy your argument, but we have to put some limits on this. You seem to have drifted off the point of that story. Webb saw this happen in Cambodia and wrote it into a story taking place in Cambodia. His political opponents read the book and are making a campaign issue out of it by taking it out of context and making it seem as though he's somehow condoning the practice. But, other than as an example of how stupid our political campaigns can get, how is this an issue?

Yerdaddy

10-29-2006, 03:43 AM

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8" target="_blank">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.

Tenbatsuzen

10-29-2006, 04:46 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.    You do realize that you can substitute O&A's name in the above paragraph, right? Limbaugh stopped being a political threat a long time ago.  He's taken about as seriously as Air-America or Howard Stern or O&A for that matter.  He's a blowhard, filled with hot-air, and he's not above saying outrageous things to get ratings.  Have you seen people jumping to agree with him?  The Suppan/Warner/Patricia Heaton ad not withstanding (and trust me, if they could use stem cells for applications in plastic surgery, I'm sure Heaton would have a REAL quick turnaround) it's just a shitstorm because the republicans knew how effective the Fox ad was.

johnniewalker

10-29-2006, 09:04 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.  I think Bush is punished in his popularity because he is the opposite of Limbaugh and needs to start becoming more like him.  The opinions of Limbaugh aside, his popularity stems from his ability to articulate arguments and devolve concepts from the republican platform.  Bush stays so close to the abstract ideas that we never hear an argument, just repitition of ideas eveyone realizes is important.  I think that Bush's speeches represent the ideas of the voters, but he is so inarticulate he fails to find the level at which to talk about to persuade individuals.  Bush stays at the top level on stem cells, saying that there are moral reasons and gives limited funding.  Limbaugh goes two steps below and attacks Fox and then goes and attacks the reasons why we need stem cell research is unproven and might not be needed at all.  There is a clear difference between giving arguments and responding persuasively and saying something is just wrong.  Limbaugh has 3 hours to fill, in looking at the days news and seeing the report that there are really 600,000 dead in Iraq v. the 60,000 the government says can you just go on the air and say they are wrong.  He has to make specifically persuasive arguments against the report.  Its almost a blog like show and that's exactly what is needed in the future of politics.  Like him or not, he retains popularity through inconsistancies and other failures because hes responsive with arguments.  The future of politics is changing. Survey centers and political advisors should throw out most of what they have in terms of research even since 2004. Its a hypersensitive political climate, and even responding 5 days a week is not enough.  Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are the future, and they hold ugly characteristics, but I don't think having a consistant and argumentive response to current events is necessarily bad.  I think its sorely lacking in today's politicians.

Yerdaddy

10-29-2006, 10:06 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8" target="_blank">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.    You do realize that you can substitute O&A's name in the above paragraph, right? Limbaugh stopped being a political threat a long time ago.  He's taken about as seriously as Air-America or Howard Stern or O&A for that matter.  He's a blowhard, filled with hot-air, and he's not above saying outrageous things to get ratings.  Have you seen people jumping to agree with him?  The Suppan/Warner/Patricia Heaton ad not withstanding (and trust me, if they could use stem cells for applications in plastic surgery, I'm sure Heaton would have a REAL quick turnaround) it's just a shitstorm because the republicans knew how effective the Fox ad was.  I think that's complete bullshit. I think Limbaugh, while losing his right-wing dominance because of a new generation of more sophisticated pundits with big TV money behind them, but which he spawned has taken a bigger share of the bigger market, Limbaugh still has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_radio" target="_blank">larger</a> and more convinced audience than a vicious liar like him should have in a healthy democracy. The Rush Limbaugh Show has helped transform <a title="Mediumwave" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Mediumwave">AM</a> <a title="Broadcasting" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Broadcasting">broadcasting</a>. After the shift of music to <a title="FM" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/FM">FM</a> in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Limbaugh's show was first nationally syndicated in August 1988. Conservative talk radio stations, many built around Limbaugh's show, have now come to dominate AM radio. As of 2005, <a title="Arbitron" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Arbitron">Arbitron</a> ratings indicate the show's audience to average 13.5 million listeners weekly, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States. Such high ratings have been a consistent hallmark of his show.<a title="" href="#_note-1">[2]</a><a title="" href="#_note-2">[3]</a>And I don't even think Limbaugh is the worst. In the United States, talk radio is dominated by right-leaning political commentators; according to <a title="Nielsen ratings" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Nielsen_ratings">A.C. Nielsen</a>, the top four programs are those of <a title="Rush Limbaugh" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh">Rush Limbaugh</a>, <a title="Sean Hannity" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Sean_Hannity">Sean Hannity</a>, <a title="Michael Savage (commentator)" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)">Michael Savage</a>, and <a title="Glenn Beck" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Glenn_Beck">Glenn Beck</a>.Savage is basically a whit

Yerdaddy

10-29-2006, 10:19 AM

johnniewalker wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8" target="_blank">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.  I think Bush is punished in his popularity because he is the opposite of Limbaugh and needs to start becoming more like him.  The opinions of Limbaugh aside, his popularity stems from his ability to articulate arguments and devolve concepts from the republican platform.  Bush stays so close to the abstract ideas that we never hear an argument, just repitition of ideas eveyone realizes is important.  I think that Bush's speeches represent the ideas of the voters, but he is so inarticulate he fails to find the level at which to talk about to persuade individuals.  Bush stays at the top level on stem cells, saying that there are moral reasons and gives limited funding.  Limbaugh goes two steps below and attacks Fox and then goes and attacks the reasons why we need stem cell research is unproven and might not be needed at all.  There is a clear difference between giving arguments and responding persuasively and saying something is just wrong.  Limbaugh has 3 hours to fill, in looking at the days news and seeing the report that there are really 600,000 dead in Iraq v. the 60,000 the government says can you just go on the air and say they are wrong.  He has to make specifically persuasive arguments against the report.  Its almost a blog like show and that's exactly what is needed in the future of politics.  Like him or not, he retains popularity through inconsistancies and other failures because hes responsive with arguments.  The future of politics is changing. Survey centers and political advisors should throw out most of what they have in terms of research even since 2004. Its a hypersensitive political climate, and even responding 5 days a week is not enough.  Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are the future, and they hold ugly characteristics, but I don't think having a consistant and argumentive response to current events is necessarily bad.  I think its sorely lacking in today's politicians. YOU keep bringing up that report because you're using it as a straw-man to represent all criticism of the administration's conduct of the war. That's what the pundits do too. Moderate liberals and democrats have not endorsed that report, and you're the only one who's posted it here on the board. That alone illustrates my point. And I don't consider you one of the crazies. As for Limbaugh and Hannity being the future, and "not necessarily bad", consider this: In their attempts to demonize the "mainstream media" they constantly generalize that the NYT is biased, and most conservatives have accepted this as fact. Yet, every couple of months, when the NYT actually does get something wrong, it's a news story and often a big one. But if you look at the Wikipedia pages of the right-wing pundits linked to above, or Fox News, you'll find countless ev

Brujo

10-30-2006, 07:50 PM

I think Michael J. Fox was acting, and if he wants the government to pay for stem cell research, fuck him. I'll all for research, and unlike some of the extremists, I don't give a shit about killing embryos. I just don't think that our tax dollars should finance the research.

CuzBum

10-30-2006, 08:33 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8" target="_blank">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.  I think Bush is punished in his popularity because he is the opposite of Limbaugh and needs to start becoming more like him.  The opinions of Limbaugh aside, his popularity stems from his ability to articulate arguments and devolve concepts from the republican platform.  Bush stays so close to the abstract ideas that we never hear an argument, just repitition of ideas eveyone realizes is important.  I think that Bush's speeches represent the ideas of the voters, but he is so inarticulate he fails to find the level at which to talk about to persuade individuals.  Bush stays at the top level on stem cells, saying that there are moral reasons and gives limited funding.  Limbaugh goes two steps below and attacks Fox and then goes and attacks the reasons why we need stem cell research is unproven and might not be needed at all.  There is a clear difference between giving arguments and responding persuasively and saying something is just wrong.  Limbaugh has 3 hours to fill, in looking at the days news and seeing the report that there are really 600,000 dead in Iraq v. the 60,000 the government says can you just go on the air and say they are wrong.  He has to make specifically persuasive arguments against the report.  Its almost a blog like show and that's exactly what is needed in the future of politics.  Like him or not, he retains popularity through inconsistancies and other failures because hes responsive with arguments.  The future of politics is changing. Survey centers and political advisors should throw out most of what they have in terms of research even since 2004. Its a hypersensitive political climate, and even responding 5 days a week is not enough.  Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are the future, and they hold ugly characteristics, but I don't think having a consistant and argumentive response to current events is necessarily bad.  I think its sorely lacking in today's politicians. YOU keep bringing up that report because you're using it as a straw-man to represent all criticism of the administration's conduct of the war. That's what the pundits do too. Moderate liberals and democrats have not endorsed that report, and you're the only one who's posted it here on the board. That alone illustrates my point. And I don't consider you one of the crazies. As for Limbaugh and Hannity being the future, and "not necessarily bad", consider this: In their attempts to demonize the "mainstream media" they constantly generalize that the NYT is biased, and most conservatives have accepted this as fact. Yet, every couple of months, when the NYT actually does get something wrong, it's a news story and often a big one. But if you look at the Wikipedia pages of the right-wing pundit

Yerdaddy

10-30-2006, 11:02 PM

CuzBum wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8" target="_blank">Limbaugh is again shown to be moral ass cancer by his target who shows what honest, dignified and meaningful political debate really is.</a> He may be above name-calling, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, (and the people who do what he does), is a dangerous and immoral parasite on our society. I know from personal experience that there are many Americans like Fox, but who don't have the voice because they were never TV and movie stars. We all probably know someone like him. And yet we have conveyed national celebrity status and immense wealth on a man like Limbaugh because so many of us want to hear what he has to say and want to share his political ideas. That he has more influence on our political culture than someone who actually lives an issue, and intelligently and sincerely tries to use the democratic process to help future generations avoid real suffering, should be a national embarassment and a warning sign of what we are becoming.  I think Bush is punished in his popularity because he is the opposite of Limbaugh and needs to start becoming more like him.  The opinions of Limbaugh aside, his popularity stems from his ability to articulate arguments and devolve concepts from the republican platform.  Bush stays so close to the abstract ideas that we never hear an argument, just repitition of ideas eveyone realizes is important.  I think that Bush's speeches represent the ideas of the voters, but he is so inarticulate he fails to find the level at which to talk about to persuade individuals.  Bush stays at the top level on stem cells, saying that there are moral reasons and gives limited funding.  Limbaugh goes two steps below and attacks Fox and then goes and attacks the reasons why we need stem cell research is unproven and might not be needed at all.  There is a clear difference between giving arguments and responding persuasively and saying something is just wrong.  Limbaugh has 3 hours to fill, in looking at the days news and seeing the report that there are really 600,000 dead in Iraq v. the 60,000 the government says can you just go on the air and say they are wrong.  He has to make specifically persuasive arguments against the report.  Its almost a blog like show and that's exactly what is needed in the future of politics.  Like him or not, he retains popularity through inconsistancies and other failures because hes responsive with arguments.  The future of politics is changing. Survey centers and political advisors should throw out most of what they have in terms of research even since 2004. Its a hypersensitive political climate, and even responding 5 days a week is not enough.  Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are the future, and they hold ugly characteristics, but I don't think having a consistant and argumentive response to current events is necessarily bad.  I think its sorely lacking in today's politicians. YOU keep bringing up that report because you're using it as a straw-man to represent all criticism of the administration's conduct of the war. That's what the pundits do too. Moderate liberals and democrats have not endorsed that report, and you're the only one who's posted it here on the board. That alone illustrates my point. And I don't consider you one of the crazies. As for Limbaugh and Hannity being the future, and "not necessarily bad", consider this: In their attempts to demonize the "mainstream media" they constantly generalize that the NYT is biased, and most conservatives have accepted this as fact. Yet, every couple of months, when the NYT actually does get something wrong, it's a news story and often a big one. But if yo

Bulldogcakes

10-31-2006, 03:50 PM

THis is the only October surprise this year<img width="300" height="352" border="0" src="http://www.lemonzoo.com/content/P/15594-content.jpg" />  Rummy comes out.

foodcourtdruide

11-01-2006, 05:09 AM

Brujo wrote: I think Michael J. Fox was acting, and if he wants the government to pay for stem cell research, fuck him. I'll all for research, and unlike some of the extremists, I don't give a shit about killing embryos. I just don't think that our tax dollars should finance the research. Hm.. The best thing I think my tax dollars can go towards is funding research to cure diseases.

Tall_James

11-01-2006, 05:15 AM

Nice going John Kerry.  Your party had all the momentum of the whole Michael J. Fox situation, showing how Republicans are heartless bastards. But you had to swing negative attention your way with the stupid comment about the troops and your insane counterattack.I'm sure the Dem Party leaders are quietly wishing that he would get into a car with Ted Kennedy and take a trip to Chappaquiddick.

foodcourtdruide

11-01-2006, 05:25 AM

epo wrote: Ron Kind represents that hick area of Wisconsin.  I say F that...be consistent.<ul><li>*>I'm pro-death penalty <div /></li><li>Pro-women's rights.</li><li>Pro stem-cell.  </li></ul>Pick a side...be consistent.  Why does he have to pick a side? Maybe he has dynamic thoughts and opinions which don't conform to the two parties in this country. If you want someone who will simply "pick a side" then you should watch O'Reilly or Hannity.

A.J.

11-01-2006, 05:46 AM

Tall_James wrote: Nice going John Kerry.  Your party had all the momentum of the whole Michael J. Fox situation, showing how Republicans are heartless bastards. But you had to swing negative attention your way with the stupid comment about the troops and your insane counterattack.Remember during the 2004 Presidential campaign when they said John Kerry had no personality, no sense of humor?  They were right.

epo

11-01-2006, 07:38 PM

A.J. wrote: Tall_James wrote: Nice going John Kerry.  Your party had all the momentum of the whole Michael J. Fox situation, showing how Republicans are heartless bastards. But you had to swing negative attention your way with the stupid comment about the troops and your insane counterattack.Remember during the 2004 Presidential campaign when they said John Kerry had no personality, no sense of humor?  They were right.Kerry is not the funniest man on earth, but I'll give him credit for something in this mess:  He showed a set, which is more than he did in 2004.  And by showing a set, he made the story about Iraq again, rather than allowing the R's to "swiftboat" him again.  But I'll still never forgive him for that shit in 2004, that was just stupid.

epo

11-01-2006, 07:54 PM

I swear to god these politicians are retarded.  First Kerry fucks up, now this jerkoff (Republican House Major Leader John Boehner) absolutely shits the bed:<a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-house-leader-john-boehner.html">http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-house-leader-john-boehner.html</a>

burrben

11-01-2006, 07:57 PM

westcoastcasey

11-01-2006, 08:01 PM

Tall_James wrote: Nice going John Kerry.  Your party had all the momentum of the whole Michael J. Fox situation, showing how Republicans are heartless bastards. But you had to swing negative attention your way with the stupid comment about the troops and your insane counterattack.I'm sure the Dem Party leaders are quietly wishing that he would get into a car with Ted Kennedy and take a trip to Chappaquiddick.          I knew Ketchup Boie would come through!!

Yerdaddy

11-01-2006, 11:55 PM

I don't think the Boner or the Kerry comments should be getting the press they are. Clearly neither one was intending to insult the generals or the soldiers, this is simply the opposing parties making points by misconstruing what the other guy said. The sad thing about it though is WE'RE ACTUALLY IN A FUCKING WAR so there's got to be actual important issues to be discussed about it. Right? I'm looking at the Iraq stories and seeing this: <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/iraq/news_stories/SIG=13c19vrnq/*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usdeaths1nov01,1,3226578.story?coll=la-headlines-world">More than ever, insurgents are targeting U.S. forces</a>, <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061101133246">Iraq gunmen kidnap blind coach, official</a>, <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/iraq/news_stories/SIG=12g4ucc2k/*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq1nov01,1,4084277.story">Maliki demands removal of blockade on Sadr City</a>, <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/iraq/feature_articles/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061101/ts_csm/acasualties_1">Why such high troop losses in October?</a>, <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/iraq/feature_articles/SIG=12mdklpsf/*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103101405.html">Along Iraq-Syria Border, a Struggle to Cover the Terrain</a>, <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/iraq/opinion___editorials/SIG=12s28agse/*http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061101/OPINION01/611010393/1007/OPINION">Iraq leader allegiance is to anti-U.S. militia</a>, <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/iraq/opinion___editorials/SIG=11lpipfil/*http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1101/p09s01-cojh.html">Neither voters nor political leaders are satisifed with Iraq</a>. Sounds like there's more important shit to deal with than what the other fucking party said in a fucking speech.But, I've an idea. We all agree that the Electoral College is useless, right? Right. And this thing is actually made up of people who roughly number the members of Congress. And they aren't doing shit. I say, instead of eliminating the Electoral Congress, we expand it to add one 'elector' for each high-level administration official. And these guys' new job would be to follow our elected and appointed officials around and when one of them says something stupid and childish, especially in a "time of war", the elector's job will be to bring around once of those straight-arm winding slaps to the back of the head. "He said the soldiers are dumb..." [POP!] "He's blaming the generals..." [POP!] "He said..." [POP!] "But I didn't say anything yet!" "You want a fresh one?!"There's your new and improved Electoral College. Or, we could just not vote for childish douchebags who waste time and insult our intelligence talking about worthless shit like this.

A.J.

11-02-2006, 03:49 AM

epo wrote: I swear to god these politicians are retarded.  First Kerry fucks up, now this jerkoff (Republican House Major Leader John Boehner) absolutely shits the bed:<a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-house-leader-john-boehner.html">http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-house-leader-john-boehner.html</a>I don't know. Boehner DOES have a point.<img height="296" src="http://www.medaloffreedom.com/TommyFranks_GeorgeWBush.jpg" width="410" border="0" />

CofyCrakCocaine

11-02-2006, 07:43 AM

I was going to start a thread on this but I see that it's already in discussion. Trivial opener out of the way. On with the point. I for one am curious as to whether John Kerry is secretly on the take for the Republicans, because the level of his incompetence as a politician when it comes to moments like this where he portrays himself in a very politically suicidal light during crucial elections is a serious hindrance to the Democratic chances for election. I loved Howard Dean (despite his Satanic possession during the primaries) and Wesley Clark, even had the honor to meet Dean two years ago, and I have to agree with his assessment of Kerry as 'Bush Light'. Ambiguous on his political stances, he seems to be more a man who enacts policy because it's what will get him the most votes rather than standing up for what he actually believes in. If he runs again in 2008 I will personally despair.   I recognize that the over-reaction to his statement is hysterical nonsense- just as the over-reaction, by both parties- to Dean's scream in 2004 was hysterical nonsense. The same way I consider the blowjob in the White House affair of 98-99 to be hysterical over-reaction by the Republicans. But nonetheless, Kerry made a very stupid move, and he managed to alienate a huge group of people, something most politicians would never do. Even though there are elements of truth in what you say, you cannot expect the fact that it's got some truth to it that it makes you right in the minds and hearts of the people.  I disagree with people who say 'WTF we have more important things to talk about' - this was a major breech of political etiquette and it may seriously damage the reputation of the Democratic Party, thus threatening the re-election of hard-liner Republicans who will continue to pound the Iraq War even deeper into the crater they've already made, thus creating many more of the types of articles that one of the posters here linked. One bad egg is enough to alienate large masses of people from your side, because they are dumb and they generalize because it's too much effort in their minds to actually research a party case by case.  Take for instance, the damage you do to your reputation when you endorse groups like NAMBLA in your defense of the First Amendment. Are you wrong in pointing out that the pedophiles are entitled to free speech? No. Does it make you look bad nonetheless to defend their rights to vocally promote man-boy love? In many minds, absolutely...

Yerdaddy

11-02-2006, 12:06 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: I disagree with people who say 'WTF we have more important things to talk about' - this was a major breech of political etiquette and it may seriously damage the reputation of the Democratic Party, I think losing every national election cycle since 1994 is what's destroyed the reputation of the Democratic Party. Since then the dems have gone from dominating Congress for forty years to becoming the opposition party to becoming republicans' bitches. The evidence is in something that Ron said during the Bushisms show: paraphrasing - "What is it about Bush that the republicans get so defensive about? Like you're not allowed to criticize him. If Al Gore had said that would the country have ever stopped laughing?" The point is, there isn't anything in what Kerry said that republicans haven't said all the time. "The terrorists never stop looking for ways to hurt Amurrca, and neither do we." Bush said that and liberals and democrats, (and all rational republicans), laughed. "Oh that Bush, he's so stupid." We said, because we reasonably accepted that this was an honest slip of words, not some Freudian hint that Bush hates America. But when Kerry does the exact same thing, the republican spin machine and republican politicians ("leaders") all the way up to the President of the United States accuses him of attacking the American soldiers in Iraq. And their base loves it. They already believe this. They hear this from their pundits constantly, and that's why you've got the president, Cheney and the rest of the administration constantly campaigning by suggesting or flat-out saying that the democrats will not fight the wurr on turr, and will "cut and run" from Iraq. The accepted level of rhetoric and ad hominem attacks from conservatism in general has made it possible for republican politicians to say things that, in the past, their party's leadership would say that they had gone too far and call for retraction or apologies for such statements. Now this is considered "appealing to the conservative base" and is becoming more and more acceptable to the public as a whole. Including by the democrats themselves simply because, like in prison, when you've been made someone's bitch, you gotta shank a motherfucker to get your cred back. And the democrats, to this point, are too stupid to do that. During the 2004 debates, when Bush kept responding to Kerry's question about the paltry size of our "coalition" in political, material and economic participation in the war, compared to that of his father's coalition in 1991, Bush responded twice with "Yurr insultin arr allies." and "Don't furgit Poland." I was watching that with hardcore republicans and they were laughing at "Don't furgit Poland." But Kerry didn't have the balls to look at Bush and say "I asked you a question that has been asked of you many times since before the war, one that is relevant to the very success or failure of the entier war and the effect that it has on the standing of America in the world, and you dodged that question like you have always done in the past, and like you do with every question about how you conduct this war. You have no respect for the right of the American people to know what you do in their name? You smell like cabbage!" Or words to that effect.  Point is, it's a cheap rhetorical trick that Bush uses every time he ever answers questions. It's called a red herring. Kerry was a debating team champion or something, all he had to do was pull the curtain back a little on this moron and he would have been a hero. Or, like Ronny B said, "Even if you go down, at least you go down calling him an 'idiot'." Kerry didn't have the sense or the balls to do it. And the

johnniewalker

11-02-2006, 12:19 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]CofyCrakCocaine wrote: I disagree with people who say 'WTF we have more important things to talk about' - this was a major breech of political etiquette and it may seriously damage the reputation of the Democratic Party, I think losing every national election cycle since 1994 is what's destroyed the reputation of the Democratic Party. Since then the dems have gone from dominating Congress for forty years to becoming the opposition party to becoming republicans' bitches. The evidence is in something that Ron said during the Bushisms show: paraphrasing - "What is it about Bush that the republicans get so defensive about? Like you're not allowed to criticize him. If Al Gore had said that would the country have ever stopped laughing?" The point is, there isn't anything in what Kerry said that republicans haven't said all the time. "The terrorists never stop looking for ways to hurt Amurrca, and neither do we." Bush said that and liberals and democrats, (and all rational republicans), laughed. "Oh that Bush, he's so stupid." We said, because we reasonably accepted that this was an honest slip of words, not some Freudian hint that Bush hates America. But when Kerry does the exact same thing, the republican spin machine and republican politicians ("leaders") all the way up to the President of the United States accuses him of attacking the American soldiers in Iraq. And their base loves it. They already believe this. They hear this from their pundits constantly, and that's why you've got the president, Cheney and the rest of the administration constantly campaigning by suggesting or flat-out saying that the democrats will not fight the wurr on turr, and will "cut and run" from Iraq. The accepted level of rhetoric and ad hominem attacks from conservatism in general has made it possible for republican politicians to say things that, in the past, their party's leadership would say that they had gone too far and call for retraction or apologies for such statements. Now this is considered "appealing to the conservative base" and is becoming more and more acceptable to the public as a whole. Including by the democrats themselves simply because, like in prison, when you've been made someone's bitch, you gotta shank a motherfucker to get your cred back. And the democrats, to this point, are too stupid to do that. During the 2004 debates, when Bush kept responding to Kerry's question about the paltry size of our "coalition" in political, material and economic participation in the war, compared to that of his father's coalition in 1991, Bush responded twice with "Yurr insultin arr allies." and "Don't furgit Poland." I was watching that with hardcore republicans and they were laughing at "Don't furgit Poland." But Kerry didn't have the balls to look at Bush and say "I asked you a question that has been asked of you many times since before the war, one that is relevant to the very success or failure of the entier war and the effect that it has on the standing of America in the world, and you dodged that question like you have always done in the past, and like you do with every question about how you conduct this war. You have no respect for the right of the American people to know what you do in their name? You smell like cabbage!" Or words to that effect. Point is, it's a cheap rhetorical trick that Bush uses every time he ever answers questions. It's called a red herring. Kerry was a debating team champion or something, all he had to do was pull the curtain back a little on this moron and he would have been a hero. Or, like Ronny B said, "Even if you go down, at least you go down calling him an 'idiot'." Kerry didn't have the sense

A.J.

11-03-2006, 04:16 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: I think losing every national election cycle since 1994 is what's destroyed the reputation of the Democratic Party. Just to be a pain in the ass - the Dems DID keep the Presidency in 1996.

CofyCrakCocaine

11-03-2006, 09:19 AM

My that's one hell of a post <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/surrender.gif" /> I don't think I can respond to even half of what was written right now. I will say this however: In the ultimate core of what you have to say, I agree with 90% of what you wrote. The Democrats ARE sackless scared knee-wobbling out-of-touch idiots who don't know how to act like men when it comes to political confrontations. Kerry completely castrated himself during the 2004 election with his beamish attitude of 'I'm a nice decent human being who does not think ill of you Bush or your Republican Agenda, Sir', all while managing to sound like he has no idea what he himself wants to do with the country- this may not have been true, but he certainly gave off that impression even to folks who despised Bush. Meanwhile Bush would say things that have nothing to do with any of America's pressing issues like 'They say I swagger- well in Texas, we call that walking'- WHOOSH! 3 pointer! Irrelevant babble wins hearts! It's really starting to look like a circus act in that regard. Or a WWF (i'm old school, damn it) match if you will. The masses seem to love irrelevant stuff over real stuff, and the Democrats have bought into this myth, just as the Republicans want everyone to- they are good at making irrelevant comments come off as sound advice. Which is why when Kerry does something to isolate himself, all while he refuses still to this day to stand up for any sort of real cause beyond saying obvious statements like "I don't like Republicans, and I want Democrats to win elections" and "The War in Iraq is having problems" and "Nuclear terrorism is the worst threat"- that damages Democratic standing. Playing the honorable good natured soft-spoken man who respects his opponent does not fly with people in this country. Especially during times as turbulent as these. I wish I were wrong. I hope I am wrong. I would be happy to be proven wrong that this irrelevant 'joke' that Kerry made has no real negative impact on the image of Democrats the world over. I have little faith in the common man however, and I know how quickly people generalize and stereotype based upon a handful of things that were said because it's just easier to do that than do any real research. May I please be proven the cynic who saw more bad than there really was. I would prefer that.   Now, if the Democrats did get balls, and really go out there and 'at least go down calling him an "idiot"', that would make me proud. I personally believe that the only way to get some people's respect in this world is to crack a few heads that give you shit. Then people start to listen and say 'Well, he means what he says, cuz I saw him crack those motherfuckers' skulls!'. People may denounce you, but deep down inside they respect that stuff. The problem is, Democrats seem to have swallowed themselves into despair and think that they have to please EVERYONE. I'm Moderate, and I don't believe in pleasing even half the people of this country. Pandering to all of the Left's whims is just as retarded as pandering to all of the Right. Pandering in general is despicable in the realm of politics, but that's just my personal feel on it. You say Dem's biggest problem is lacking sack. Dean had problems, but lacking balls was not one of them. The man actually spoke up for what he believed and did so with such energy that his own party basically wrote him off as an 'extremist'- look at how the magazines portrayed him- and Democrats were scared by this fellow who would set a standard for Democrats the nation over in terms of how to confront Republicans in the political arena. Dean was far from perfect, but I liked him better than mr.play-it-safe Kerry. Wesley Clark also had well thought-out plans for what to do in Iraq, plans that made utter sense but he was a lousy speaker and failed to spread his word effectively- Dean is a great speaker and can spread his word- but he's too

Yerdaddy

11-03-2006, 03:06 PM

I'm going to read your post tomorrow morning, I swear, but it's 2 am here and I'm going to bed. I just wanted to say with you and me posting together, I think we can crash the server with simple text alone! Whata ya say?! Let's do this thing!

CofyCrakCocaine

11-03-2006, 03:38 PM

LOL Yeah, why not? <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" />

Jujubees2

11-03-2006, 03:55 PM

I don't know if anyone brought this up and Kerry really put his foot in his mouth but how about at one of those press dinners a few years ago, Bush gets up and starts kidding about looking for "those weapons of mass destruction".  He pretended to look under the table, etc.  That has to be a slap in the face to those who are risking their lives in Iraq because of faulty intelligence.

TheMojoPin

11-03-2006, 06:15 PM

Jujubees2 wrote: I don't know if anyone brought this up and Kerry really put his foot in his mouth but how about at one of those press dinners a few years ago, Bush gets up and starts kidding about looking for "those weapons of mass destruction".  He pretended to look under the table, etc.  That has to be a slap in the face to those who are risking their lives in Iraq because of faulty intelligence.The Daily Show showed that clip, and I think a couple others also showing Bush joking about Iraq.

Yerdaddy

11-03-2006, 11:47 PM

I can't begrudge anyone for joking about Iraq except for the cocksuckers who caused this quagmire. The rest of us have to be able to joke about it just to be able to cope with having to watch this horror of the administration doing everything they can to lose this fucking war while telling us everything's fine. What we need to be complaining about, (while storming the White House with pitchforks and torches would be more appropriate at this point), is all the shit like this:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_armor" target="_self">Hillbilly armor</a>, also known as "farmer armor", is a <a title="List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/List_of_U.S._Army_acronyms_and_expressions#Non-acronym_slang_and_expressions">slang term</a> used by <a title="United States" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/United_States">American</a> <a title="Military of the United States" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States">troops</a> to describe improvised <a title="Vehicle armor" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Vehicle_armor">vehicle armor</a>, most notably during the <a title="Occupation of Iraq" href="http://www.ronfez.net/wiki/Occupation_of_Iraq">occupation of Iraq</a>Why the fuck to we need a term like "hillbilly armor"? And why the fuck are we not demanding an apology from him? What the fuck is wrong with US?