|
04 Oct 05 - 10:54 PM (#1576136) Subject: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Snagger Was anyone else mildly upset that our Vice President was listening to Rush Limbaugh`s comments on the Mier`s nomination? I am embarrassed our country is being run by people who listen to trash and would feel the need to comment about it. Please tell me that I read this incorrectly. Snagger |
|
04 Oct 05 - 10:59 PM (#1576138) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: dianavan I think he was probably promoting Limbaugh. Nothing like free advertising for your friends, especially if they advance your cause. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 11:30 PM (#1576152) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies He knows that the intellectual giants who listen to Limbaugh are in fact capable of contacting their Senators, and he doesn't want them instructing them to turn Miers down. Wouldn't that be something--Bush's nominee rejected for being insufficiently Neanderthal. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 02:16 AM (#1576197) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: michaelr What did the fat man say? |
|
05 Oct 05 - 07:25 AM (#1576311) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies As I understand it, he said exactly what I implied--that she is in fact Neanderthal enough to deserve the support of of the Limbaugh troglodytes. The Wall St Journal editorial page (another source of Bushite wisdom) described Bush's pick, from their perspective, as a "faith-based nomination"--the rabid Right has to have faith she will vote their way, since nobody knows. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 08:52 AM (#1576369) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,H Ron, please explain; 'HE SAID EXACTLY WHAT I IMPLIED" Huh? Being some what of a Libertarian which is still a dangerous situation around her, do you remember the adage "One mans trash is another mans treasure"? Well, that should promote some stuff! I still don't understand why people can have instant hatred with regard to people who have views that differ from theirs. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 08:54 AM (#1576372) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST My understanding is Cheney was interviewed by Rush for his program, and was defending the choice of whazzername. Rush was challenging the choice, saying it wasn't doctrinaire enough for the extreme loonie right, which definitely has a litmus test for any judicial candidates, but especially SC candidates. So Cheney went on Rush's show to do damage control. Don't forget, Cheney is the extreme loonie's hatchet man, Bush their beloved savior. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 09:43 AM (#1576415) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,H Of course, the losing side continues to badmouth the winners rather that coming up with a good idea or two. Get used to at least another generation of Repub control. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 12:32 PM (#1576549) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Some applicable findings from me. We have two (free) daily rags here in DC. From reading both I can honestly say that one is right leaning and one is left leaning. An observation on the intelligence of the readership of both rags based on doing the crosswords: The left leaning rag I have to think to finish. The right leaning rag is far easier to complete and I've yet to learn anything from it. This would seem to indicate that the right leaning rag thinks it's readers are not as well educated(stupid). |
|
05 Oct 05 - 12:38 PM (#1576554) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: pdq Someone who must resort to name-calling to prevail in an argument is stupid (or ignorant). |
|
05 Oct 05 - 01:20 PM (#1576585) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,Chief Chaos There's a question I'd like answered! Just why should the democrats come up with any good ideas while the republicans are in almost total control of the federal government? Why should they (the dems) provide solutions to their "enemy" (the 'pubs) which could then be used by their "enemy" to fix things while claiming credit for "walking the walk" not "talking"? |
|
05 Oct 05 - 01:23 PM (#1576587) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: gnu I saw Lon Cheney drinkin a drinkin a pina colada at Trader Vic's... |
|
05 Oct 05 - 06:24 PM (#1576794) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Greg F. Nope- Lon Jr. was walkin' with the Queen |
|
05 Oct 05 - 06:53 PM (#1576810) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,H Chief, I was refering to a couple ideas to allow them to get back into the Political show. Nothing more. I certainly never gave any thought to them (Dems) coming up with good ideas concerning the running of the Government. Miracles have been few and far between recently. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 07:12 PM (#1576819) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST Anyone remember a time when Republicans and Democrats weren't "enemies"? There used to be the party in power and the opposition. Anyone think it might ever get back to that? Because as an independent, I have to say--I'm not really paying any attention to EITHER party's pandering to their base. And I'm guessing I am not alone in that. Why does ANYONE need a political party/pundit to tell them what to think? And need it so desperately right now? The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans in this regard. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 08:46 PM (#1576855) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: gnu Close enough Greg F !! You have won the 2005.10.05 ZEVON! Is your hair perfect for the presentation? Arrrrrooooooo!!!! |
|
05 Oct 05 - 09:32 PM (#1576880) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies PDQ-- Don't worry-nobody is calling you troglodyte or Neanderthal. But Limbaugh has earned these titles fair and square, by dint of hard work--what made this country great. You would only be in danger of such a designation if you actually believed the swill that issues from his mouth--surely nothing a reasonable person like yourself would do. For the record, I also don't believe Miers is subhuman. But the Right wants to be assured she is---that she is incapable of change. They are petrified at the idea that she might, despite Bush's assurances, grow and evolve while a Justice. Their horrible example is David Souter, who actually, to their everlasting regret, turned out to be a reasonable person once installed as a Justice. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 10:29 PM (#1576892) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: pdq Ron...I don't care if you call me a trilobite. No skin off my nose, as I recently told another mudcatter. I do wish that the rhetoric could be tuned-down a little. People with opinions you do not hold are good for friendly conversation as well as mind expansion. When people with non-conforming opinions are considered "the enemy" and are driven off this forum, everybody suffers. That may not be apparent right now, but will be obvious at some point in the future. |
|
06 Oct 05 - 10:02 AM (#1576992) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Greg F. People with INFORMED opinions, perhaps..... |
|
06 Oct 05 - 10:31 AM (#1577022) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,Chief Chaos The problem there Guest H is that the Dems have an answer. Their answer is reverting some of the current administrations policies. Since this is not the answer that the administration wants to hear, and since this would be considered old hat, it is therefore unacceptable and not an "answer to the problem". Somewhere along the line both parties began serving themselves instead of serving the people. It doesn't matter which party you belong to and how wide a margin of victory you have. Unless the vote is unanimous there will always be a segment of the population that you still represent that does not see things in the same way. Putting pressure on lobyists to hire your party personnel should be illegal. Having policy created by only one interest group should be illegal. Government should be serving the public, including industry, and finding the best impact for the overall good of the country. Instead our parties are doing what's best to keep them in power and listening the most to the people who have the most money. |
|
07 Oct 05 - 12:30 AM (#1577722) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies PDQ-- Nobody is trying to drive you away from Mudcat. For one thing, BS is just that--the heart and soul of Mudcat is musical topics--which anybody can comment on with hardly any risk of heated argument. Politics is different. As a registered Republican, I say, as I've said before: that Bush is a disaster for the US and possibly the world, that he is no conservative--more like a radical reactionary, and as a Republican his only role model is Harding (not Grant, who actually was willing to put his life in danger, rather than cheer soldiers from a safe distance.) Anybody who defends virtually any of his crackpot ideas is likely to get a pointed response on Mudcat (and a lot of other places). And that's the way it is (Cronkite was off tonight) |
|
07 Oct 05 - 12:33 AM (#1577724) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies Also, as I said, my remarks were aimed at Rush, not you. |
|
07 Oct 05 - 08:17 PM (#1578410) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: GUEST,m suhling Rush has more thinking like he does than anyone around. He makes more sense than any Democtat I've heard. |
|
07 Oct 05 - 11:48 PM (#1578551) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies Absolutely right--demagoguery works. We've known this even before the 30's in Germany. Thinking may be hard work for you--but someday you might try it, even though it's much more comfortable for you to continue with Mr. Limbaugh's pre-digested drivel. |
|
08 Oct 05 - 08:33 AM (#1578738) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: kendall Rush Limbaugh's brother had it right when he said "Rush should shut up. He's an embarassment to the family." The direction we are going reminds me of the one about the drunk who woke up and asked "Where am I going? Why am I in this hand basket"? |
|
08 Oct 05 - 10:23 AM (#1578786) Subject: RE: BS: Limbaugh and Cheney From: Ron Davies Excellent, Kendall. Looking forward to seeing you at the Getaway. |