In response to previous posts, I have this to say:
There was a time that I respected Limbaugh, but I stopped with that respect a long time ago. Why?
The guy puts more spin into his stories than a top. Michael Moore is no better. In both cases, these people would use their station in an attempt to provide one-sided stories.
Political Cheerleading without facts to sustain said cheerleading is downright stupid. What is the point of offering a solution without the evidence to prove that it works?
As for Iraq: Yes, Saddam needed to go. But Bush went about it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. I just think it is too convenient that those oil contracts emerge just AS the invasion was beginning. It was hurried and not enough was done to plan after the invasion.
Okay, they freed the Iraqis, now what? How do you restore the power grid, and how quickly can it be done? What about critical utilities, such as waters, hospitals, economic centers, food, etc? Hard for an Iraqi to enjoy his new satellite TV without any power to use it with, or any food with which to sustain himself. Don't get me started on the lack of drinking water.
And aren't the Republicans supposed to be about small government? I find it funny that Clinton did more to reduce the size of Government than Bush has.
That being said, the Democrats have done far from stellar themselves. Shoot, aside from Robert C. Byrd and a few others, many of the politicians are either gutless, spineless, chinless, weak-blooded, or 2 or more of the above. And not just Democrats, but Republicans fall in this category as well.
And one more topic to finish the rant: Gay marriage is not, nor ever will be again, a power of the church or the federal government to regulate. Need I point out: "And by the power vested in me by the state of (Insert your state here)"
I have no love for my government. None whatsoever. To me, all government is and ever will be is a necessary evil. To me, the democrats and the republicans have had their chance, and they have blown it.
It's hard being a right-winger in a left-wing Internet...
-
Kanaeda Kuonji
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Buckhannon, WV, United States
---See, I agree with this. I still listen to Rush, but some of his observations are so detached with the realities of the situation that I can't help but think he's lost touch.
---I can't help but categorize Limbaugh with Moore, because some of his own truths are outright wrong as well simply due to his detachment. Facts, as anything else, can be doctored, disguised, edited, obfuscated, and as is often the case, eventually turn out to be false or disproven some time later on.
---I can't help but categorize Limbaugh with Moore, because some of his own truths are outright wrong as well simply due to his detachment. Facts, as anything else, can be doctored, disguised, edited, obfuscated, and as is often the case, eventually turn out to be false or disproven some time later on.
CMorrison
The Polymer City Chronicles
"Languishing in Obscurity since 2000."
http://www.polymercitychronicles.com
The Polymer City Chronicles
"Languishing in Obscurity since 2000."
http://www.polymercitychronicles.com
You know, I would request that you try providing some EXAMPLES of Limbaugh's misleading people, rather than ad hominem attacks and de facto declarations, and can happily provide you with links to resources on Micheal Moore's, for lack of a better term, Media activities ( http://www.moorewatch.com , http://www.moorelies.com, http://www.moorelies.com/book/, http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysi ... it-911.htm, tp://wizbangblog.com/archives/003112.php)
----And I repeat, when <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news-24622/">the leader of a former soviet bloc nation calls your film weak communist-style propaganda,</a> you've quite effectively lowered yourself to a standard of deception all your own----
But quite frankly, I'm Tired Of This Freaking Crap.
When a spokesperson is discredited, the appropriate response is to either acknowledge it or refute it, not to pretend the spokesperson is the mathematical equivalent of someone in the opposition.... though it IS profoundly telling that the Right's strategy when a spokesperson is attacked is to insist he's NOT like the opposition, whilst the Left tries to defend their spokesperson by claiming he's <i>no different from</i> the opposition. (A Truism that liberals generally get elected by pretending that they're Conservatives, while Conservatives generally get defeated when they start pretending that they're liberals.)
Quite seriously, I'm really tired of arguing with people in the Cult of Personality. I'm not INTERESTED in defending Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Alan Keyes or Neal Boortz. They seem quite capable of defending themselves; if anyone actually HAD anything to attack them on, they wouldn't be sitting around gabbling about how "mean" Anne Coulter is or how "arrogant" Limbaugh acts, or trying to inflate a misquote or a moment of exaggerated hyperbole on their part into a "Scandal of deception"--- or struggling so hard to cover their own spokesman's blatant deceptions, fabrications, and outright libel.
Their detractors have no ground and no traction to attack right-wing spokespersons on the ISSUES ( which are SUPPOSED to be what is up for debate), so they resort to making fat jokes about a man who is in better shape than they are, or giggling like a snarky in-crowd prom-queen bitch about how they spotted one of the female speakers for the evening sniffling into a tissue backstage.
Perhaps if the Micheal Moore/Al Franken Koolaid Crowd did something besides spend all their time playing "Define IS" to protect their idols, I'd think they had something to say.
Maybe if they quit playing dress-up with the foaming-dog anti-american leftists, trying to make them look like Conservatives, Antiwar heroes, Vietnam War heroes, Free Speech heroes, daring rebels and "patriots," perhaps I'd be willing to listen to their arguments...... Yet again.
<i>If they would quit playing silly-ass games and address the <B>facts and issues</b> rather than just the spokesperson, I'd actually care what they had to say.</i>
But they're not.
The best they can do, and call it a "debate," is to try and claim that their latest icon of prevarication, obfuscation, libel, slander, and blatant anti-american treason is "no different from" the people who just challenged their orthodoxy.
In short, I quit giving a flying crap what leftists "thought" when their first response to the challenges Limbaugh made to their presumptions was to equate him with Howard Stern.
----And I repeat, when <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news-24622/">the leader of a former soviet bloc nation calls your film weak communist-style propaganda,</a> you've quite effectively lowered yourself to a standard of deception all your own----
But quite frankly, I'm Tired Of This Freaking Crap.
When a spokesperson is discredited, the appropriate response is to either acknowledge it or refute it, not to pretend the spokesperson is the mathematical equivalent of someone in the opposition.... though it IS profoundly telling that the Right's strategy when a spokesperson is attacked is to insist he's NOT like the opposition, whilst the Left tries to defend their spokesperson by claiming he's <i>no different from</i> the opposition. (A Truism that liberals generally get elected by pretending that they're Conservatives, while Conservatives generally get defeated when they start pretending that they're liberals.)
Quite seriously, I'm really tired of arguing with people in the Cult of Personality. I'm not INTERESTED in defending Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Alan Keyes or Neal Boortz. They seem quite capable of defending themselves; if anyone actually HAD anything to attack them on, they wouldn't be sitting around gabbling about how "mean" Anne Coulter is or how "arrogant" Limbaugh acts, or trying to inflate a misquote or a moment of exaggerated hyperbole on their part into a "Scandal of deception"--- or struggling so hard to cover their own spokesman's blatant deceptions, fabrications, and outright libel.
Their detractors have no ground and no traction to attack right-wing spokespersons on the ISSUES ( which are SUPPOSED to be what is up for debate), so they resort to making fat jokes about a man who is in better shape than they are, or giggling like a snarky in-crowd prom-queen bitch about how they spotted one of the female speakers for the evening sniffling into a tissue backstage.
Perhaps if the Micheal Moore/Al Franken Koolaid Crowd did something besides spend all their time playing "Define IS" to protect their idols, I'd think they had something to say.
Maybe if they quit playing dress-up with the foaming-dog anti-american leftists, trying to make them look like Conservatives, Antiwar heroes, Vietnam War heroes, Free Speech heroes, daring rebels and "patriots," perhaps I'd be willing to listen to their arguments...... Yet again.
<i>If they would quit playing silly-ass games and address the <B>facts and issues</b> rather than just the spokesperson, I'd actually care what they had to say.</i>
But they're not.
The best they can do, and call it a "debate," is to try and claim that their latest icon of prevarication, obfuscation, libel, slander, and blatant anti-american treason is "no different from" the people who just challenged their orthodoxy.
In short, I quit giving a flying crap what leftists "thought" when their first response to the challenges Limbaugh made to their presumptions was to equate him with Howard Stern.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
Just a side question over things.
Considering the rebuilding of Iraq and its interm government....How long did it take to install an intern government in Germany after WWII? That period was ripe with anti-Allied violence, and it took about 7 YEARS to install a working interm government that could control barely 50% of the country (remember, the Soviet Union controled the other half), and those 5 years were found with constant sniper fire, gang violence, pro-Hitler propaganda and more from former SS soldiers, though they weren't the clicking heels spit and polish army they were and had taken a biker gang mentality for the duration. TIME Magazine even did a story 6 months after the end of WWII Europe reporting that Nazism was once again on the rise, the US Government had failed the entire rebuilding process, scores of school children wanted their Fuher back and everything had gone wrong because of a war fought with no plans for after it was over (which sounds extraordinarily familiar to today's reports).
Japan took just over 5 Years to install an interm government, and the entire time before it happened it was said that MacArthur was the new 'Emperor' of Japan because of the occupation. They weren't exactly happy to have an American soldier as their new emperor either and certain factions took action much in the way the former SS soldiers did.
And as we all know from history, both countries became hotbeds of evil, both reconstruction efforts a total failure and the after war plans nonexistant leading both places to return to a power that had just fell.
At least that's what the media wants painted about Iraq's rebuilding.
Yet looking to the past, you can see how things were then, and despite the negative reporting, both Japan and (half of) Germany became friends and allies through the years. And if you think Iraq will be a failure, don't you think you should give it the same amount of time it took Germany and/or Japan to be rebuilt before saddling the same failures the media said those two countries were?
Considering the rebuilding of Iraq and its interm government....How long did it take to install an intern government in Germany after WWII? That period was ripe with anti-Allied violence, and it took about 7 YEARS to install a working interm government that could control barely 50% of the country (remember, the Soviet Union controled the other half), and those 5 years were found with constant sniper fire, gang violence, pro-Hitler propaganda and more from former SS soldiers, though they weren't the clicking heels spit and polish army they were and had taken a biker gang mentality for the duration. TIME Magazine even did a story 6 months after the end of WWII Europe reporting that Nazism was once again on the rise, the US Government had failed the entire rebuilding process, scores of school children wanted their Fuher back and everything had gone wrong because of a war fought with no plans for after it was over (which sounds extraordinarily familiar to today's reports).
Japan took just over 5 Years to install an interm government, and the entire time before it happened it was said that MacArthur was the new 'Emperor' of Japan because of the occupation. They weren't exactly happy to have an American soldier as their new emperor either and certain factions took action much in the way the former SS soldiers did.
And as we all know from history, both countries became hotbeds of evil, both reconstruction efforts a total failure and the after war plans nonexistant leading both places to return to a power that had just fell.
At least that's what the media wants painted about Iraq's rebuilding.
Yet looking to the past, you can see how things were then, and despite the negative reporting, both Japan and (half of) Germany became friends and allies through the years. And if you think Iraq will be a failure, don't you think you should give it the same amount of time it took Germany and/or Japan to be rebuilt before saddling the same failures the media said those two countries were?
Allow me to introduce myself--Corporal "Bo" Kiana, Ex-Army, "Warmongering Psychopath Tool!"
-
Kanaeda Kuonji
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Buckhannon, WV, United States
Okay, here is a few things on Limbaugh:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/rushbusted.html
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html
The latter is a bit older, I will admit, but still has some good points. And I say this: If I am going to listen to any news source, I will listen to one that has its facts straight over anyone biased to any one political party anyday.
As for the supposed similarity in what happened with Germany and Japan, I must politely point out the mistake made here.
The strategies being used in Iraq and Afghanistan for rebuilding are nothing like what was involved in Germany and Japan. At least with those, they had some thought on Post-war efforts. Their thoughts on Afghanistan and Iraq were: "We've liberated their people, so now what?" And yes, in my humble opinion, thought about actions do matter.
The strategy being used in regards to rebuilding the nations are more reminiscent of a strategy called "Dirty War" that was used a lot in Latin America in the 1980's, and guess what? They didn't work.
Don't take my word for it, look in the Christian Science Monitor, and see for yourselves. Also, last semester, I talked to a number of people who were in Nicaragua, and in these other countries when the US intervened.
Not only did the US leave Latin America worse than when they came in, but the School of the Americas turned certain members of their army into butchers.
So in closing, let me spell it out for you: especially in the last 30 years, the US has had a poor record in regards to international interdiction. Doesn't matter which party is in the white house at the time.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/rushbusted.html
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html
The latter is a bit older, I will admit, but still has some good points. And I say this: If I am going to listen to any news source, I will listen to one that has its facts straight over anyone biased to any one political party anyday.
As for the supposed similarity in what happened with Germany and Japan, I must politely point out the mistake made here.
The strategies being used in Iraq and Afghanistan for rebuilding are nothing like what was involved in Germany and Japan. At least with those, they had some thought on Post-war efforts. Their thoughts on Afghanistan and Iraq were: "We've liberated their people, so now what?" And yes, in my humble opinion, thought about actions do matter.
The strategy being used in regards to rebuilding the nations are more reminiscent of a strategy called "Dirty War" that was used a lot in Latin America in the 1980's, and guess what? They didn't work.
Don't take my word for it, look in the Christian Science Monitor, and see for yourselves. Also, last semester, I talked to a number of people who were in Nicaragua, and in these other countries when the US intervened.
Not only did the US leave Latin America worse than when they came in, but the School of the Americas turned certain members of their army into butchers.
So in closing, let me spell it out for you: especially in the last 30 years, the US has had a poor record in regards to international interdiction. Doesn't matter which party is in the white house at the time.
-
UncleMonty
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm