Advertisers rushed from Limbaugh, Romney perpetuated his plastic persona, conservative candidates campaigned on Super Tuesday, Obama orated on oil, Fox didn’t stick with the facts and the Ed Show covered it all.
Advertisers continued their rush from Limbaugh over the weekend, as the conservative radio host faced red-hot criticism for his inflammatory, sexist comments. Rush Limbaugh sparked a fire when he targeted Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke after she testified in front of Congress in support of affordable contraception.
On his nationally syndicated show last week, he called her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” firing off over 50 disparaging comments at Fluke, the women of Georgetown, and even Fluke’s parents.
After attacking Sandra Fluke for three days, Rush Limbaugh finally apologized as sponsors started to leave. President of NOW Terry O'Neil and MSNBC analyst Krystall Ball join Ed Schultz to talk about how Rush is affecting the Republican Party.
After a number of sponsors pulled their spots from his program, Limbaugh issued a weak apology to Fluke via his website. On Monday, Ed said that Rush “didn’t really apologize for what he had actually done…this was a 3-day attack over 9 hours of broadcasting.”
But Ed wasn’t the only one critical of Limbaugh’s lame linguistics. Sandra Fluke saw through the dollar-driven request for forgiveness, saying on Monday, “I don’t think that a statement like this…changes anything.”
Democratic Strategist Krystal Ball launched a website aimed at boycotting Rush, which collected over 100k online signatures in just three days. In addition to a growing list of departed advertisers, at least two radio stations have said adiós to El Rushbo. Even some conservatives including Ron Paul and John McCain condemned Rush’s words.
Despite widespread disapproval, the three front running Republican presidential candidates couldn’t muster up a strong opposition to Limbaugh, who has gained a reputation as a kingmaker among the GOP. For a party already entrenched in an unpopular war on women’s rights, the lack of backbone displayed by Romney, Santorum and Gingrich will likely lose key female votes.
Romney can’t afford to lose any more votes if he hopes to have a prayer against Obama in November. In a pre-Super Tuesday rally, Mitt’s camp furthered his reputation as what Howard Fineman called “plastic and impenetrable wherever he goes.”
Attempting to connect with the voters of Tennessee, Romney awkwardly recited a William Shatner-esque rendition of a song about Tennessee pioneer Daniel Boone. Making matters worse, Ann Romney claimed in an interview that she doesn’t consider herself wealthy. On Monday’s Ed Show, Nation magazine correspondent John Nichols said, “Every time the Romneys try to reach out to ordinary folks, to try to play it real…it always comes apart.”
In an attempt to relate to more voters, Mitt Romney quotes Davy Crockett on the campaign trail. The Nation's John Nichols and NBC News political analyst Howard Fineman preview Super Tuesday.
The Romney campaign was able to hold it together on Super Tuesday to win six out of ten primary/caucus states, though Santorum and Gingrich each claimed victories as well. A confident Romney aide said that “it would take an act of God for Mitt to lose.” Maybe the recent solar storms are a sign from the heavens.
Ed asked Democratic Strategist Bob Shrum on Wednesday who he thought shined brightest on the most important night of the primary season. Shrum replied, “I think Barack Obama was the big winner and the other big winner was the Democratic Party in 2016.”
With a divided GOP and sustained criticism from the right, Obama has begun ramping up his re-election campaign in recent days. At a manufacturing plant in North Carolina, Obama responded to Republican attacks, saying “The next time you hear some politician trotting out some three point plan for $2 gas, you let him know we know better.”
On Wednesday’s show, Ed laid out the facts of Obama’s energy policy, with clear data showing that “since President Obama took office…total domestic oil output is up 8%.”
Facts have never stopped conservatives from spewing wild claims. Fox News has latched onto the GOP’s anti-Obama energy, and has been pumping fear over its airwaves about rising gas prices. But just four years ago, Bill O’Reilly told his viewers that “The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices, understand it’s complete B.S.”
On Thursday, Ed presented another example of Fox’s skewed reporting. During his show Wednesday night, Sean Hannity showed an “exclusive” video of Barack Obama when he was a student at Harvard. The footage was captured during a pro-diversity rally, and showed a young Obama hugging his professor after an eloquent introduction.
Sean Hannity may have been scooped on his video of a young Barack Obama hugging a Harvard professor, but that didn't stop him from trying to paint President Obama as a radical. Ed Schultz talks with the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson.
According to Hannity, this video is concrete proof that the president has a long history of rubbing shoulders with radicals. In reality, as Washington Post Editor Eugene Robinson pointed out, “What you saw was a student at Harvard Law School embracing a professor at Harvard Law School.”
Hannity and other conservative talking heads are desperate to poke a hole in the rising Obama reelection campaign, regardless of evidence and disregarding the facts. Where’s the B.S. now, Bill O’Reilly?
Share your own thoughts and favorite moments from the Ed Show this week, and be sure to tune into the @EdShow weeknights at 8pET on @msnbctv.
Leave a Comment:
Gee - I still remember Ed's attack against women when he called Laura Ingraham a 'slut'. But thats OK Laura is a conservative. They have no rights nor deserve respect. Rush L. is a fool because he took the bait dangled out there by the left to trap people who are slow of mind. Rush should of attacked the fake format (it was no 'Congressional' hearing) and looked into the motivation and background of Sandra F. He would have seen it was all fabricated and a poor fabrication at that. But no one ever called Rush L. smart!
Gee - yes he did, once, but unlike Rush, he at the very least apologized correctly ( took responsibility for his actions) to a national figure. On the other hand, Rush’s attacks on a private citizen went on for three days, his apology was half assed, and for the last four days blamed his vile mouth on everybody but himself. He is trash. Get real and stop being like him and blaming someone else for his stupidity. Please stop blaming the Liberals/Progressives for the implosion of the Conservatives. They are doing this with no help from anyone.
…and you are wrong again, Rush calls Rush smart.
dennis,
at least you admit that "rush is a fool" and that "he is slow of mind".
he is also IGNORANT. but we can't blame rush for ALL of it. he is giving the republican/baggers EXACTLY what they want, and he loves feeding his base.
Feeding his base? unlike msnbc and the elite media who take there talking narratives from the W.H. Fluke was a plant, typical Chicago politics!
Yeah; Feeding The Base -- Just Like Feeding Slop To The PIGS = No Difference !!!!!! gop-re-baggers Just Wallow Around Within Their Own Isolated Little Pen - Waiting For Hand-Outs !!!!!!
jeff,
fox sides with mitch mcconnell who stated clearly what his main goal was: to make President Obama a one term president.
whenever someone complains about fux news, the usual response is: MSNBC.
MSNBC is NOT to the democratic party, what fux news is to the repub party. MSNBC does lean to the left, but does NOT lean to the left as far as FOX leans to the extreme right. i have heard repeatedly fox slander our President by promoting the idea that he is a muslim, that he is not a citizen. and while Keith Olberman was very frustrated with the leadership of the extreme right repub worldview, and he did call W. bush some names, he did not compare him to chairman mao, or try to get him to produce his "papers".
do you really listen to what fox news says? or are you blinded by the exploitation of the female reporters; very short skirts and implants front and center. when i watch fox, even during the day, their "news only" programs are filled with faulty right wing "illuminatings". and we all remember E.D., who said, during President Obama's campaign, that he and his wife had performed a "terrorist fist-jab".
bill hemmer and brett bair falsely accused the Obama Administration of covering up statutory rape, and hemmer falsely accused democrats of giving "special rights of protection against pedophiles".
martha mccallum apologized for passing off a six month old Biden comment on the economy asa current comment. fox deceptively cropped a clip to make it sound like Biden was saying something that he was really criticizing john mcCain for. wendell goler cropped a statement of Obama's, and taking the comment completely out of context. like breitbart, and james o'keefe, goler, mccallum, baier, hemmer and others lie about President, and clip and crop tape and statements to make it fit their right wing agenda.
wallace said that the Obama administration "was the biggest bunch of crybabies i have dealt with in my 30 years in washington". i have never heard David Gregory say anything close to that in regard to the W. bush administration. ruth marcus (washington post) said fox and MSNBC are NOT equivilant. she said, "fox is over the line more often".
i could go on, but i won't.
fox news viewers are the most UNINFORMED.
they are the ones who get their talking points from murdoch and ailes. in no way is Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence Odonnell comparable to hannity, oreilly or hemmer.
NO WAY, NO HOW.
MSNBC reporters speak for themselves.
It's funny because if Rush hadn't called her a slut a couple dozen times the nation would have forgot all about this women....so really Rush caused this sorry.......but wait I know Rush must have been working with the white house! It's so funny how the right wing drones blame the left for their own lack of ability to not call women whores and sluts........and lets not forget Limbaugh's explanation that the left made him do and that he was psychically channeling them....but I guess that must have been the elite media who hired Christine O'donnell to put a curse on Rush right Jeff....we know better don't we buddy
Suzette I'm surprised how could you have left out Hannity and Beck?
Hannity who now is running around like idiot....well he always sounds like an idiot but the radical hug thing is just too funny. This is a man who goes on nightly and spreads lies about those who disagree with him using fake doctored clips and creative fairy tales. Still haven't found those tapes where the president is appeasing terrorists like Hannity old favorite who he defended for years, GW. Lets not forget the constant arguement that the economy is getting worse because it's adding jobs
And ole' crazy Glenn Beck who claimed that the president and the past few presidential administration chose not to bomb Baghdad because they're planning on making it the capital of the new world order muslim empire.......you know when he was pretending to know what "caliphate" meant........or when he had Anita King, MLK's crazy neice, who compared gay marriage to genocide...yeah puts Santorum to shame on that one........
Hell go look at what the Americans for Prosperity group and the other Koch U propogandist memos that have been stolen and brought to light and see what they broadcast on fox.....I save you the trouble of actually researching point is they're the same
Fox is an effective "news" network and does it's job of being an echo chamber very well. Fox roots for the right and tries to claim it's fair and balanced although even the hosts will admit on camera that they root right exclusively....MSNBC roots left and doesn't hide that it roots left in the way Fox does
You know after 3 years of mud slinging at the president hoping to get something to stick you would think the GOP leaders or even their base would wise up and realize those tactics no longer work the way they did in 2004 when they were used to silence the democrats in congress as while as Kerry's bid for the white house. But no now when Rush gets called to the carpet for what Ed did, which Ed said one time, they first attacked Ed for an excuse for Rush, ignoring that it was a 3 day 9 hour a day rant not just one time, they then resort to trying to prove the victim was a white house plant except they can't connect the time line to make it a white house plant so they then go back to attacking Ed. Why can't they just accept the fact Rush is what he is a loud mouthed woman hater. Now as much as I dislike Rush and his show, I was able to step back and see that trying to silence Rush isn't a good ideal, that leads to censorship, so our best bet is to let Rush finish destroying himself which he will do the same as Beck destroyed himself. It is what drug addicts do best.
That Gillette Pro Fusion razor commercial is creepy. What are they trying to say with that commercial? That even the three most ugliest men in the world can get looks from girls if the use the razor? They certainly could not have found homelier men!
#1.7:I am clearing my throat!
Obama is a political tactical genius! Thank you! We know how to pick them! As for the GOP sad very very sad!!!As the President executes his next move like a chess master the GOP is playing Twister!
Funniest part is that the lest has made zero moves at this point. Thee DNC is just watching and salavating at the Republicans continuing to play Russian Roulette hoping that eventually Romney will lose.
I don't think Obama has begun to fight and that's a problem for them
I Think That Prez. Obama Has Received The Swatter That I Sent To Him - And He Is Just Waiting To Use IT !!!! Ha Haaaa !!! Mosquitos MUST Be Sqwashed !!!!!
Goody!
Well I'm not the biggest Obama fan but this has been an amazing week for the DNC, all these unforced GOP errors......
first we had Rush with Slutmageddon 2012 which cemented the democrat victory in the Newt Gingrich Catholic Contraception conundrum....even more priceless for the general are all these right wing drones trying to cover for him..."oh Rush was just musing about his favorite kind of women"....or she really is a slut who wants welfare...even though welfare was never even a part of it at any point until Brent Bozell's fake spin machine sent out the right wing orders on how to interpret the story.....and now you've got Bill O saying Obama tricked us into this whole thing or Sandra Fluke is some secret white house agent and that this is some ploy by the administration to embarass republicans even though it wouldn't have been unless Rush didn't jump on it in the way he did
So Rush Limbaugh working with the white house says Bill O????????
Mr.Monopoly is reminding us how fake he is talking about his cheesy grits breakfast in Alabama....well at least he's owning that he's a phony
Santorum is still running for Cardinal in Chief
Newt is still staying in til the convention even though he got killed on super tuesday....He won Georgia and finished third or last every where else
Sarah Palin is talking about how Obama wants to take the country back to the civil war......where blacks were slaves....yeah....thank you Sarah another reason to laugh at the GOP
Economy adds a couple hundred thousand more jobs
People are not buying the drill baby drill arguement since they know there is no oil supply problem
People are getting tired of the war mongering of Santorum, Gingrich and Romney on Iran....thank Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for answering their absurd comments with things that will make us laugh....at them
Hannity is talking about radical hugs......
Maybe the reason the right wingers are so fixated on gas prices is because the far right spin machine is running out fuel.....
LOL yeah this is a hill worth dying on.
Which lying information source is a bigger liar.
Spinning is right, they're spinning on the floor like Curley of the Three Stooges!
Gotta love Curley
my congressman sent emails to those people who were concerned about the birth control issues.
It seems the GOP is more worried about profits for the drug companies (and oil companies). Individual scrips are way more expensive then what insurance companies would pay for the same thing. The religious side is just an excuse for the lobbyist
Drug companies and insurance companies will profit less from a national health system?
Wake up.
Government involvement always increases prices, without exception. You may not see it at the pharmacy, but it will dig the debt hole deeper for all of us.
You know, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism said clearly that a corporate system destroys the economic freedom that's vital to capitalism.
Big pharma and big oil have destroyed economic freedom for people who are not members of the corporate ring, and that's the fight today, and they'd done so with the help of the GOP and their unworkable trickle down economics that consider greed to be a myth and not part of the equation.
I agree. Corporations control all of Washington. To suggest they've done so only by GOP influence is a fantasy your party has dreamed up. Democrats have just as many lobbyists hiding in their pockets too.
Obamacare is heavily influenced by insurance companies and big pharma. Don't think for a second they're giving up any profits whatsoever. More money will be borrowed by the fed to pay for this and it'll just be added onto our already bottomless deficit.
Correction: More money will be borrowed from the Fed, not by the Fed.
Because that is what the GOP and Fox news talking heads said and you just repeat it. What is even funnier is if it were true then the Koch brothers would not have spent millions trying to defeat health care reform because if reform gave insurance companies as well as drug companies that much of a boast they would have supported reform. Really you think that people like the Koch brothers would be against the fed giving them more free tax dollars, so if reform was so good for the Koch brothers pockets why would they spend so much to defeat what they would have benefited from? Once again we see non thinking at its best.
How about burying your head in the sand, swallowing your parties propaganda hook line and sinker, and pointing your finger at the GOP for everything wrong in this country to divert attention from the fact that your party is no less on the take and just as corrupt as they are.
How about not bothering to follow the money and see the truth for what the motivation of both sides is all about and always has been about - the money trail and who they can take it away from and who they give it to. The only difference is the BS story they spoon feed you.
How about pinning that GOP label on me (for the thousandth time now) even though I'm not a NeoCon. How about not knowing the difference between true conservatism and Neo-Conservatism.
That's the definition of non-thinking. To be able to effectively reason you have to see both sides for what they are, and you clearly are in denial.
My personal opinion on the healthcare fight is that the Insurance companies as well as their Republican employees were afraid of the example being set that changes could be made to healthcare insurance, more than what those changes were. As long as it was an unchanging monolith, they felt they were secure. Now that changes have been made, more will come. And that was the real fear.
Yep Chris exactly. Sorry but there is no such thing as conservatism today the GOP drove all those types out of the party starting in 1981 and extremists have taken over. That you repeat the GOP talking points just shows who has their head buried, you are supporting the party of the neo cons who are controlling the GOP and have been since 1981. Your problem is you choose to ignore just how extreme the GOP has become in the last 37 years.
Where you got that from is beyond me. I've never supported nor voted for a Republican in my life.
What GOP talking points?
Now you're pinning the GOP label on me!
@ chris - no he isn't directing that at you. I think those comments were meant for me, in spite of the fact that he's reading just enough of my post to spew more of his anti GOP rhetoric. He's just a one-trick pony.
I stated many times I'm not voting for Romney OR Obama in the next election, but as usual he chooses to ignore that and lump me into a group I don't belong to. I guess grasping the possibility of someone not liking Obama AND not supporting the GOP is too lofty a concept for him.
Now he will respond again and tell me that I'm saying exactly what Fox News says, because that's the only thing he can come up with to throw back my way even though I don't even watch television.
See he beat me to it in the post below.
I believe there is some truth to what you're saying about this. As a counterpoint I would say that in response to it they lobbied to get their fingers in the Nationalized plan, and get someone's ear(s) to modify it so they could profit equally as much if not more.
There is just no way they didn't do this. Insurance companies and big pharma have a huge lobby in Washington. The whole system would be a lot more honest if we could get corporate interests out of Washington but the fact is that's never going to happen.
Someone has to process all those claims and it will undoubtedly be subcontracted to one or more of the major health insurance carriers. That is tantamount to winning a dozen powerball jackpots in the first five years alone.
Sorry Chris I agreed with you then jumped onto face. I wasn't calling anything you said GOP talking points.
Has Ed disclosed that he has been paid nearly $200k by unions in 2011? I have no problem with that, if he discloses it.
Can we stop pretending Diamond Ed has any concept of the plight of the middle class now?
Right and in other news from Fox land Fox news viewers are less informed then people who don't watch any news programs.
Is that the best you've got? Telling me what I watch? Nice presumption. Got news for you Einstein, I don't watch television at all.
Furthermore if you believe any televised US news broadcasts, and that's the only place you get your information, you're being manipulated.
Whom, you should cut this guy some slack. He's not always right, but he's not always wrong.
Though I do find him to lean slightly to the right.
But that may be because I'm leaning slightly to the left.
Chris the problem is he keeps saying he doesn't follow US news yet everyone of his posts is what Fox news and right wing sites that use Fox news for most of their information has put out there. Because you lean slightly left you might be missing the connections. Funny thing is I am not registered to any party because I don't trust organizations be they political or religious. I just observe what has been going on around me since the 1960's and have seen the destruction caused by the GOP.
So have I. I don't disagree with you. I just agreed with his observation that both parties suck.
I don't like what the Republicans do. I don't like what the Democrats don't do.
Watching their inaction from 2009-2010 was disgraceful.
And that makes a difference why? Ed willingly admits he's willing to do anything the unions tell him....perhaps if he were running for office that would make a difference but he isn't
Well at least someone is actually reading my posts. Thank you because this was and is exactly my point.
The funny thing is you say you're not registered to any party yet every one of your posts contain almost the exact same phrases that every left wing news site uses. This is a shocking case of the pot calling the kettle black sport.
And you couldn't be more wrong. Because you GOP supporters tout the GOP line everyone must be the same, those on the left don't for the most part unless we happen to agree with that point even then it is not a 100% agree thing with us. Most of those on the left have few if any hard beliefs so talking points are meaningless to us. We sound alike due to the limitations the written word creates when thoughts are written down. Your problem is preconceived truths meaning you already know the truth so you seek evidence to support what you believe is truth. Where as people of the left start out with no truth follow the evidence and come as close to the truth as we can get knowing that if more information comes along we will then have to change our truth to fit that new evidence, thus we are constantly changing and learning. Those on the right are unable to handle living with uncertainty created by having to change opinions and beliefs as more and more evidence comes in on their world.
Your problem is you don't understand that I don't know the "truth" and neither do you. If we did this government would have been overthrown 40 years ago.
The flaw in this statement is that 90 percent of what's out there that you coin to be evidence is total bulls$%t to begin with.
Starting at zero truth and adding what amounts to mostly misinformation does not come anything close to equalling truth.
As for preconceived ideas, yours are not any less preconceived than mine are. The nature of propaganda is to pass itself off as truth or evidence. The more people that believe it the more most folks just accept it as "the way it is."
Then you are not aware of what you are writing in your posts. LOL also you show that you cherry pick what you read because if you had read it you would know I never claimed to know any truths because liberal minded people never know truth we only know truth that evidence shows us as truth which changes constantly.
That you toss away evidence as 90% bs again shows you are unwilling to accept any evidence that leads to you questioning what you believe. Another difference between you and us, we have looked at what you righties call evidence and discovered that it was either made up lies, half truths or empty talking points.
Chris you have to remember that 2009 to 2010 a lot of what Obama wanted got filibustered at the senate even if the house passed it, if the GOP hand not of obstructed and whined like a bunch of little kids a lot more would have been done.
You've made quite a few false assumptions about me that you've tried to pass off as truth here. How's that working out for you? If your analysis skills are anything at all like your handwriting analysis and the accusations you've thrown at me, you are out there like Pluto.
I constantly question what I believe, just as I constantly question the "evidence." Just because you call something evidence does not make it truth. I'm not unwilling to accept any evidence, I'm just unwilling to accept all of what you call evidence because that would require me to preclude that all your sources are reliable ones and even if they were, it would require me to preclude you didn't misinterpret what you found. Sorry but I'm not that gullible.
There are a finite number of sources from which you or I can gather any kind of evidence that has any merit. The playing field is pretty much level and it's just a matter of how much digging you want to do.
Believe it or not, I agree 100 percent with this statement, except for the part that states that this is one of our differences. It's really not.
The real difference between you and I is that I could make the exact same statement about righties AND lefties, and you won't. You can go on believing that it's because you've done this staggering amount of research and you have a mountain of evidence that the GOP is the devil, but the responses you've posted here as counterpoints prove that you are firmly entrenched in a belief system of your own that is grounded in only half-truths.
Whom, my friend once again I must encourage you to calm down and read a little more before posting. Clearly your claim that Face is a righty is rather baseless, this person seems to be an individual who more than anything rejects both of the usual arguements in terms of politics....which I would say is not so foolish....
and indeed I must second the motion that both parties are controlled from the corporate shadow world and do in fact suck
Now on the topic of who we get our information from I think it is wise to remember that all sources contain a kind of bias and in some ways should not be believed. However if we were to apply that principle to its fullest extent we would never get anywhere....in other words there is a hazy line between scepticism and paranoia
You could be right CC but as you know very well both parties are not equal in the guilt of the economy, a lot of times democrats enabled republican failures just to get bills passed in the hopes that later they could tweak them to make them better once they had control of congress.
Your statement that both parties are not equal in the guilt of the economy is false.
Is the economy better or worse off than it was three years ago? If you answer that it's all Dubya's fault you've drank the leftie cool aid. Bush is long gone and has been for awhile now. Using that excuse to defend Obama is getting tired and feeble.
Obama said he had the answers and was going to improve things within the first three years and in fact has made things way WAY worse.
Our national debt went from 10.6 trillion on his inauguration day to 15.2 trillion today. 6.4 million more Americans are in poverty today than when he was elected. The price of college tuition is up 25 percent. There are 46 million people on food stamps today, up from 32 million at the beginning of his presidency.
These are numbers you can find and verify very easily. This is what you call evidence. If you can add and subtract you can see it's worse.
It's also pointless to speculate what McCain would have done or how much worse it would have been if he'd been elected instead of Obama. It didn't happen, so it doesn't matter. If all you've got is an argument that Obama is better than what never was, you've got nothing at all.
Furthermore, a lot of times republicans enabled democratic failures just to get bills passed in the hopes that later they could tweak them to make them better once they had control of congress.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge the culpability of the Democrats doing the exact same thing is not going to make it go away.
So the remainder of your statement is a case of "tell me something I don't already know" and just further underscores my point that you are entrenched in a belief system that is half true (because you don't see equal guilt on the other side) and you're once again confusing credible evidence with leftist propaganda.
I thought saying 90 percent of it was BS was on the generous side myself. There is indeed a hazy line between skepticism and paranoia for sure.
I would suggest that it's not really about them "being out to get me" as much as:
(a) they're out to control me and make me believe they know what's best for me.
(b) when I won't willingly give up my liberty and freedom, they will try to scare me into it. (if it bleeds it leads.)
(c) that I will feel better if I just shut up, go buy something, and be a good little consumer.
It's an endless cycle of fear and consumption and the sad part is, for the most part it's working.
Again it isn't an equal guilt thing A) that has always been a GOP control the citizen thing going back to Nixon's Law and order nonsense. The GOP then started projecting their actions onto democrats starting with Reagan. All restrictive laws were created and passed by the GOP.
B) Again a GOP thing conservatives are authoritarians and the whole use fear to control citizens is a Karl Rove ideal to get citizens to give up freedom for the illusion of security. Again Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes used fear of blacks, women, gays and illegals to feed that racial, sexist, homophobic section of the US population to get votes.
C) again GOP, what did GWB say the day after 9/11, go shopping America its the best way to fight terrorism. Reagan and his American deserves to buy their big gas guzzling auto's. Reagans whole supply side trickle down economic plan depends on citizens to credit buy, buy now pay later economy. The problem is when consumers credit dries up the whole economy comes crashing down.
Did some democrats vote with the GOP, why yes they did in order to make compromises so what was passed wasn't a whole mess or to get ear marks for the districts that elected them, you know the citizens who actually vote for congress to represent their part of the state. So again no it isn't both parties, why? For the main reason that liberals are not afraid of ideals and others.
Fear and consumption has nothing to do with either side. It's the nature of the press across the board.
You are once again finger pointing at the GOP and your anger should be directed at Washington as a whole and at the press regardless of which way they lean.
To suggest the economy has come crashing down due to a lack of credit is ludicrous. The economy has come crashing down because we've overextended ourselves with debt because of TOO MUCH credit and we can not pay our bills, as individuals and as a nation.
Responsible people don't buy things they can't pay for NOW. Responsible governments don't fund programs they can't afford either.
Obama wants to fund programs we can not afford by creating currency out of thin air (because dollars are backed by nothing.) That's what happens when we borrow from the Federal Reserve. More currency is introduced to the money supply, the currency is devalued, and that creates hyperinflation. Tell me how that proposition is not a buy now pay later scenario.
Whoops... I think I may have misread your post about that first part, of which I agree, regarding consumer credit.
If you want some ammunition against the GOP here's something for you: Nixon is the one who took us off the gold standard to fund the war in Vietnam. So the beginning of fiat currency and devaluation began on his watch.
The second part I wrote about Obama and his programs is still valid I think.
Again the debt came from republican tax cuts for the wealthy along with their borrow and spend greed fest. Sorry but what you are talking about is the Friedman theory which trades off inflation with unemployment to "balance" the economy, which lay at the heart of the inflation and employment problems we saw in the 70's. The economy is driven by consumers buying products when consumers stop buying the economy slows down we get a recession followed by higher unemployment which has caused the market to crash in 84, 92, and 2008. Part of the economic problem stems from Reagan taking us off the industrial economy and making the US a service economy. Which then lead to the out sourcing and turning the country from being the worlds leader in giving credit to being the worlds biggest borrower because we lost high wage jobs and replaced them with low wage service jobs which then made us a bigger importer then exporter, since Reagan the US's biggest exports were jobs. Our biggest problem today stems from not a spending problem but a income problem. All of these problems can be traced right to the door step of the GOP. Since Reagan all democrats have been able to do is damage control, which is what Obama is stuck doing because of GOP obstruction. One of the US's biggest helpers right now is the oil speculators by manipulating oil prices it is now becoming less profitable to import goods so industrial jobs are slowly coming back to the US. One of the least talked about events that happened before the great depression was the US importing more then they were exporting. History repeated.
That's not what I'm talking about at all.
That is what started the current mess we are in face. With GOP tax cuts to the wealthy we have an income problem. The only programs the GOP talk about ending are the ones we paid for, the GOP is not saying a word about ending the FICA tax after killing the program, so you can bet your FICA tax will still be taken, oh the GOP will give it a pretty new name to make you feel all warm and fuzzy while they rob you of your retirement. If you think the GOP is going to give you back that golden calf then you have some serious issues with your thinking skills.
It's rather funny to see middle class women so indignant about being subjected to speech and behavior that this generation has found entirely acceptable when directed against poor women. This is America! Of course middle class women are entitled to the same level of dehumanization as poor women.
Watch it. The Republicans don't like entitlement programs.
No, no....they just want to be able to personally profit off them
I don't have to like them to profit from them! You keep offering, I'll keep taking. Your side is foolish to offer, I would be foolish not to accept! Think about it.
My oldest son wouldn't take the $2,200 a month he could receive in unemployment benefits for the almost 18 months after he was released from the Navy. I think that was arrogance on his part. Just my take (pun intended).
And once again we see capt proudly stating that he milks the system for every dime he can but poor people should not be able to do what he does himself because it makes them lazy but he isn't lazy even though he is living off the tax payer and doesn't have to lift a finger for his lively hood. Boy you can't get more hypocritical then capt.
Why not, instead of saying this kind of talk was used here, and this kind of talk was used there, just stop making excuses for it. I taught high school for years. I was amazed at the words students would use in a conversation without giving it a second thought. If I used even the smallest words that my parents thought were not excusable, I was punished. What happened to our tsociety.......?
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/11/0311f-t1-the-gop-war-on-women/?news
whom, you really need to check your bigotry toward the recipients. Remember, I think the programs are immoral, not the people that take them!
You really need to consider your understanding of the English language. How can you possibly call me hypocritical? Take your time, and try to come up with some justification of your remark!
Someone might try to explain to Mom it is OK to call a spade a spade. It might be a little over the top, buy if the definition fits...!
How can that be construed to be an attack on women? You guys are twisted! He might be over the top, but at least Rush stands up for those of us that think it is wrong to encourage young girls' promiscuity by paying for their contraception medication!
whom: Your wasting you breath! You could get more comprehension and cognitive skills from a rock.
So true, xxx.
Paying for or not paying for contraception does nothing to influence or encourage people to do or discourage them from doing anything they're not going to already do.
What Rush doesn't understand is that this is an attempt to govern morality (or his version of it) and history proves it doesn't work.
This is the same thing as saying the "War On Drugs" is working. No drug addict I've ever seen has been dissuaded from using drugs just because they're illegal. Making drugs illegal just attracts criminal elements and behavior to them, which in turn overcrowds the court system and overpopulates the prisons.
Decriminalization of them doesn't mean that people who already don't use drugs will be inspired or encouraged to run out and start using them. Similarly making them illegal will not prevent people from using them.
About half of all drug addictions are to prescription medicines anyway and that proves my theory.
Again, this is another example of a failed (and very expensive) attempt at governing morality.
Here you go ( youtu.be/UzEnKdBAb_o), Big Eddie, click on or c/p the link into your browser's address bar. This is a youtube clip from Media Matters pertaining to Fox News "insights" about the oil price increases in 2008. The clip is 5m 28s. Hey. maybe Rush should play the whole clip on his show to fill his hush time? He won't, but can you?
Thanks to Media Matters for compiling these clips. The video may be only 5 1/2 minutes, but it's worth a million words.
http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/fox-news-explains-why-presidents-cant-control-gas-prices-2008-video.html
End Vulgarity
http://www.ukapologetics.net/2vulgar.html
"for by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned."
Matthew 12:37
Sorry, rush has lost his soul. He needs to repent.
It has been said no man is an island, But RUSH is! The GOP won't condemn him or condone him!
BYE BYE FAT GUY!
Let's hope they condom him. We don't want no more of em.
TM censoring people we don't like is a very bad ideal because censorship leads to people we do like to be caught in the same trap. Remember the 1950's and early 60's when censorship hit its high point and it was used to silence blacks, woman, gays from being able to speak in the public arena? Or the one that I always remember is how censorship was used in Florida to keep Jim Morrison from performing in the state, police said Morrison exposed himself on stage but not one witness came forward to say they saw him expose himself. Then there was the White cover artists like Pat Boone who sang black artists songs because censors wouldn't let black artists to be played on the air waves. Do we really need government telling us what we can say? Or even just a few years ago people playing on a river a guy yelled out a cuss word others heard him and he was convicted on a old profanity law still on Michigans crime book. Do we really want to go back to those times? Today it's Rush tomorrow who knows Ed? Maddow?
I wonder what the name of the war with Iran is going to be called? Ironic Shakedown? Operation Armageddon?
As it seems no one is going to be a clear winner in the choice of candidates, And as we move closer to the end, May I suggest they play musical chairs to decide a candidate for president!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIqAvpVG3Lg
That would have saved them too much time and money. They have to prove what fools they are. I guess that is a good thing.
I wonder if there would have been as much discussion if he had simply called her "sexually promiscuous"? Also did you see that Sleep Train after cancelling advertising attempted to start back up again only to be rejected by Rush?
Still a lie based on his own assumption that only women who use birth control would be for birth control. How would Rush know if this woman was sexually active or not she never mentioned a thing about her personal life. So no matter which word Rush used it doesn't matter. Why are the perverts from the GOP so interested in other peoples sex lives? Could it be because they don't have a sex life?
Whom, Saying that she was sexually promiscuous may or may not be a lie. The fact that Rush made his statement in ignorance doesn't mean it was a lie; unfounded at best, but not in itself a lie, unless of course she is not sexually promiscuous. There is no doubt Rush's comment, Ed's comment for that matter were inappropriate, but to say it was a lie without knowing the facts is also an assumption.
While I am certain there are many perverts in both political parties, I am not aware that one that voices or promotes ones moral values is a sexual pervert. A pervert is someone that practices sexual activity outside the norm.
Ah sorry but not true. You can not look at a person or even a couple and know what they are doing behind closed doors. The facts are the only thing Rush had was her testimony before congress. No where in her testimony did she mention a thing about her life that gave a clue to what she was or was not doing Voyeurism is a perversion where someone gets their jollies from watching people use the bathroom to window peeking. Morals are BS, Rush has no morals, he is a gay man hiding in the closet who uses prescription narcotics often obtained by fooling doctors into prescribing him with narcotics, so him worrying about what another does is at best laughable.
Whom, For you to say she is not promiscuous having no knowledge of her sexual habits, is just as much a baseless statement as Rush's. You have no idea if she is promiscuous or not.
I understand you and many others believe morals are BS, it is apparent in our society. The growth of the sex industry, increase in teen pregnancies, the number of abortions, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and increase in sexually transmitted disease are all indications of a society that lacks morals.
You suggest these activities are all fine and should be left up to individuals free of government involvement. I would agree for the most part if the activities and the results of the activities were both taken from the hands of the government. As it stands right now, the Tax Payer suffers as a result of this absence of morals. If the government didn't support medical for those with sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, those having abortions, HIV/AIDS research, and providing medication and treatment for the millions suffering from their lifestyles I would agree with your opinion.
Morals are BS only in respect to attempting governance of them.
The real BS part of this is the baseless judgment of others. In Rush's case, I would agree that he has no morals himself. I don't know why it's so surprising that he's the one screaming the loudest about the immorality of others. The ones who lack the morals in the first place are the ones the quickest to persecute others.
The real problem I see with all of this is that what Rush said is really not news that's relevant to anything productive as far as I'm concerned. If we were all focused on the real issues instead of vilifying some jag whose opinions don't really mean much of anything, in the long run we'd all be a lot better off.
This is a wonderful and purposeful sensationalized diversion that's doing exactly what it was intended to do. Next week you can count on a new distraction.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/09/4324006/rush-limbaugh-rejects-sleep-trains.html
Sorry, they only have stores in California.
One thing is clear after 3 days of Rush's psychotic raging, there is sufficient evidence to show that this country needs a serious law requiring all men who want "sexual enhancement" drugs to be given a background check for sex offences and pedophilia.
There are men in this country eating this stuff like it's candy and the probable abuse can no longer be overlooked.
Someone needs to have their head examined. Here is a clue, Viagra hasn't been shown to cause rape or pedophile and therefore your ideal would have no impact on sex crimes. Stop watching CSI ffs.