Sorry, but Falwell is right this time...

[conjur]

:laugh:

The only serious point about Hannity is the top of his head.



As for Falwell, he's as meaningless as Pat Roberston. The only thing sustaining these radical clerics is their oversized egos.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm well the "more than the devil" line might be a little over the top :evil:

Imagine if the Republicans nominate Newt, talk about two people that just totally piss off the other side. That would be fun to watch, but would look horrible world wide.

LOL! That would be fun to watch. Lowest voter turnout in history.

I think a joint Rep/Dem ticket might be healthy for us. To that end, perhaps a Rice/Obama ticket? What do you think?

I think you're onto something. Obama/Rice

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm well the "more than the devil" line might be a little over the top :evil:

Imagine if the Republicans nominate Newt, talk about two people that just totally piss off the other side. That would be fun to watch, but would look horrible world wide.

LOL! That would be fun to watch. Lowest voter turnout in history.

I think a joint Rep/Dem ticket might be healthy for us. To that end, perhaps a Rice/Obama ticket? What do you think?

I think you're onto something. Obama/Rice

Obama Rice, sounds like something you eat in Japan.

 

[senseamp]

Falwell will beat Hillary in NO votes.

 

[conjur]

BTW, it's interesting the rwingnuts are ok with calling Hillary worse than Lucifer but were all up in arms over Hugo Chavez calling their frat-boy king the devil.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Screw all of you, someone we can all vote for

Oprah for President

How about Jon Stewart for President with Al Franken as VP? They can run against a Hannity/O'Reilly ticket. Hell, if our democratic process is going to keep giving us such lousy choices, at least I can enjoy seeing some loudmouted Republicans getting their rhetorical asses handed to them

Hannity and O'Reilly would be making serious points while Steward and Franken are crackin jokes, would be fun to watch for sure.

Question for ya: Rush is considered by most the best and most consistent proponent of conservative points of view. Who on the left fits that view?
If Rush taped an hour long speech on what it means to be a conservative, who would you want to provide the counterpoint? (can?t be Clinton)
I think that might be a Democratic problem, that you don?t have a person with that kind of voice and recognition.

I can actually think of a few I'd want, James Carville might have some interesting points...

But overall you're right, there ISN'T a Rush type person on the left. In fact, there are a whole class of Rush type commentators on the right, none of them as good as Rush (faint praise), but there are a LOT of fairly well known talking heads on the right...and very few on that level on the left. But I'm not sure I see that as a problem, it actually seems like it should be a point of pride with lefties. Sure, we enjoy listening to interesting ideas from our political camp, but as far as wanting or needing someone to give voice to our ideas, not so much. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and all those other righties fill an important need on the right (obviously, or they wouldn't have a market), the left simply doesn't have the same kind of need for a strong voice telling them what to think. You look down on the left because our well known commentators are political humorists who aren't really seen as the voice of our movement, while your commentary is provided by a strong, well recgonized voice that consistently pushes the majority of the conservative viewpoint...and I look down on the right for exactly the same reason.

I guess that's why we don't all have to believe the same things in politics, but all else being equal, I'd rather be on the side that needs a Jon Stewart than the side that needs a Rush.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, it's interesting the rwingnuts are ok with calling Hillary worse than Lucifer but were all up in arms over Hugo Chavez calling their frat-boy king the devil.

You know what's interesting is the a lot of Dems actually lept to Bush's defense over that, kind of a "nobody hits my little brother but me" moment. Dems may talk a lot of smack about Bush, but I don't think most people were real happy about some foreign asshole coming here and doing it. For the Dems, politics has its limits...I'm not so sure the Republicans are the same way.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, it's interesting the rwingnuts are ok with calling Hillary worse than Lucifer but were all up in arms over Hugo Chavez calling their frat-boy king the devil.

You know what's interesting is the a lot of Dems actually lept to Bush's defense over that, kind of a "nobody hits my little brother but me" moment. Dems may talk a lot of smack about Bush, but I don't think most people were real happy about some foreign asshole coming here and doing it. For the Dems, politics has its limits...I'm not so sure the Republicans are the same way.

Well, not many Repubs would object to calling Hilary the king... or queen the devil, but anyone who calls any President that will get some serious flak from pretty much anybody who calls him or herself an American.

 

[Lemon law]

OMG-----------now we are really scraping the barrel---citing the lowest of the low---but we forget McCain---and the ever popular Pat Robertson---who can see the hand of God as he smites Sharon with a stroke for even daring to give back any land already ceded in the Oslo accords.---but of the four religious leaders I have the least respect for---Robertson is even lower than
Falwell--Ralph Reed---and even blubbering Jimmy Swaggert.

But lets face it---the sole appeal of Rush Limbaugh for the common man is that Rush has a format where any notion---however illogical---can never be challenged because he stage manages to whole show----and the common slob just dies with envy because they know they could never get away with what Rush always gets away with---which is the somewhat cold and hotblooded murder of any and all rules of logic.

But as a whole---what the Republicans have presented as a counterbalance to alleged liberal media bias would not do credit to a collection of imbaceles. Yet it seems to be working all too well.----and if most Americans still think Saddam and Al-Quida are linked---and we can identify the big fat drug addict idiot who tells these lies.

Maybe GWB is God's punishment to the ignorant American people!---or is it Cheney and GWB is just the front guy? ----have any noticed that both the President of Iran and Chavez are just dismissed as nuts---without any debate as to exactly why they are wrong about our fearless leader.

I certainly do not think Bush is the Devil----Lucifer would not use an incompetent like him
any more than AL-Quida would use a Richard Reed or a Mosussaui.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't think there's any way Guiliani could get the nomination, especially after that whole bernard kerik thing.

I'm fascinated with the notion that allegedly Christian conservatives would vote for a guy that treated his wife like he did. Talk about an absence of decent family values . . .

Rice isn't running but if she did . . . her public record sux. National Security Advisor during term 1 and Sec of State during term 2. Nice titles . . . negative achievements. Powell is about the only Bush43 official that has any credibility (not counting O'Neill). I imagine many Republicans consider Powell to be a traitor since he stopped drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't think there's any way Guiliani could get the nomination, especially after that whole bernard kerik thing.

I'm fascinated with the notion that allegedly Christian conservatives would vote for a guy that treated his wife like he did. Talk about an absence of decent family values . . .

Fascinating indeed, but the simple prosaic explanation may be that they are simply profoundly shallow.

 

[Craig234]

But overall you're right, there ISN'T a Rush type person on the left. In fact, there are a whole class of Rush type commentators on the right, none of them as good as Rush (faint praise), but there are a LOT of fairly well known talking heads on the right...and very few on that level on the left. But I'm not sure I see that as a problem, it actually seems like it should be a point of pride with lefties. Sure, we enjoy listening to interesting ideas from our political camp, but as far as wanting or needing someone to give voice to our ideas, not so much. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and all those other righties fill an important need on the right (obviously, or they wouldn't have a market), the left simply doesn't have the same kind of need for a strong voice telling them what to think.

Let's be clear - Rush got where he is because of subsidies from special interests, not the fair marketplace. That's how the propaganda works - money distorts the debate.

It's why, for example, Exxon has spent tens of millions on several dozen outlets that say global warming is uncertain, and the public hears the message and assumes it's a legitimate side of the argument.

The head of the US National Academy of sciences says he's never seen any other issue with the scientific consensus that exists on global warming, but the public doesn't hear his statement because there are no millions spent.

We as citizens need to get corporate money not in the public interest out of the system, much less playing the dominate role it does now.

Watch for the chance to end corporate political donations, to get back the fairness doctrine, to fund independant research and media.

Support sites like Salon.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't think there's any way Guiliani could get the nomination, especially after that whole bernard kerik thing.

I'm fascinated with the notion that allegedly Christian conservatives would vote for a guy that treated his wife like he did. Talk about an absence of decent family values . . .

the moral hypocracy of the conservative "christian" movement hurts my head to think about for very long.

someday I'd really love to ask Bush, though, who Jesus would have executed in the electric chair.

 

[Craig234]

someday I'd really love to ask Bush, though, who Jesus would have executed in the electric chair.

I think Bush is a sociopath. People have tried to ask him those sorts of questions, and he just sneers at them - he doesn't understand. They're idiots to him.

This is a guy who cut off contact with the preacher who led him to be reborn, because the guy said a few things about needing to take care of the poor.

This is a guy who laughed mocking Karla Fay Tucker begging for a pardon after she converted religion.

I've seen reports from his days at Harvard that he'd throw out outrageous statements supporting Viet Nam (while avoiding the war himself) and when confronted he'd deny what he had just said and walk away - that the guy is a damaged person. He was *proud* of being the governor that executed the most people. He's just learned to say the right thing when he has to to hide the fact of who we elected. You need look no further for a sense of decency than things like his insider trading as the head of an audit at Harken.

He has one thing - competitivenes, ruthless, which in him is a flaw. John Dean said the presidency had a cancer; now, the presidency *is* a cancer in the nation.

The US is on the road to losing its principles, its moral leadership in the world, as it fails to get rid of the disease of the radical right wingers. Democracy is in danger.

People like John Kennedy and others spent decades selling the world on the US vision of moral democracy as something to strive for; Bush and Cheney have thrown that away in six short years, building upon the corruption of things like Reagan's support for terrorist contras and the Iran Contra crimes. China and others are now ready to grow and shift world culture away from the democracy American has so long championed; Bush's craven financial irresponsibility leaves the US weak to challenge them.

People fall for the republican advertising saying they're the 'real patriots', when the opposite is the case - they're the real enemies of America, among Americans.

 

[piasabird]

Obama is an idiot. He tried to raid the Southern Illinois University Retirement System. Since I work in Education in Illinois, I would never ever vote for that man. Obama is a pompous Conceited Bastard. When asked about health care costs, he basically told people at a local meeting that they need to take their fat asses out of their chairs and go get some exercise. This might make logical sense but it was not a very nice way to treat the voters. I felt personally insulted by his statements.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You might want to ask the Democrats how running an "anybody but Bush" campaign turned out for them...I see similar problems with Republicans taking an "anybody but Hillary" approach in 2008. Especially because (and keep in mind I'm no fan of Hillary) it could EASIALLY turn into a campaign that makes Republicans look like a bunch of misogynistic dinosaurs, reflexivly voting against a female President (honestly I'm not convinced that ISN'T the reason). And I think the righties underestimate what kind of effect that sort of campaign would have on the lefties in general and women on BOTH sides. While Falwell's comments provided a lot of yuks for right-wing fundies, that kind of BS is EXACTLY what got Dems in trouble in 2004...and their approach was much more tame, and I can only expect the Republicans will ramp things up even farther if Hillary actually runs. Obviously Republican supporters aren't exactly known for caring about dirty politics, I think this may cross some lines...especially with women who previously voted for Bush.

In other words, GTaudiophile's comment is actually fairly correct...but not complete. If Hillary runs in 2008, it WILL unify and motivate the real righties like never before, but it will be at the cost of support from everyone else, and we'll see just how untrue the idea that Americans have shifted to the right really is.

And that is why I keep saying she would make a great canidate for vice president. Let her run her presidential campaign and scare the bejebies out of the neo-cons, forcing them to concentrate the bulk of their "Veterans for the Truth" type smear campaigns on her (out of fear, if for no other reason), then slip in someone else as the Presidential canidate. I also think giving her the nod for vice president would help to garner a ton of female votes who are sick and tired of the liars running things now. A significant change in the female voters alone would have been enough to win the last two presidential elections.

 

[Termagant]

Attendees also were assured during the prayer breakfast that God would preserve a Republican majority in Congress.

Does anyone here think that any deity divinely intervenes in US elections, such as by inspiring voters of certain faiths to vote certain ways?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Attendees also were assured during the prayer breakfast that God would preserve a Republican majority in Congress.

Does anyone here think that any deity divinely intervenes in US elections, such as by inspiring voters of certain faiths to vote certain ways?

Who is a better authority on talking to figments of man's imagination than that fatfvck?

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
If the Dems put Hillary as their front-runner in 2008, the Right will be unified and motivated like never seen before.

Well, duh. You had to read something by that insipid bigot to figure that out?