backtop


Print 403 comment(s) - last by SPARTAN VI.. on Jun 22 at 2:54 PM


Rush Limbaugh is calling on Americans to boycott GM, one of the nation's largest manufacturers, to prevent what he sees as a conspiracy by Democratic President Barack Obama. Mr. Limbaugh considers the potential American jobs losses to be a necessary sacrifice.  (Source: MugshotAlley.com)

GM also is a strong supporter of hybrids, producing the upcoming Chevy Volt. Mr. Limbaugh has voiced his passionate dislike for hybrids in the past, likely another strike against GM in his book.  (Source: GM)
American job cuts are a necessary loss to avoid patronizing President Obama, they say

A bankrupt General Motors is moving well along the painful road to recovery, selling off Hummer and Saturn.  Most are hoping it recovers to preserve the jobs of the hundreds of thousands directly or indirectly employs.  However, others are wishing it would fail and are doing their best to try to guarantee this outcome.

Republican pundit and media personality Rush Limbaugh, along with fellow pundit Hugh Hewitt, has assembled a legion of red-state bloggers and are calling for a boycott of all GM vehicles according to Autoblog Green.  They say that buying GM is tantamount to patronizing U.S. President Barack Obama.

Mr. Limbaugh held a special show to discuss the boycott.  While many callers were not happy with it, one caller voiced his support, stating, "I just want to say, what you were just talking about there about not buying GM products because of Obama, it's exactly how I feel. I just... I have felt this way now for weeks. I have driven a Chevy Tahoe for several years. In fact, right now I've got about 150,000 miles on it. I won't even look at another one right now, and I just want to say thanks. At least somebody understands what's going on here."

The basis of Mr. Limbaugh's boycott apparently stems from the fact that the U.S. government will own 62 percent of a post-bankruptcy GM.  Ironically, though, the trappings and suggestion for this were first set in place by Bush advisors, who pushed through the original bailout for the company, which it has effectively repaid with equity stake.

The boycott also fails to account for the fact that GM's ownership is now on the taxpayers' balance -- Republican and Democrat alike.  It also fails to note that Canada also maintains a major stake in GM and that many other countries like Germany, are riding on its success and ability to move cleanly through bankruptcy.

However, Mr. Limbaugh may have more than one issue with GM.  Mr. Limbaugh is an outspoken critic of hybrid vehicles and has accused them as "ruining" the industry, despite the fact that current models such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Insight, and Toyota Prius are quite profitable.  With GM pushing hardest for electric vehicles, with its Chevy Volt, it's likely this is another painful issue to Mr. Limbaugh.

For better or worse, though, he and his fellow commentators have declared war on GM.  Only time will tell whether the boycott will actually have any sort of effect on sales, though.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

#@@#
By DigitalFreak on 6/9/2009 1:18:11 PM , Rating: 5
Somebody needs to put this guy out of our misery.




RE: #@@#
By Fat32 on 6/9/2009 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
And save Clear Channel $400mil. He's wealth of knowledge and expertise in various areas of science/politics and economics... ermmmm never mind - it's all about entertainment, right?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504302144124805...


RE: #@@#
By bhieb on 6/9/2009 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it's all about entertainment

As is DT, how is this remotely a "news" article again?


RE: #@@#
By InfantryRocks on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By elmikethemike on 6/10/2009 8:08:43 AM , Rating: 4
I love how all the democrats are more focused on an AM radio commentator than they are actual policy.

Rush this, Rush that. GET OVER IT.

It's all a diversion - Keep the news on what some non-elected radio personality is doing, rather than focus on anything else. I'm so tired of this.

The fact that this is a news article on Daily Tech and else where speaks volumes. What other news could have been covered instead of this nonsense??

FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.


RE: #@@#
By Spuke on 6/10/2009 1:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.
Ding! Ding! Ding!


RE: #@@#
By Xavier434 on 6/11/2009 8:45:35 AM , Rating: 5
It's not just the Dems. Republicans do it just as much. Case in point:

Obamassiah this, Nobama that, HATE HATE HATE NO NO NO! GET OVER IT!

However, I do very much agree with your main point. Mainstream media is nothing more than mediatainment these days. It doesn't matter if it is conservative Fox news or liberal MSNBC. It is all terrible. All of the real journalists who actually spend most of their working hours doing research to find out the facts while siting all of their sources have moved on.


RE: #@@#
By dxf2891 on 6/15/2009 4:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
What you all fail to realize is that it is his ability and freedom to spew this non-sense that is the point. Like him or not, Limbaugh does have a huge following. He's kind of like the anti-Oprah, where no matter what he spouts, there are millions who will follow him. Millions of potential consumers having their opinion jaded of GM (as well as Chrysler and Ford) at this juncture could be financially catostraphic. I think his comments are border line treasonous, and here is my reasoning. As stated by him, the United States of America is a stake holder in this company due to loans levied. If this company fails, the American taxpayer loses his or her investment. This is no different than if he went on the radio and said boycott the stock market or banks. I think we should boycott him until he realizes that what he wants should never come before what's best for this country. Like the decision or not to loan monies to the auto-industry, they have our money now and the only way we'll get it back is if they turn a profit.


RE: #@@#
By Dorkyman on 6/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By sleepeeg3 on 6/15/2009 9:17:56 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with Rush and was personally planning on boycotting Government Motors and Chrysler anyway. Continuing to bail out these companies perpetuates the overpaid union salaries and burden on the rest of America. Why should anyone with a college degree get paid less than these semi-skilled laborers? On top of that, the money is now going to expand our oversized government.

That and the proprietary EVERYTHING that Chrysler uses for their vehicles and absurd dealer repair costs had me swearing off ever buying Chrysler long ago.

I’m not sure what Rush’s exact standpoint on Hybrid’s are, but they are also a crock. They are NOT going to save us from global warming/climate change, so what’s the point? As for getting off foreign oil, they will just drive up the price to compensate for less usage! Until we have a real electric alternative and clean power source (fact: nuclear is the only option that could provide 100% of clean power needs), they make no sense.


RE: #@@#
By jmanbro on 6/9/2009 1:34:45 PM , Rating: 4
Rush is about as anti-american as it comes. All critisism, with no alternatives or answers. Imagine him trying to pull this off in the McCarthyism days, he would be tried for treason. Now is the time to support the country and its companies.


RE: #@@#
By invidious on 6/9/2009 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
He and many others believe that the bailout is what is anti-american. His alternative/answer is to boycott the assault on capitalism to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Are you that dense that you can't figure that out? Or did you just see his name and skip the rest of the article to post about how evil he is.


RE: #@@#
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism? What he is hoping for is that SOMETHING, anything Obama does will fail so he can take some more pain killers and rant about it from his megalomaniacal terminal phase of substance abuse. I like how the pic is an old one. He looks a couple weeks past buried lately.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
Even if it works better? Now that is what I call rational constructionism for sure.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 3:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Europe isn't a country :( Some european countries are doing fine with socialism, some are doing fairly badly. I don't see socialism as a whole working in America, the people have to WANT it to work, and it's a tricky thing to implement properly. Wheras capitalism is far easier to implement and to a certain extent, keeps itself in check.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
The problem though, is that Socialism is essentially against American values and principals.

quote:
Some european countries are doing fine with socialism


I can see where you are coming from with that remark, but you have to admit that every single country on this planet has a trade off in one way or another (ie. higher crime rates for lower taxes etc) Grass is always greener.


RE: #@@#
By dever on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By lco45 on 6/9/2009 11:12:52 PM , Rating: 5
If your country has tax higher than 0%, it is socialist.
All countries are socialist, just to different degrees.

For example, the US famously doesn't have socialized health care, but it does have socialized roads and schools, which are paid for by taxes.

There are some private roads and private schools, but mainly they are socially funded.

Similarly, in countries with socialized health care there are also private hospitals.

It's just a big sliding scale, there's no evil and good.

Luke


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 12:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If your country has tax higher than 0%, it is socialist.


Are you serious? That sentence is enough to stop me from reading the rest of your post. I hope to God that you are not a teacher.


RE: #@@#
By JKflipflop98 on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about completely stretching the hell out of a word's meaning....

Taxes alone does not equate to socialism, merely the government paying for something isn't socialism if you think that alone is what it means -- you should read a book on socialism.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
I read a story last year about a woman (age 23) who lost all her teeth in the U.K., because she couldn't get proper dental care.

Oh, and I heard a nice one just last week about a woman in Canada who had a multi-pound tumor removed from body in the US -- after being wait-listed in Canada for OVER A YEAR for surgery. She was only weeks away from dying when she gave up and came to the US.

Yeah, Socialism works. Real well.


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 8:41:57 PM , Rating: 1
It's funny how with this total freedom thing in the US that on the same time more people are in jails than anywhere else. It's something 0.7 percent of all and only China is the same league with a country like the UK at 0.14 and Norway at 0.07.

It does seem like there is only really freedom in the US for those that are well off as the rest are either just barely getting by or in jail.


RE: #@@#
By tlampen on 6/10/2009 10:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
it is obvious that you are not from the US. WE do have great freedoms that others do not have. Yes we have a lot people in prison but the MAJORITY of those people are in prison because of drug related issues. The key to freedom is knowing the boundaries of freedom. Drugs are now and have always been a negative impact to society and therefore not within the boundaries of freedom. I am not saying that our government is perfect or even close but neither is anyone else's. However, just because our government does what it can to keep scum from the streets as apposed to "legalizing it" doesn't mean they are protecting the wealthy. What you are missing are the millions of opportunities that our government offers to "the rest" to help them succeed in life. Our government focuses on letting people make their own decisions. AKA - True Freedom.


RE: #@@#
By SPARTAN VI on 6/22/2009 2:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
@BDZTemp

It's funny how this article is about Rush Limbaugh advocated that Americans boycott GM to protest socialism and not any country's prison population.

Poof, look at that. Your straw man fell apart.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2009 7:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
For every couple of examples of failings in our system you've found I could find 100 people in the US with no healthcare WHATSOEVER and probably plenty more who suddenly found out their insurance doesn't cover them for their affliction.

I didn't say the system was PERFECT, I said it is working. Our NHS in the UK is in definite need of reform. You'd notice I hadn't cited the UK NHS as decent example of a properly implimented social program. If you want properly implimented social healthcare then go and look at Sweden/Norway or somewhere.

In 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year.

Yeah, privatised healthcare really works.


RE: #@@#
By afkrotch on 6/11/2009 3:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
So explain to me how in the UK, hospitals were removing children's organs for no reason. Yep, national health care works there.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2009 7:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Because mistakes happen and our NHS is in need of reform?

Why don't you look at a decent NHS service such as in Norway, after all I am refuting the statement that socialism has 'never been proven effective'. Not that 'the NHS in the UK proves socialism works' or some other rubbish.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By encryptkeeper on 6/9/2009 5:41:23 PM , Rating: 3
The other side of the coin here is that those who oppose the bailout aren't giving much in the ways of alternatives. Whether they say it or not, their only hope now is that the government bailouts fail miserably so they can claim they knew that it wouldn't work and hope Americans are dumb enough to vote for whoever sat on their ass and did nothing. Anyone who can think for themselves doesn't take anything Rush says at face value. He knows the word socialism frightens people, and saying scary things tends to get people's attention. That's what he does, he provides entertainment (if you can call it that) and gets paid to get people to listen to what he says.

But the full on socialism/communism that occurred in Russia or Cuba isn't what's happening here in the US via the bailout. The events leading up to the Russian revolution were pretty brutal, people were working 12 hour days with no safety regulations and horrible sanitary conditions, just to name a few issues. So when the Soviets formed, people were already desperate for something that could change their lives to something better. Fortunately, we aren't at that kind of desperation in the US. We aren't looking to destroy class boundaries and states. I think communism is what people are really scared of, and people wrongly seem to believe that communism and socialism are the same thing. Despite the similarities, they are pretty different. The bottom line is we already have some redistribution of wealth (welfare, social security, school vouchers) and in a small way that makes us a bit socialist already.

The government tried to approach the bailout with a few checks in place. Now many of the banks and companies that got bailout money but were unable to use it according to the rules the government laid out have to pay it back. And, once the companies stabilize themselves, government control ends, hopefully, with the overall goal of maintaining our capitalist society, not destroying it.

Remember that monopolies are illegal, but regulated monopolies (such as utility companies) are legal. It may take time, but examples like that show us there is at least a possibility for success.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 6:42:36 PM , Rating: 3
Russia's Press disagrees:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459...

Quote: "The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker."


RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, link some Russian propaganda, good form (sarcasm tags). It's probably best to keep political debates centered on reality. Although that would probably eliminate all polical debates, and then I would be sad.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, link some Russian propaganda, good form (sarcasm tags).
Look, when major Russian papers are saying the U.S. is becoming more Socialist than Russia is, it's time to set up and take notice.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/18/2009 5:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
Just because a newspaper originates in another country, it doesn't make that newspaper a 'propaganda outlet' for that country.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 6:38:26 AM , Rating: 1
HAHA!


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 12:10:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The other side of the coin here is that those who oppose the bailout aren't giving much in the ways of alternatives.


That is flat out false information. Evidently you have not been looking or listening when they have been presented. Or maybe you didn't get a chance to hear them because the only news network that would ever broadcast such stories are Fox. Look it up.

Here's an alternative: Let the failures fail instead of rewarding idiotic and bad behavior.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
You really sound like the poster child college grad liberal that has fallen for Obama's scare tactic campaign. Here is what would happen in my alternative: lets take GM for example

GM goes bankrupt. Honda, Ford, and whoever else buys them out. A good chunk of GM staff would probably be laid off. Unions would start to realize that they are only shooting themselves in the foot. The rest is total speculation.

But seriously, you are a perfect example for hook, line, and sinker for Obama's scare campaign.
quote:
If you're in favor of what easily could be a decades long depression
LMAO, are you serious? "OMG AMERICAN PUBLIC!! IF WE (the government) DON'T TAKE COMPLETE CONTROL OF YOUR LIVES RIGHT NOW, YOU WILL DOOM YOURSELVES INTO DEBT AND SLAVERY. MASSIVE HURRICANES AND EARTH QUAKES, APOCALYPSE PLAGUE....(insert other horrifying words here)."

quote:
Your alternative is the likely destruction of the United States through armed insurrection, or invasion on the really bad range and just crushing poverty for many/most in the less bad range.
WHATT??!!!! There is no way, in a million years, that you would have the guts to say something that stupid in a public (not internet) setting. People would laugh in your face.

quote:
Want to start punishing those responsible? Start by breaking your ideological commitment to tax breaks as the great panacea to all our economic ills. Those responsible really love those tax breaks, gives them a much bigger hookers and blow budget.


Let me paraphrase what that quote means, "Bad people will do bad things" Only a liberal has the solution to problems like that lol. You are a world class moron.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WHATT??!!!! There is no way, in a million years, that you would have the guts to say something that stupid in a public (not internet) setting. People would laugh in your face
You fell for it. He's obviously being paid to pose as a liberal and make idiotic statements like that. No one able to find keys on a keyboard could really be that dumb.


RE: #@@#
By HaB1971 on 6/9/2009 6:05:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The current UK elections process that migrated from Left to Right overnight


You mean to say that the short term memory of voters has changed the local political landscape based on a myriad of recent scandals, problems and ludicrous decisions of one bunch of political numbskulls to turn over local, not national power to a group that is equally ineffective. These elections were for councils and not elected members of parliament.

This wasn't overnight, stop trying to make it more dramatic that it actually is. The decline of the Labour party's power has been a long and winding road and the end of the honeymoon for them was can be traced back to beyond the invasion of Iraq. The usual scandals and poor decision making (attributed to all elected officials) put the final nail in the coffin for them there.
Anyone want to watch their local authority (city) spend $1.5 million on a 700 yard long lane for buses in s stupid attempt at traffic control? that will make you want to vote for someone else other than the current people in charge would it not?


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
Some European countries are doing just fine with socialism? That depends on your definition of "just fine". Back in the days when the US really was a capitalist country, it produced as many manufactured good as the rest of the world combined -- the Soviet Union, Europe, Asia, Africa, all put together. Now, we're hardly less socialist than Europe (and moreso than some European countries) and surprise! Our economy is no better than theirs either. Go figure.

Oh, and lets not forget Europe allows the US to foot its bills for national defense. A few hundred billion a year i n savings goes a long way to help subsidize inefficient economies.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By straycat74 on 6/9/2009 4:49:30 PM , Rating: 5
More correctly, national socialism.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 8:15:28 PM , Rating: 3
nationalism? You mean Nazism. Don't believe me? Your own description is very similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAZI


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/11/2009 1:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
and I would still refer you to learn about what nationalism REALLY is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini
scroll to the part 'Creation of Fascism'

Quote:
An important factor in fascism gaining support in its earliest stages was the fact that claimed to oppose discrimination based on social class and was strongly opposed to all forms of class war.[16] Fascism instead supported nationalist sentiments such as a strong unity, regardless of class, in the hopes of raising Italy up to the levels of its great Roman past. The ideological basis for fascism came from a number of sources. Mussolini utilized works of Plato, Georges Sorel, Nietzsche, and the socialist and economic ideas of Vilfredo Pareto, to create fascism. Mussolini held great admiration for Plato's work, The Republic which he kept a copy and often read to gain inspiration.[17] The Republic held a number of ideas that fascism promoted such as rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state.[18] The Republic differed from fascism in that it did not promote aggressive war but only defensive war, unlike fascism it promoted very communist-like views on property, and Plato was an idealist focused on achieving justice and morality while Mussolini and fascism were realist, focused on achieving political goals.

Your link does nothing to clarify the evils of Nationalism but seeks to render it null and void simply because I referenced Nazism....which utilized nationalism just like Musolini did. Not to mention the many comparisons Obama himself is creating with his meddling in the affairs of private businesses promoting the state as the ultimate end as well as burdening the American citizens (using taxes) into a socialist bailout plan which is failing. Obama's actions speak for themselves.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/11/2009 1:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
One more thing: quoting from above ...demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state.

sound familiar? just replace education with business and warriors with jobs...


RE: #@@#
By Dribble on 6/9/2009 7:03:44 PM , Rating: 5
Check out the tables for quality of life, quality of education, healthcare, etc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571445/Wor...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg...

America isn't at the top. It doesn't even make it into the top 25 for education. There are lots of significantly more socialist countries that are better places to live, get educated or get ill in then USA.


RE: #@@#
By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 12:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
Its all about implementation. Canada does great with socialism.


RE: #@@#
By LoweredExpectations on 6/10/2009 1:46:31 AM , Rating: 5
You guys who go on about European socialism just crack me up. Have any of you actually been to a European country?

There are no socialist states in Europe. Every European country is a capiatalist economy tempered by the application of social policies. Just as is the case in the United States. The only difference is degree.

In fact, there is no capitalist country on the face of the earth that does not imploy a lot of social policy in order to function in the real world with real people.

The hard-core American right has got to get over it's knee-jerk hatred of the word 'socialism' and understand that the reason there are no pure capitalist societies is that it doesn't work any more than pure socialism.


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 4:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
LOL

You so do not get what Europe is. We just had an election the EU countries which put the balance a little further to the right. However there are few details you missed.

1. EU is not Europe and for example Russia is part of Europe but very far from being a member of the EU.
2. The EU right with the exception of extreme right is more like the right of you left. In essence what we have in the EU is like pretty much what you find in the Democratic party in the US.


RE: #@@#
By safcman84 on 6/10/2009 5:18:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hell, even Europe's elections turned to the right because the left and socialism destroyed their country in the last several years.


You need to adjust your political scale when comparing EU countries to the USA.

- Obama would never be considered a socialist in the EU. He would be center right or center.

- This is because we have never had the same kind of extreme capitalism as you have in the USA. We have always had access to free healthcare, state welfare, subsidised higher education and other things that you would consider socialist. no EU political party would ever try and take those away - we take them for granted and there would be hell if anyone tried.

- So even if the EU has turned to the Right on the EU political scale, its still way more "Socialist" than Bush (and/or the Republicans) will ever be.

Obama a socialist! always guaranteed to make me laugh. You Americans wouldnt know a socialist if he/she weighed 200kg and sat on you!


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 5:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
LOL

I am sorry to be the bringer of bad news but Bush left your global status, your economy and the standard of living for many US people in a pretty bad way.

Before Bush most of the western world would take anything said by the US gov. as the truth. But after the lies used to make us part of the Iraq war, Gitmo, renditions, illegal flights with people to be tortured it is another matter.

Also the unregulated US financial market plays a big part in the current crisis so guess what that did for your global status. There is even talk about trading oil in Euro rather than dollar due to the weak dollar.

The EU economy is bigger than the US and your record national deficit is gonna hurt for generations if something is not done now. I say you should pray Obama can fix just some of the mess left by Bush.


RE: #@@#
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/10/2009 5:51:35 PM , Rating: 1
There were no lies... Very possible bad information which may have lead to bad actions, that will never be known... Unless you can read the minds of others.

People forget, the US was have one bad quarter after another quarter of negative economic growth under Clinton (called a recession - 2 or more negative quarters back to back). They forget because the business banking account reserves keep them employed. Under Bush we only had 3 total negative quarters out of 32 total (the very first quarter after Clinton left office, 2nd one - the quarter the twin towers were attack - not his fault there, and third quarter was the last quarter in office - may actually be last two quarters actually). The 28 or 29 other quarters were positive growth however they were not strong growth quarters, but much better then the negative growth quarters under Clinton. However, the media will have your head spinning around and confused about who caused what verse saying things have been cr.appy for 14 years and if Obama is not careful he will turn our economy negative very, very fast because there is nothing left in the reserves.
Do not try blaming this on one person... It's been a group effort...


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 8:50:20 PM , Rating: 1
Pardon but economic growth is easy for a while if you keep essentially borrowing money trouble is at some time that money must be payed back. It is like using credit cards to shop you can get away with shopping big for a while but eventually you run into problems.

And as for the "There were no lies" I suggest you read a little on how the Iraq war was sold to the US people (and the people of the allies). Then I think you will see things differently. In fact you may even learn that Iran offered to assist the US with intelligence about Iraq but of course that did not match the picture Bush had been painting.


RE: #@@#
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/12/2009 5:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
I did read,again no lies... mis-informed maybe. We know there were WMD.... Why do we know this, because the USA provided the them with these chemicals. The CDC in GA will provided the chemical to foreign countries. It country is to keep full records and use and disposal of the chemicals. Iraq never submitted the reports.
You do a little more studying and you will find that throughout all time that the USA has tried to work with Iran never once has the Iranian government been honest and trustworthy to the US Government. So, information not matching Bush makes 100% perfect sense as they would be out to undermine the US efforts.


RE: #@@#
By nycromes on 6/15/2009 1:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact that failure to find any WMDs doesn't imply that said WMDs didn't/don't exist. At the same time, I'm not saying that they did/do exist either. But simply not finding them doesn't qualify the statements made prior to entering Iraq as lies.

It all comes down to what was told to the politicians at the time that the claims were made. If they knowingly made statements without intelligence to back them up or in the face of substantial counter evidence then they were lying. If they were acting in good faith that the intelligence they had was valid and very little evidence contradicted the reports, they were telling the truth. Hindsight is 20/20, sadly most of us will never know what was in those intelligence reports with 100% certainty. It all comes down to what you want to believe rather than being able to nail down for sure what happened.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 6:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
History has shown that to NEVER be true...as evidence of our global status, GDP, and standard of living.


You should probably try visiting another country some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

You are not top of that list. Luxembourg has nearly twice the per capita GDP of the USA. Norways is about 25% higher.

Let's focus on Norway.
Sales tax is 25%
Income tax varies but I believe the top end is 50%, it once had the most aggressive income tax rate of the world.
Yes it is to pay for socialist programs.

Yes Norway is a nice (albeit expensive) country to live in.
It also has some of the best healthcare available in the world. It is also rated as the worlds best place to live:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article828...

Hence, you are WRONG.

Norway is far from the only example of functioning socialist system, it's just this functioning socialism is functioning better than your American socialist system.

Best thing for you is to elect Ron Paul to strip it all away and then replace him with a Dem to put it back *well* instead of having the built upon built upon built upon policies. If you followed the same logic with building a car you'd end up with a dodge neon - or worse...


RE: #@@#
By skaaman on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Targon on 6/10/2009 6:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
There is a very basic concept in business, which is that those who put money into a company get some share of that company as compensation. GM came to the government BEGGING for money, so it makes sense that the government would get a percentage stake for the bailout money.

Now, if the government just GAVE taxpayer money to GM, that would be even worse, wouldn't it? Seriously, good money spent on a company that would just squander it.

So, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If and when GM can pay back the money received in the bailout, then the government would no longer hold that percentage ownership, and that would be that.

People are very quick to be critical of any government spending these days, but if something is seen as an investment, rather than just spending, is THAT so bad? Governments dish out a lot of money in grants and other things, which in theory are investing in the future. If you really want to complain about government waste, how about the government spending money for research grants to foreign students.


RE: #@@#
By itzmec on 6/9/2009 3:30:15 PM , Rating: 5
when its owned by the government, thats how.


RE: #@@#
By Scrith on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:55:31 PM , Rating: 5
Social Security isn't " owned " by the government. its actually " owed " to the people...but the bureaucrats have torn that system to shreds by taking it and spending it on junk, and then thinking they'd just raise taxes later to fill the piggy bank back up.

The US Military and National Parks are not business in market solely for profit. Your attempt at a valid comparison was laughable at best - stay off the liberal talking point forums, they are making you dumber by the day.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 4:45:39 PM , Rating: 3
You are an idiot if you think the only reason SS is being depleted is because more people than ever are drawing it. If the system was setup without loopholes, the people that put money into, would get money back.

What you failed to address is how illegal immigrants and people that have never paid one cent into SS are currently drawing money from it. Do you think that's fair? And yes, the previous poster was correct, you can blame the bureaucrats for allowing this. They make the laws, afterall.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 12:41:55 AM , Rating: 1
It's not just the number of people depositing or withdrawing, it also involves how much the dollar was worth when they deposited. So, you also have to factor in inflation.

http://www.economics-charts.com/images/cpi-1800-20...

Because there was a huge drop in birthrates over a period, there are less people paying in to offset the inflation.

Meanwhile, illegal immigrants can't pull Social Security. Stop painting one of your irrational fears onto another.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socials...


RE: #@@#
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 9:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
while your statments on population and amount of folksgoing retirement definitely have some credit it to it --- a major reason for Social Security's decline is it's misuse and abuse. It was never intended when it was originally devised to be used as sole income source, yet that's how some been using it and depending on it.

The rules are quite stupid for social security as well -- for instance if you draw any money from SS you are limited in how much income you can earn on your own -- even if its a paltry amount, unless you are fine with about half of it being taxed to high heaven as to the point that there's no incentive for you to earn beyond the limits imposed by SS in the first place.

My dad who is in his late 60's deals with this, thankfully that rule was just lifted for him (its based on your age apparently) so now he can earn whatever he can and not suffer the horrible taxes he has to pay back to the SS program. In his younger days my dad made a good living as a VP for a company, but in his semi-retirement he now works as a bus driver to supplement SS money to support my mom and their bills. Its worth noting how dumb the system is in a case like this where SS limits the amount of money you can earn because apparently the $1000 a MONTH ss pays my folks is supposed to be enough...so someone goes out and gets a job to not be so dependent or limited by the ss money and then the government says "man we are paying you $1k a month! (Yes we know you missed only 10 days of work in the last 45 years of your working life paying into the system and you always paid your taxes on time and busted your arse for every dollar you ever earned but let's ignore that part...) but now you darn want to get a job that pays a whopping additional $1000 per MONTH! DAMN YOU TO HELL we are taking half of that until you are older, now be a good government dependent zombie and just sit on your arse and cash our checks -- uncle sam will take care of you!"....

sorry got carried away there --- note my love of the Social Security program? ;)


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
be a good government dependent zombie and just sit on your arse and cash our checks -- uncle sam will take care of you!"....


The whole paragraph was a summary of how I feel about it as well, but this sentence justifies it all. In these times, the more honest hard work you do, the more you get penalized for it. It's horrible that our country has come down to things like this, but you have to just keep on moving I guess.


RE: #@@#
By Spuke on 6/10/2009 3:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's horrible that our country has come down to things like this, but you have to just keep on moving I guess.
In 20 years I'll probably need $1 million in pre-tax income in order to get the same post-tax income I have today. LOL!


RE: #@@#
By ianken on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 1:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't spent elsewhere. The surplus was used to buy special US Treasury bonds with 5-7 year maturities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(Unit...

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n4

The entire "Social security will go bust" argument was created to shuffle this debt into an open market instead of only special closed government holdings. In other words, the bank industry wanted it's hands on the bonds so it could wrap them into banking instruments to make tons of money.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 1:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting Java applet from IBM that let's you visualize US Population growth.

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visual...

Sort Hierarchy by Age, Nativity, Race and then Gender for the best visualization, IMHO. (Drag the items on the gray bar around to change.)

I wish the 5-17 and 85+ plus groups would sort right, though. Would be easier to see the spikes.

If you turn on the "percentage option" in the lower right, you can see a testament to SS working to help the elderly in poverty. Notice around 1955-57 (nearly twenty years after first payouts), the faint 85+ line becomes easily visible for the first time. This would be the first batch of 65 year olds that were eligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(Unit...


RE: #@@#
By itzmec on 6/9/2009 3:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
i dont see where i said anything about boycotting. can you point that out to me please?


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 3:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
What flavor is your Kool-aid?


RE: #@@#
By mikefarinha on 6/9/2009 5:02:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism?


Um... you don't save capitalism with socialism.


RE: #@@#
By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 11:11:46 AM , Rating: 1
Really? So it wasn't your lack of government watch on the financial industry that allowed them to trade sub prime(already volatile high risk investment) at a 35-1 ratio?

And then when it collapsed it brought down the whole industry..

So your saying that THAT is better then Canada for example who make sure that banks can't do that and thus our economy is much better off then yours??

You are OBVIOUSLY right... You're American.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are OBVIOUSLY right... You're American.


I'm glad this is the internet, (otherwise you wouldn't have said this to someone's face) because that comment would have given you a first class ticket to "knocked the fuck out"


RE: #@@#
By Tsuwamono on 6/11/2009 1:11:03 AM , Rating: 1
What ever you say tough guy. You must be a big man to threaten someone over the internet.

Blow my dick.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:47:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really? So it wasn't your lack of government watch on the financial industry
You're right, it wasn't. The banking industry (especially the home mortgage industry) is the most heavily regulated industry in the entire country. The government sets the prime interest rate (in effect telling banks how much they can charge), sets minimum and maximum fees, tells banks who they can and can't lend to, and under what rules. Then for good measure, the government (through Fannie Mac) DIRECTLY controls 50% of all mortgages in the country.

Then all it takes is for the Govt to let its own agent (Fannie Mac) engage in high-risk subprimes, while the Fed (another govt. agency) holds interest rates artificially low during a period of escalating risk (the exact opposite of what the free market will do).

A classic bubble situation. And 100% of the Government's making. CLASSIC.

The derivatives market made things worse. But derivates only amplify underlying market conditions. They CANNOT change the direction of the market. They only make rises and drops larger.


RE: #@@#
By tjr508 on 6/9/2009 5:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
So, since I want the Yankees to lose, that means I hate baseball?


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Muskrat Matt on 6/9/2009 5:47:17 PM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? Capitalism means not saving them.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 8:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism?
Saving it? Don't make me laugh. Learn some history. The government owning any company is the kiss of death. Obama's "bailout" has destroyed GM.

Had GM gone through a traditional bankruptcy, reorganized, dumped its crushing $50B+ burden of pension debt to the unions, it would have emerged a smaller, more agile company and been just fine. Instead, the government is going to run it to the ground.


RE: #@@#
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/10/2009 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism?

It's very American to let a company big or small die after it has run out of money (think with your brain not your heart). Thousand have done it before. It is very anti-American for the government to take over any percentage of a company and influence it's daily business. Those with Economic back grounds know the name of that... It's called socialism. Which does not work never has never will. Let the company run it's natural path... File for BK, it will live or it will die. If it dies then a new company will emerge in time.... That's the American way, it has been very successful for us.


RE: #@@#
By Scrith on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 3:59:31 PM , Rating: 4
I don't much care for Rush, but because he doesn't like Obama, hes treasonous? That sounds closer to fascism than boycotting a company.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 4:03:20 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps I think Obama is actually the commie...and there's nothing wrong with Limbaugh. What are YOU going to do about it jerkoff? Treason my ass, the only form of treason around here is the way Obama is trashing the US global superpower status that took over 200yrs to build.


RE: #@@#
By TSS on 6/9/2009 5:29:28 PM , Rating: 5
i'd hate to throw more political debate in here, but take a look at the video halfway through this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/companies/chr...

the interesting part is from 0:48 to 2:00. the first 30 seconds are as suggestive as always.

what's more treasonous? boycotting a nationalized company or ignoring the constitution?


RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 3:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
I will not boycott GM, I think that is short sighted.

I do, however, ask that the government sell off it's shares back to private industry once the bankruptcy shake up is done. In fact, we should demand that they do just that.


RE: #@@#
By PARANOID365 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 6:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for exemplifying the "extreme left" in your post.


RE: #@@#
By Radnor on 6/9/2009 9:17:46 PM , Rating: 3
That guy was a jerk, but whats the problem with being socialist ?

Socialism is a socio-economic way of distributing and generating wealth.

Communism is a social ideal. It is the society without government.

Capitalism is just a form of generating wealth. The best form of generating wealth, but little has to say about redistributing it or manage it.

The Three can coexist and do coexist. I'm a left winger, without a doubt, and i do disagree with the bailout(s). Banks should be allowed to fall ( and thus the peoples debt be wiped out, and in some countries so as their savings ) and the market should be allowed to rebalance the way markets flow.

The same for other type of companies. If GM failed, the void left in the market would soon be filled with smaller companies, but loads of them. What was great, talking in socialist prespective, because it meant the this outsourcing cycle was ending, and new companies would emerge, thus giving birth to another bussiness cycle, and to new channels of distributing wealth.

And that was this "crisis" is all about. The death of a bussiness cycle.

I am a socialist. And i agree in what i have written. Was that a socialist/comunism text ? No, because i wrote in a pure economic view, again, what this crisis is all about.

I know im talking to wind here, but please, daily tech posters, learn how to diferenciate, socialism, comunism and capitalism. They are completely diferent gears of the same whole. With all that will to write you guys have, adding sufienct knowledge, our leaders would be crapping themselves. Because we ALL would fully understood what they were doing wrong and/or right.

Thank you.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
whats the problem with being socialist ?


The problem is: People who don't contribute to the system get a free ride. I don't do handouts... I only help people that work hard and deserve it.


RE: #@@#
By KCjoker on 6/9/2009 7:00:24 PM , Rating: 1
What a intelligent post. I guess you don't believe in freedom of speech for Rush, that's one of the most important rights an American has.


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 7:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Put a bullet to his head? Traitor? Fascist?

1) I'm glad this blog has brought out the best (worst actually) in you far left wing hate filled pigs.

2) You little skirt wearing bedwetting libtards need to learn what "traitor" is and "fascism" is. Free speech much?


RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 7:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
That was pretty hate filled too.


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 9:00:57 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you compare me calling someone a "pig" and someone else calling for a "bullet" to the head and get back to me, clown.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 6:51:20 PM , Rating: 1
Quote: I do, however, ask that the government sell off it's shares back to private industry once the bankruptcy shake up is done. In fact, we should demand that they do just that.

That is like asking Senator Palpatine (the emperor in Star Wars)to give up his Dictatorship powers - it isn't going to happen. Once the government gets power it's only concern is to obtain more power and set themselves up as saviors or guardians of the world by creating problems in which they think they can solve. It's a ruse that millions are allowing themselves to be convinced of sadly.


RE: #@@#
By ccmfreak2 on 6/9/2009 4:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm right there with Rush on this. We supposedly HAD to bail out GM with tens of billions to keep them from going into Bankruptcy. Now we supposedly HAVE to send them billions more to get them through bankruptcy. Now the US government owns a majority of GM and you believe we are going to get quality from them? They are now going to be efficient? Since when has ANYTHING the government has done been quality or efficient? Look at government housing - that's quality? Look at the rate of return on Social Security - that's effient money managment? I'm against government control of companies and refuse to support it.

Oh, by the way, I don't listen to Rush or any of these other bloggers that apparently follow him. I am just a simple capitalist who take ANYTHING the media says with a grain of salt and do my own research into these areas. Bottom line, I'm against the government wasting my money.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/9/2009 4:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
The entire point of the bailout is to keep capitalism running. The government has no intention of implementing socialist policies, nor will you see any in the agreements. They're doing this to keep jobs going and avoid chaos.

The Right quickly label nationalistic acts by their opponents as socialism. No one called Reagan, the Republican led congress in the 90s or Wubya a socialist when they all bailed out the banking industry for a total of three times using tax payer moneys.

Why the hell are you calling the bailout of GM socialism? Why don't you stop to think about that after you've turned off the inflammatory radio pundit making $400 million a year.


RE: #@@#
By ccmfreak2 on 6/9/2009 4:38:44 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, you didn't listen close enough because many of us Right called "Wubya" a socialist when he decided to bail out the banking industry last Fall. There were many things GW did I liked, many things GW did I didn't liked. This is one I REALLY didn't like.

We are calling the bailout of GM socialism because it IS socialism. The GOVERNMENT NOW OWNS A MAJORITY OF GM AND THUS CONTROLS WHAT THEY DO! It's socialsm.


RE: #@@#
By Radnor on 6/9/2009 9:28:20 PM , Rating: 3
No it is not.

It is communism, quoting old Karl:

"Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.

The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."

Karl Marx, 1867

You GW is in fact a comunist.


RE: #@@#
By QuantumPion on 6/9/2009 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 3
So you don't think that Obama will direct GM to produce more hybrids and the Volt, even though the latter is massively unprofitable, and to cut back the production of SUV's and trucks which ARE profitable? These are things that the government wants but which are bad business decisions. This is the very essence of socialism. Government do-gooders thinking they know better what we want then ourselves.


RE: #@@#
By noirsoft on 6/9/2009 7:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
Um... The reason that GM is in trouble is that they made too many SUVs and large trucks, so when demand went down due to rising gas prices, their revenue evaporated. How again is that profitable? If it were profitable, why are they selling off Hummer? (Hint: It's because Hummer is losing money)

Maybe the government is just forcing them to make the needed changes that the real socialists (labor unions) were preventing?


RE: #@@#
By corduroygt on 6/9/2009 11:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
GM made those SUV's because people wanted them. They're bankrupt because they spent too much money to make those SUV's, thanks to unions.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 2:18:46 AM , Rating: 3
They made them because of a tax advantages given to light trucks (for small businesses) and avoiding CAFE standards (which light trucks don't have to follow).

The loopholes were exacerbated by the fact the deduction for large vehicles was drastically increased from $25,000 to $75,000 in 2002 and $100,000 in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_179_depreciat...


RE: #@@#
By MrBungle123 on 6/9/2009 1:53:49 PM , Rating: 3
I'm going to take a wild guess here say that you listen to Rush about as often as Mick does and based on the complete ignorance on Rush's positions spewed all over in that article is very likely somewhere between seldom and never.

quote:
Rush is about as anti-American as it comes.


Hardly, Rush promotes an America which values free markets and personal liberty which is not very popular position with the leftist progressives running the government or their cheerleading squad MSNBC/CNN.

quote:
All criticism, with no alternatives or answers.


Listen to the show, his answer to the problems of the day is to let individuals figure out what the best solution is for them at a personal level instead of the one size fits all blanket "solutions" offered by leftists politicians.

quote:
Now is the time to support the country and its companies.


Yes it is, and if Rush were here defending himself I would bet he would say the best way to do that would be to take off the hand cuffs of high taxes and over regulation imposed on them by the federal government so that American ingenuity, creativity, and industriousness could turn things around.


RE: #@@#
By Smilin on 6/9/2009 1:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
You know when Fox news says they're fair an balanced that it's just a marketting gimmick right? right?

You watch them too much.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 4
So we should all appreciate that the hosts of MSNBC and CNN wear Obama Hope and Change T-shirts...at least they aren't hiding their agenda.


RE: #@@#
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:21:04 PM , Rating: 4
Which one is balanced? To me, "NEWS" is like "POLITICIANS".
There is always an agenda and I don't trust any of them.

So if you want to be fair, you should admit that you hate Fox News (because they're biased) and you have no problem with MSNBC, CNN, et al (because they're biased *your* way)


RE: #@@#
By knutjb on 6/9/2009 2:35:30 PM , Rating: 4
Smilin you don't listen or watch Limbaugh or Fox enough or at all, likely, not at all. If you spend a full 3 weeks listening to Limbaugh you will find he does have points that make sense, whether or not you agree with those points is for you to decide. If you listen for a while you will see him misquoted, usually way out of context, more often than not in the mainstream. If you had listened you would have heard him strongly criticize Bush, something that the mainstream fails to mention. The mainstream has a blatant bias that has grown beyond the point of journalistic irresponsibility. Fox is experiencing a rapid growth in viewership as CNN and MSNBC decline because they are consistent in showing both sides. Yes they have some commentators that lean this way or that. Have you spent time watching Special Report? I recommend you try it for a week. I have tried to watch CNN, MSNBC, the 3 broadcast channels and watch them praise everything that Obama does, all softball Q&A. I don't want propagandized news, I want both GOOD and BAD. Fox didn't do that for Bush, I know because I watched. I also listen to NPR, and some of their stories are quite good, whether I like their point of view or not.

The mainstream media has little credibility when you have those in editorial positions commenting that Obama rose above the event in a God like way. Tell me that is unbiased, that was a Newsweek editor BTW.

Use your jaundice eye when viewing both sides, otherwise you become a stooge for the side you don't question. I chose not to be a puppet for either side, will you? Get your facts straight, then comment.


RE: #@@#
By Spuke on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Smilin on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By MrBungle123 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Smilin on 6/10/2009 10:14:07 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for taking me out of context there, Rush. The following was a rhetorical question from me followed by the answer (which you left out)...

quote:

As far as liberal vs conservative who really knows where the center is?


I'll return the favor. You said:

quote:

both parties are left the Dems are being run by the extreme left and the Republicans are trying to be Democrat light (center left).


...and I'll respond by putting back in part of my earlier answer which you omitted:

quote:

There is one thing you can bet on though: If all the voices are to the left of you then most likely you are on the right.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 7:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you spend a full 3 weeks listening to Limbaugh you will find he does have points that make sense,


I shouldn't have to listen to a guy for 3 weeks solid to finally find a point of his that makes any sense.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/9/2009 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
The news is fair and balanced. You are confusing news with commentary. They have analyst on panels that discuss topics with different views. Sometimes they have both sides in the discussion and sometimes they don't. Most times they do. If you go to their website, you will find many of their hosts and shows under the title 'Opinion'. Hence what they say is their 'Opinion'. With the exception of Bill O'Reilly, most hosts do not say disparaging comments about people. They don’t call people tea-baggers or retards or use profanity to strengthen their opinions. I don’t watch as much news as I use to, but I don’t find Fox as offending as many left leaning people would like everyone to think.


RE: #@@#
By Scrith on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 6:41:55 PM , Rating: 1
Don't bother quoting the fact that the positive coverage of Obama has been the most by a wide margin . . . Gee, I guess I "left" that out.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/9/2009 10:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt every word you said. I saw a poll once during the presidential elections that said the complete opposite, but I refrained from mentioning it earlier because I could not find it. So unless you can back that up I will take what you say as complete hog wash.

We all want fairness and we all want to win, but most of the time you can only have one.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 12:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
You don't question Scrith's post but mine. I find that highly suspect.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/10/2009 12:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
The reply wasn't to you. Please follow the lines.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 8:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
My bad . . .


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Radnor on 6/9/2009 9:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
After reading up to here, im seeing that your right-wingers are socialists, Your left-wingers are something really nuts and comunists only exist in propaganda.

Yes it is, and if Rush were here defending himself I would bet he would say the best way to do that would be to take off the hand cuffs of high taxes and over regulation imposed on them by the federal government so that American ingenuity, creativity, and industriousness could turn things around.

Central Banks system are neither left or right. And neither capitalists. About American ingenuity would have to "Barter" all the way, so it wont starve to death. Money is still the only "neutral" form of exchange we know.


RE: #@@#
By ICBM on 6/9/2009 2:36:16 PM , Rating: 4
Anti-American? LOL. He throws ideas out there, and complains constantly. I can't stand him personally, but it does get people talking and that's what's important. That is the whole point of America, different ideas being discussed freely.

Now, supporting the country and its companies. Hmm, I am trying to think of who would say that.....sounds a little like USSR propaganda to me.

Before you spout Anti-American junk, please think before type.


RE: #@@#
By InfantryRocks on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rush is about as anti-american as it comes. All critisism, with no alternatives or answers. Now is the time to support the country and its companies.
CORRECTION: refusing to support Socialism is about as American as it gets.

And where do you get this idiotic statement he has "no alternatives or answers"? The alternative is simple. Let GM declare a traditional bankruptcy and reorganize on its own, like tens of thousands of companies have done before them.

Government ownership of a company is the KISS OF DEATH. Does no one remember that the British government did EXACTLY THIS in the 1970s. See any British car companies today?


RE: #@@#
By Zaranthos on 6/10/2009 11:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
You ever really listen to Rush? What's anti-American is bailing companies out that were failing and trying to prop them up at the expense of companies that weren't. Buy a Ford. At least they're not sucking off the taxpayers tit to feed unions that only serve themselves. The mistakes Bush made are starting to look pretty small compared to the things Obama is doing. God help us all if the global roll of the dice they're doing fails. Support the country and it companies comrade. :P


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 11:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
There's a great quote out today from the new Govt-appointed CEO of GM, saying how he "doesn't know anything about cars". Yeah, that's gonna work out real well:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&si...


RE: #@@#
By Meinolf on 6/9/2009 1:38:25 PM , Rating: 4
Rush has all the the answers but never wants to run for office.


RE: #@@#
By Fanon on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 3:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's it, when you have no subject matter or point to stand on . . . attack them personally. Classic "Rules for Radicals" and the libtard methodology.


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 3:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
1) He is NOT the leader of the Republicans . . . if you had listened, you would know that.

2) The reason the economy is hurting is thanks to Congress (under Dem control) passing legislation forcing lenders to commit to sub prime loans to "help" the poor. The poor defaulted on the loans and the banks backing them went bust.

3) President Obama is not "evil" . . . simply a naive person who has his ideology rooted in Marxism and economic class warfare. Unfortunately, his $10 trillion in deficit spending will cause harm for years to come and cow towing to the true evils in the world (Iranian dictators etc.) will cause even more harm.

Finally, you don't even address the very valid point that when you have no argument . . . attack them personally. Have you read rules for radicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) because you are using as your playbook?


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 5:20:37 PM , Rating: 3
1) Again, listen to him, he proclaims over and over he is not the leader of the Republicans.

2) They actually did hold legislature to their heads forcing them to lend . . . try knowing what you talk about before you post.

3) $10 trillion overseas or here is still bankrupting us. btw - If you are referring to the Iraq war, it didn't cost anywhere near what Obama's estimated spending is on health care alone or the trillion dollar crap sandwich. Also, diplomacy is NOT automatically accepting everything our enemies say . . . that is weakness. Hurling into war?? That's why the majority of Democrats voted for it?? Every major intelligence community in the world agreed that Iraq posed a threat to the region and should be dealt with. Again, try actually knowing what you are talking about before you regurgitate liberal propaganda.

An finally, you resort to insults instead of facts . . . classic libtard tactics. I guess the fact that Rush's show is the most popular radio program in the world detracts from your assault on his beliefs/character. Please go back to posting on MSNBC or CNN if you have nothing of value to add here.


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/2009 5:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Go watch some more Fox News. Your talking points need some work.

quote:
An finally, you resort to insults instead of facts . . . classic libtard tactics.

Somehow, I'm sure the irony of this is lost on you...


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 6:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, Some of us are not as intellectual as you "brilliant" Liberals. Annoy a Liberal, use logic and facts. I love it, you use personal insults as your primary tactic, get criticized for it, and then criticize the criticizer . . . Oh the hypocrisy.

I actually don't really watch Fox so keep trying. I expect a counter with a personal attack . . .


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/10/2009 2:29:12 AM , Rating: 4
1) He's not an elected leader... but when have the chairman of the GOP bowing down to him. People getting fired because of him. He is the loudest voice of anti-american hypocritical BS.

He preaches for years that druggies must go to prison... yet when he's busted. its "poor me!" Just like most anti-american republicans. "Do as I say, not what I do".

It doesn't matter what Obama does, you guys will always be against it. Hell, if Obama gave the rich more tax credit, you'll guys still bitch about it.

No, Dem Congress has only been in somewhat real power since this Janurary. The only thing they were able to do since the mid-elections of 2006 was to SLOW down the team-bush destruction. Al Franken is still not in office because of the games you guys play. Oh, when Al Gore won the 2000 election - you guys fought tooth and nail to stop the recount... but if its for your benifit, you guys go on and on when there is now way that guy is going to win.

Unlike Bush - who spent the half of 2001 on vacations (look it up) and not reading Intel reports. Obama is actually doing "work".

Team Bush is nothing but 8 years of FAILURE. Name once sucess.

I'll blame 100% of the blame on Team Bush for the 4000+ dead American Soilders and tens of thousands of severly wounded (missing limbs, brain damage, etc). But hey, Cheney's Haliburton has made a killing in profits from the Iraq war.

Oh and INCASE you missed it. Cheney finally said it last week "there was no connection with 9/11 Al Quadia and Iraq" - DUH! Torture gate resultes in no usable intel. They commited war-crimes. And created a mess that brought the respect of the USA down big time.

For those people who VOTED for bush in 2004 - shame on you. The blood of dead Americans is on you. Supporting retards to support a fake war and getting our friends and family wounded and killed for nothing but L I E S.

Perhaps you should watch a bit of MSNBC... they do actually show the lies quite well from FOXnews (ie FIXnews). The recent blatent lies about Obama are sick, stupid, insulting and very anti-American.

Go back to FIXnews and feel safe in your propganda and continue to wonder why things have to shit in this country. Obviously, its beyond your ability of original thought. The idea that for the past 8+ years, you've been lied to. As the saying go...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 8:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you are completely delusional. I have no issue with Obama, only his policies. If he were to cut taxes, stand for strong national defense, and limited government I would support him . . . but then he wouldnt be a democrat!


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/12/2009 12:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah.... thats sounds rather stupid. Oh yeah, our defense has been weakened by a stressed out Army.

I hate taxes, but that is how a country runs... including the USA. How do you think "STRONG DEFENSE" comes from? How do you think those fancy tanks get built?

Good use of our money is important. And not wasting people lives.


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/12/2009 12:53:58 AM , Rating: 1
But everyone is AFRAID of him... they bow to him. There was a recent GALLUP Poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120806/Limbaugh-Gingric... But most people don't know/say nobody is the leader of the GOP.

#1 - Rush (A talk show, who is spreads hate and lies)
#2 - Cheney (Not in any official political office)
#3 - Gingrich (Not in any official political office) He, who cheated on his wife.
#4 - McCain (A Senator)
#5 - Bush (Not in any official political anything)
#6 - Steele (Figurehead, official leader of the GOP - bows to #1)

Palin... she got less than 1%. Just 4 votes.

3) Demo voted to authorize War because of POLITICS! Remember the idiots yelling "Freedom Fries!" And flag waving. To not vote for war = unpatriotic. Yeah, they pussyed out to avoid losing the elections, etc.

Rush has little character. He's the #1 popular liar for the idiots like you. He's a drug addict, a liar, a hypocrite, a racist, a neo-con (That is an insult btw) and a pussy... and that is the BEST the GOP has. He's easily smarter than Bush and can read and write. But he's still as anti-american as they come.

On a recent show, he blames Obama for the 88-yr old neo-nazi for killing a black security guard at the Holocaust
Museum. Uh... the guy was a neo-nazi before Obama was senator... and hes been listening to the crap like Rush for so long that it becomes "true". And even yesterday, Rush goes on an on about Obama's birth certificate.

JEZZZ!! Like a broken record. You people still scream "Lets see it, lets see it!" Its been shown, yes. Duh, he's an American. Then you guys say "No, its fake - we want to see the real one" etc etc... He's citizenship was proven along time ago by the schools hes gone to, the Senate he was apart of, etc. You have to be an American to be Prez... that's why Arnold never ran for Prez. He's happy to be Gov.

No. sorry little 666. Your life is a lie and perhaps some day you will realize this. Think of the naive poor guys in the middle east who think the WTC was attacked after we started the war with Iraq, etc... the leaders in those countries use the USA as propaganda to blame their problems on us (The USA) to get the typical person then to direct their anger at us, rather than their own leaders.

Just like KKK/Neocons/neonazis blame the blacks, jews, mexicans, irish, or whatever for their loser lives and living in a trailer house. Nope, because they're stupid and its easiler to blame others for their pathetic existence. (And proof why Abortion should always be legal)


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/12/2009 2:59:12 PM , Rating: 1
"#1 - Rush (A talk show, who is spreads hate and lies)"

Careful . . . your rant is full of these.

"#3 - Gingrich (Not in any official political office) He, who cheated on his wife."

Yeah, I forgot about Big Bubba doing that and then perjuring himself over it.

"Rush has little character. He's the #1 popular liar for the idiots like you. He's a drug addict, a liar, a hypocrite, a racist, a neo-con (That is an insult btw) and a pussy... and that is the BEST the GOP has. He's easily smarter than Bush and can read and write. But he's still as anti-american as they come."

Personal attacks is all you have . . .

"On a recent show, he blames Obama for the 88-yr old neo-nazi for killing a black security guard at the Holocaust
Museum"

Simply not true. I heard that segment and he was commenting to the way the drive by media immediately brands that lunatic a "right winger" when he clearly hated Bush, hated the war in Iraq, hated large corporations, hated Jews etc. The guy was a sociopath, plain and simple.

"No. sorry little 666. Your life is a lie and perhaps some day you will realize this. Think of the naive poor guys in the middle east who think the WTC was attacked after we started the war with Iraq, etc... the leaders in those countries use the USA as propaganda to blame their problems on us (The USA) to get the typical person then to direct their anger at us, rather than their own leaders.

Just like KKK/Neocons/neonazis blame the blacks, jews, mexicans, irish, or whatever for their loser lives and living in a trailer house. Nope, because they're stupid and its easiler to blame others for their pathetic existence. (And proof why Abortion should always be legal)"

Let me get this straight, you are saying I should listen to you because other people in the world are not as informed as you??? That's also an extremely racist statement to make that "they're stupid" (see the hate and lies coming out) These last two paragraphs don't make much sense at all.

As for realizing my life is a lie, well I could say the same to you and it probably wouldn't make a difference to what you so vehemently believe in.

I do know that the basic of the conservative (limited govt., free market, individual liberty, strong national defense, etc.) make a lot more sense to me than the liberal agenda. It kinda seems like common sense but I guess not everyone was born with that.


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/14/2009 8:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Careful . . . your rant is full of these.


Prove it.

quote:
"#3 - Gingrich (Not in any official political office) He, who cheated on his wife." Yeah, I forgot about Big Bubba doing that and then perjuring himself over it.


No, the point is; People who are hypocrites shouldn't be opening their mouths. Newt attacked Clinton for the BJs... while he himself as cheating. Limbaugh attacks drug addicts, while he himself is a DRUG addict. You have Haggard, leader of the the Evangelists - who been to the White house of Bush many a time, preached against evil, drugs, homosexuals, etc... Yet he himself was a drug-using butt pirate.

The guy is so full of himself, he blames people who "work out" and are fit as the problem of rising health care? LOL, when a huge part of hospital operations is billing caused by Insurance companies and that both are for-profit which began in the 70s... that is the cause of rising health care. Lets see, one of the Nixon tapes that is PUBLICLY available... basically "Hey Nixon, we have the business plan in which we have insurance companies run the health care system. We'll make more money by providing less medical services" Nixon: "Sounds like a good idea". (the above quotes are not exact, look them up yourself)

About your comment on the 88yr old man. While yeah, he was a nut, hates bush etc. Rush still blames Obama for it.

quote:
As for realizing my life is a lie, well I could say the same to you


No, there is a difference. I question my sources of info. I don't 100% trust what any Politician says they will do. My opinions are based on what THEY themselves say and actually do. I watched BushW on Larry King. He said, if one of his daughters (then 17) were preggers, that it would be a private matter between him and his daughter. The relation of this statement... What if she wanted an abortion. Oh so its OKAY to dictate other peoples personal lives, but if it effects him... its "private".

You say "liberal agenda", what about the neo-con Agenda?

Here's the big difference... Liberals allows people like you to say and do what you want (within the law). Neo-cons like you want to deport or kill anyone who doesn't agree with them.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/16/2009 10:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
Attacking personally an individual for their sexual preferences, their lifestyle choices, or their habits reeks of hate and lies. If you simply read your posts, you will see how much hatred you have for everything you don't believe in.

And then you go on to say that liberals are the tolerant ones after blasting everybody and everything you don't agree with. Liberals are tolerant as long as you agree with them. If you don't, they attack you and keep attacking on any level they can. Talk about being hypocritical! The is with Bubba was the lying part, not the cheating part if you really want to debate that. I don't care what someone does in their personal life but when it comes down to lying/perjuring themselves to cover it up . . . well, that crosses the line.

I don't agree with the neo-con agenda (I'm not one) and I would argue it is for the most part marginalized and is certainly less pervasive than the liberal agenda. Take the last election for example . . . you are so proud of the liberal victory yet continue to bash the losing team. The only people I really have a beef with is those who would do harm to America and it's people. I believe we should do everything we can to stop them.

What it boils down to is you are of the opinion you are right and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is wrong. Also, you are very self righteous about that (and I might add hypocritical) by espousing tolerance while at the same time attacking and attacking.

I don't claim to be right on everything but I also don't lambaste and excoriate people who don't agree with me. I may take a stab or two at them for humor and to keep the dialog lively, but it is not the basis of my argument.

Please feel free to keep espousing your beliefs (based upon all of the intellectual "questioning of sources"you do) and I will continue to believe mine --- based empirical research and always questioning the source. If anyone has come off as a one source listener, it has been you, spoon fed by the media to walk down the path towards financial ruin and weakened national security.

It's been fun!


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/14/2009 8:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Some facts for you:

CNN timeline of weapons inspectors:
http://www.mapreport.com/subtopics/w/i.html#2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_m...

"President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War" "Later U.S.-led inspections agreed with earlier conclusions that Iraq had abandoned its WMD programs in 1991"

US casualties: 4,296 dead as of May 21, 2009. As of April 6, 2009 there were 31,102 wounded in action.

Sorry you hate the facts. Unlike the old days of the USSR, your beloved prez/VP cannot re-write their version of "history".


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 5:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read the quote about Rush from politico or did you just Google "Rush leader of Republican Party"? The only quote there is from Rambo "Dead Fish" Emmanual about him. Here is Rush's quote from your link:
"Limbaugh said: “I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.”"


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/2009 5:49:53 PM , Rating: 3
Just because Limbaugh claims he doesn't want to be the leader of the dittohead party doesn't make it so.

He is the de-facto leader, all elected republicans are scared shiatless of him and are afraid to call him out on his massive role in ruining the party and driving out all of the moderates.

Like losing elections? Keep propping up idiots like this, and keep pandering to the loony religious right.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/2009 10:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's intellectually dishonest to even mention "Reagen" and "fiscally responsible" in the same sentence...

You'd also be happy to know that I voted for Barr in the last election, but hey, obviously if someone doesn't lick the boot of your dear leader Limbaugh, they're a dirty liberal right?

quote:
"A man who is not a liberal when he is young has no heart and a man who is not a conservative when he is older has no mind."

Wow... way to butcher an already miss-attributed Churchill quote. lol.

You really are a dittohead. But you're firm in your convictions... however misguided they may be... so there's that, right?


RE: #@@#
By stonemetal on 6/9/2009 9:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
cow towing to the true evils in the world


We don't have a truck, we aren't moving beef. It is kowtow all one word, and begins with a 'K'.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/9/2009 10:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely!

Here is a great artical that backs up what you say for #2. Notice the date it was published.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-age...


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 4:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
1) Whether or not Limbaugh is the "leader of the Republicans" I sure as heck can see that no criticism of him is undertaken without a swift apology being issued immediately afterwards.

If not the leader, what exactly is he?

2) The fact of the matter is that the ones most responsible for creating the subprime loan problem are those who weren't obligated to give out loans by the CRA. Those who were by and large were more responsible than those who weren't.

Look it up, your party orthodoxy is wrong.

3) Iran is on the balance one of the least bad countries in the area. Saudia Arabia is far worse and we've worked with them for years. Same deal with Egypt. Iran is also an excellent example of why we shouldn't intervene in other countries.

Unlike many other countries in the area, it is moving in the right direction overall. Our bold threats and proclamations certainly help to shore up support for the ayatollahs though.


RE: #@@#
By ICBM on 6/9/2009 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 3
I think you are missing the point. The real question is whether the federal government/tax payers should be saving peoples' jobs. Do we go as far as Venezuela in regards to nationalizing business? How many of those jobs that are being saved are from unionized/registered democrats? It is for political purposes, plain and simple. Don't think congress is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.


RE: #@@#
By Jellodyne on 6/9/2009 4:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Since snide personal attacks make up about half of his show, and are "Classic 'Rules for Radicals' and the libtard methodology", you're agreeing that Limbaugh is a secret liberal parody of conservative America and driving anyone with half a brain away from conservatism and towards his secret pinko commie allies?


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 6:12:24 PM , Rating: 1
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe listen to him and see how many personal attacks he uses . . . NONE. Its all about the Liberals policies and their statements. How is he driving people away when it's the most popular radio show in the world??? 52% of the vote is not the end of the world.


RE: #@@#
By noirsoft on 6/9/2009 7:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Rush wasn't personally attacking Michael J Fox when he said he was faking the severity of his illness. He was just attacking the "liberal policies" (stem cell research) that might actually find a cure.

He wasn't personally attacking Sotomayor when he called her a racist. Was he attacking the "liberal policy" of appointing qualified judges who happen to be Latina?

Car accidents must be proper driving technique because more than 50% of people slow down to watch them on the highways. The majority can't be wrong.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 8:16:13 PM , Rating: 1
Sotomayor - She made clearly racist statements on more than one occasion and he said her statements were racist, NOT that she was. I think you are thinking of Newt (who retracted that later). I guess CNN didn't cover the whole story and you got confused. Ouch, Rush calling out the truth, must hurt.

Not sure what you are talking about with majority. Are you talking about how proud the libs are of the Obamamorans that had the majority by a few points?

How about the White House Chief of Staff (Emanuel) personally attacking Rush? Forgot to mention that didn't you. I guess its politically correct to attack a private citizen when you are in the most powerful office in the world? That's not abuse of power is it? Give me a break.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 4:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, saying a latin woman who has had direct experience would make better decisions on relevant items than a white man who hasn't had it? Clearly racist.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try Samuel, but that isn't what Sotomayor said at all. You can spin her remark as being about "experience on relevant items", but the truth is it was about race and gender, and about some races and genders being better qualified than others.

That's racism and sexism. Nothing else.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
You've made me go look over the full context again and it was about race as well as experience, but what it was saying (in the full context) is nothing at all like how you describe:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've made me go look over the full context [of Sotomayor's remarks] again and it was about race as well as experience
Damn right it was. Thanks for the courage to admit that truth.

When you claim race is a factor in qualifications for ANYTHING, you're a racist. Period.


RE: #@@#
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 2:18:14 PM , Rating: 5
He (I am not kidding) often sites daily tech as his source on technology issues...So he cant be all bad. Lets all start a game and see which frequent comment board members is actually Rush.

I am going to vote for my top three suspects:
1: Masher
2: FitCamaro
3: TheRealRushLimbaugh


RE: #@@#
By Pirks on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think that political media personnel never run for office? Because they are all good at identifiying problems, but they often lack the sight to come up with any potential solutions.

This is true for all of them: Rush, O Reilly, Olberman, Matthews, Madows, etc.


RE: #@@#
By knutjb on 6/9/2009 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the commentator point, it is far more profitable than holding a public office, it comes without the constraints of public office, and it is, for them, a lot of fun to do. If you were to listen you would find that many of them do have their idea of the solution to be used i.e. O'Reilly has pushed Jessica's Law for years, Rush has always pushed lower taxes because believes they have a great history of fixing more than higher taxes do, etc...

I don't know about you, I want a job I can enjoy that pays a lot too, well right now I just want a job but that is a different thread.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think majority of the country wants lowers taxes. And jessica's law is a good one, which is accepted in 30 something states - except the liberal ones who like child abusers.

But, my point was that neither Rush or Bill came up with the original ideas for Jessica's Law and lower taxation increasing revenue.


RE: #@@#
By hashish2020 on 6/11/2009 12:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's not Jessica's Law, it's Megan's Law idiot

If you are going to be polemical and vicious, at least get the name of the law right

And it is utterly unconsitutional...

Not to mention, you can get put on the list for statutory rape, public sex OR EVEN FOR PUTTING PICTURES OF YOURSELF ON THE NET if you are underage


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 3:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you have not listened as the thing they do the most is to suggest the better way of doing it. They (Rush, Shawn, and the great one - Mark Levin) exist to suggest the path we should be following. Task 1) Point out the problem, Task 2) Suggest the solution. Whats so hard to follow about that. Please stop listening to the drive by media blasting them and listen to them yourself. If you have actually listened and tried to understand and still don't get it, then by all means . . . keep marching toward European style Socialism. Just leave the rest of us out of it.


RE: #@@#
By ccmfreak2 on 6/9/2009 4:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Who wants to run for office? It's the most over criticized, over worked, under paid position in America. Everything you say and do is scrutized by both sides to the N'th degree. I sure don't want that either. Too much stress.


RE: #@@#
By eddieroolz on 6/9/2009 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yea man, seriously, who the hell doe this guy think he is?

"Hey guys, don't buy GM just because it's Obama - he's a Democrat!"

That's about as immature as it gets.


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 6:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Somebody needs to put this guy out of our misery


As much as I dislike that radical left wing POS Keith Olberwoman, I'd never have the thought you did about people you disagree with. I just ignore the m-fer. I'd suggest you liberals full of so much rage and hate do the same.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 4:57:59 AM , Rating: 3
I'm willing to say that I do believe it would be better for him to be our of the public sphere in whatever way that occurs, along with Pat Robertson and others solely for the radicalizing effect they have on people. The right in the United States has been radical for some time on a global scale, they're far more so now and those guys are a big reason why.

However you cut it though, hes advocating the murder of a fellow human being. No matter how detestable and full of crap Rush is (very), that is wrong and needs to be condemned. Seriously, shame on you man.


RE: #@@#
By hashish2020 on 6/11/2009 12:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Olbermann may be annoying, but he certainly isn't left wing


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/11/2009 9:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Olbermann may be annoying, but he certainly isn't left wing


That's a joke, right??? You ever watch his MSNBC "Count Down" show? No, you CAN'T be serious....


RE: #@@#
By KCjoker on 6/9/2009 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
This article mentions Bush started the bailouts. Well it fails to mention Bush's were LOANS. Only once Obama became President did they become true bailouts and not money the auto companies would have to pay back.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 7:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
Even a loan was a huge mistake...as time has revealed it was fuel used for Obama's spending spree.


RE: #@@#
By Hiawa23 on 6/9/2009 9:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Rush as usual spews nonsense, & funny, but there is a segment of the population who buys into everything he says, especially his Obama, rants & bashes, which to me along with Hannity adds nothing but fuel to a burning racial fire that clearly came out in the election.

Forget Obama, I think Americans should buy GM cause they make pretty good vehicles. I voted for Obama but this hatred that many have for him, scares the hell out of me, as the country is full of people just needing any excuse to attempt to do him harm. I prey nothing happens cause you want to talk about racial problems now that this country has, that could set us back years. GM's downfall is not Obama's fault. I guess some would have been happy to let GM go completely out & liquidate.


Why is this news?
By Tacoloft on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this news?
By dqniel on 6/9/2009 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 5
I think most of the people posting here agree with the ideal behind the movement. I think we just don't agree with the circumstance in which the ideal is being applied. I'd rather take a course of action that won't screw up the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and further our economic problems.

Good ideal - Government illegaly using our money to help a private business is BAD.

Bad implementation - Showing said ideal by sticking it to the entire nation rather than just those elected officials abusing power.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
I keep hearing this "sticking it to the politicians who abuse their power"

How is this NOT sticking it to them? The ideal would be to vote them out, but the American people don't seem to care if their politicians are corrupt as long as they get their check at the end of the month.

Truth is, when an entity gets big and bloated, the best way for everyone to prosper is for that entity to be reborn into a new and more streamlined unit. GM needs to lose it's baggage or die. What the current administration is doing is enabling failure and buying votes in the process. When did American's become so lame to think that they are not gonna suffer sometimes? It's part of life. What's goes up, must come down and instead of whining, Americans should choose self-reliance instead of spoonfeeding and control.


RE: Why is this news?
By austinag on 6/9/2009 3:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Listen;
I hate the bailouts, federal power creep, government ownership of private industry, Obama, politics, the iphone, Richard Simmons, Sony, NBC's fall line up, people who drive slow in the left lane, content filters, Scrappy Doo, new coke, lawyers, satan, and lime in my coconuts as much as the next guy, but not buying GM products only hurts GM employees. BHO won't be bothered in the slightest.


RE: Why is this news?
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, boycotting GM has nothing to do with "humbling" BO. It has to do with just saying no to socialism. And thats a good thing.

I don't listen to his crappy show but Rush is right on this one. Boycotting GM is the most American thing you can do right now.


RE: Why is this news?
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 8:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
Naive --- that's the word that comes to mind when I read that comment....some folks are so simple minded and naive....the "can't see the forest for the trees" concept.


RE: Why is this news?
By austinag on 6/10/2009 10:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
I hear what your saying, but not buying GM product only hurts GM workers, and the United States future ablility to compete in the industrial sector. If you don't like socialism, don't vote for socialists, and get involved in local politics.


RE: Why is this news?
By clovell on 6/9/2009 3:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
It has to stop somewhere. With that line of thinking, it'll never stop. There is no fairness to be had in this situation. End it now, and let's all move on with our lives.


RE: Why is this news?
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/9/2009 1:52:16 PM , Rating: 5
Radio-tainment pundits, who are paid to be controversial, NEVER make "good points." Quit fooling yourself. Not even these stooges themselves believe their own rants when talking in private off the air.


RE: Why is this news?
By Tacoloft on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 1
People listen to him because they are clueless and simply look up to someone who's sole purpose in life is to bitch and moan about everything. Rush is an complete idiot.


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 1
So these people are clueless...because they have a different outlook on life than you do, and lean politically, socially, and economically a different way than you do. In other words, you should rephrase it to say they are clueless because they are actually using their individual minds and making their own choices instead of following the words of Harry Reid to silence a private citizen for making him look bad...all the time.

You know, its quite amusing to see you liberals preach to everyone to be accepting of gays, lesbians, antiwar protesters, socialism, higher taxes, a lower standard of living.........yet, you attack normal the first chance you get because you are not accepting that they may possibly not agree with you.


RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 1
You just did the same thing by suggesting that I attack normal.....your version of normal is not everyone elses version of normal so now you just attacked me. Hypocrit.


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really are obtuse lol. I left out a word in my sentence. Read the phrase below with it editted

quote:
yet, you attack normal people the first chance...


By normal people, I refer to people who mind their own business, vote when given the chance, and live their own lives. It is meant to refer to average citizens who do not feel they are activists for every cause.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 3
You are an arrogant blowhard for automatically discounting anyone who disagrees with you.

Pretty intolerant.


RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 1
Where did I discount everyone who disagrees with me? I discounted everyone who agrees with Rush. Now you yourself are making generalizations that every right wing republican agrees with Rush. Kind of makes yourself the arrogant blowhard thinking that Rush's opinion actually means that much.


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:50:37 PM , Rating: 1
Where did he mention anything about political affiliations or their political leaning? That was you.

You really are the epitome of a liberal - conceited, vulgar, not accepting, and hypocritical. The only thing progressive about you is how progressively fast you are to get on the defensive because you know you are an ass.


RE: Why is this news?
By austinag on 6/9/2009 3:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
We are all blowhards. Why else would we feel the need to share our opinions with complete strangers? Accept your inner blowhard, it's better then being mental pushover.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:51:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People listen to him because they are clueless and simply look up to someone who's sole purpose in life is to bitch and moan about everything. Rush is an complete idiot.


You state that anyone who listens to Rush is clueless. That is discounting those people (millions of his fans).

The implication is that since you think "Rush is an complete idiot" that anyone who listens to him is clueless.

So, yes. I would say that you are discounting everyone who disagrees with you *about Rush*.


RE: Why is this news?
By KorruptioN on 6/9/2009 2:33:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Rush is an complete idiot.


har har har


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
First off, radio personalities exist because they have a base of listeners, and advertisers will purchase expensive commercial time because of the potential new client base.

In case you forgot, this is a private market, which the democrats hate. Reason? Because no matter how many times the democrats and liberals try to do AM talk radio, NO ONE listens and their stations go out of business.

You can call Rush's 20M-40M daily visitors whatever you want....but just one hour of his show amasses a larger audience than the entire prime time hours of CNN, MSNBC, and NBC television combined....and then doubled.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 1:50:38 PM , Rating: 5
I was gonna post the same thing. Mick's "ironically" statement is false because Limbaugh has always said that the bailouts were stupid, and Limbaugh frequently disagreed with Bush.

What gets me is that as I look around I see very little debate and a *lot* of ignorant personal attacks. I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh, but the instant barrage of personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic really shows us what kind of people are on these forums. Adults debate the issue and do not resort to ad hominem attacks. The use of ad hominem attacks usually mean that the person attacking has no knowledge to argue for their side, so they need to resort to attacking the other person instead of debating the issue at hand.

So how about we grow up in here and stop discounting one man's opinion because of his weight, his past drug problem, or his political leanings. If you disagree, then by all means, form a coherent reason why and let's talk about it.


RE: Why is this news?
By TedStriker on 6/9/2009 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but why is this being brought up here? I thought this was Daily Tech, not Mick's Outlet. This topic has nothing to do with what the website is about.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:16:38 PM , Rating: 1
It's loosely related to tech because of GM. Very loosely.

Plus Mick loves sensationalism and controversy. Clearly.


RE: Why is this news?
By TedStriker on 6/9/2009 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 1
I could give the benefit of the doubt if it were about Microsoft or another tech related company, but it's about GM which is not a tech company.

I wish there were a way to filter out the submissions from mick. I guess it's not too hard to tell which are his from the title though.


RE: Why is this news?
By Teancum on 6/9/2009 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
It seems Mick has a h@rd-on for Rush


RE: Why is this news?
By Bull Dog on 6/9/2009 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Rate the man up. In fact, give Tacoloft a 6.

He is using things like reason and logic.


RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:21:11 PM , Rating: 3
Would like them to give you a -2 for suggesting that.


RE: Why is this news?
By jasper2008 on 6/9/2009 2:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how I can rate an article.

I wish I could rate it up.