great Presidential speech

[mojobone]

Sept 21, 2009, 3:39pm, drew wrote:Clinton's plan was that he could force radio stations to take Rush off the air by requiring equal time. It would be such a money loser to air the opposite view that it wouldn't make it profitable to air Rush, that's why is was called the Hush Rush Bill. But America wanted it to include all airwaves, ABC, NCB, CBS, CNN, etc.. who said they weren't political, and were moderate any way Even they couldn't keep a straight face when saying it.So eventually a group backed an Al Franken radio broadcast. It couldn't make money, no one listened to that idiot, therefore advertisers quit buying time (that's what they wanted to put Rush out of business). Finally, the Franken group got caught stealing money from another source, which included the GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA. I didn't find it hard to believe either .The Fairness Doctrine kind of disappeared after that but Obama said during his campaign that he would implement it under a better plan. The just want to make sure it's only fair to liberals... solution: CZAR, the more radical, the more better.So, from "former Air America employee allegedly scams Air America and Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs Of America for over $800,000", you get "Al Franken steals from Girl Scouts?" I have to use "allegedly", because Google can't seem to find any reputable news outlets that have reported such.

[billg]

I think Franken's show bombed because in general it's seems to be a conservative trait to follow only information that only supports your own personal viewpoint. Most all of my conservative friends admit to me that they only watch Fox news. You'd never catch them tuning into anything with another viewpoint (Hardball etc.). You would never catch a real conservative listening to PBS (PMS as Rush calls it) or CNBC (The communists news network). There's a reason they call themselves "ditto heads".BTW it was Reagan who put an end to the fairness doctrine. Pretty difficult to manage your propaganda when you have to present both sides of a controversial issue.

[drew]

It was long ago, maybe it was girls club rather than girl scouts. I guess that matters. But then again, there are many things the O said this year that I can't find on the net, it's stuff I really hate to leave out of my posts.

[drew]

Sept 21, 2009, 12:25pm, billg wrote: I think it could be looked as a homeland security issue if people are incited to attend these demonstrations armed, and in that case it's fair game for Rush to be yanked.Sorry Bill, I suppose I mis-read this. But I thought armed meant...Wait, I think I get it now. If Rush says he doesn't like gov health care and 56% of American voters don't either, that's inciting people to arm themselves. Now I understand Pelosi too. Good thing there are no whackjobs in the dem party, like that guy who shot the young recruiter soldier. Then Obama might get blamed because of inciting with his anti-war, anti-military statements. Yes, there are plenty if you want to see them.

[heinsite]

well Drew--then if them 56% of the ones that don't like the president's health care plans (more accurately, congresses that he will either sign or not sign), the he will be a one term prez, huh? it's possible. but it depends on 1) if he's still alive, and 2) who runs against him. the "we want bipartisanship" republicans are flat out liars. they have given NOTHING, and have contributed less than that to any viable solutions to health care, as just one example. bipartisan? you really need to come clean and admit that the day he was elected, Obama has been up against every dirty trick and every republican (almost...) that have all begun trying to beat him in the next election. no support at all.but there's a long way to go, i am NOT as optomistic as Glenn that this will come back to haunt the gop--they are better liars. look at what they did to john kerry--and compared to who? a guy that did ALL he could to get outta vietnam. we won't get fooled again--of course unless idiots on the right actually believe that rush limburger and cheney are "right." then we deserve whatever we get for leadership. we've been there--where the hell has the right been the last 8 years? all they can throw is the last few under supposed demo rule, but who vetos proposed laws? yep...and who said "don't send me what i won't sign?" not Obama in those words yet, but GWII certainly held any progress hostage.aw, no use, one either gets it or doesn't. my premise is STILL that the basic reason for all this rancor is one thing---the president is afro-american. and too many down there and lots of other places just don't like that, forget he was legally ELECTED. what a joke, LImburger and Beck are so wacked out on themselves and god knows what else (have you actually WATCHED glen beck's crazy rants--he gone man, and limburger is just an "act" that is proving to be an inciteful danger to the liberty he espouses to believe in--rush is about ONE THING--RUSH. Ps: Franken is a united states senator, and a serious one. deal with it. Rush and Glen are FAR funnier than he ever was...

[remmet]

Thanks Warren. I agree - you either get it or you don't. Really, it often seems we're living in separate realities. In Drew's and company's world, up is down, lies are truth, facts are whatever you believe. For people in that world, if Obama said the sky is blue, they would disagree on principle, and probably call him a socialist, fascist, and cloud killer. It wouldn't matter that such claims made no sense. If enough of them repeated it often enough, it would become their truth.At a certain point, trying to have a rational discussion seems futile. Sad to say, but I fear it's true.Richard

[toddt]

Sept 21, 2009, 4:54pm, drew wrote:Sept 21, 2009, 12:25pm, billg wrote: I think it could be looked as a homeland security issue if people are incited to attend these demonstrations armed, and in that case it's fair game for Rush to be yanked.Good thing there are no whackjobs in the dem party, like that guy who shot the young recruiter soldier. Then Obama might get blamed because of inciting with his anti-war, anti-military statements. Yes, there are plenty if you want to see them. Drew, firstly, what the **** is wrong with being anti-war?!And saying that there are whackjobs on the left prepared to kill over issues is like saying "there are racists on the left". While definitely true, it's all a matter of scale.It would be great if most of what you posted here didn't simply follow Fox News talking points, but every point you make is just a regurgitation of the day's non-issue. It's starting to look a lot like stock-standard trolling.Take "czars" for example. Clinton had 7, George W Bush had 31. Now Obama has 32 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... anch_czars ). So how do you genuinely see that this is a real issue worthy of attacking Obama and the left apart from the fact that Beck or Hannity or Limbaugh told you it is? And where was this anger when they escalated so greatly (7 to 31) under Bush? And anyway, is there something uniquely evil about non-elected assistants/experts (who report to the elected President anyway) that I am just missing?Is it just one more sign of the death of Intellectual Conservatism? You used to have great minds such as William F. Buckley extolling the virtues of conservatism and debating the issues of the day through learned and elegant argument. Now, as decried by Republicans such as David Frum amongst others, the party is led (spiritually at least) by idiots like Bachmann and Palin and Beck and Limbaugh who sell anti-intellectualism like a badge of honour. By idiots who pander to racists and xenophobes. By idiots who object to the president's "work hard" speech to schoolchildren.The party has mixed up the desire for "a leadership with the common touch" with the desire for "a leadership who are common people". Leaders should be shining beacons who elevate us with their brilliance, not populist wormtongues who pander to the worst of us. By following the latter, the G in GOP is losing all meaning and relevance.

[billg]

Drew, that number of 56% is pretty interesting. I don't doubt that you saw it posted somewhere on the web, in a news article, or most likely heard about on Fox news or talk radio but remember we just had an election where healthcare reform a main platform on which our ELECTED BY MAJORITY VOTE president was running. I did see a poll where approx. 56% of those polled were against the currently proposed healthcare reform and that may be where the number originally came from. But in the same polling 79% of those who wanted helathcare reform weren't happy because they thought Obama hadn't been forceful enough in pushing a public option.9 months ago the majority of Amercans voted to put Obama in office because #1. they had been ravaged durung the previous Administration. The census report that came out last week showed that Americans lost ground in every category during the Bush Administration.#2. They wanted real change in specific areas one major one being healthcare reform and Obama ran on a platform of healthcare reform.#3. Most Americand finally realised that we were at the very least mis-lead in the efforts to go to war in Iraq.I think these three things in a nutshell speak of where the majority of Americans are now. Unfortunately there are a few media heads whose job depends on promoting "conservative values" and causes regardless of any other situation and the best way they can achieve job security is to incite their small but vocal followers. Only a small number of people count themselves among the extreme right wing, the rest are "others" including mostly moderates.What really amuses me is that the right wing talk/media guys, Rush in particular, usually use some variety of a " we have the libs on the run & now they're afraid" scenario in a lot of rants. heck, Rush was doing it right after the election! He reminds me of a cartoon kid that's getting the crap beat out of them and saying "now I've got you right where I want you." I have to hand it to rush though, he knows his audience better than anyone else. He can just tell his audience that his show, Fox news etc., are the only fountains of truth and the rest (which he's labeled the "liberal driveby media") are all biased liars. And his listeners can't see that is an effort to cut them off from other opinions! And it works! He's been taking a lot of credit for helping to stall progress of healthcare reform but the truth is he and his followers have nothing to do with it. It's actually in the hands of a few democrats who are waffling . . . and truth be told they aren't really even needed because it can be rammed through with 51% (by a process i don't know much about.)

[drew]

For those who can't keep up:Actually, I was pointing out that neither party could be responsible for the "whackjobs" out there who take matters into their own hands with guns. There is nothing wrong with debates such as we are having here, it's the way every democratic gov'ment works.I'm trying to keep my posts relevant to the thread, and entertaining, but keep getting pulled into the name calling/blaming of people who don't want a two-sided discussion. Nonsensical points like birthers, murderers, talking points, Bush (who's GONE), Rush (who's not in politics, not even a journalist), etc, etc. In general, things that just don't matter. Very few discussions about O's America-to-be.If you don't like people pointing out what O is saying and doing it's going to be a long 3+ years for you. He's going to screw up a lot of things because of his inexperience (I know, at least he's better than Bush )And to quote one of the heroes of the left "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID", and that is aimed at the leader, not you guys. He seems to have no clue on how to manipulate the markets in America, not even trying, other than his stimulus of which the bulk is scheduled to be spent just prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections (by their own admissions). Shamelessly using OUR tax dollars to buy THEIR elections. After O promised NO earmarks it had over 8,000. And, AGAIN, the reps have NOTHING to do with passing Obamacare, all he has to do is convince his own dems that it's a good deal. After he shut them out of all input (refused all meetings with reps since May), he now is blaming them for having no input. And all I'm hearing here is talking points from some of you! Lighten up, I'm not the bad guy just 'cause my politics don't agree with yours. Prove me wrong by using O's words and actions on me.From The Hill, 09-09-09:The ball is in President Obama's court to reach out to Republicans if he wants a bipartisan bill on healthcare reform, House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) said Monday morning.Boehner told reporters that the president has not invited House GOP leaders to the White House for meetings on healthcare reform since the end of April.Earlier this year, GOP leaders sent a letter to the president in May stating that they would like to work with the administration to find "common ground" on healthcare reform.But the administration responded with a tersely worded letter indicating that they had healthcare reform under control.Words direct from O, yet he's blaming RUSH?

[llama]

Quote:Is it just one more sign of the death of Intellectual Conservatism? You used to have great minds such as William F. Buckley extolling the virtues of conservatism and debating the issues of the day through learned and elegant argument. Now, as decried by Republicans such as David Frum amongst others, the party is led (spiritually at least) by idiots like Bachmann and Palin and Beck and Limbaugh who sell anti-intellectualism like a badge of honour. By idiots who pander to racists and xenophobes. By idiots who object to the president's "work hard" speech to schoolchildren.The party has mixed up the desire for "a leadership with the common touch" with the desire for "a leadership who are common people". Leaders should be shining beacons who elevate us with their brilliance, not populist wormtongues who pander to the worst of us. By following the latter, the G in GOP is losing all meaning and relevance.Hey TT it's a shame to see your normally well reasoned arguments dissolve into name calling. You really believe....the 4 people you mention are idiots?.....They seem to be able to function and thrive very well so they are hardly "idiots". Look the term up to see what it means. Someone who doesn't have your own worldview is 99.9% of the time not an idiot. Also by implication you are saying those who oppose Obama are racist and xenophobe.....I roll my eyes again. Also interesting that you mention that Drew's arguements are Fox New's talking points. I suppose all the counter arguements are independantly deduced by the those who espouse them and are not influenced in anyway by what they get from MSNBC, Huff Post, Kos or the White House press sec. BTW the general mood at least from my circle of friends and aqs. is not all anti Obama more anti most politicians be they D or R. I think we would be in the same situation now if McCain had got in...As for "wormtongues" we have our share of them now. Of course if they conform to your world view then you probably don't hear that, only the sound of sweet music .Derek