Guest MonkeySee Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 The Nation -- Richard Nixon, when asked his opinion of an up-and-coming Texan named George Herbert Walker Bush, famously replied with casual disinterest, observing that Bush was alright as ambitious young pols went. Then, Nixon lit up at the thought of Bush's wife, Barbara. "Now," he declared, gleefully, "there's a woman who knows how to hate." In the circles of contemporary Republicanism, the ability to hate is the most highly valued of skills. That is main reason why, in the party's time of current peril, radio host Rush Limbaugh has emerged as the Grand Old Party's dominant figure. Limbaugh knows how to hate. Full story at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20090307...enation/1415156 Quote
Bob Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 It's absolutely exasperating to me that Limbaugh dominates the talk radio scene in the US. He's nasty and juvenile with many of his comments (all ultra right-wing) and what exasperates me is that the millions of his viewers lap up whatever he says without thinking for themselves. Unfortunately, that says a lot about his listeners and the quality of thinking that's going on in a large segment of the American population. Limbaugh, to me, is just another Joe Pyne with a better suit and a much larger audience. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the National Enquirer is usually one of the top selling "newspapers" (a rather broad use of that term!) in the states. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 While I agree with all said about Druggie Limbaugh, I am constantly bemused by how Sean Insannity, Bill Orally, and the rest of the Faux News Network continue to accuse the other media members of being guilty of extreme ideology. Faux could not be considered extreme, they are merely mainstream. Did not the nation vote towards the left this past year? Or am I dreaming this happened? Quote
Bob Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Same issue with the two idiots (O'Reilly and Hannity) that you mention. Those dorks - and the rest of Fox news - keep saying "fair and balanced" so often they end up actually believing it! I hope nobody else does (unfortunately, probably too many do). We're far from true impartial news provided by almost anybody. CNN used to be fairly neutral and moderate but the trend (Lou Dobbs, for example) is to put strident and opinionated people on the air. I pine (an old enough word) for the likes of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow......but it doesn't appear that they are coming back anytime soon. Jan Leno's "Man on the Street" repeating routine reflects that Americans (hey, I'm one) are far dumber than I ever thought. Pretty fascinating (read: pathetic) when less than half the people can name the Vice President or just about anybody else. Quote
Guest GaySacGuy Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 It seems clear to me that the Republicans are trying to be obstructionist just to obstruct any actions of the Democrats...with their goal to win back seats in 2010...and it is an ongoing plan. Just follow the talking points of the GOP leaders in both the House and the Senate. If Obama'a plans work, it could be a long 4-8 years for them...but if he fails, they think they are ready to pick up the pieces. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 t. Pretty fascinating (read: pathetic) when less than half the people can name the Vice President Surely most know it's Dan "potatoe" Quayle! Isn't it??? Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 It seems clear to me that the Republicans are trying to be obstructionist just to obstruct any actions of the Democrats... I have said it before: I think the republicans are still trying to get even with the Democrats of Nixon being forced to resign. They will do anything to achieve that. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 I have said it before: I think the republicans are still trying to get even with the Democrats of Nixon being forced to resign. They will do anything to achieve that. I think they are over the Nixon deal. They got even when they impeached Bill Clinton. Of course, I am sure they would like to be one up. Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 I think they are over the Nixon deal. They got even when they impeached Bill Clinton. Of course, I am sure they would like to be one up. Since Clinton was not found guilty during his impeachment and/or forced out of office I don't think they are satisfied yet. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Since Clinton was not found guilty during his impeachment and/or forced out of office I don't think they are satisfied yet. They sure were satisfied in embarrassing Clinton and wasting two years and who knows how much money. Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 They sure were satisfied in embarrassing Clinton and wasting two years and who knows how much money. Our taxpayer money. And the money they wasted on the Whitewater investigation. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Our taxpayer money. And the money they wasted on the Whitewater investigation. True. Not to mention the diversion this investigation created. No way Clinton could concentrate on running the country and foreign policy with all this craziness going on. And over a simple blowjob? Quote
Bob Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 And over a simple blowjob? Concentrating on the blowjob rather simplifies the matter. If all Clinton did was have extra-marital sex (of any variety), the whole issue would have been simply relegated to the National Enquirer and other such rag sheets. The first issue is that he did his deed with a 23-year old executive office employee in the oval office, an action viewed by many as way over the top (given where it happened and given the perception in the states that bosses ought to be smart enough to avoid sexual acts with subordinates). But, the clincher was the lying about it under oath. Perjury by somebody in his position - and being a lawyer to boot - handed a lot of rope to his opponents and I can't blame them a bit for trying to hang him with it. It's amazing how we have seen extremely powerful and intelligent (he is a Rhodes scholar) people do incredibly stupid things. I lost pretty much all trust in Clinton when he acknowledged many years before that he smoked marijuana but added that he "didn't inhale." I was dumbfounded by that comment (how could anybody be so fucking stupid to say that even if it was actually true - as, presuming he was so smart, he should have known that nobody would believe him). Had he simply acknowledged that he smoked marijuana (and one could argue he never had to answer that question and maybe shouldn't have - simply saying "it's none of your business" or "I did some stupid things when I was younger, just like most people, and I'm not going to recount them now"), the whole issue would have vanished in a day or two. But no, his goofy brain had to go further. Sorta like acknowledging you had sex but you didn't enjoy it, that you did rob the bank but never spent any of the money, etc. Quote
